Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 451-500 of 1,174

[Alex]

hahaha I rest my case Ashley!! ;-)

[Devon]

Thom wrote: "It was written in and for another generation. The present generation may have difficulty following thought patterns of their parents and grandparents."

I agree that this was written for another generation and that is a big part of it, but its not that we can not understand the thoughts of our grandparents, we just have no connection with the times they lived..

this books is like Jimi Hendrix, if you will allow the comparison. Hendrix, at the time was ground breaking, revolutionary. This was a totally new sound he was helping to create, a sound that 20 years later was pretty much the staple of the music scene. The result is if you play Hendrix for a modern child, they might like it but will be scratching their heads listening to me go on and on about how amazing he is. And i think this is the case with Catcher. Up till this point in written history can you find me a character that is so honestly angsty? that is why teens tend to like this, they can connect to the angst, but angst filled books are nothing new these days. That can not be said when the book was first published, holden was a new kind of character.. he was the first real "Slacker"

[Stephen]

I think the only one that got it was Mark Chapman. I certainly didn't!

[Devon]

Dave wrote: "It is just a pretentious piece of writing that English teachers love to use to thump their students on the head with just to prove their superior appreciation for 'literature'. As with most I'm su..."
Bang! that is exactly what i was trying to say

[Lorraine]

Kressel wrote: "Jodie wrote: "I am curious to see if many Australians "got this book" my guess is not a lot of them did, perhaps it is an American classic because it speaks to American teenagers but it seems so fa..."

I read this when I was about 14 or 15 in the 1970's and didn't get it at all. I was going through some bad times-normal teenage angst coupled with some real family issues and all I felt when I read this book was that Holden was a spoiled brat and I wished I had had the options for getting away that he had. If I am wrong he was pretty much an adult. Maybe I was too young to read it.

[Via]

Derek wrote: "Vonny wrote: "I don't get why most classics are "classics" (besides the fact that they're old) or the significance and "deeper meaning" behind them."

“Ancient works are classical not because they ..."

Excuse me if I found your reply just a tad bit condescending. Maybe I'm being too sensitive. I don't know. But what I do know is that I didn't mean that I didn't get why they were classics in the literal sense. In correspondence to that first quote, judging by the classics I have read, I don't get how they fit the definition of a "classic". None of them struck me as "powerful", "fresh", or "healthy". I've read many books in my short lifetime, and I noticed that the more modern day ones fit the definition of classics, in my opinion. And, I'm not sure what you meant by me putting deeper meaning inside of quotes. I put it inside of quotes to show that the choice of words is not my own, but one that is commonly used when interpreting (or discussing interpretations) works of art. I'm just not quite understanding what you mean by "like something that happened on accident". Obviously, if there is a deeper meaning behind something, it is not accidental (most of the time). I may be young, but I know what I like and what I don't like. I'm sorry, but classic literature is just not all that great to me. I think we give classic literature too much credit. Sometimes a book is just a book, nothing more, nothing less. I don't need to read more of them to know I don't like them. I don't need to "learn to appreciate literature" . My personal philosophy is "a book a day keeps the stress away". I appreciate literature, believe me, just not your kind of literature. As my mom says, "different strokes for different folks". This does not require a response from you, thanks. Have a nice day!

[Derek]

Vonny wrote: This does not require a response from you, thanks.

This is actually not how you discuss something online in a public forum. "Here are my opinions, now I am done lah lah lah not listening" is pretty non-constructive.
That being said, maybe you're right, and the rest of the literary world is wrong. Or maybe opinions are subjective and certain books just don't speak to certain people. Either way, this is a thread about "not getting" the book, so I'm gonna defend when people say "Oh it's just that it's old, there's no 'deeper meaning' or whatever, I didn't like it so it is bad."
You have a nice day too!

[Foul97]

read it as a kid and then at 30 years old,still do not understand why so many people like this book.

[Via]

Derek wrote: "Vonny wrote: This does not require a response from you, thanks.

This is actually not how you discuss something online in a public forum. "Here are my opinions, now I am done lah lah lah not listen..."

I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth, thank you. I didn't say I was done listening. I just decided to point out that it would be unnecessary for you to respond, because I was going to be the bigger person and walk away from this argument. But since you, the one who is supposed to be the most mature, apparently want me to stay a bit longer, I will.

It's one thing to defend your opinion, but it's another to present your opinion as if it is fact. I never said that there was no deeper meaning, nor did I say that I did not like it, so therefore it is bad. I said that I didn't GET the deeper meaning behind it, you numbskull. Sorry to result to name calling, but for you to get what you got out of my comment, you either have to be an idiot or a pathetic imbecile who has to twist people's words just to win an argument. And okay, if opinions are subjective like you say, then why tell me that I need to "read some more and learn to appreciate literature"? Why not just say, "okay maybe classic literature is just not for you" and leave it at that? Or better yet, why respond to my comment at all, when I wasn't speaking to you to begin with? This may be a public forum, but my answer was directed at the author of this thread, NOT YOU. Practice what you preach hon, and leave my comments alone. Kay, thanks! YOU have a nice LIFE!

[Derek]

K, I thought I was maybe being a little sardonic, but apparently the smallest amount of disagreement or sarcasm was taken as extremely offensive. Of course opinions are subjective, and certain books just don't speak to certain people.
BUT... why should we leave it at that? What's the point of discussion if, in response to "I don't get the significance and "deeper meaning" behind the "classics" I'm only allowed to say "oh, that's ok, maybe classic literature is just not for you?" Isn't just writing you off like that more insulting than trying to discuss it? You're right though, nothing will get "solved" on an internet forum, I'll be done now too.

[Via]

Derek wrote: "K, I thought I was maybe being a little sardonic, but apparently the smallest amount of disagreement or sarcasm was taken as extremely offensive. Of course opinions are subjective, and certain book..."
Great, we're both done. :)

[Allen]

Derek wrote: "K, I thought I was maybe being a little sardonic, but apparently the smallest amount of disagreement or sarcasm was taken as extremely offensive. Of course opinions are subjective, and certain book..."

Forums are great places to discuss. Debates are also great on forums.

Internet forums and in-person discussions are pretty much the same if you think about it. We're using words both ways. Why does it matter? It doesn't.

[Andrew]

The book is amazing and a classic because of what it symbolizes. It is manifestation of what many, not all, teenagers feel. Holden is not someone to idolize; he is an anti-hero. He is a character to sympathize with. He is the worst side of you. Holden is what I, and many others, are scared to become. We don't want to end up in an asylum, but it feels completely plausible. We have the same feelings running through our minds that he does!

[Emster]

Dave, I rated it three based on the time I had read it. My opinion has changed on it reading it in a different context. I didn't notice the stars. Thanks for the remind. Now I think I will update all of my books, looking back to how I feel now.

[Lynn G.]

I've read the book 3 different times and found nothing redeeming about it. I kept hoping that with more maturity and life experience the picture would finally become clearer. Never happened.

[Mitchell]

I thought it was brilliant when I was fifteen years old. I re-read it when I was forty, and guess what? Somewhere in the intervening twenty five years, some of the shine on this particular apple came off. It just didn't hold up.

Others of my age group have said that it not only held up, but became more poignant as the time passed, so I guess it is just me... and maybe you... and some of the others that agree with us.

[Michael]

Opening sentences can turn people off as well as entice them. Salinger's works, in that it sets the tone. But it didn't make me want to read the book. Quite the opposite. I didn't want to spend time listening to this voice.

[Kirby]

Michael wrote: "Opening sentences can turn people off as well as entice them. Salinger's works, in that it sets the tone. But it didn't make me want to read the book. Quite the opposite. I didn't want to spend tim..."

what's his opening sentence? I can't remember...

[Kirby]

Rachel wrote: "South Park does more work pointing out cultural phoniness than Caulfield ever did. "

I agree! :)
I think that oftentimes, the people who discount the show as "rubbish" just aren't looking past the obscenity- every episode has some sort of satirical point...

[Michael]

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HEAR about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.

The voice--to me, anyway--is like nails scraping on a blackboard.

[Hiba]

Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."

To be honest, although I thought it was good, it wasn't all I expected. I did sort of wonder "why"?

It's one of those books that are good but doesn't measure up to the hype.

[Rod]

Mitchell wrote: "I thought it was brilliant when I was fifteen years old. I re-read it when I was forty, and guess what? Somewhere in the intervening twenty five years, some of the shine on this particular apple ca..."

I suggest you wait till you're 60 and then give us your opinion. Nothing like holding an audience in suspense. And I hope you have a sense of humor or I am buggered.

[Paul]

Simon wrote: "Thom wrote: "It was written in and for another generation. The present generation may have difficulty following thought patterns of their parents and grandparents."

I completely disagree. I don't ..."

It didn't do anyhting for me either and I was sent to military school for a year, etc... .

[Allen]

People just aren't used to reading a book that "doesn't have a plot." They've read way too many books with a plot, even the nonfiction ones, that they pretty much expect every book they read to have one. Just don't be close-minded. J. D. Salinger's writing was innovative and perhaps even ahead of its time. Instead of using the typical format for a novel, he didn't care about it.

This book was very unpredictable, unlike a lot of books that do have a plot. I think the fact that this book doesn't really have a plot adds to its mystique.

[Rod]

Lily wrote: "Candice wrote: "Kressel wrote: "I think the kids who *get* Holden are probably nothing like him."

Could be."

The Catcher in the Rye is one of my number one books ever, but I'm not at all like Hol..."

Interesting point. You've got me thinking. Also a bit worried.

[Alexei]

Kressel wrote: "So Holden's message is even more true today - if only we could catch kids in the rye and preserve their innocence!"

I hope you're being ironc here.

[Luke]

Maryann wrote: This is a story about Holden's rite of passage during the 60's - "

I keep seeing this, so let's be clear. Salinger wrote this during the 40s, not the 60s. It was originally published in full in 1951.

I tend to think people like this book because they associate with Holden. Maybe he does things they always wanted to do, acts the way they always wanted to act. Is cool and calm and worldly just like they imagine themselves.

But to me, it came off as whiny and pretentious. There's really nothing else to recommend this story, so if Holden doesn't do it for you, this book isn't for you.

[Allen]

People are too used to reading the typical layout for a novel:
Story starts
Characters are introduced
Romantic relationship occurs
Events lead up to climax
Climax occurs
Problem gets solved
End of story

That's the typical novel for you. The Catcher in the Rye doesn't follow that trend. That's why people hate it. People would rather read about some fantasy world that they will never be able to relate to. The Catcher in the Rye is realistic, and people can actually relate to it because it's not about some boy who goes to a magical school. Let's be honest. Not all of us are going to have drastic events that happen to us every single day. We live a typical lifestyle consisting of waking up, going to school, getting home, doing homework, and sleeping. Not much action ever occurs in our lives.

When you're stuck in a society that you despise, obviously, you're going to be critical of it. You're going to observe it. Holden is obviously not very involved with his society, and he does a good job at analyzing it. He's an outcast. When you're an outcast, you're going to do the same thing as Holden -- judge the world around you. You guys just can't relate because you're too busy with your lifestyles. You just don't have the time or the willpower to sit down and think about how phony society really is.

[Luke]

Hey Allen, you may be right for some people. However, I think there are a large chunk of us who would be perfectly fine with the structure if we actually could relate to Holden. To me, that's the biggest difference between lovers and haters of this book--Can you relate to Holden? Not: Are you just like Holden, or Do you want to be best friends with Holden, or even Do you like Holden? But instead, Can you relate to him?

I cannot. I understand him to a degree, but I cannot relate to him and find his perspective tiresome, pointless, and unworthy of reading about. At least for me, it had nothing to do with story structure, although I was hoping for some twist or plot toward the end if only to redeem the rest of what I'd read.

[Derek]

Luke wrote: "Hey Allen, you may be right for some people. However, I think there are a large chunk of us who would be perfectly fine with the structure if we actually could relate to Holden. To me, that's the b..."

The idea that you were "waiting for some twist or plot at the end to redeem what you'd read" is the problem, though. What could've "redeemed" it, "And then I got better and realized that I whined too much, The End?"
Like it's been said before, if you can't even RELATE to being a confused and angry teenager, like it is just beyond your experience, then yeah, I guess this book is terrible, congratulations on having a perfect childhood and being surrounded by nothing but perfect childhoods. But I have to assume that that isn't what's going on with people who don't understand Catcher.

[Luke]

Derek wrote:

Sorry that you don't seem to understand what I said. The only reason I was waiting for some twist or plot at the end was because I was really hoping SOMETHING would redeem this book I'd heard so much about but otherwise sucked. It clearly wasn't working for me on the literary level. Nothing, most likely, could have redeemed it for me at that point. I was disappointed in the book.

And perfect childhood? Assume much? I guess because I can't relate to Holden--not because I haven't felt similarly to him at times, but because I find that kind of negative, whining attitude unworthy and rather deplorable--then the only possible reason is that I have a silver spoon in my mouth. Normally I can still get something out of a book even if I dislike the lead, but the lead was all there was to this book. Without him, it has nothing.

Look, I don't judge anyone for enjoying this book. To each his own. I didn't enjoy it, and I've tried to give my reasons why. Ad hominem attacks are bush league.

[Derek]

Oh no, I'm not meaning to attack; I guess it's just really hard for me to accept that there are people who can read the book and not empathize with it.

[Allen]

Luke wrote: "Derek wrote:

Sorry that you don't seem to understand what I said. The only reason I was waiting for some twist or plot at the end was because I was really hoping SOMETHING would redeem this book ..."

Maybe you should put into consideration as to why Holden is the way he is. Have you ever thought of how Holden seems to absolutely despise everyone in the book except for children? Don't you think there could be a reason for that? Allie's passing definitely impacted Holden greatly. Maybe that traumatized Holden. Maybe it made him believe that there are some people out there, especially adults, who are unworthy of living and that it was unfair that Allie had to go, despite being a good kid.

You don't understand this book. Holden obviously has psychological and emotional pain. He's a phony himself, but there's a reason why Salinger made him that way.

[Anna]

I absolutely did not 'get' this book at all, I was constantly hoping and waiting for something to happen, some event or incident, but no it just carried on with moaning about how everything 'sucks'. Very disappointing and I have no clue why this is a so-called classic!

[Luke]

Allen wrote:

I get why Holden is the way he is. I just don't like it or find anything worthwhile in it. I also get why actual teenagers whine and moan, but it doesn't mean I appreciate it. I also get why some people like Jerry Springer Show, American Idol, Oprah, or anything else largely vapid. Again, understanding does not necessarily equal appreciation. Maybe you should consider that.

[Allen]

Anna wrote: "I absolutely did not 'get' this book at all, I was constantly hoping and waiting for something to happen, some event or incident, but no it just carried on with moaning about how everything 'sucks'..."

Anna, I think you've been too used to the typical layout for a typical novel. Honestly, I was constantly hoping and waiting for something drastic to take place in the novel, too, but I eventually realized that isn't the point of this book. This book isn't about a sequence of events that happen to lead up to a climax. No, it's not like that at all. It's more about commentary through observations of the main character and narrator of the story, Holden Caulfield. What he says (or complains about) is important. I know you think he whines a lot, but his pain is real. He's a relatable character, and I'm sure there are people like him.

A good book doesn't have to be magical or eventful for it to be a classic. Although "exciting" books are fun to read, they're not always relatable. I could relate to The Catcher in the Rye because I know what it's like to be in Holden's position. He's realistic.

[Katrina]

Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."

i completely agree with you on this. I didn't understand what the big fuss was with this book, or why it was even considered a classic. But taking into consideration the fact that I read it when I was 13, maybe even 14 years old, it is understandable that I didn't 'get this book. I plan on reading this book again, now that I'm a few years older and a few years wiser(-ish). I've got the book out from the library now and I'll give Catcher In The Rye another chance.

[Lisa]

interesting that so many people don't "get" it.....it's about his struggle with the phoniness of society and how he's both appalled by it and wants to blend in with it. possibly those who don't "get" it have an easier time conforming to society. those who do "get" it are those who see the phoniness and relate to the dilemma of conforming or calling them all out on it. ?? maybe?

[Glorianne]

i read this book in highschool...i didn't get it, i didn't like it....and still would like to know what all the fuss about it was...my children had to read it when they went to high school....they didn't get it either..

[Monty J]

Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."

There's plenty of meat on the subject in the other topics. Just click on.

[Laurie]

I also failed to see the charm. It was all I could do to force myself to finish it. I expected so much more and was disappointed. This was only a few years back as I never read it in school. Maybe age has gotten the best of me....

[Monty J]

I think I'll write a reader's guide for CATCHER IN THE RYE. Sounds like there's a good market.

[Eliza]

I have always felt CITR was the most overrated "classic" of all time.

[Violet]

Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."

Same here...glad to see I'm not alone!

[Christoph]

Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."

It's because life really is worth whining about and everything really does suck. Consequently, this book has a certain appeal to people who have already noticed this basic fact.

[Erma]

I laughed when I read that someone said this book doesn't resonate with people who aren't in their teenage years. Well, guess what? I was a teenager once, and I have vivid memories of feeling like an outcast through much of my teen years. ....and I still didn't get this book. I had high hopes, and was excited to read it. After only a few pages, it was a chore just to finish it.

I think this is like any other book... either you get it, or you don't. And if you don't get it, you don't like it. And even if you do get it, you still may not like it.

[Katherine]

I read it in High School (64-'68) and "got it". Was glad to read something that related to me. Maybe because I was a "whiny", depressed alienated, lonely teenager too.

[Emil]

What is remarkable about Catcher in the Rye is that, in Holden, Salinger creates a completely authentic teenage character through which he puts on trial the very adult world that Holden is about to enter.

Holden knows he has to grow up, has to join the adult world, but he *resists* because he perceives this world as phony and fake. His brother D.B., a talented writer, sells out and starts working for Hollywood. Holden's parents, who supposedly care so much about him, keep shipping him off to one boarding school after another. He asks a taxi driver what happens to the ducks when winter comes, if someone takes them away, and the taxi driver, he doesn't care. He doesn't care at all what happens to the ducks.

And this is the world Holden is expected to join. The world he is expected to be a part of. He is expected to sell out like D.B., to forget about the ducks like the taxi driver, to send his own son off to boarding school after boarding school... This is what being an "adult" seems to mean. What's more, what's most tragic, is that Holden knows the phony world will continue, there is no stopping it, there is no possibility of change. What is his evidence? Why, all he has to do is look around at his fellow adolescents--the next generation of phony adults. Girls who fall for jerk boys and defend them by saying they have an "inferiority complex," school walls graffitied by wannabe tough guys. Not only is Holden at odds with the adults in his life, he's at odds with most of the kids his own age, who seem to be hurtling toward this fake adulthood without a thought, without a protest.

Holden is remarkable, because he is a teen who doesn't dream of "growing up," of all the girls he'll bang and the money he'll make, the fame he might garner. No, what Holden wants is to stay young. And innocent. The person he loves most in his life is his sister Phoebe, because to him, that's exactly what she is, what she embodies. And the only escape he can see, the only way he can find to stay young, is to spend his days with children, children at play, catching them in the rye...

Not only is Holden an unforgettable character, but his critique of adult society, of all the ways in which we seem to be close minded and short sighted and contradictory, of all the ways in which we compromise on our ideals, of the condescension we develop toward the younger generations, who don't know anything, don't understand anything, don't know what's good for them, all of that is timeless, because ultimately, Holden is right.

The world doesn't change. The phoniness continues. And as long as it does, Catcher in the Rye will remain supremely relevant.

[Monty J]

Emil wrote: "What is remarkable about Catcher in the Rye is that, in Holden, Salinger creates a completely authentic teenage character through which he puts on trial the very adult world that Holden is about to..."

Well put, Emil. I'm afraid CATCHER will be around for a long time, for human nature hasn't demonstrated much willingness to change.

[Ema]

Yeah, I read it in my sophomore English class and got it right away, then last year, when my younger brother read it for the same class, he was all "Dude, this book sucks, there's no point." after reading it, and I was like, "yeah, well, here's the deal..." And he was so blown away, he went back and read the whole book over again (and he's read maybe ten books in his whole life, because he considers them a waste of time). So, that was fun. The look on his face was so priceless.