Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 551-600 of 1,174

[Mark]

Marilyn wrote: "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."

Well, that's why I used the word "like." I didn't say that the people who contributed to this thread WERE Bieber fans or WERE chatty girls. I said that reading these posts (that's what I meant to say, I used the singular) was LIKE that.

I suppose I just had hoped for a more interesting and thoughtful level of discourse in goodreads. OK, it bored you, that's relevant. But what did you find boring about it? And did you feel like you understood what the author was trying to accomplish or did some of that elude you and you just decided to chalk it up to a "boring" book?

I'll be joyous when the world around me gives me a damned good reason to be that way.

[Marilyn]

I just felt that I was turning pages waiting for something major to happen. It never did. I enjoy different genres, romance, thriller, mystery, medical, biographical; CITR just didn't give me anything to shout about.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "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 do..."

Good luck, Mark, on getting people to actually discuss why they liked or disliked the book. I've tried.

Some people seem to think this is a place to vote, a literary popularity contest or a survey. Others may think everyone is actually interested that someone doesn't like or does like the book. It's virtually useless information. Some people just aren't deep thinkers. They either like or don't like and don't care to know why. It's baffling. But it's reality.

If you want some deeper insight into CITR read my topic "Interpreting Catcher." Or read some of my posts above. Or go to RedRoom.com and enter "Catcher in the Rye" in the search box.

I personally think that CITR is for two types of readers: those who are experiencing or have experienced teenage turmoil or PTSD and more mature readers who really get deeply into literature. I had a creative writing instructor who has an MFA in Creative Writing and HE doesn't get CITR.

Other than the occasional young adult who can relate because of personal experience, I believe it's a sophisticated book for refined literary tastes. Inner torment is very difficult to portray on paper. Pound for pound, I think it's one of the greatest books in literature and I support my opinion with detailed analysis here and on RedRoom.com. The longevity and sales of the book (70 million) tend to support my position.

But I'm not going to knock people who don't get it for that very reason. Very few people get Joyce's Ulysses, but it's been #1 on the Modern Library Top One Hundred list for several years.

[Anne]

I enjoyed the book back when i was in high school attending a boarding school. I seemed to connect to the story. If I read it now am sure would have another reaction.

[Darren]

Not only did I not get this book, I didn't even think it was any good, nor entertaining in any way. The characters were fairly irritating bar almost none and the main character was a whiny little brat who needed a wake up call.

There was no real story, nothing happened and by the time it was over I really felt like I wished I hadn't read it, a sentiment I had never felt with another book before.

This book is not a classic, it's an absolute bore.

[Paula]

Yay! I'm not alone :) Read it at high school after watching Conspiracy Theory and immediately consigned it to the "American classics are over-rated" pile. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sea Wolf and Tom Sawyer are exceptions. For the American classic-lovers, I also have a "English classics are over-rated" pile, which includes Wuthering-fricking-heights and Great-absolutely unmet- Expectations.

[[deleted user]]

I love this book. It's one of my favorites ever. It's about a young man, a teenager, and his struggle with the loss of a dear and beloved sibling. I frickin' love this book. When he talks about his dream of standing in field of rye grass with his arms stretched wide to catch the little children and one little red-headed boy gets by, falls of the cliff, I cried--hot tears, heart aching, cried.

[[deleted user]]

Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann mentioned is about a teenage boy who faces the death of his younger brother. Throughout the book you will see that he is trying to protect all the children's innocence because he lost his innocence at a very young age. For example he tried erase the F bomb he sees everywhere because he is afraid the children will see this word. Then he wants to be the catcher in the rye as catching all the kids who are playing in cliff so they won't fall down! Okay this again goes with the fact he adores children and doesn't want them to lose their innocence. And for all the people who think this book is inappropriate or has no meaning for gods sake SHUT Up!!! Seriously reread this brilliant book and you will see what I mean. Now your thinking oh if he is trying to protect children's innocence why is he a bad example. He isn't first he did not do it with prostitute and he drank or smoked cigarettes because he was already used to it as in he thought there is no way to turn his back on it he already lost his innocence and there is no turning back now. He also curses a lot okay if you notice its kind of like he is a child and he just learned those words and he just repeats it without realizing. anyways at the end of the book the carousel scene he realizes he can't protect children's innocence that you need to let them learn from their mistakes!!!! In my perspective this is a great lesson!! PLEASE READ THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND!!! I'm sorry it is so long

[[deleted user]]

Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann mentioned is ..."

I will have to reread it sometime early next year after what you said, thanks for the insight.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann..."

Thank you I'm sorry I kind of exploded! I hope you will like it or at least understand it from what I was trying to explain once you reread it Thank you for reading my extremely long comment!

[Lara]

Mark wrote: "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 do..."

Mark, I'm curious...do you have some noteworthy literary discourse to contribute, or are you here merely to point out what others are doing wrong? It's very easy to point out the lack of merit in the postings of others. It's a completely different challenge to contribute an intelligent comment yourself.

[Anne]

I have read Catcher in the Rye four times. The first time as a seventh grader and most recently as a senior citizen. Each time I read it I get different things out of it. I remember as a teenager laughing a lot and seeing Holden as a bit scandalous. Most recently as last year, I recommended it for our book club as many had never read it. Though it got mixed reviews, I was more into the psychology of it. Holden was a misfit,. Would he have the potential to be harmful to society or himself?

[Monty J]

Anne wrote: "I have read Catcher in the Rye four times. The first time as a seventh grader and most recently as a senior citizen. Each time I read it I get different things out of it. I remember as a teenage..."

You make a good point. In a blog at RedRoom.com and elsewhere here on Goodreads I've drawn a similar parallel between Catcher and school shootings and other stories, such as Andrew in Breakfast Club and John Voss, the school shooter in Empire Falls.

Holden cares too much about the safety of children to harm them, but he did have suicidal thoughts. I hate to think what would have happened if he hadn't been able to make his way to Phoebe, who showered him with affection.

I think it's interesting that Salinger himself ended up doing what Holden wanted to do, secluding himself in a remote "cabin" in the woods where he allowed just a few special people to visit.

[Mark]

Lara wrote: Mark, I'm curious...do you have some noteworthy literary discourse to contribute, or are you here merely to point out what others are doing wrong? It's very easy to point out the lack of merit in the postings of others. It's a completely different challenge to contribute an intelligent comment yourself.

Actually, Lara, I am here to do precisely as I please. And I'm certain that doesn't include worrying about the admonitions you offer as some sort of self appointed moderator. I made a comment about what I thought was a fairly low tone of the general discourse in this thread. You made a comment about my comment. How is it that my gripe is one you feel free to imply is not intelligent and your comment is righteous? Who made you queen of the mermaid parade?

For what it's worth (and I could give a tinker's damn if you find any value in it), I think Salinger achieved two truly great literary achievements in this book. He depicted a teenager of the times flawlessly from the inside out. The dialect he constructs for Holden's first person narrative is consistent, believable and, in a way, fairly evergreen. That's not what a teenager would sound like today or even twenty years ago, but it was evocative of a teenager for more than a few years beyond the publication date. In a very different way and with very different outcome, it's similar to what Burgess did in A Clockwork Orange.

Second achievement, imho: The central part of the narrative, to me, underscores a philosophical meditation on life and spiritual maturity. Have you ever wondered why Holden recalls the song lyrics as being "when a body CATCH a body coming through the rye" and his little sister, correctly, recalls the lyrics as "when a body MEET a body coming through the rye"?

Holden is spiritually immature in that he feels life can be corrected, that innocence can be protected, that the bodies can be "caught" and shielded from the uncertainties and even evils of life in a world with the mature moral choices presented by good and evil coexisting as mutually dependent opposites. This is also why he fantasizes about being able to erase every incident of "fuck" graffiti so children never see it? Is he really seeking to protect young children or evade some of the inevitabilities of his own adulthood? In a slight way, Holden is almost an heir to Hamlet. Ironically, Holden's younger sister is further along in spiritual maturity than he is. She knows that you don't "catch" bodies (other people) and shield them from reality. You "meet" them on a level field of shared humanity and what will be will be.

Is that intelligent enough discourse for you, ma'm? Or would you prefer to catch me in the rye than meet me in it?

[Paula]

Mark wrote: "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 do..."

I thought the question was "what makes a classic a classic", and the answer, more or less, is that enough people liked it to tell the next generation about it and so on. And liking a book quite often has little to do with how well it was written, or what the author was trying to say, and much more to do with whether or not the person reading it, 'felt' the story somewhere within themselves. I could read 100 books that are brilliantly written, but if they don't strike the right chord, then they will never, for me, be a classic. The same is true of Catcher in the Rye. There doesn't have to be a long and involved discussion about the relative merits of the character building or the driving themes. People either like it or they don't, quite often in direct contradiction to the dictates of logic.

[Lara]

Mark, I am no self appointed moderator, but I would certainly love to join the mermaid parade. Where do I sign up?

Your Hamlet connection is interesting. I would love to read more about that topic.

I find it interesting that some find the book irrelevant to today's readers, simply because of the time period in which it takes place. My students, about Holden's age, find it quite relevant to themselves, regardless of the setting. They also find Shakespeare and Homer relevant because of the universal ideas that are explored.

I think one of the important ideas in the book that relates to most generations is the idea that we perceive people through a distorted filter. Holden is quite honest about his judgments as he relates them in his narrative, but Salinger's subtext allows the reader to see that Holden isn't as honest with himself. He doesn't really notice that he, himself, is practicing some of the same behaviors that he despises in others.

[Esmeralda]

I did read this book as a teenager and was able to relate to Holden. I'm not sure whether kids can relate to it today, but alienation among teenagers still exists.

There may be other books for young adults that might be more relevant to teenagers today.

[Monty J]

Esmeralda wrote: "I did read this book as a teenager and was able to relate to Holden. I'm not sure whether kids can relate to it today, but alienation among teenagers still exists.

There may be other books for you..."

"There may be other books for young adults that might be more relevant to teenagers today." --Yes, there are , but quality of writing is a limiting factor, The Outsiders being an example. It's more relevant but crudely written. Catcher will always have the advantage of Salinger's masterful writing skill. He set the bar pretty darn high.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "Esmeralda wrote: "I did read this book as a teenager and was able to relate to Holden. I'm not sure whether kids can relate to it today, but alienation among teenagers still exists.

There may be o..."

There are, at least, two schools of thought on the notion of "adolescent literature." Some people think that kids (tweens, teens and maybe the youngest of young adults) should avoid reading books like John Knowles "A Separate Peace" or Hinton's "The Outsiders" and stick to Bona fide literature written for adults. I think I disagree, regardless how dodgy the prose style or storytelling mechanics might be. When I read "Catcher in the Rye" in high school, none of it was exactly over my head but there was an awful lot of it that I didn't recognize at all as having a deeper meaning. If it wasn't for Pulp books like Conan the Barbarian, the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and numerous science fiction writers (many of these examples still worthwhile writing and reading in their own zone), I don't think I would have fallen in love with the simple act of reading a story as much as I have. It's popular in some circles to dismiss Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s work as not up to mature, serious and adult standards or of a time that has now passed. I don't think I'd be reading Joyce and Faulkner (and enjoying it) now if I hadn't read Vonnegut then.

I think first you have to become acquainted with the act of reading for your own pleasure and then develop your own aesthetic. Some people never get to the second phase of that process, granted. But that's life.

[Anne]

Anne wrote: "I have read Catcher in the Rye four times. The first time as a seventh grader and most recently as a senior citizen. Each time I read it I get different things out of it. I remember as a teenage..."

Thanks for some very interesting insights.....

[Lara]

Mark: I totally agree with you. (isn't THAT interesting?) In fact, along with the 'classics' one of my favorite books to teach in my high school classes is Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, and Vonnegut (whom I just love) is taught in several classes.

While most of my students, especially the boys, enjoy Catcher, some are really turned off. I get that. They have to read it and discuss it anyway, but we have such a variety these days that there's always another book they will 'get'. And, they always have an option of writing about why they don't appreciate the book. One of my essay options is to defend whether or not the book should be banned. But they have to defend their position with evidence from the text. So even when they don't like the book, they can be successful in class. I get very few complaints.

I will add this: I am blessed to teach in a high school that has no textbooks for English classes. We spend our textbook money on novels and read bunches of them, and talk about them daily. I think this is so important for students learning to love reading. Who ever grew to have a passion for literature from the selections the textbook companies choose.

[Darren]

Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann mentioned is ..."

Sorry, but all the literary devices and symbolism on earth can't save a boring story with annoying characters.

[Mark]

Darren wrote: "Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann..."

Darren wrote: "Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. This book as Ann..."

Interesting observation, Darren. Is there a chance that what you meant to say was, as follows:
Sorry, but FOR ME all the literary devices and symbolism on earth can't save WHAT I FIND TO BE a boring story with characters WHO ANNOY ME.

That, to my mind, is legitimate. But if you're trying to convey the idea that because you were bored by the story and annoyed by the characters they somehow universally hold those qualities, don't you feel that's kind of asinine and self-centered? I don't understand why in exchanges of ideas people will introduce an opposing view with "sorry." It seems to suggest, there's a right answer and a wrong answer and you, person to whom I am responding, have hit upon the latter. It's as if you're saying "I apologize that you have not been gifted by the insight fate has bestowed upon me."

Did you write a review of Catcher in the Rye that ellucidates why you found the story to be boring and why you were annoyed by the characters? I made a half hearted attempt to search for one, to see if you did, but Goodreads doesn't make it easy to do that and there are some 34 thousand reviews or something like that. If you did, I'd like you to send me the link so I can see your reasoning for disliking the book so much.

Merry Christmas.

[Serena]

Zing! :) Go, Mark.

[Mark]

Serena wrote: "Zing! :) Go, Mark."
Thanks. I think I've already built a rep as being confrontational in this online forum, but I look at it this way. It's an online "community" I'm a part of, and if I'm not trying to elevate the level of the discussions (because that's mostly all that we have in here), what's the point. We deserve to have give our spouting and speechifying some traction with an articulated rationale or else it's just ... spouting and speechifying.

Merry Christmas.

[Serena]

Or else it turns into Facebook.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "Darren wrote: "Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. T..."

Ditto, Mark. Good luck in getting people to substantiate their opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but an opinion without backup is little more than wind in the trees.

Then again some people just like to strike a pose, expecting others to admire them. Even trolls have their place.

[Gregory]

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 rollicking good re..."

I agree about Moby Dick. The book is really a treatise about killing whales and storing the marketable product. The plot is so thin you couldn't see it sideways in the sun.

[Darren]

Mark wrote: "Darren wrote: "Anita wrote: "Are you guys crazy??? this book is AMAZING!!! You need to look at as a piece of great literature. This book has so much symbolism and a lot of other literary devices. T..."

You're chasing me around because you don't like that I found the book boring? Does that take away from your love of the book? No. You enjoyed it, fair enough.

I don't write reviews for books much and would be far less inclined to write a review if I disliked a book, almost no chance if I hated it and I hated this book. There was nothing interesting in the entire work. The characters were completely alien to me, I couldn't identify with anyone. Holden was a brat, the language was flat, the writing, dull. It was overhyped to the point where, before I read it I thought I was going to be sitting down to one of the greatest books ever written. But before I was a third finished I already wanted to ditch it, it was so boring.

This book isn't a classic, It's in the top five worst things I've ever read.

[Rita]

I finished this book utterly unable to connect to any aspect of it: character, plot, or style of prose. I remember thinking there was possibly something wrong with me. Every "well-read" person I knew had enjoyed this book, and seeing as it is a literary phenomenon, I was prepared to be blown away. I can honestly say that it was the least enjoyable reading experience I have ever had.

[Monty J]

Rita wrote: "I finished this book utterly unable to connect to any aspect of it: character, plot, or style of prose. I remember thinking there was possibly something wrong with me. Every "well-read" person I kn..."

Rita, I wonder if gender has anything to do with it. I've seen several posts like yours on here from women.

I think CITR is very much a "guy book," and for the more advanced reader. Do you know of many girls/women who liked it? Perhaps only women who want to know what makes guys tick would find it interesting.

Not many guys read women's fiction or romance; so this could be the flip side of that.

[Lara]

Oh, Monty...I respect most of your posts, but this is too much.

As a woman, I avoid so called women's fiction and romance like the plague. I also don't watch movies on Lifetime for women on TV, preferring football.

I do however 'get' CITR and Holden and have read it numerous times. I teach it to my high school students, and both the male and female students seem to enjoy it equally.

Not everyone is disposed to Holden's voice and Salinger's style, but let's not patronize one another, please.

Furthermore, as much as I am confident in my opinions of good literature, I also realize that works of art and literature that please everybody rarely make a lasting statement.

[Monty J]

Lara wrote: "Oh, Monty...I respect most of your posts, but this is too much.

As a woman, I avoid so called women's fiction and romance like the plague. I also don't watch movies on Lifetime for women on TV, p..."

I wasn't being patronizing. I was merely analyzing in good faith, recognizing the reality that genders have tastes. Gender is a touchy subject with some people, but we need to be able to raise and discuss gender preferences without being accused of patronizing.

The film industry and the advertising industry market and deliver products based on gender. To ignore it is to court financial disaster for them.

The publishing industry recognizes gender issues with their classifications, e.g., women's fiction, romance, young adult, fantasy, adventure, etc. The vast majority of men don't read romance. The vast majority of women don't read about racing and war. The marketing of those products is geared accordingly so that money isn't wasted.

Literary fiction isn't immune to these very basic realities. Look at the attacks on Hemingway's work by feminists. (I'm not critizing, just describing.)

[A case in point from above: message 18: by Charlotte - rated it 2 stars May 16, 2011 05:47pm "I remember having to read it in high school and thinking it was really a guy's book. It was blah to us girls. Not as bad as having to read Treasure Island though. It was completely pointless! ha"]--unquote

My question still stands: Are there gender issues, such as prostitution, in the book that are turn-offs to girls and women? Clearly at least one woman found it that way.

[Lara]

I don't find the prostitution in the book really that much of a gender issue. After all, Holden treats Sunny with more respect than she treats him.

And as far as gender biased marketing by the publishing industry, or any industry for that matter, in my opinion, it merely perpetuates stereotypes created by the media in the first place.

But back to your original comment: I do not think CITR is generally a 'guy book'. I know as many female readers (not all advanced) who enjoy it as much as male readers. I teach it in sophomore English classes, and it is appreciated by most students regardless of gender or reading ability.

However, more male students than female identify more closely with Holden, to the point they think they are the modern day Holden. To me this seems to demonstrate a stronger desire to achieve Holden's brief independence from authority. My male students are more likely to think Holden is 'cool' while the female students are more likely to want to take care of him or analyze his issues.

[Darren]

Rita wrote: "I finished this book utterly unable to connect to any aspect of it: character, plot, or style of prose. I remember thinking there was possibly something wrong with me. Every "well-read" person I kn..."

It's like Citizen Kane. Always regarded as one of, if not the best film ever made. When it's actually just a very good film. But decades of myth building by people who were handed the book by their peers and didn't want to turn around and tell them that it was just okay after they has told them it was amazing have built a false image of this book as a masterpiece. At one point it might have been groundbreaking and edgy, but today? Barely registers.

[Monty J]

CITR's been on the Modern Library Top 100 Novels list for decades. Presently #64. Must be there for a reason.

Cumulative sales are over 65 million, incrementing annually by 250,000. Must be a lot of lemmings out there.

Strange also how people who like it can cite precisely why and those who don't can't seem to manage words to explain why.

[Mark]

Darren wrote: "You're chasing me around because you don't like that I found the book boring? Does that take away from your love of the book? No. You enjoyed it, fair enough."

I suppose what I'm suggesting or struggling toward is that there has to be some form of literary criticism that goes beyond an individual's subjective response to the work.

If not it seems that all art is doomed to be judged in an unpredictable and ever changing field of petty narcissism.

Here's an example of what I'm trying to say from my own perspective: I hate Opera as a musical form (many people do). It's visceral. It makes me wince. But I would consider myself a blue ribbon prize ass hat if I were to maintain the opinion that all of Opera is worthless, bad and irredeemable art. To those who are naturally inclined to enjoy it, to those who are schooled to better understand it (or some combination thereof), its beauties are revealed, its mysteries open up.

So, you don't like Catcher in the Rye. I can dig it. That doesn't automatically negate the artistic or literary merit of the work. So you hated it (and can't explain why, apparently), but how does that equate into the book "not being a classic?"

Are we to consider your likes and dislikes as the sole arbiter of what is and isn't a classic? Don't you think that seems a little bit too much of a high horse for you to be riding, brother Darren?

There's a difference between people who understand a book and don't like it and people who don't understand a book and don't like it. Anyone who vociferously bashes a book in this forum but doesn't explain in some detail what they found lacking about it is, to me, automatically suspect as the latter.

As far as Citizen Kane and how you feel that today it "barely registers": if you've decided to live your life reading books, seeing films and listening to music with a refusal (or inability?) to bring any sort of historical context to your experience of the art in question, I pity you.

You're writing is, at times, unclear and awkward, by the way.

"But decades of myth building by people who were handed the book by their peers and didn't want to turn around and tell them that it was just okay after they has told them it was amazing have built a false image of this book as a masterpiece."

No person who writes a sentence like this is going to convince me they have any business saying what should and shouldn't be a classic.

[Monty J]

It is the reality of the artists' world that...

"Everyone has an opinion, including people who wouldn't know a masterpiece if it bit them in the ass, people who couldn't wield a pen or a paintbrush or a baton if their life depended on it and haven't the slightest concept of the suffering an artist may have gone through to lay bare his most tender feelings for them to blaspheme. And the artist, having invested merely his heart, health, sweat, fortune, and soul can only stand by and watch the critics hack away.

And the artist, having invested merely his heart, health, life, fortune and soul can only stand by and watch the critics hack away."

(From my review of The Old Man and the Sea)

[Lisa]

Teaching The Catcher in The Rye to my alternative high school students this month and they are liking it as they feel the angst Holden felt as he struggled with loss of a childs innocence as he entered adulthood.Much of the power of Salinger’s novel arises from the honesty and convincingness of his main character. Holden’s narrative voice lures readers to become actively involved with his actions and attitudes. Through a skillful use of vernacular and truthful observations, Salinger makes us believe in and ache for Holden. He becomes on the one hand, a unique character and on the other, a universal Everyman.
In this respect, Holden serves as a character like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who can be reinterpreted each generation. The comparison with Hamlet is particularly apt since, like the Prince, Holden’s major dilemma is trying to cope with society’s corruption and deceit. In both cases, the characters do find peace, but only within their own souls. Is it a picaresque novel? Perhaps as Holden does wander and come in contact with so many classes of people. Salinger took 10 years to develop the character of Holden wwho dis appear in shorter works. Salinger almost pulled the book when publishers found the character too dark. I love the novel and Holden so much that my oldest son is named after him although the delivery room nurses thought it was after a soap character that I had never seen or heard of. I think we all know some phony people and have searched for our truth and he seems in the end to be a "nice guy".

[Lara]

Lisa wrote: "Teaching The Catcher in The Rye to my alternative high school students this month and they are liking it as they feel the angst Holden felt as he struggled with loss of a childs innocence as he ent..."

One of my favorite ways to connect my students with Holden is to have them journal about their own daily experiences using Holden's voice. They hyperbolize and satirize and complain about their own circumstances, but in a way that challenges them to be more thoughtful about why they feel the way they do. It is also good practice for their own creative fiction, and I get to read some darn entertaining pieces of writing.

[Susan]

OK, I disliked the character and the book as much as any of you. I swear, if that whiny kid had finished another sentence with "It really is", or "They really do," one more time, I was going to tear out the book's spine and throw into the mulch pile. We see kids like this portrayed all the time - Holden has become the rule, rather than the exception.

So why is this book so damn special? And why was it so censored?

Because, as was pointed out many posts above, such characters didn't *exist* in literature of the time. It was the 40s and 50s - kids were squeaky clean Wally and The Beav types, and that was really it. Teen angst existed, created then as now by the social traditions of parental indifference and materialism, but went unrecognized. In such a social clime, this book would have hit like a bomb. And hit like a bomb it did, pushing the limits of social acceptability for strong and sexual language, but especially for destroying the flimsy public image of adolescence as a continuation of the trust and malleability of childhood, describing in full the dark side of a time of powerlessness and isolation. For that reason it is literally a seminal work, a milestone, and deserves recognition as such.

In this modern era of course, where Holden has been cloned into every teen idol for the last 25 years, he's not the avatar he used to be, but it was ironically his very advent that ushered in the adolescent paradigm that makes us so tired of him by page 3.

So yeah, I still hated it.

[Mark]

Susan wrote: "OK, I disliked the character and the book as much as any of you. I swear, if that whiny kid had finished another sentence with "It really is", or "They really do," one more time, I was going to tea..."

That's the stuff. I liked the book and it's special to me, but I don't hold anything so holy that I don't want to read criticism of it ... if it's intelligent criticism.

So THANK YOU!

[Philip]

Susan

I enjoyed reading your excellent and succinct take on why the book took off.

So what's with the enduring appeal?

[Mayank]

DEJA VU

[Lara]

Well said Susan. Although I personally enjoy Holden's voice for the snarky humor, and sympathize with him as a character, You made some good points. It reminds me a bit of William Golding's concept for Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Flies. After reading the 'acceptable' adventure stories to his son, in which boys became noble and wise through danger, he decided to explore what would really happen if they were left to their own devices.

[Monty J]

Philip wrote: "Susan

So what's with the enduring appeal?"

Thanks, Philip for posting such an intriguing question. Why do some books endure?

It may be useful to compare CITR and four other durables: Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, Jonathan Livingston Seagull and The Outsiders.

1) A marketing strategy that targets young adults may account for some of it. Fresh young minds are more malleable and haven't had the time for prejudice and political/cultural bias to seize up their gears.

2) Academic entrenchment has to be a factor. It's hard to get on that list, but once a book gets accepted in the academic community, it's equally hard to get removed.

3) Clearly, quality of writing is a secondary consideration, given the range exhibited in our sample of five. To each his or her own, but I found Hinton and Golding to be well below Salinger and Lee in readability.

Which leaves the basics of: 4) character, 5) plot and 6) setting, in that order. Then there's 7)theme, or premise--the book's message about the human condition.

CITR has a lot going for it on all seven levels, but I suspect the academic pull has much to do with the book's durability. Teachers (and those who teach teachers) apparently think CITR as a lot to offer on every level. I can't find a significant flaw in it, whereas I can in each of the others.

The one strong element that all five books share is theme or premise. They each have something useful, if not profound, to say about the human condition. Why read a book if you can't learn something useful about life? (It's a rhetorical question. Please don't answer.)

[Alyaa]

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..."

omg I felt that way too! It's a huge disappointment :c

[Damon]

Catcher in the rye is an amazing book! There is nothing to "get" other than just relating to teenage angst that we have all had. All I know is that my teenage son had lost interest in reading. Then I gave him this book, and he has been a Big reader ever since. The book is also very funny at parts.

[Mark]

If you're interested in some ideas from both an accomplished--dare I say "classic"?--author and, I assume with reasonable confidence, a reader of wide scope about how readers (and writers) can raise themselves above the mundane and ordinary, I urge you to read this essay by Vladimir Nabokov. Skip the "questions to consider while reading" section at the top to get right to the real show.

I didn't occur to me until I read Andela's post that most everyone who has had something to say in this thread, whether they enjoyed the book or not, seems to be fixated on how easy and enjoyable or how difficult if not impossible it is to identify and empathize with the character of Holden.

Is it possible that Salinger's intent was to do more than create a character any one of us could identify and empathize with? Is it possible that this really wasn't Salinger's intent at all? If characters are also vehicles through which a story is told (and in my opinion they obviously are), we need not identify with, empathize with or even "like" them as a requirement for a novel or play or poem to be of literary merit.

Hamlet is not an easy character with which to identify and empathize. In the light of day once you have freed yourself entirely from the omnipotent intimacy of his first person voice, is Alex from Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange someone you identify with, someone you "like"? Are the play or the dystopian novella of less artistic value because the main characters are people with whom most of us would probably not want to go out and have a few beers with? (Please note that it's not my intention here to elevate the work of Burgess to the level of Shakespeare, I just went for top of mind examples.)

Insisting that focal characters, even protagonists, be of a sort that we as readers can easily achieve some sort of chummy rapport with strikes me as the attitude of a spoiled child petulantly demanding egocentrically aimed entertainment rather than the attitude of a thoughtful reader.

In the aforementioned essay, Nabokov breaks a writers' role into three categories: to tell a story, to impart a lesson and to "enchant".

One of the points of Catcher in the Rye is to impart the lesson that part of maturity, part of being a fully realized and authentic human being in society, is to avoid the idea of being overly prescriptive. That a body shouldn't "catch a body coming through the rye" but instead "meet a body coming through the rye." Maybe the lesson doesn't appeal to you. Perhaps you didn't find the story that was told while the lesson was being imparted all that good. Maybe you were absolutely disenchanted. That's fine. But I don't think it makes sense to say that the book was without merit because the character Holden wasn't as cuddly as Justin Bieber, or as slyly affable as Alan Alda's Hawkeye on M*A*S*H, or as avuncularly wise as Martin Sheen's Josiah Bartlet. If that's what you're looking for, try sucking your thumb when you read your next book. You might enjoy it more.

[Redd]

It was a book from a different time, they didn't have an entire television channel on teen alienation yet

My webcomic: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/