The reason people don't get why Catcher in the Rye is important

[Renee E]

Angst, and its immanence of hope, is a motivator for those actions.

Sure, there's more, but to dismiss that central emotion would be just as dismissive as it is to say that angst is all there is to it.

[Kallie]

But angst is just a label. It's handy. Not to be mistaken for much more complex content and expression. Angst is the best we can do, but I don't think it's the central emotion. I don't think we can easily say we know what that is, even in a fictional character.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed because people aren't real or use his sincerity to try to domin..."

He does act, there's much more to it than angst and anxiety, of course. I am bothered by the description of the novel as teenage angst, or teenage anxiety.

[Papaphilly]

Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed because people aren't real or use his sincerity ..."

What do you describe it as? I see him as a whiny malcontent. How do you describe Holden?

[Karen]

Papaphilly wrote: "Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed because people aren't real or use ..."

Holden is a teenager in distress, his beloved brother just died. He's intelligent, disillusioned and funny. He's got a great heart and is trying to find his way. Maybe this style of story isn't for you, but I loved Holden.

[Papaphilly]

Karen wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed because people ..."

Why do you love Holden? I am not trying to be a pain. You are right, this story is not for me and I just don't get it. What I am trying to find out is why someone like you does get it. I chase the metaphor, so I truly get Vonnegut and Bradbury. I just don't see it here and no one has explained it yet to me. I understand it is an important book and it needs to be taught. What I don't understand is what the big deal is with this book. The Catcher in the Rye has driven me up the wall for better than 35 years. I assume the rest of you can't be wrong, but I just don't see it and it has yet to be explained to me.

[Kallie]

Karen wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed because people ..."

Yes, Karen. Well put. That's how I see Holden too.

[Papaphilly]

Kallie wrote: "Karen wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Sure, Holden feels those things. But he feels and expresses much more. He feels hopeful about really connecting but is disappointed b..."

ARGHHHHH...

[Leslie]

Papaphilly wrote: "Karen wrote: " I understand it is an important book and it needs to be taught."

What do ^you^ think is important about it? Personally, I don't think it is on its face that important. What is more important in my way of approaching it is that I enjoy discussing the process the writer uses to convey his message. So, is that you don't understand what the "message" is? Or is it that you understand what the message is supposed to be but you think Holden being a creep doesn't allow the message to be effectively understood?

[Kallie]

Papaphilly wrote: "ARGHHHHH..."
I've said all I have to say about Holden. Monty wrote a review you can link to if you want more. It's very clear that for the most part people connect and sympathize with Holden as a character or they see him as 'a whiny malcontent.' You don't have to understand in order for that to be valid.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Yes, Karen. Well put. That's how I see Holden too"

Thanks Kallie.

[Karen]

Kallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "ARGHHHHH..."
I've said all I have to say about Holden. Monty wrote a review you can link to if you want more. It's very clear that for the most part people connect and sympathi..."

Monty's review is good, I wrote one and I'm sure other people here did also. I am not sure what your ARGHHHH means, but I suggested that maybe you just don't like the book, and it's not for you, which is fine!

[Mochaspresso]

Holden is a very troubled teen. I could be wrong, but I think the reason why some see him as a "whiny malcontent" is because while his angst is normal, how he chooses to handle it is Holden's true problem. He clearly is not dealing with his stressors and his troubles effectively.

I think the mistake that some make is trying to rationalize and normalize Holden to readers who find it impossible to see him that way. Those readers can't because what Holden does in TCITR is not normal to them and I'm inclined to agree. I loved the book and I empathize with Holden's character.....but he is not a normal teen. He had serious issues, including the fact that he was indeed a whiny malcontent. Most teens that ultimately spiral in the direction that Holden does often start out as whiny malcontents that cannot effectively manage their "angst".

[[deleted user]]

Fuck, this thread again? Oh well...
Wow, Mocha, I actually agree with you? The Earth hath spun off its axis!

[Kallie]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Holden is a very troubled teen. I could be wrong, but I think the reason why some see him as a "whiny malcontent" is because while his angst is normal, how he chooses to handle it is Holden's true..."

Well, that may be another difference between the two types of readers, those who believe in and value 'normal' and those who see that concept as faulty, overrated, and as impossible to define and measure as intelligence. Outside of psychopathology, terms like "normal" are value judgments people see in very different ways (I hope); to me 'normal' doesn't say much.

[Karen]

Brooke wrote: "Fuck, this thread again? Oh well...
Wow, Mocha, I actually agree with you? The Earth hath spun off its axis!"

Gee thanks Brooke for your intelligent contribution.

[Renee E]

Kallie wrote: "...Outside of psychopathology, terms like "normal" are value judgments people see in very different ways (I hope); to me 'normal' doesn't say much."

Always thought "normal" was a rationalization for mediocrity. Banal. ;-)

[Cosmic]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Holden is a very troubled teen. I could be wrong, but I think the reason why some see him as a "whiny malcontent" is because while his angst is normal, how he chooses to handle it is Holden's true..."

Why do you say he is "very troubled?"

Is he troubled in a justified way or in a way that is unreasonable?

Why do you think this is so?

[Renee E]

Ah, but Edward, he's not so literal, unless that's all you want, then he can be read literally, a good story enjoyed and go on, but there's a great depth of exploration of many levels of human nature and the nature of the world we move through, and that we move, and that moves through and around and over us, that lifts us and that buries us, in his work.

But Cady never tried to conceal; his art is to reveal. He never chose to speak only to the intellectual, but to anyone, openly, and to perhaps make us look at that world a little differently, to peer into the shadows at the nature of good and evil and ambivalence and balance. And whatever else might be there to be encountered.

Cady was never a literary snob, or a snot. He was just a guy who wrote True.

[Cosmic]

Leslie wrote: "What is more important in my way of approaching it is that I enjoy discussing the process the writer uses to convey his message...."


This is what I have enjoyed about studying the Catcher. I have found layer upon layer of meaning by studying the intertextual information in The Catcher in the Rye.

Some people are put off by the book for its language. They put it down before understanding it. The book was not written for them. Some people go further and try or do relate to Holden's dissatisfaction with the adult world and that holds such sway that they feel they have "read" the book. Then there are some of us that find a deeper meaning and discover the author message. We read the books the author refers to. We listen to the songs he names and the history behind those songs in light of the time the book was written. We watch the movies that he went to and in fact was his personal favorite. Instead of just seeing the book a one dimensional novel we see it as multidimensional. We enjoy the book on many levels and we learn what the author took 10 years to say. Because this is how long Salinger was writing this book.
Don't you think it might take you a little time to get the "message"? And don't you think the fact that you didn't get it shows the author had a different intent. I think that Salinger wanted to show you the difference between being literate and reading a lot. Between knowledge and understand and wisdom. I think that Salinger was brilliant but not everyone that reads the Catcher will get it because he has made it look like a children's book just like Salten did with Bambi, also a banned book and also alluded to one the Catcher in the motif of the hat. Bambi isn't the Disney film storyline...and neither is the Catcher this story about a teenager that talks to teachers while thinking about ducks in Central Park South.

[Mochaspresso]

Cosmic wrote: "Why do you say he is "very troubled?"

Is he troubled in a justified way or in a way that is unreasonable?

Why do you think this is so?



"Troubled" as in mentally unstable; rebellious; anti-social; depressed etc....also possibly even suffering from some form of PTSD. I don't know if "justified" is the word that I would use. I'd say it's understandable considering what he's been through....but not necessarily "justified" because others can go though similar or worse and do not always become as troubled as Holden does. (I suspect this could be why only many see him as a "whiny malcontent".....and if you try to push the issue that Holden is somehow "normal", they might be inclined to disagree.) It's not "unreasonable"....but it isn't healthy, normal and well-adjusted behavior either.

[Cosmic]

Edward wrote: " to answer, utilizing my perception of mindsets; 1)Uninspired value judgment; 2)Justified by the truth of his own perceptions; characteristically derided by the doctrinaire, and 3)That's life. Haven't you yet noticed? ..."

Well Edward, I am kinda hopeful. I was reading the thread of thought from Karen, kallie, Renee and Leslie, and enjoyed how much time they spent trying to understand angst.

Renee says
"of all places, the Urban Dictionary:

"Angst, often confused with anxiety, is a transcendent emotion in that it combines the unbearable anguish of life with the hopes of overcoming this seemingly impossible situation. Without the important element of hope, then the emotion is anxiety, not angst. Angst denotes the constant struggle one has with the burdens of life that weighs on the dispossessed and not knowing when the salvation will appear.

An airplane crashes into the side of a remote snow-covered mountain; those passengers that worry about their lives without hopes of survival only face anxiety. In contrast, those passengers who worry about their lives with hopes of survival but do not know when the rescue party will arrive face angst."

"Angst" seems immanently fitting.

For me, the work doesn't need the modifier, "teenage."

Now if they would spend this kind of energy trying to figure out why Holden says that he is not going to write his whole biography they might stop trying to psycho analysis him and start trying to understand what the author's meaning is in writing The Catcher in the Rye

[Cosmic]

Edward wrote: "guess I got too disinterested in the painstaking "analysis" of teenage angst vs. overall angst; presumptuously thinking the "differentiation" nothing more than an unnecessary obstacle to the simplistic truth..."

True. But if they applied their skill at looking up things and trying to make it meaningful to the Catcher I think we could find more relevance in the books true intent. For instance does it Out of Africa, Of Human Bondage and The Return of the Native and Ring Lardner story about the policeman have in common? Other than they are all mentioned in the same paragraph in the book?

[Kallie]

Cosmic wrote: "Well Edward, I am kinda hopeful. I was reading the thread of thought from Karen, kallie, Renee and Leslie, and enjoyed how much time they spent trying to understand angst.
..."

Cosmic, I'm beginning to think that you don't actually read what people write, because below is what I actually posted with regard to CiTR:

"... angst is just a label. It's handy. Not to be mistaken for much more complex content and expression. Angst is the best we can do, but I don't think it's the central emotion. I don't think we can easily say we know what that is, even in a fictional character."

Karen said much the same thing so she didn't write about angst either. Why do you say she spent time trying to understand angst? She didn't.

I don't go for the 'teen-age angst' interpretation (which you keep going on about if in a negative way) or your code theory, so bent on busting CiTR into itty-bitty pieces. I don't agree with "angst" or with you.

You don't have to agree with me either, but don't put words in my posts.

[Cosmic]

Kallie wrote: "angst is just a label. It's handy. Not to be mistaken for much more complex content and expression. Angst is the best we can do, but I don't think it's the central emotion. I don't think we can easily say we know what that is, even in a fictional character."
..."

Kallie I do appreciate what you wrote about angst. I think that you are right in saying it is a label has been over used when talking about the Catcher. But it seems like this and Holden's psychological state gets all the focus when discussing the Catcher. I am just saying there is more to this book. It seems like this group likes to dance around a few fires and keep them burning brighter than other subjects, symbols and allusions/metaphors in the book. When we do talk about these different emotions we never relate it to WW2 which I think is a shame, because in that light this the book takes on more shades of gray...than just the black and white interpretation that we have in Cliff notes.

[Kallie]

Edward wrote: "As I see it Cosmic extended an olive branch. Under the same circumstances I would not have. If, by your own admission, you don't know what angst is, teenage or adult, do the world a favor and shut up about it.
..."

It was condescending as all get-out and as for your comment, there is nothing in my post about not understanding angst "by your own admission." That is your faulty interpretation. I think it's reasonable to expect people who comment on posts to at least read those posts. Mind your own manners.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Brooke wrote: "Fuck, this thread again? Oh well...
Wow, Mocha, I actually agree with you? The Earth hath spun off its axis!"

Gee thanks Brooke for your intelligent contribution."
Anytime.

If Holden could see the lot of us, he'd laugh his ass off, scorn us, or pity us. Or all three. I don't even know what this thread's about anymore.

[Karen]

Cosmic wrote; "Now if they would spend this kind of energy trying to figure out why Holden says that he is not going to write his whole biography they might stop trying to psycho analysis him and start trying to understand what the author's meaning is in writing The Catcher in the Rye"

Cosmic, are you writing this post as a conversation between you and Edward? It sounds like it to me, and I think it is very childish. Your insistence that others see TCITR as you do is becoming quite nauseating.

[Papaphilly]

Karen wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "ARGHHHHH..."
I've said all I have to say about Holden. Monty wrote a review you can link to if you want more. It's very clear that for the most part people conne..."

Kallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "ARGHHHHH..."
I've said all I have to say about Holden. Monty wrote a review you can link to if you want more. It's very clear that for the most part people connect and sympathi..."

For the record, I am NOT criticizing the book. Obviously neither of you have read my posts, but feel that you can criticize my ARGhhh comment. I asked for a reason why you love the book. The comment was my frustration for asking what it is about the book and getting "I feel empathy for him without explaining why" or even why the book is important. I am not criticizing the feelings because they are yours and they are legitimate.

I freely admitted this book is not for me and I fully admit it is an important novel, it should be taught in schools, and certainly not censored. It is NOT a criticism of the book or even that you liked the book.

[Kallie]

I could make the same complaint to both of you. I have said why I connect with Holden as a character: because HE is trying to connect and can't find anyone who connects with him and is searching for that connection and for meaning in his life after his losses. And Edward, your post is hypocritical. You not only don't read people's posts, you get really nasty.

[Gary]

Renee wrote: "Always thought "normal" was a rationalization for mediocrity. Banal. ;-)"

I try to just think of it as "not challenging" though I'm sure that's still a value judgement.

In any case, I think the reaction "whiny" and "angst" to describe Holden is problematic because it bespeaks a real misreading of the text. Holden isn't whining about his life full of angst; he's dealing with his trauma. So, describing the character that way is like responding to any other person dealing with some deeply wounding experience with "get over it" as a therapy.

[Karen]

Papaphilly wrote;
"For the record, I am NOT criticizing the book. Obviously neither of you have read my posts, but feel that you can criticize my ARGhhh comment. I asked for a reason why you love the book. The comment was my frustration for asking what it is about the book and getting "I feel empathy for him without explaining why" or even why the book is important. I am not criticizing the feelings because they are yours and they are legitimate.

I freely admitted this book is not for me and I fully admit it is an important novel, it should be taught in schools, and certainly not censored. It is NOT a criticism of the book or even that you liked the book."

I don't think I criticized your Arghhhh statement, I just wasn't sure why you would write just that in a post, that's all. I don't care if you criticize the book, that's your opinion. I am pretty sure I stated that you can find why I love it if you go to my profile page, where I wrote a review of the book. I don't want to post the review here for you because we are not supposed to post reviews in a forum like this one. So all you have to do is click on my name, go to my reviews, click on that, and you can read it. My review took time, and I think it accurately states why I like this book so much; at the end of the review, I mention that despite Holden's trauma, I had the sense he would get better, so it left me with hope.

[Renee E]

If you think about it from a perspective extraforaneous to the containment unit, "normal" is, itself, a value judgement, and renders all other descriptions referring to a state other than itself as value judgements.

Take away the power of normal, exposing it as a rationalization for mediocrity, and the others become free to be descriptions without automatic stigma.

[Cosmic]

Papaphilly wrote: "I freely admitted this book is not for me and I fully admit it is an important novel, it should be taught in schools, and certainly not censored. It is NOT a criticism of the book or even that you liked the book. ..."

Since you feel that it should be taught in schools could you explain why? What value does it have, in your opinion? How would you teach it?

I am asking because you seem vague about what the book means. I think to teach something means you have something to share.

[Karen]

Edward wrote: "Kallie wrote: "I could make the same complaint to both of you. I have said why I connect with Holden as a character: because HE is trying to connect and can't find anyone who connects with him and..."

Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. You know that Clapton song, Edward?

[Renee E]

Karen wrote: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. You know that Clapton song, Edward? ..."

Cocaine?




*you really shouldn't feed me lines like that!*

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "Karen wrote: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself. You know that Clapton song, Edward? ..."

*you really shouldn't feed me lines like that!*"

Hahaha!
Bo Diddley song, recorded in 1957, Clapton did it very well also.

"Before You Accuse Me" was recorded twice by Eric Clapton: an electric version on his 1989 album Journeyman and a live acoustic version for the MTV Unplugged series, later to be released on his 1992 Grammy winning album Unplugged. The Journeyman electric version reached #9 on Billboard’s Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks in 1990.[2] The electric version, recorded in 1989, features Robert Cray on guitar performing the second solo.

[Kallie]

Edward wrote: "AKA Blame the victim. ..."

Yeah. Poor you. You're just completely innocent.

[Renee E]

What's that descriptive phrase that keeps getting thrown around?

Oh, yeah. "Whiny malcontent."

What separates Holden is, that although he's young, he's trying to deal with it all; work, think and feel his way through . . . without projections and blame.

[Renee E]

I truly hope you're being facetious, Edward. It's difficult to tell.

[Karen]

Edward wrote; "Blame, projection and anger cure a lot of ills."

Yep, it cures looking at yourself, for a while.

[Papaphilly]

Cosmic wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I freely admitted this book is not for me and I fully admit it is an important novel, it should be taught in schools, and certainly not censored. It is NOT a criticism of the boo..."

You ask a great question and it deserves a great answer. Unfortunately, I do not have a great answer. I have no idea how I would teach this book.

The Catcher in the Rye is in constant print since 1951 and has sold over 65 million books. It also the number one banned book in America. The fact it is in constant print and is the number 1 banned book tells me there is something going on with it. The fact I have had two literature professors gush over this book tells me there is something going on. These are men of letters and brilliant. Even I can see it is very well written, the characters complex.

Yet, when I look at the book, I am perplexed. I have never understood why anyone is gushing over Holden Caufield. I called the character a whiny malcontent over the years and some people took umbrage as if I am personally insulting them. For them, this character resonates and I am mystified as to why. I can explain in plain language why I feel the way I do and you can understand why I feel the way I feel. Some one here in an earlier post mentions connections or lack thereof and that I understand.

That being said, I can explain why it needs to be in schools. I do not get The Catcher in the Rye and I freely admit to this. Just because I do not get the book does not mean the book is not important or has nothing to offer. I am vague with this book's meaning to me because it has no meaning to me. That does not mean the book has no meaning, just not to me. I am not the final arbiter of taste and nor should I be either. The fact that this book is the number one banned book tells me it is well worth preserving because only books that disturb end up being banned. To disturb, there must be something in the idea of this book that makes somebody upset or nervous, WHETHER I SEE OT OR NOT.

I am not so blind that I can't see it is an important book. I just don't understand why it is or why it resonates.

[Gary]

Papaphilly wrote: "I have never understood why anyone is gushing over Holden Caufield. I called the character a whiny malcontent over the years and some people took umbrage as if I am personally insulting them. For them, this character resonates and I am mystified as to why."

I think there are two aspects of this. First, characterizing Holden as a "whiny malcontent" misses the substance of the novel, so people are responding on a literary/reading level. Second, there's a growing awareness of the issues that Holden is dealing with--and those issues are very personal, so I'm sure there's some of that in the responses as well.

A lot of teenagers (and adults, for that matter) struggle with suicidal thoughts for various reasons. Holden is struggling with suicidal thoughts as a result of his grief (death of his brother, Allie) and trauma (witnessing the apparently bullying-inspired suicide of his classmate, James Castle.) So, I think the reason people take issue with characterizing Holden as a "whiny malcontent" is that it fails to recognize--or even trivializes--that struggle and the coping mechanisms Holden uses to deal with it.

Of course, it's a work of fiction, but a pretty insightful and accurate one, so if people are reacting in a way that is personal, that probably has to do with having made an association between Holden and their own emotional past or present (or future... because from what I understand a truly suicidal depression can come on quite quickly.)

In recent years people have grown more sensitive to the "get over it" reaction that is quite common when someone is dealing with those kinds of issues. There's a growing awareness of depression, other mental illness and suicide as a social problem and common disorder rather than the casual way it has been brushed off historically.

[Leslie]

Gary wrote: "...there's a growing awareness of the issues that Holden is dealing with--and those issues are very personal, so I'm sure there's some of that in the responses as well."

Excellent point, Gary; and the way Holden recognizes and addresses these issues runs the gamut from incredibly immature, lying, substance abuse, judging, mocking, to incredibly insightful, realizing that we do have to learn from our mistakes, be allowed to make them, take risks and, ultimately, grow up, but that we don't have to always follow the rules as they are presented and expected of us just because someone says so, it is good to question and think and stumble. In that sense, Salinger presents us with important issues to consider and discuss. That he balls them all up into a sometimes unpleasant narrator, we just have to "get over it" (facetious) ;)

[Kallie]

Cemre wrote: "I think ı've found the best way to describe my feelings about the book: When ı've finished this novel, ıt didn't feel as ı've finished a novel, ı felt like ı've made a friend. I can't remember any ..."

Yes, I experience Holden as a real person I could hang out with. He has a life outside the novel. I knew boys like that in school -- sweet, funny boys who liked music and weren't just trying to score.

[Petergiaquinta]

And if we're talking about the craft of the novel, Salinger does a remarkable job at capturing and sustaining the voice of that real person that appeals so much to Kallie and others of us on this thread. That voice stays true throughout the book, and I'd say a big part of the reason why we keep reading and teaching this "teen angst" novel (sorry for muddying the waters there again) instead of one of the thousand others that have been written in its wake is not just because Salinger may have done it first (or earlier than most.. he's definitely not the "first"; Salinger is picking up on something Twain may have started in Huck Finn), he does it so much better than the other post-Catcher authors at creating and maintaining this realistic character who remains sympathetic and appealing despite those flaws that cause some readers to reject him.

[Leslie]

Kallie wrote: "Cemre wrote: "I think ı've found the best way to describe my feelings about the book: When ı've finished this novel, ıt didn't feel as ı've finished a novel, ı felt like ı've made a friend. I can't..."

I really like Holden for his sensitivity and thoughtfulness, and I think he's really funny, but there are parts that feel like a "Salinger creep" (as in, it feels like Salinger is creeping in) that I don't like, it feels "off" for the character. But I agree with Peter, Holden's complexity is mostly well written, and better than most characters in literature, and that, for me, is appealing.

[Karen]

Edward wrote; "I am invariably at my happiest when I stay out of the mirror. But the damn things are all over the place"

Hahaha! Good one Edward! Those damn mirrors, I find I look in them too much!

[Renee E]

I once had an SO who remarked — more than once — that he spent his life in search of reflective surfaces.

[[deleted user]]

Mirrors always show you what you expect to see.