Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 651-700 of 1,174

[Timothy]

I beg your pardon, Mark. I wasn't asserting that as a universal truth, but as my opinion, which I freely admit. It was an incredibly popular book among the young adults of my generation, which prompted my opinion. It may not have been intentionally aimed at us by the author or publisher, but we latched onto it. I do not know that the book would fascinate me today as it did when I was young, hence my wondering whether young people of today and the last couple of decades are responding to it differently because of generational differences, cultural differences or whatever. That also is conjectural on my part. I was not attempting an academic debate on the matter, and sorry if should not be speculating like that in this discussion.

[Mark]

Timothy wrote: "I beg your pardon, Mark. I wasn't asserting that as a universal truth, but as my opinion, which I freely admit. It was an incredibly popular book among the young adults of my generation, which pr..."


"but aimed at the YA (a term that didn't exist) market of that time (Boomer generation)."

I don't know how else I'm supposed to take that other than a statement that the book's publishers were aiming specifically at young readers. Nothing in the way you said what you said sounded like speculation to me. I'm not expecting academic debate just clarity of expression. Doesn't seem like a lot to expect.

[Timothy]

Mark, you're absolutely correct. I humbly apologize for offending you with my lack of clarity.

[Bernie]

I believe the theme of inter-generational alienation is timeless. I loved the book when I first read it a long time ago. I would be surprised if I still did nor find it a classic. I would also point out this discussion began more than 18 months ago, surely a test of relevance.

[Tadhg]

I felt the same, but after watching the following video it became clear that there was quite a lot that I missed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66eQL...

[Monty J]

Tadhg wrote: "I felt the same, but after watching the following video it became clear that there was quite a lot that I missed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66eQL..."

Green is good but the problem with his glib, sketchy, frenetic interpretation is that too many people will accept/substitute his academia-driven reactions to the book for their own. It's sad when that happens, because it's very limiting. For example, he misinterprets Mr. Antolini and skips right over Mr. Spencer. And Green doesn't even touch on the extremely important mental health issues raised by the book.

[Joseph]

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 can appreciate where you are coming from. It was the quinessential teen boy book to read and we did not cover it in HS, apparently too much sexual overtones for a Catholic school. I read it as 49 year old middle age man and I have too much life experience to "get it". I can see how it would appeal to my 18 year old nephew. The rejection, not fitting in, struggling to find your sexuality, not having a voice, jealous of the other guys who seem to have it all. The book that I did read 3 times as a teen was A Separate Peace and that moved me, I connected with it. Joe L

[Ann]

The first time I read this book I didn't get it at all and barely made it through and then I went back a few years later knowing that I had to be missing something and it was a completely different story. I understood it, got through it quickly, and I feel that part of peoples disconnect is not being able to put themselves in his shoes. I think that he's ADD and with that would come depression, feeling different, lonely (no one gets you), and it explains the rambling, the telling one story and branching off on another and back and forth along with his brutal honesty. He's impulsive (trying to convince Sally to go with him to Massachusetts and live in cabins on their date or hitch hiking out West and leave everyone and everything behind) and many other signs that just seemed to me to continually point back to ADD. Regardless if I'm right or wrong, I like it and I like that fact that there is so much to it that you can read it over and over and you will always find something you missed.

[Bojana]

I can't believe there are people that can't understand what this book's about. It's about a frustrated teenager who does not simply look at the world like his peers do, but struggles to find his place, desires things most teenagers and even adults don't. I loved the language, it's really symbolic. I can't see why someone won't. The character says whatever is on his mind, something most people, even those who share his thoughts won't allow themselves to do so. It's a classic because it's unique. One and only.

May I add that his name is also a symbol. Look it up people.

[Josh]

Allen wrote: "People with wealth also have their problems. Money shouldn't be the factor."

But the reality is that money is a factor. Nobody cares about the woes of rich people because they can buy happiness. You care about middle- and lower-class people because we're not rich; rather than buy big houses or schmancy cars to make us happy, we need to find something we already have about, be it family, friends, or even family heirlooms.

Something else to consider: do you think Daisy would've reacted to Gatsby at all if he was still poor?

[Monty J]

Josh wrote: "do you think Daisy would've reacted to Gatsby at all if he was still poor? "

No, and I wish Fitzgerald had brought this out in the book. Perhaps he worshiped wealth so much that he couldn't see it.

Fitzgerald lived through the Great Depression and never wrote a line that I've hear of about the struggles of the poor and the middle class, which seems unconscionable. (Hemingway didn't mention the Depression either.)

Fitzgerald's writing seems to reflect an indifference to all but the wealthy. For that reason alone, his work doesn't much interest me. In a way, his work reflects literary snobbery.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "Josh wrote: "do you think Daisy would've reacted to Gatsby at all if he was still poor? "

No, and I wish Fitzgerald had brought this out in the book. Perhaps he worshiped wealth so much that he co..."
Hemingway might not have "mention(ed) the Depression" but he did give some attention to the struggles of the working poor in To Have and Have Not. Do you think it's possible that the subject of the Depression got so little play during that time because publishers let it be known that people who were going through that crap didn't want to read about it? Is it also possible that it would immediately brand you as a political writer, someone trying more to make a statement than create literary art, and so some (like Hem and Fitz) avoided it? I'm woefully ignorant of my history or I'd have a better idea if that might be the case or not.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "... it would immediately brand you as a political writer, someone trying more to make a statement than create literary art, and so some (like Hem and Fitz) avoided it?"

It's possible, but from what I know about Hem and Fitz and John O'Hara, they were just trying to make money writing the best literature they could manage and wrote about what they knew best and cared about most. They didn't know much about the poor. They'd never spent much time around farm workers, for example, as had Steinbeck, who had a love for them, as did Tolstoy, who interacted with daily to manage his estate.

This was good for Steinbeck because it left the door wide open for him, a market gap you could drive a tank through. Did he take a hit by litcrits for being political? Yes, but who needs them. They're bystanders. (Or sharks, as Hem symbolized them in The Old Man and the Sea.)

Political issues can trouble a writer (e.g., Franzen's Freedom or they can enhance his standing (e.g., Tolstoy and Steinbeck.) For my taste, a writer who ignores politics is leaving out something important. They don't have to beat a drum (the first objective is to tell a good story), but great literature (e.g., Anna Karenina, The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men) weaves politics into the fabric of setting. Like religion, it's a part of our lives. Leave it out and realism suffers.

In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway made Jake's struggles with Catholicism part of his character, but he didn't mention any signs, if they existed, of social conflict leading up to the Spanish Civil War ten years later.

Still, your point is valid, as Franzen illustrates with Freedom.

(Thanks for reminding me of To Have and Have Not. That's a hole in my reading list.)

[Gerald]

I didn't get it either. A crashing bore of a book, I gave up after the halfway mark.

[Susan]

This discussion has some interesting tangents to think about!

This was my third time reading "Catcher" - teen, loved it and identified with it; 30s, thought it was overly self-involved and pretentious and that it really was just a teen book; 50s, feel it is a portrait of a truthful, limited, searching, damaged kid - and really a great book.

Also, it's a fascinating look at a kid the same age and living in the same place as my father was (but with more money). It makes me understand why it took so many years for my dad to go out without a tie (and he never did lose the jacket).

So I completely revise my opinion, held for years, that if you hadn't read "Catcher in the Rye" as a teenager, then you had missed your chance. The best is probably to read it as a teen, then again when you have children who are teens. And there are some people who will never get it, and they can read the books that I can't make it through!

[Maud]

Something seems recurrent in the threads on GR, the "I didn't like it so it's crap". Not liking a book, not relating to the characters or the topic doesn't make the book a bad one. I've been a french and literature teacher for a few years now, and all my student life, I've heard that The Red and the Black by Stendhal or Journey To The End Of The Night by L.F. Céline were masterpieces and the most well written books in the entire world... Well I was never able to finish either of them, and I hated the time I tried to read them, nonetheless, I'm capable of recognizing their literary qualities, the quality of their style, and why those books lasted so long. So please, next time you don't like a book, don't put on it a "It's crap" stamp... Be a little more intelligent than that.

[Susan]

Paul 'Pezski' wrote: "I don't think my lack of connection to the book is to do with any dislike of Holden - in fact it constantly amazes me that so many people here on GR seem to base their reviews on whether or not the..."

Absolutely read Franny and Zoey! It's amazing!

[Hiba]

Lorelei wrote: "Something seems recurrent in the threads on GR, the "I didn't like it so it's crap". Not liking a book, not relating to the characters or the topic doesn't make the book a bad one. I've been a fren..."

Good point.

[Michael S.]

This book showed me how much I am subject to change. I read this when I was about 16 and I hated it. I thought it was rambling, pointless dribble. I just didn't get it. Then I read it again when i was in college and absolutely loved it. It now made complete sense and was relatable. Well, you can never read the same book twice. My fav-the scene where he's trying to clean the vulgar grafitti off the walls at the school- then sees another one and realizes that you just can't erase all the F___ you's in the world. Wow! So true

[Peggie]

I liked this book when I read it and I still do.
I think it describes mixed-up youth as it was in the late '50's and early 60's when youngsters were just getting to be heard - look at James Dean's films from that era, too.
The fact that younger readers find Holden a bit of a whinger is that nowadays youngsters are used to trying to change things. Also parents and their points of view are no longer poles apart. I could never bond with my parents like my children do with me - they see me more as a buddy than an all-points-discipline mother (thank goodness!). So Catcher is a book of its time and like Jane Austen to be read bearing in mind the mores of its time.

[Marmar]

It's been so long since I read this, that I must admit I remember very little about it, although I liked the relationship between Holden and his sister. As an adult, however, I was introduced to Salinger's other works (Franny and Zooey, Raise High the Roof Beams, Nine Stories) and absolutely loved them: The writing style, the content, the humor, the point of view: All amazing to me. They were the type of writing that made me feel as if I were the first to read them, and had a moral obligation to tell others about them.

[Dee]

Angelo is right, it's a teenager's introduction to the hypocrises and landmines of the adult world (set in his particular cultural/financial milieu) and his attempts to understand and navigate his way through them. The book is valuable in the sense that it gives the younger reader validation in his first glimmerings of critical thinking about the adults and institutions surrounding him.

[LeeAnn]

I just recently read this book because I am trying to go back and read the classics that I missed. I absolutely did not get the hype with this book. Maybe you just need to read it as a teenager. I can understand the shock it caused with language, sex, etc. back in the day though.

[Dee]

Yes, it was a very liberating experience to read it as a teenager, probably between ages 12-14, especially if you were raised to not question authority in any way. And it was a great release to read cursing in a book for the first time ever, you really knew that you weren't reading children's books anymore:)

[Jade]

Maybe it was such a big deal because, agreeing with everyone else, no one had ever seen anything like that before at that time. But also, the look into the teenage mind wasn't some perfect, loving, living, happy thing, but complainy, whiney, judgmental, depressed, etc. and it kind of came as a shock that there was a book written about it. Maybe the adults forget how easy it is to have this mindset when you're a teen.

[Mark]

I may have said something like this before in this thread, but the idea that "teenagers" exist ... that there's this definable demographic cohort known as "teenagers" ... that wasn't always a part of the American culture. You were a boy in short pants and a little girl and then you became a man or a woman. I think the notion of adolescence being this period of incremental maturation known as being a "teenager" wasn't as prevalent in America in the '30s and '40s as it was in the '50s and beyond. Think about that and it might put CitR in a different light for you.

[Dee]

Mark wrote: "I may have said something like this before in this thread, but the idea that "teenagers" exist ... that there's this definable demographic cohort known as "teenagers" ... that wasn't always a part ..."

Whatever you want to call that time period, it is a coming of age thing and it happens to most people in that age group.

[Dee]

Jade wrote: "Maybe it was such a big deal because, agreeing with everyone else, no one had ever seen anything like that before at that time. But also, the look into the teenage mind wasn't some perfect, loving,..."

[Dee]

Yes, and also unlike during more financially difficult times, (the Great Depression and so forth) when daily survival is a struggle and families are more inclined to minimize their differences and 'pull together', this type of thing thrives during less lean periods, when survival is assured and there is time for 'reflection' and emotional distance/differences are emphasized.

[Joseph]

An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger.

[Mark]

Joe wrote: "An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger."

Sure thing, Joe. Any other direct orders for us?

[Gregory]

Salinger gave us a semi-autobiographical description of an adolescent in the grip of a psychological breakdown. What makes it great in my opinion is the hopefullness at the end of the book. This makes it possible for many people - young, old, imbalanced, or sane to relate to it.

[Tim]

George wrote: "Perhaps the early 50's vernacular makes it of another generation, but the subject matter is timeless--an adolescent on the cusp of adulthood and resisting the plunge into unknown waters. Salinger's..."

I agree. I didn't read the book until I was in my 30s, but I found there was much I could relate too. You don't have to like a protagonist to enjoy a book. The genius of the book is the stream-of-consciousness. You really feel (or should, anyway) that Holden is talking to you.

Also,I wonder if most readers miss the point that Holden is in a mental hospital when the story begins. We are along for the ride of his unraveling.

[Maud]

Joe wrote: "An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger."

I thought literature was supposed to open your mind, to help you being more tolerant and to guide you into the understanding of views or cultures that are not yours... Apparently, reading this thread, it might make the contrary. Why trying to force your dislike of one book on everybody else ? You didn't like CitR, big deal...others actually did like it and some will probably like it to.

[Jade]

Tim wrote: "George wrote: "Perhaps the early 50's vernacular makes it of another generation, but the subject matter is timeless--an adolescent on the cusp of adulthood and resisting the plunge into unknown wat..."
I had no idea that Holden was in a mental hospital at the beginning....

[Joseph]

Lorelei wrote: "Joe wrote: "An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger."

I thought literature was sup..."

It's just that every time I read Salinger I do it because all the critics say he's the greatest thing since indoor plumbing. Then I read him and it's like What's the big deal? What am I missing?

[Mark]

Joe wrote: "Lorelei wrote: "Joe wrote: "An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger."

I thought li..."I'll bet many, if not all, of us in this thread have had similar experiences with other artists being critically celebrated. For example, I can't understand what is so damned great about Billie Holiday's singing. This shocks a lot of my music head friends. Ultimately, the more pure appreciation of any kind of art is much like falling in love or even mutual lust between two people, it's mysterious, subjective, intensely personal and unexplainable.

But think about it for a minute, Joe. In telling a virtual room full of strangers that they shouldn't waste their time reading Salinger, you're engaging in the same act as the pro-Salinger critics who so mystify you. You might be missing something, but whatever it is, if it isn't coming readily to you--just let it go. You. just. don't. like. reading. him. That's all. I can respect that.

But I can't respect your conviction that because YOU don't like reading him, you think that anyone who does is wasting their time. Who made your personal tastes the boss of how we spend our time? That's boorish, kind of insulting ... at least irritating. Make sense?

I theorize you are not really a boor at all and that you didn't intend to insult or irritate. You simply fell prey to that so, so easy to fall into online trap (voice of experience) of typing out your first gut reaction (before you've even really worked on fashioning that reaction into something more approaching articulated thought) and sharing it with the world.

At various times in this forum I've probably said some stupid stuff, even been a king-hell asshole at times, but I've gotten into the habit of giving some thought about what I've written before I post it. And when personal passions can't dissuade me from being unapologetically subjective, I try to bracket such a statements with phrases like "for me" or "imho" or place them in the context of "but in the larger scheme of things, what do I know?"

The conversations in Goodreads would be more engaging, of a higher intellectual quality, if more people put more thought into what they're saying instead of thinking that shamelessly flaunting the immediate and immoderate voice of their ID is a worthwhile end in and of itself.

[Tim]

Jade wrote: "Tim wrote: "George wrote: "Perhaps the early 50's vernacular makes it of another generation, but the subject matter is timeless--an adolescent on the cusp of adulthood and resisting the plunge into..."

I can see how people would miss it. In the first paragraph he mentions "this madman stuff" and says that his brother is going to pick him up when he gets out in a month or so. After that, there's no mention of him being treated until the final chapter. The book's much more interesting if you realize it from the beginning.

[Afghanisjan]

Mark wrote:...The conversations in Goodreads would be more engaging, of a higher intellectual quality, if more people put more thought into what they're saying instead of thinking that shamelessly flaunting the immediate and immoderate voice of their ID is a worthwhile end in and of itself."

Well said. Cheers Mark, you're my hero.

On topic, I don't really think that Catcher was written for another generation, anyone can appreciate the helplessness and confusion Holden feels and describes, people have all though the adult world as "phony" at one point in their lives. That experience is timeless, I think. It was my mom's favorite book when she was young and decades later after she became a mom and I popped out and became a teenager it became my favorite book.

[Joseph]

Mark wrote: "Joe wrote: "Lorelei wrote: "Joe wrote: "An overrated book by an overrated author whose reputation grew over the years because he became a misanthropic recluse. Don't waste your time on Salinger."

..."
A thoughtful reply to what I admit to have been a throwaway comment. Not that I want to defend myself, because if you take such a line as "Don't waste your time on Salinger" seriously it's clearly not worth defending. This intemperate remark comes from one of my oldest pet peeves: books I'm supposed to consider sacred because there's a consensus of critics who say it's great. I feel the same way about Moby Dick, which has also been the topic of discussion here, and which I also denigrated. On the other hand, critics love to trash Twilight, which has a huge discussion thread on Goodreads. As a self-proclaimed "serious" reader, I think Twilight is a near-great book because Meyer tapped into something hitherto suppressed in our culture: the intense romanticism of early adolescent girls. And she told a beautiful story in doing it. So mea culpa for my remarks about Salinger. All I'll say is, that when I was a young man EVERYBODY had to read not just Catcher, but Franny and Zooey, Raise High the Roof Beam Carpenters, other stories of his that kept appearing in The New Yorker. All these books left me cold. It was a kind of The Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon. Then Salinger disappeared at the height of his fame, which only enhanced his reputation, made him immortal, as it were. It was as though Bob Dylan really had been killed in that motorcycle accident. (Though don't misunderstand me; I think Bob Dylan is the greatest artist of the 20'th century.) So I take back what I said about Catcher. By all means read it if you're so inclined, and make up your own mind.

[Jade]

Tim wrote: "Jade wrote: "Tim wrote: "George wrote: "Perhaps the early 50's vernacular makes it of another generation, but the subject matter is timeless--an adolescent on the cusp of adulthood and resisting th..."

I actually don't think that's true... I mean I may be wrong, but I'm pretty positive that he's just at a boarding school... It says he got kicked out of Pencey which was an all boys boarding school. I mean I'm not sure, that might just be what he says hes in.

[Mark]

I actually don't think that's true... I mean I may be wrong, but I'm pretty positive that he's just at a boarding school... It says he got kicked out of Pencey which was an all boys boarding school. I mean I'm not sure, that might just be what he says hes in.
..."

He relates the time he spent at the boarding school, as I recall right before everyone is leaving for the holidays, and his wayward adventures in the city, but that narrative is framed by him relating his entire story in some sort of mental institution to someone. So I think Tim's observation is as true as true gets.

In fact, here's a novel idea: I'm going to grab the damned book. On the very first page of the book, which Tim also alluded to, "I'm not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything. I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy." (italics mine)

So Holden's narrative is framed by some unseen person having asking him to talk about himself. And he's at a place where he came to "take it easy" because he "got pretty run-down." If the conceit is not that he's talking to a therapist or fellow traveler at an institution of some sort, how do you explain the beginning?

Fast forward to the book's final chapter and you can read: "A lot of people, especially this one psychoanalyst guy they have here, keeps asking me if I'm going to apply myself when I go back to school next September."

Holden had a nervous breakdown. He is in an institution. He has, I think I can safely surmise, missed the Spring semester at Pencey and his regular summer vacation activities as he works on getting his mental shit together for the upcoming fall semester.

It's true. You're wrong. No "might" about it. Not that I'm hope to self aggrandize myself by pointing it out, I just think (building on my earlier theme with Joe) that we all owe it ourselves to be a little more thoughtful, especially with the works of writers we like (Joe didn't care for Salinger, but you gave CitR four stars).

Consider these words written by Vladimir Nabokov

"Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting."

Some books deserve to be reread in order for them to be thoroughly appreciated. You're less likely to miss the seemingly innocuous details on which the very core of the story might be hinged.

[Tim]

Mark wrote: "I actually don't think that's true... I mean I may be wrong, but I'm pretty positive that he's just at a boarding school... It says he got kicked out of Pencey which was an all boys boarding school..."

I agree completely with Nabokov. I've read CitR around 10 times now (and I'll be reading it again this month) and I still find something new with each reading and appreciate it all the more.

Speaking of Nabokov, "Lolita" also contains a detail at the beginning which almost everyone misses, namely that Lolita dies. Knowing that gives a very different reading experience.

[Mike]

mid-30's here as well when first read and almost put it down barely two chapters into it. but i think the last two sentences surmise the whole book and in some way made up for me reading it and appreciating the young mr caulfield. it is a strange read though no doubt.

[Mary]

I got it when I was 14. Tried to revisit in some years later, but was disappointed. Maybe you have to be young and inexperienced to get the best out of it.

[Paul]

I read the book when I was 16 and I loved it, not because he was my age, but just because it was good literature about a kid who is a little bit Hamlet,a little bit Clark Kent, and a whole lot of immature. And phony smug about everything, which scared the hell out of him. Holden had one quality: he was just dumb and sensitive enough to reveal something about what it was to be a teen that most of us never could face up to. At the end of the book as he stares at the merry-go-round crying, he is at the brink of that realization: Life is going to open up for him in spite of himself, just as it does for most of us. We didn't pick our noses or masturbate, did we? Of course not! We weren't full of ourselves, we didn't know it all, we never had to prove ourselves all the time for our own benefit. That is what this book is about, if it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the teen that you were, maybe you never knew the teen you were.

[Jason]

Worst book I've ever read. Had to read it in high school. Pointless. So I was a teenager; not only that, but a depressed, alienated, lonely teenager. It was still stupid. On a scale of 0 to 5 stars, negative 150.

[Mark]

Jason wrote: "Worst book I've ever read. Had to read it in high school. Pointless. So I was a teenager; not only that, but a depressed, alienated, lonely teenager. It was still stupid. On a scale of 0 to 5 ..."

And have you read many?

[Beth]

I understood why it is considered a classic, but I just thought it was boring.

[doug]

At 56,I just recently came to an understanding of Holden's question about the ducks and Central Park pond. (Let me know if you want my thoughts--I tend to go into a rant)

I use Catcher with my AP class and tell them it is one of those books I re-visit every year or two. The book still resonates with teens, though I think that it is not the cult classic it was in the 50's and 60's. I think, because schools banned it for a time, it got a kind of notoriety that no longer exists. While the protagonist IS a kid, this may be a book read with the perspective of time.

Other reasons: 1) Readers think Holden is whiny because they fail to see the subtle conflicts of his thoughts and his actions
2)The role of the thoughtful non-conformist is not nearly as valued as it once was. I blame ABC's TGIFridays