The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
I read it on my own before senior year and thought it was meaningless. Then my teacher taught it and pointed out that all the stuff I thought meant nothing was 'symbolic' and had hidden meaning, and I loved it afterwards. But now years later I have a feeling I wouldn't like it again :))
for different reasons. Still I learned how to be a much more careful reader cause of this book!
I think you have to understand this was written in the fifties and was really the first book about modern alienation http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/
I agree with the guy above me, and yes i am Australian, 16 at that, and I understood the book about two weeks ago when i finished it. Mainly because of the relation to not wanting to be alone and feeling crap and all that, but also because I just got how holden didn't know what he wanted from life, which is why the part where he told us what job he could handle having really shocked me.plus, i found the way he would repeat things and structure his sentences interesting... NOT LIKEABLE! but interesting. so yeah, what they ^ said, "This is a great book, if you can relate to it."
Don't know that I can add much, especially to the comments of those who were growing up about the time the book was written...maybe watching some 50s movies that show families interacting would help with the context. The attempt at "honest" stream-of-consciousness was new; the hero being a teenager describing his in-the-minute experience, compared to the Hardy Boys for instance, was new; the expression of the great anguished desire to do something to make the world better was new--everyone thought kids that age were care-free and shallow. And the expression of despair and disillusionment was new--and much more accessible than in, for instance, Mailer.There are lots of "classics" that need context. I didn't "get" most of Dickens and any of George Eliot for years after I read them, especially Eliot. Understanding that the audience for novels in those days particularly among the English was the UPPER middle class means that novels about lower class people were striking and titillating. In better-educated America a wider range of people read, still, Herman Melville was writing Moby Dick at a time when some churches refused to admit seaman because of their supposed immorality, so they were a racy subject.
My love for the book is directly proportional to my hatred for Holden.
it is a classic because the it talks about the "Grow up and sopt acting like a child - you have to take your responsabilities now that you are becoming a an adult" thing and it also got that thing which you see but the eyes of the protagonist what is the cost of becoming an adukt what is the dark side of it - also the protagonist shows a sense of protection of the innocence of children and he wants to save them from falling into the dark side of adults life which ruins every person - sex, drugs, alchool and stuffs like that - he wants to perserve the kindness, the innocence all those good things so he sees him self like the catcher in the rye IT IS A REALLY GREAT BOOK i really love it :D
and i agree with those who like the book
Angelo wrote: "I just finished reading it a couple days ago. Personally, I think it's a great book. However, it's easy to see why people don't understand why it's such a classic.It's from a teenagers point of vi..."
I don't really think so. I have felt alienated and depressed but I think that I kind of embraced that and started looking on the bright side. I really disliked Holden not because he was alienated and lonely but because he didn't do anything to change that! He kept talking how everyone was phoney, dumb and morons, how much he hated everything and basically didn't give anything a positive lookout. He reminded me of a friend I have that is miserable all the time, that hates everything and he's constantly misunderstood when in reality he just masochistic like that and WANTS to be regarded as lonely, alienated and special. The only character in this book I liked was Phoebe because she seemed like the only reasonable, intelligent person who finally put Holden in his place! So yeah, in my opinion, the problem is not in the reader it's in Holden, because you must be really immature to have an 8 year-old tell you what to do.
I found the whole book just...depressing. He hangs out in NY whole day, goes to bars, drinks, smokes and stuff...I like to relate to the characters in the books which I read, but with Catcher in the Rye, it didn't happen.I'm not saying it isn't a good book, but it's just not one of my favorites.
Now I read the comment from "Angelo" and he just wrote it:"For someone that isn't in the teenage years, or for teens that don't feel depressed, alienated, or lonely, it doesn't really resonate with them." This is exactly my case
I felt like I didn't need to "get" this book. I felt like it didn't need to be "got" in any way at all. This book made me feel weird but I think that's the way it wanted me to be.
this book is great i like the fact that hes trying to find himself its interesting and conflicting...
Lina wrote: "Angelo wrote: "I just finished reading it a couple days ago. Personally, I think it's a great book. However, it's easy to see why people don't understand why it's such a classic.It's from a teenag..."
He really needed some support from people. It's really not his fault he became like this. I'm pretty sure he has seen better days. There's a reason why Holden is the way he is in the novel.
Paul 'Pezski' wrote: 'so many people here on GR seem to base their reviews on whether or not they like the characters. An unlikeable lead can be superbly engaging.'Interesting point. I've always been under the impression that you had to at least care about the lead character to continue reading. But I suppose if that was the case, why would American Psycho have done so well?
I absolutely loved this at 16 and then bought this book for my brother and sister who were considerably younger, I tried to get my children to read it, they wouldn't. My 55+ husband tried to read it a year ago and couldn't then I tried to read it again expecting to love it as I had as a teenager...I put it down too. It is however a classic which should be read when you're in the middle of all that teen angst and separating from your families value system and starting to think about who you really are. I agree with Angelo above!
This book is a hit or miss with some people. You either love it or hate it.
I read this book a couple of years ago at the insistence of a literary snob. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. I found it incredibly boring. Guess I'll never get to be a literary snob. LOL (The guy is history, too - you win some, you lose some.)
I read this over 40 years ago whilst at school and didn't really like it that much! So I tried again last year and guess what? didn't like it then either! Sorry just not my cup of tea. I know it is one of those so called literary greats but it just left me cold.
My New Year's wish is that people who post here take the effort to provide a bit more substance. Rather than say you like or don't like a book, put some thought into it. Give some details. Why did you like or dislike it? Was it characters? The main character or a different one? Are you unable to relate to the concerns of troubled teenage boys? Was it the plot or lack of plot? Was it the setting? Do prep schools turn you off because you see them as barracks for the spoiled offspring of the wealthy? It's okay to say what you feel. Say it. Share it. We want to know more than just a yea or nay vote.
George wrote: "Melissa wrote: "Referencing Paul's comment about a classic standing the test of time, I find myself wondering what makes a book a classic? And why? I picked up "Moby Dick" recently expecting a ro..."I know this is right in the middle of The Catcher in the Rye discussion, but this caught my eye and I have to respond to you George. Right on, Right on!! That whole segment was so beautifully written. That is EXACTLY how I feel about Moby Dick. This is my first reading (and by the way have been reading it for almost a year now) am currently on Capter 80. The Nut. You are so right! There are a few chapters I could have done without, but for me I will continue reading every single word that Melville has written in this book and decipher his hidden meanings as best I can. There ARE treasures hidden in here that I am so thankful I did not miss by skimming.
Monty, to be truthful I found the book so boring I do not remember the plot or the characters. Usually, I have no problem stating exactly what I'm thinking, but not this time.
Angelo wrote: "I just finished reading it a couple days ago. Personally, I think it's a great book. However, it's easy to see why people don't understand why it's such a classic.It's from a teenagers point of vi..."
Well said, Angelo, especially the part about: "The people can relate to him, he can say what they can't say."
I wonder how many of the people who just don't get CITR are avid readers of those fantasy stories about boys who fly around on brooms waving magic wands. (I tried reading one and couldn't get past page two. Then I rented the DVD and turned it off after ten minutes.)
The point I'm making is that some people may not want to engage with reality. It's a mystery to me.
I read this book in college... didn't get it. So, I read it again when I got older. I still don't get it! It's one of my daughter's favorite books. I guess that she "gets it"!
For those who see Holden as dated and irrelevant, I would submit incidents like Columbine High and other school shootings and stories like: Rebel Without A Cause, Scent of a Woman, Dead Poet's Society, Garden State, Breakfast Club, Empire Falls, American Beauty and Rachel Getting Married, to name a few. East of Eden counts, but it's in a class of its own. The troubled teenager characters on TV are too many to name on crime genre programs like Law and Order.The only difference between Holden's era (the 50s) and today is troubled teenagers screw like rabbits on steroids, say "fuck" in every other sentence, bury their noses in cell phones and video games (instead of reading), and have access to drugs like they were junkies (some actually are.) Try riding a city bus sometime, in the rear section where the ones who misbehave like to congregate.
Not sure about how Catcher holds up, but that book and The Outsiders are still requested by teens in our library. I haven't read either in decades but recall liking both quite a bit.
I've only read this book once. I was in my early twenties, and while I enjoyed it, it didn't affect me on a deep, personal level. I read it for the same reason that most people read controversial books. I wanted to know what about it makes it the center of conspiracies and such. I still don't really know why. Anyone have any suggestions?
I first read Salinger's book as a Freshman in high school. This was in '64 so perhaps was more meaningful. Had to have a parental approval note to be allowed to buy it and read it. Different era!
I read it forty years ago and I didn't get it (except the bit about guys who don't wash the soap off their necks).A US colleague of mine read 'On The Road' and she didn't get it. Tried to explain and failed. But FGS you're American! I said. Still nope.
I guess there are some iconic books you either do or you don't.
I read a quote by a relatively famous person recently (can't remember who the person was...), but they said that this is a book that teenagers say is their favorite, but if a person is an adult and identifies this as their favorite book, they are missing out.I think my problem with the book was that I read it too late in life and therefore missed the impact it might have had at a different stage in my psychological growth.
I read it when I was 17 and it had absolutely no impact on my psychological growth. Any thoughts?
Elizabeth wrote: "I read it when I was 17 and it had absolutely no impact on my psychological growth. Any thoughts?"I think 17 is pretty young to get a lot psychologically out of the book for most teens, unless you'd had experience, first-hand or otherwise, with a teen in an emotional crisis.
There's a lot of cultural and psychological meat in there though: a) how boys interact with each other when living in close quarters, b) particularly when two have or are dating the same girl and one feels protective of her (Jane Gallagher), c) how a sensitive boy might behave because of a deep emotional wound (e.g., PTSD from the trauma of losing a younger brother and from witnessing the suicide of a classmate (James Castle) and d) how that boy might become neurotically protective toward his younger sister (Phoebe) and toward children in general because of c).
Most teenagers aren't mature enough to comprehend the psychological ramifications of what I've just described unless they've been prepared for it by a mature adult who does comprehend. And there are many adults who couldn't.
Indeed, most adults have psychological defenses that don't allow them to comprehend what I've just described. It's either too abstract, too complicated or too scary. I suspect this is the main reason the book is so controversial. Most people don't get it because they can't, unless someone points the way.
Monty J wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I read it when I was 17 and it had absolutely no impact on my psychological growth. Any thoughts?"I think 17 is pretty young to get a lot psychologically out of the book for mo..."
Some interesting points Monty. Makes you wonder why teens are given this book as required reading. I wasn't. I simply picked it up hoping for a good read. If everything you said is true, then I know why I didn't get it..... I read books purely for mindless enjoyment and I didn't put too much (if any) thought into what I was reading. I just wanted to be entertained when I read a book....... come to think of it, I'm still pretty much that way.
I think I misrepresented what I was trying to say: I think this book might be most appealing to a set of people in a certain stage of their lives. However, once you've passed that stage, or if you have yet to reach it, the book simply doesn't speak as powerfully to you.
Sunsprout wrote: "I think I misrepresented what I was trying to say: I think this book might be most appealing to a set of people in a certain stage of their lives. However, once you've passed that stage, or if you ..."You raise an interesting point that resonates with something I posted.
Unless and until the reader has been traumatized or is close to someone who has been and is acting out because of it, I doubt the reader is capable of being reached by the book's deeper meaning.
Think of it this way. Many in the homeless population are Vietnam war veterans suffering from PTSD. Most people when they see these unfortunates withdraw in derision. "They smell bad" or "They're just lazy" are some comments I've overheard. Very few people will take the time to understand the homeless or have any interest in doing so.
Rex Walls from the memoir "The Glass Castle" is a real-life example of a homeless man who was suffering from PTSD stemming from childhood trauma (sexual molestation by his mother).
Unless you've been stung by a bee or seen someone stung you have little concept what a bee sting is. It's an abstract concept. But once you know, really KNOW, what a bee sting is, you'll take measures to protect children from bees.
The rest of the world will just go merrily along, blissfully unaware.
hey idiots. (some of you. and you know who.) if you don't read some of these classics in your teens or college days, you'll never like them. it's all about what time in your life you read them. it's not rocket science. just look at the voice and the content of books like "Catcher." you either read it in your youth and relate with angst and douchiness, or you read it for the first time when you're older and find it trite and sophomoric. your perspective has changed; as has your situations in life; as has the range and knowledge of books you've read and experienced. I mean... duh.
Catcher in the Rye is one of my all-time favorites! This book is probably best read while still in your teens or early twenties. I gave it to my mom to read, and she did not understand it all. I think as you get older, you lose the ability to identify with younger people by channeling your younger self. But the themes are still pretty universal. Holden worries about the loss of innocence in himself and children in general. He has no direction in his life and finds it difficult to stay interested in a journey that is seemingly meaningless. I read this book for the first time after the suicide of a very close friend, and (even though the book is depressing) it helped me to connect with someone, real or not (and let's face it, Holden is Salinger). Also, the part where Holden has trouble thinking of one thing that he loves made me realize that, in opposition, that I had many things to be happy about. Final verdict: Great book for the right mind.
Well, I liked this book because I could somehow relate to teenager talking about this and that, about wanting things but couldn't know what exactly or what direction should a teenager get in his or her life. Which, most of teenagers could relate to. It is a good book, usually for those who can relate to it. :)
But now that I've seen that someone pointed out whats not appealing about it, well, that person had a point. It was about a whiny teenager.
I read this book when I was about sixteen because my father said he LOVED IT! he just thought it was the bomb diggy! I read it and I was like WTF??? Here is how it sounded to me:
"I'm a rich white boy and a f*ck up and whine, whine, whine poor me, poor rich white me..."
I just did not get it. But you have to realize some things are just generational...I think, for the baby boomers to hear a rich white boy just a whining the way Holden was...well for them, that was revolutionary and mind-blowing. You know they had grown up with all those picture perfect father knows best, Beaver Cleaver images and so, yeah...the books was probably one of the very first ever to really and truly keep it real.
As for us Gen Xers, well we were quite accustomed to rich white boys just a whining...it just wasn't that groundbreaking anymore. All of the Gen X teens were whining and crying about something...we really were.
Now as for me, while I was unimpressed with The Catcher, I just LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Franny and Zoey! One of my faves of all time!
I really don't understand why a rich, white person has no right to be miserable. For a shallow person, that might be all they need to be happy, but for others, happiness has little to do with monetary wealth or race. Yes, obviously there are advantages to being both white and wealthy, but does that mean they have the recipe for happiness? That they are not allowed to feel depressed?
Serena wrote: "I really don't understand why a rich, white person has no right to be miserable. For a shallow person, that might be all they need to be happy, but for others, happiness has little to do with monet..."Good point Serena. When I first read CATCHER at nineteen I was prejudiced against well-off people and dismissed Holden and his whining. Thirty-years later I had matured and had an entirely different experience. I still regard him as spoiled, but I see how he was suffering. People who have had it easy suffer more because they aren't conditioned to it. Suffering is a way of life for the poor.
Serena wrote: "I really don't understand why a rich, white person has no right to be miserable. For a shallow person, that might be all they need to be happy, but for others, happiness has little to do with monet..."Well of course a rich white boy or man has every "right" to be unhappy...but, at the time, I was wondering, why would he be?
He had so many more opportunities to find and explore happiness, as opposed to other groups of people who have far less resources at their disposal, but now, well, I realize, finding happiness is a lot more complicated than that.
It is especially complicated when you factor in clinical depression which we now have a far greater understanding of now, than we did in the sixties when my dad read the book, and even in the eighties when I read the book.
I have suffered from depression, and once I fully understood why that was, I did actually realize that it had nothing to do with poverty or race, but genetics and environment.
Still, when I read The Catcher, at about age sixteen, I was thinking, "if only I was this rich white boy, if only I had his life, his opportunities, I would not be so depressed." But that was actually a pretty shallow understanding of myself and what was wrong with me so you're right...pretty shallow. But hey! I was sixteen!
It never seemed to go anywhere. I always felt that the plot was going to develop and then it never did. I've got a copy, and will read it again sometime.
Matthew wrote: "hey idiots. (some of you. and you know who.) if you don't read some of these classics in your teens or college days, you'll never like them. it's all about what time in your life you read them. it'..."I'm one of the people who feels that a younger person might empathise with an older person just as well, or even better, than someone of the same age; and vice versa. The way we empathise with people - of any age - is because of the stuff we're made up of.
I also happen to think that literature, along with film, TV drama and lots of other art forms, is one of the ways we can explore our empathies and enjoy them.
Oliver Twist, for example, appeals to nine year olds and sixty-nine year olds alike
You HAVEN'T GOT to be young to relate to a Holden Caulfield type character, just as you HAVEN'T GOT TO relate to him - though you MIGHT HAVE TO sit in same classroom.
oh my... i thought i was nuts coz i didn't care too much for it...my brother really related to it somehow...
it's just that the train of Holden Caulfield's thoughts didn't appeal to me at all. it's like this whining and complaining and whining and complaining kind of thing over and over and over... although i still stuck out to read it coz it's a classic must read...
Michael wrote: "It never seemed to go anywhere. I always felt that the plot was going to develop and then it never did. I've got a copy, and will read it again sometime."There are plenty of great plotless stories: Homer's "The Odyssey," "American Graffiti," "The Sun Also Rises" and "Crash" to name a few.
When there's no plot try focusing on character or characters. "Crash" has an ensemble cast. No main character. But there's lots of action, and by observing how the characters interact with each other and their environment a thread of universal truth emerges.
Andie 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 could not agree with you more. This was the worst book I have ever read in my life!
LOL Andie, I'm cracking up - pure honesty and I agree with you 100%!
Monty J wrote: "Michael wrote: "It never seemed to go anywhere. I always felt that the plot was going to develop and then it never did. I've got a copy, and will read it again sometime."There are plenty of great..."
Yep, and I hated "The Sun Also Rises" and loved "Crash!"
Monty J wrote: "Michael wrote: "It never seemed to go anywhere. I always felt that the plot was going to develop and then it never did. I've got a copy, and will read it again sometime."
There are plenty of great..."
I'm all for the plotless novel, I think it was the way it kept suggesting that something was going to happen and it never delivered. Yet, this was a long time ago when I read it, so I will read it again soon bearing in mind what you have said. So thankyou! :) I'll also read Crash at some point too.
There are plenty of great..."
I'm all for the plotless novel, I think it was the way it kept suggesting that something was going to happen and it never delivered. Yet, this was a long time ago when I read it, so I will read it again soon bearing in mind what you have said. So thankyou! :) I'll also read Crash at some point too.
The people in this thread who say it's a great book don't seem to be explaining why other than they somehow found a way to "relate" to it. The people in this thread who say it's not a great book don't seem to be explaining why other than they somehow didn't "get it." This is what passes for discourse on the literary aesthetics of this or any other novel? Reading this post is like being trapped in a room full of chatty gals who are the prime age to be Justin Bieber fans (and are). Beyond "relating" to it or not, beyond "getting" it or not, there's understanding, one some level, what the author was trying to accomplish. I can read all of these posts because skimming through a dozen of them made me sick, but I'd wager that most of the people commenting in this thread don't have a clue as to what the author was trying to accomplish.
Mark, it's the season for being joyous - I don't give a rip about Justin Bieber and I'm far from being a chatty girl. CITRye bored me to tears - wouldn't read it again if paid to do so.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Thirty-Nine Steps (other topics)
Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man (other topics)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (other topics)
Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty (other topics)
More...
John Green (other topics)
J.D. Salinger (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Bambi: A Life in the Woods (other topics)The Thirty-Nine Steps (other topics)
Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man (other topics)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (other topics)
Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.D. Salinger (other topics)John Green (other topics)
J.D. Salinger (other topics)
Beaucoup kudos, Ema. You're my hero. What an experience, cluing in someone to a clearer vision of literature. No telling where it will take him now. I'm envious of you.