The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
Mark, you wrote" is Alex from Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange someone you identify with, someone you "like"?"
without acknowledging that many people certainly DO identify with Alex. And LIKE him! Alex's cool, especially when he brags about his own strengths and weaknesses.
Similarly, Holden's a total wimp, yet tons of people identify with him. He's like the original and ultimate Orange County Nerd. Lotsa girlies just love that. Rich boy, see.
But surely Hamlet's the archetypal role model for ALL dem disaffected teens? Isn' putting 'im to rights what da yout is a' about?
BTW, muchos thankos for the Nabokov and U.Texas links.
Philip wrote: "Mark, you wrote" is Alex from Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange someone you identify with, someone you "like"?"
without acknowledging that many people certainly DO identify with Alex. And LIK..."
Agreed. That's why I went to the trouble to write, "once you have freed yourself entirely from the omnipotent intimacy of his first person voice," which I think is Burgess's secret to making Alex so likeable even though he is a nasty, evil bastard. It's the triumph of the book and the movie. There's a subtextual meditation on charisma in that book.
You're welcome for the link. Glad you enjoyed reading the essay. Cheers!
I 'get' this book, I just simply don't like it.
I don't like it and don't get it. I don't understand what the fuss is about that makes this book an American classic? I found it quite insipid!
The point of this book is the whole theme of coming of age, and in order to really, really appreciate it, it must be read at different stages in life. Read it every time you go through a big change, and you'll understand why it's so important. The whole idea of it is that things change as we change and grow. As for the character of Holden, you either love him or hate him--there's no in-between.
I was in middle school the first time I read it, and didn't get it then. I've since read it now that I'm older and it's one of my favorite books.
Philip, would you please expand on this 'ultimate and original Orange County Nerd' idea?And Mark, I as well appreciate the links. I'll be teaching Am Lit next semester (well, beginning next week actually) and found resources and ideas galore!
I was thoroughly frustrated with Holden Caulfield; in fact I wanted to smack him several times and tell him to grow up But that's the point of the book: he needs to grow up. We're given a character sketch of a thoroughly self centered grouch, which is a microcosm of the true nature of man, as seen through an unfiltered approach. While this is not very revolutionary in our liberated post-modern society, in which shock value just isn't the same, this would have been a shocking look into the "secret world" of self-expression. His failure to acknowledge his own shortcomings, even when his sister blatantly points it out, was the best part of the work to me, even though I was a little more than mildly frustrated that there were 169 pages of seemingly pointless "events." However at that point, I began to understand what Sallinger was pushing at, and my opinion changed on the book a bit. It was not a book that I would say that I thoroughly enjoyed; however I would say that it is a book that should be appreciated for what it is
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 did not get it and was very disappointed in the book.
There are a couple of reasons why someone may think this book is overrated. Firstly, it is written as a "slice of life" or vignette. A reader will be disappointed if they expect to find plot or character growth common to most stories. The power of this style of writing is how it focuses on a single idea and doesn't bother to mask it behind allegory or metaphor. Another factor is that this book, like all groundbreaking works of creativity, has inspired many variations. Others have have built upon and arguably improved the style that this book popularized. Revolutionary creations like Mel Brooks' movies, Buick motors, and penicillin may seem average, or even weak, in retrospect. But that is only because others have spent decades building off of the original ideas that they created.
Robin wrote: "True."I read it when i was 16 (in Sydney) and it remains one of my favourite books (i am 44 now... hahaha). I guess what i liked about it, is the anti-establishment kind of direction plus the stream of consciousness writing. Another aspect is that it is one of the few books i had ever read written in the 2nd person (so there is a feel of the author "talking" with you...) Anyway i guess it all comes down to personal preference and whether a work speaks to to you...
No matter how hard an author tries to imbue his or her work with what to him or her is a very important and obvious message about the human condition, the author may fail simply because a reader lacks the capacity to comprehend it or misconstrues the story's basic truths.CTR obviously meant something unusual to those two young men who had copies of the book when one killed John Lennon and the other shot President Reagan. Perhaps this meant they were looking for answers. Their value systems were running amok, and Holden's angst resonated with their sense of being lost and unable to cope with the phoniness of life.
In Atlas Shrugged we are given a simple solution to all decisions, do only what is in your self interest. But that's in direct conflict what we are taught by most religions in the Judeo-Christian world, to do unto others as you would have done unto you and love thy neighbor as thyself. People who haven't yet learned to reconcile self interest with the common good can be thrown into mental conflict and feel angst. Maybe this is why some people don't like Holden/CITR; it doesn't offer answers. It just describes how it feels to be lost. Holden reminds them too much of themselves and they can't bear having their raw basic feelings exposed for the world to jeer at.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book! Holden's fails to connect his attitude with his strife but that's why we love him. His sarcasm and view on the establishment are so genuine. It's one of the few books that is brilliant without much of a plot. It's all about dialogue and simple relationships. Holden is struggling through youth just like we all do and did at one time. Shocker: I recommended it to my step son (who seems to behold the Holden opinions) and he didn't like it. I guess it's out of date in many ways, even though the message is universal.
Lara wrote: "Philip, would you please expand on this 'ultimate and original Orange County Nerd' idea?Sorry, Lara! That was just a flippant, throwaway remark. The kind of thing I look at the next day and cringe, vowing never again, no, never. And do I ever learn?
What I think I was getting at was how the whole teen angst thing eventually trended into popular culture and made heroes of the sort of youngsters who were always shunned for their pimples and stutters. A few years ago (when I watched TV), there was a series on over here called "The O.J." (I think), imported from the USA. It was full of rich kids agonising over the emptiness of their thoroughly spoilt lives. It was highly addictive until I weaned myself off it by lecturing my wife and kids on Situationist origins of Punk Rock.
In truth, never saw a real teenager crying behind the wheel of their Range Rover Evoque, but then again I'm just an old fart who probably needs to read "Catcher In The Rye" again after all these years. Sorry, I'm being flippant again.
I started reading this book thinking I would really enjoy it. A lot of friends had recommended this book and I knew it was a classic. I really wanted to like this story, but I was extremely disappointed after reading it. I don't think it's always necessary for you to relate to the main character to appreciate a story. If that was the case, I wouldn't have liked as many books as I have. So, the fact that I didn't relate to Holden was not the main reason to dislike The Catcher in the Rye. I thought the main character was too plain, too uninteresting, and I felt the story was going nowhere. I was expecting so much more...
Anahí wrote: "I started reading this book thinking I would really enjoy it. A lot of friends had recommended this book and I knew it was a classic. I really wanted to like this story, but I was extremely disappo..."Sounds legit. I'm not wailing away on my keyboard because I insist that people LIKE the book and recognize it for the well organized work that it is. Different strokes. I just buy in to the "don't criticize what you don't understand" idea in a big way (that line given to us, of course, by Brother Zimmy).
Lol...glad to know I'm not the only one who just doesn't get why this book is so revered...It has come up often in reading infamous bios(ie., Mark David Chapman--John Lennon's murderer) that they were obsessed with this book & strongly identified with Holden; so, I finally read it to see what the all the hoopla was about. I was a teen in the 60's & maybe I should've read it back then, because in my 50's, it felt like a frustrating waste of my time. But, maybe I'll give it another try to see if I change my mind...?! Yeah, right after I finish reading "War&Peace" ;)
I read this book in middle school. I remember thinking that the language was funny (because of all the four letter words), but the ending seemed to leave me hollow. Then I read it again in college for a psychology class and it brought a WHOLE new perspective on the book. It helped me to better understand Holden's journey in the story. Even though I can't remember the whole story for the life of me, I remember having many, many "a-ha!" moments during reading and class discussions when I read it for my psychology class. It turned out to be a VERY interesting book. I would read it again if I didn't have such a long book list and so little time to read.
CC wrote: "I read this book in middle school. I remember thinking that the language was funny (because of all the four letter words), but the ending seemed to leave me hollow. Then I read it again in coll..."
Thanks for posting, CC. I'm glad to see that the book has the attention of the psychology profession.
Janie wrote: "This book is known as one of the very first young adult fiction novels, written for teens. Also, mind, that it has a LOT of symbolism that maybe is supposed to give us the big picture in life (reg..."I don't think Salinger wrote this book with a specific audience, other than general readers of literature, in mind. And the idea of adolescent literature or whatever it is and has been called through the evolution of the genre (and the market sector) had, as far as I know, not yet solidified at the time of publication. Do you know from some source other than what you independently surmise that it was "written for teens"? If so, please share.
Janie wrote: "This book is known as one of the very first young adult fiction novels, written for teens. Also, mind, that it has a LOT of symbolism that maybe is supposed to give us the big picture in life (reg..."First lines of the Wikipedia entry, which cites a reputable source: "The Catcher in the Rye is a 1951 novel by J. D. Salinger.[3] Originally published for adults, it has since become popular with adolescent readers for its themes of teenage confusion, angst, alienation,[4] and rebellion.[5]"
This book was not written for teens, although it has been embraced by many through the generations, but that probably has a lot to do with how it became popular in high school and college Lit course reading lists (which is how teens found out about it) and the fact that the intense first person narrating protagonist is a teen himself.
You have to pay attention to the symbolism in this book to "get" it. Look past the seemingly whining teenager who feels like he's been dealt a bad hand. Here's one example of the hard-to-catch symbolism: the "fuck you's" he runs into, first at the elementary school Phoebe attends. He tries to erase it, but then he comes across another one that's scratched into the wall. He's told Phoebe he wants to grow up and be a "catcher in the rye," and this is an example of him trying to be just that. Holden is attempting to save children from losing their innocence. He blames some "sick homeless pervert" wrote that 'fuck you' on the school wall, when in reality a rebellious 3rd grader probably wrote it. He wants to believe that all children are pure because that is the only age group Holden can get along with. They haven't been tainted by society, and he'd like to keep it that way. He runs into another 'fuck you' at the museum, and he realizes there is no way to escape that graffiti. He mentions that someone will probably scratch onto his grave; he's realizing he can't save a child's innocence. They're on their own, they make their own decisions. Holden is finally growing up and accepting life.
There are tons of symbolism hidden in this book just like that. It's so much more than a depressed teenager. You just have to look a little more closely.
:)
It's about a youth experiencing loss for the first time in his life and not knowing how to express that loss into words. I totally got it as a teenager and just reread it this summer as an old lady and found it even more poignant.
I thought it was whiny and depressing. It was too negative and that's why I hated the book. But I feel like I should give it another chance though. I might 'get' it this time.
Jessica wrote: "You have to pay attention to the symbolism in this book to "get" it. Look past the seemingly whining teenager who feels like he's been dealt a bad hand. Here's one example of the hard-to-catch sy..."
I'd like to take you up on that, because it is exactly this kind of "symbolism" which I find thoroughly second rate and facile. What you say is wholly valid, namely that there are a lot of allusions and references in the book, which have, if one will, a symbolic value, and you give an example. My reaction to that is frankly, "big deal". It is not difficult to use the expletive you refer to in order to demonstrate symbolically the kind of world to which the innocent (or those whom our hero describes as innocent) will be exposed. So, I think that when we talk about "not getting" the book, we should distingusih between not understanding the book and not understanding how it has come to be so successful. A lot of people mean not that they do not understand the book or what it is attempting, but they do not understand why it has been so popular. It is the cult of this poorly written romp which surprises me/us I think. In addition, I find the self-importance of the hero (and probably his self-importance is his creator's too) distasteful. Why does he think he is so special or worthy of attention? So far as I can remember, all he does is moan and snipe. He is asymbol himself. He symbolises a generation of whiners. Maybe that is the reason for this obnoxious adolescent's popularity. Hard words and now I realise that I have been talking a bit like he did, self assured and moaning! So maybe the book has a kind of surreptitious persuasiveness after all. That would help to explain its success too.
Beanne wrote: "I thought it was whiny and depressing. It was too negative and that's why I hated the book. But I feel like I should give it another chance though. I might 'get' it this time."Beanne wrote: "I thought it was whiny and depressing. It was too negative and that's why I hated the book. But I feel like I should give it another chance though. I might 'get' it this time."
When you say "get" do you mean understand it or understand its success? I doubt you will enjoy it more. There are many other books to be read. For my part I would not wish to give it a second chance. I agree entirely with you that it is whiny and depressing.
Esdaile wrote: "Beanne wrote: "I thought it was whiny and depressing. It was too negative and that's why I hated the book. But I feel like I should give it another chance though. I might 'get' it this time."Bean..."
I mean, understand the whole point of it. When I read the book, I was waiting for something else to happen. Like a revelation of some kind, but nothing happened. To me it felt like Holden didn't find what he's supposed to find. Anyway, you're right about reading other books. But if I find time, I just MIGHT read this one again.
Beanne wrote: "Okay, wait. This video really makes sense.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66eQL..."
I just watched this video (link above) interpreting The Catcher in the Rye. It's got some pretty good analysis. A little on the frenetic side, but decent overall given the brief time allowed.
But I've got an issue though with describing the scene with Mr. Antolini as sexual abuse. It's irritating to think that a man can't pat a kid on the head without people making it into something. A woman can stroke a boy's hair and it's fine. But let a man breathe on a kid and the world comes down on him. That's rotten. Men care about children too, and they can be just as loving and nurturing. Well, short of breast feeding, but plenty of women refuse to breastfeed.
I think Holden's reaction was way over the top, but we know how unreliable he is.
(I'm digressing, but Salinger would approve.)
In that scene, Holden pushed away the only person who had recognized his panic and expressed empathy and concern and gave him great advice and a place to crash.
Remember, it was Antolini who was there when James Castle committed suicide, and he covered the body with his coat and carried it away, proof that he was a compassionate man. Patting Holden on the head is hardly a gay pass when he knew Holden as well as he did. Like a doofus, Holden overreacts and leaves.
What I'm saying to the guy who made the video is: Don't blame Antolini for Holden's touchiness.
Nevertheless, Holden took it the way he did and rejected a valid and valuable adult source of solace and consolation, not to mention world class advice. There's a lesson in this: Sometime we misinterpret good intentions out of mistrust and are the worse for it.
The teenage years are when we reject our parents and look for answers outside the family/extended family circle of comfort and trust. They've lied to us about Santa Claus and the Boogey Man; what else have they been lying about? We've begun noticing their flaws and started looking elsewhere for answers. We want to be prepared for life, for making our own decisions. The hypocrisy (phoniness) within our formerly godlike inner circle of family has discredited them. Who can we trust? Where are the answers? And so today we pick up books like Dianetics and Atlas Shrugged and Hunger Games.
This teenage crisis period of searching is brilliantly rendered by Salinger in the character of Holden Caulfield.
What if a person we're observing is gay? Does that mean he/she's a pervert, a pedophile, that you can't trust what he/she says? Crapolla! as Holden would say.
I like to think that Salinger would be a lot like Mr. Antolini.
Esdaile wrote: "Jessica wrote: "You have to pay attention to the symbolism in this book to "get" it. Look past the seemingly whining teenager who feels like he's been dealt a bad hand. Here's one example of the ..."
Beanne, Esdaile, Bueller ... Bueller ...
First of all, in the context of literature and the analysis of it, I think that a reference, as far as I can tell, means mentioning something, referring to it. You can refer to something directly or indirectly. An allusion is a little less of a generic term in that it means "an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly." You might say that all allusions are references of a sort, but not all references are allusions.
A symbol is different from an allusion, I think, in that it is a physical object or phenomenon described that represents or stands for something else, often something abstract. As in a middle finger sticking out of a clenched fist, at least in American culture of today, is a symbol of defiance and rejection, usually of whatever said fist and finger is directed toward.
Isn't it important to make those kind of distinctions as well as make a distinction between why some of us may not "get" the novel and why some of us may not "get" why the novel is popular (it's beyond popular, btw, it's an enduringly celebrated novel (although that's largely fueled by it being embraced by American Lit courses, high school English curriculum, etc.)?
I really try to not be a flaming crank in this discussion, but while I can understand anyone who didn't like this book or connect with it, I cannot understand the sheer hubris of dismissing a widely acknowledged literary achievement as bad without backing that assessment up with more than "I didn't like it; I thought it was whiny."
Well, boo friggin' hoo. Are you the new arbitrator of literary merit!
Some of us don't even take the time to weed the typos out of our poorly written romps of posts. Who are people with such a cavalier relationship to the written word to be judges of what is and isn't poor writing?
Geez.
There's a fine line between being a whiny teen and having an identity crisis. Honestly, I don't know where that is. Check out my webcomic: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...
Mark wrote: I cannot understand the sheer hubris of dismissing a widely acknowledged literary achievement as bad without backing that assessment up with more than "I didn't like it; I thought it was whiny."Welcome to Goodreads. Or rather, welcome to literary criticism as a whole; in my experience most people aren't reading for anything other than consumable entertainment, and feel like "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" is the end goal, is what matters. Liking or connecting with a book is what GIVES a book merit to most people, because they don't understand that a statement can be worth hearing even if you don't agree with it.
We're given these great books in HS and College and told to read them and given rudimentary Starting Points on them, but since next month we need to read another book, literature is treated as disposable, something you can just "figure out" and move on. This is why so many people are offended by the concept of motivations, themes, prose, really anything at all about a novel existing other than simply "the actions taken that form the plot".
Derek, that was excellent! So true about high school & college reading. I never thought of it that way.
Derek wrote: "Mark wrote: I cannot understand the sheer hubris of dismissing a widely acknowledged literary achievement as bad without backing that assessment up with more than "I didn't like it; I thought it wa..."I agree and disagree. I am a college freshman, and teachers have told me that my penchant for literary analysis exceeds that of high school and college levels. Some people read for entertainment, others read for education, hoping to gain something from the literary merit of a book. However, I do feel that literary merit is based on opinion, and is variant from person to person. If you do or do not like a book, there has to be a reason why, and "it just didn't interest me" is, in fact, a sufficient answer. I have read many a book that I could not get into at all, that many other people would rave on and on about as a 'classic piece of written art'. Not everyone is an inherent literature enthusiast or an analyst, and readers are just entitled to their thoughts about a specific work as the authors who created the work are entitled to their freedom of expression through writing.
Derek wrote: "Welcome to Goodreads. Or rather, welcome to literary criticism as a whole; in my experience ..."Cait wrote: "I agree and disagree. I am a college freshman, and teachers have told me that my ..."
First of all Derek and Cait, bless you both for writing something coherent and thoughtful.
Cait, I think you're right that every reader is entitled to express their thoughts, to like or not like a work of fiction, etc. I don't know if I want to accept the entertainment/education dichotomy completely. "Education" makes it sound so sanctified, stuffy and of one institution or another. Maybe it's more a case of "understanding." If you have, or at least seek, a deeper understanding of a work of fiction (if it's the sort of fiction that allows that pursuit), isn't it more mentally engaging, more interesting and, therefore, more entertaining?
A long time ago I was surprised when in conversation with a co-worker about movies we had liked or not liked, he said, "well, I don't like movies where I have to think, y'know?"
I had to bite my tongue to hold back my question in response: "how is it that you find you're able to stop?"
True a good movie or a good book can "take us out of ourselves" to the point where we're suspending any introspection about the narrative, but when we return to ourselves, we think about it. Even if it was a crappy movie or a book.
I'm babbling and going nowhere fast here, but thanks for your thoughtful posts.
Just finished reading it and I'm around HOlden's age. It doesn't really resonate with me but that doesn't mean it isn't a great book. I thought it was good and I can see the appeal it had back in the 50's and even to people now. I just didn't really ehjoy the book, it may have been the writing style. The narrator was jumping from topic to topic and I wish he'd slow down with his thoughts a little.There are teens today that would totally relate to Holden, hating "phonies" among other things they find wrong with society.
I guess the only thing I took from the book was Holden's desire to just keep everything it is, to avoid adult hood. He didn't want to become an adult, partly due to all the phonies and his bad encounters with adults all his life.
I must admit, John Green's crash course on this book opened my eyes to central themes that I just didn't get the first time I read the book, like all Holden wanted was someone to listen to him and I guess we all were/are in that position.
Stephanie wrote: "Just finished reading it and I'm around HOlden's age. It doesn't really resonate with me but that doesn't mean it isn't a great book. I thought it was good and I can see the appeal it had back in t..."Careful with Green. He's good, but his is only one interpretation. He regurgitates what they teach in academia, and academia is brimming with group-think. Go straight to the book and listen to how it speaks to you. Wait a few years, then reread it. You'll be amazed at how the book seems to change, but it hasn't. You have.
For example, I don't agree that Holden was resisting change and avoiding adulthood. That's bs. He liked to do adult things, like drinking and going to nightclubs and theater performances. He lied about his age and seems proud that he has a streak of grey hair and can pass for an adult. Seeking the company of a prostitute is adult behavior. He sought out adult company and conversation at the nightclub and with the nuns. He joked with the kids at the museum. He was comfortable and confident with children and adults. He was just going through some stuff internally that spoiled everything, everything but his time with Phoebe.
I think Green misinterprets Holden's comment about the museum and liking it that some things should never change. He was talking about that deja vu feeling you get when you go to some familiar place after being away a long time. It's like when you go away to college and come back home to familiar sights and sounds, like the drive-in where you used to cruise. Or you visit the neighborhood you grew up in.
That diorama with the bare breasted squaw was a landmark for him. It's like in Breakfast at Tiffany's when Holly Golightly goes to hang out in front of Tiffany's in the wee hours of the morning to cure "the mean reds." It was a place that made her feel secure.
We all have our favorite familiar landmarks. That's what Holden was getting at. And yet Green and the academics cite it as evidence that Holden was resisting maturity. Nah. Holden wanted to be an adult. He wanted to move to a cabin in the woods where he could invite just the people he liked. And, coincidentally, that's precisely what J.D. Salinger did later in life. He died in a secluded cabin in the woods that only special people could come and visit.
My two cents. That and a cup of coffee... .
The book is in my list of all time favorites.The reason is simple. To me it resonates with my belief that the 'real world is not binary'. There are all shades out there.
It amazes me when folks can so easily form definite opinions on anything under the sun.
To me Holden is a perceptive guy, unwilling to accept 'hand-me-down wisdom' and questions everything.
That's good, I feel. You need to discover your own truth.
I always liked this Einstein quote:
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Monty J wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "Just finished reading it and I'm around HOlden's age. It doesn't really resonate with me but that doesn't mean it isn't a great book. I thought it was good and I can see the appea..."Monty J wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "Just finished reading it and I'm around HOlden's age. It doesn't really resonate with me but that doesn't mean it isn't a great book. I thought it was good and I can see the appea..."
I like your two cents; I watched John's video before I read the book so I was constantly looking for hints that he didn't want to grow up. I was so confused though, he smokes, drinks and does other adult things, he even wanted to just drop school, run away and get a job somewhere.
I never studied the book in school so I don't know what the academia's take on the book is.
That being said, there isn't much I can relate to in this book after all, there are so many different interpretations of the book, it's hailed as a classic and I kinda feel dumb for not seeing why.
Could this book have popularized teen angst? Seems like it, it's the only reason I can think of as to why this book is a classic.
Stephanie wrote: "Could this book have popularized teen angst? Seems like it, it's the only reason I can think of as to why this book is a classic."Like East of Eden and Ordinary People and Rebel Without a Cause, CITR is a classic because it authentically portrays the struggles of people in a certain place and time in a way that gives insight into the human condition. And the quality of the writing is exceptional, although first-person point of view is a challenge for most young readers. The book is also very compact. A lot happens in four days, and we're trapped in Holden's head.
It is a very difficult book for a teenager to comprehend. It's an adult book that academia keeps throwing at teenagers because of what it says about the challenges of teenagers.
CITR depicts an upper-middle-class male in an urban setting going through a crisis. He's overwhelmed by the pressures of becoming an adult, but too much has been thrown at him at once. He hasn't gotten over the death of his beloved younger brother, Allie, when he witnesses the suicide of a dormitory mate, James Castle. He's been traumatized and can't function. How much can a guy take?
He's looking for answers and can't seem to get them, like Conrad Jarret in Ordinary People and Jim Stark in Rebel Without a Cause. (All three boys struggled with the death people they cared about.) And the one person Holden respects and looks to for help, Mr. Antolini, he mistakes for a pervert, a threat. It's too much; so Holden withdraws. He wants to go live in a cabin in the woods, which is a metaphor for "Time-out! I need a break!" Phoebe rescues him with unconditional love. She accepts him no matter what. If she'd been a brat, think how different the book would be. The message would have been entirely different.
Holden goes from being antagonistic and cynical to empathetic. He wants to protect children. But the trip has been too exhausting and he ends up in a rest home.
Cal, in East of Eden is another example of a teenage boy in a crisis, acting out, doing strange things. But all four of these books/films are about males. The world of teenage girls is different; so all the guy stuff (fighting, jealousy, posing, possessiveness, etc.) may not come across for the female reader.
Anahí wrote: "I started reading this book thinking I would really enjoy it."I could be all wet, but I suspect this is a strongly generational book. Caulfield is a baby boomer, self-absorbed, impractical, idealistic--the opposite of the next generation, the GenXers. I would like to see a poll of likes/dislikes based on generation.
I knew that I was reading a really good book but I felt disconnected from the book at the same time. It is very much a book of its time, generation and economic class. I could feel the characters angst but I was removed somehow. Still, a very good book to read to become sensitized to another generation or even just the human condition.
Didn't get it either. Glad I'm not the only one.Care to found a support group?
'It is a very difficult book for a teenager to comprehend. It's an adult book that academia keeps throwing at teenagers because of what it says about the challenges of teenagers.' Monty JI agree totally. When one of my chums was commenting on the book and saying that it was for teenagers, I disagreed.
The traumatic episodes in Holden's life made him grow up pretty fast. Salinger essentially captures this transition phase and captures the angst pretty well.
I believe the age of Holden enhanced the appeal of the book. But it is not really relevant. Adults/everyone undergoes such confusing phases in life when things don't go our way.
I think Catcher is an acquired taste. I never succeeded in acquiring that taste though.
I think all of the cussing was a bit much for that day and age. That is usually the kind of thing that makes a book a "classic"; anything out of the ordinary for the age in which it was first published. Controversial topics and such tend to cause a book to remembered. I do believe this book is WAY overrated. I think the high point is when his little sister brings his suitcase to him with all of HER stuff in it. That got me, but the rest of the book was dull, boring, and repetitive.
Many here make good points. CITR was, as said, an out of the ordinary book, innovative in use of swearing and its themes, but aimed at the YA (a term that didn't exist) market of that time (Boomer generation). I gave it 5* then. Like many classics of yore, if I read it again now, I might be equally as bored by it as some of the GenX younger folks who don't like it/don't get it.
I can find absolutely no persuasive evidence from any credible source that when this book was published it was aimed at the Young Adolescent Literature market. I don't know that is true and I suspect it is not. So if you're going to blithely make such a statement as if it's a well known fact, back it up with some attribution or sourced material OR admit it's simply conjecture on your part.
Wow - when I saw the title of this thread, I just had to read the posts.I completely understand there are a number of factors that will affect how this book strikes the reader. Many classics are difficult to read because the situations are so alien or the prose is so unfamiliar. Catcher in the Rye was ground-breaking in its time but is probably quaint in comparison to contemporary literature of its kind.
I first read it as a young teen in the 1970s. And I loved it. I read it over and over again throughout high school. The concepts of alienation, uncertainty, anxiety, expectation, lack of support, and social angst were so apropos.
I suggested it to my book group in the late 1990s because I was amazed so many people had not read it. It struck me differently then. I wanted to smack Holden upside the head and help him get himself centered.
Why such different views? Partly it's me. I have grown and matured and my perspective is very different. Partly it's society. Parents are helicopters now. This sort of thing would be so unlikely, since there are so many checks and balances. Kids are taught to use their words and express their feelings and share with adults. And so much of what is shocking is the "adult" behavior that he exhibits. So cute and quaint in 2013 pop culture.
I think it's one more coming-of-age experience that just doesn't resonate for a contemporary teen. I hope, though, that a reader can see beyond the era to try to understand the pain and confusion that is exhibited by Holden's behavior and experiences. Because that is the universal message in this book.
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)
His dynamic feeds directly into the themes of this book. Holden is having trouble growing up. He doesn't want to become an adult, he reacts better to children, he wants to stay a child. I think that although adult world scares him, he tries to fit into it such as when he hired the prostitute...but ultimately "chickened out". That was a crucial moment in the book - he realizes he is not ready for the adult world.
He's really awkward around adults. He kept asking where the ducks in the pond went in the winter to a majority of the adults. It's like Holden attempts to make talk with adults...but still on childish things.
Holden is aware that is innocence is gone, and now wants to keep other children from losing their innocence too soon. The 'catcher in the rye' is a powerful image of him wishing to keep children from going too far into adulthood before ready. (Not talking about sex here, talking in general; keep that in mind*)
You really have to dig deep to get to the core themes of this book. A lot of people read it and take it for face value - it's not a face value kind of book!