The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
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 ..."It is quite funny though that that stupid book is still considered as a major literary work. And as you so rightly pointed out, your enlightening opinion, backed up with so much facts and evidences, shows us, poor idiots who think that book has some qualities, the truth. Thank you so much for that.
I was disappointed that I didn't like this book, I went into it with high hopes; maybe if I'd read this when I was younger, but I just couldn't relate to Holden at all.
If "getting" a book means loving it, I absolutely got this book when I read it as a teenager in the 1960's. (At that time, I was one of seven girl day students who attended a boys' boarding school.) When I got my hands on it again, in my dotage, I could hardly wait to sink myself into it again. But alas - the second time around, it left me cold.
doug wrote: "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)Doug - Yes, I want to know your thoughts. I am grateful when people open my eyes to something I've missed. Thanks.
doug wrote: "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)."Yes, give us your duck theory!
As a follow-up. I think the most revealing thing about the comments on this book is what it says about us and how much we have changed as a culture. How much our understandings and expectations have changed. But most of all, how we see ourselves. Holden is still living in the Late 1940s, for many of us it might as well be the Dark Ages. Once the veneer is removed and the human element is seen. He is still very much like the teens of our own time. But the veneer is getting thicker and more opaque every year. The diet of input we consume every day would repel the people of his era, even though they had just lived through WWII. They would have just as hard a time with us as we have with them.
For those of you read didn't' get it, maybe you read it too late. I was that whiney teenager when I read it. So, it's been one of my all time favorites. When I was a teenager, I didn't talk to anyone about my feelings so when I read the same thoughts as my own, I really connected with Holden, 'holding on.'I just read the comment above mine. You hit the nail on the head. He could say what I couldn't say.
I was given this book (okay forced, actually) in the ninth grade and no, it was not clear. I would like to read it again to see how I feel about it now that I am much older. :)
I thought he might be a bit slow-witted back when I read the book. I never "got" this book either. And, believe me, I had a tough childhood.
Molly wrote: "For those of you read didn't' get it, maybe you read it too late. I was that whiney teenager when I read it. So, it's been one of my all time favorites. When I was a teenager, I didn't talk to a..."I read it at age 13 or so when my library had a display of banned books in September. What if the Holden had been a female? (Harriet Caulfield) Would I have liked it better? Then many boys wouldn't have read it. Perhaps I should go back and read it.
In the book Literary Knits: 30 Patterns Inspired by Favorite Books, there is a pattern for a blue knitted coat like his sister Phoebe wore
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..."You have to be a 15 yr old boy to get it, is that you?
It also would help if you could be a 15 yr old boy in 1965, that probably ain't happening. It was a sensation then. Not so much in 2013
Jean wrote: "It also would help if you could be a 15 yr old boy in 1965, that probably ain't happening. It was a sensation then. Not so much in 2013."I believe the Holden character was a few years older than 15 as depicted in the book. And I believe the book was published in 1951, so while it may have been popular in 1965 and beyond, I think it had some widespread popularity before that.
It was also published with an adult readership in mind, so it was not originally envisioned as lit for adolescents.
I felt the same way for a little bit. Don't give up on it though: Once I started listening to what other people had to say about it, it made more sense to me and I appreciated it so much more. It's a lot like Shakespeare in that the literature becomes way better once you get used to the style.Just remember, it's a classic for a reason.
I didn't get this book at all. A friend who loved it told me that the key to getting it is to realize that the narrator cannot be trusted, so when he says weird, implausible things it is because he is lying. I haven't re-read it with that in mind (I really don't want to have to slog through it again), but maybe that understanding makes all the difference.
i understand some of the story even though im not really sure about it. what i got is a boy who's sick and tired of his life and one day decided to go to new york for fresh air and shy away from his parents anger because he's just got expelled from his new school. i also think that maybe he feel depressed about his brothers death.so what i got is he's a lonely depressed person. but i like the book. its great, it reminds me of the perks of being a wallflower
When I first started to read this book six or so years ago, I didn't get the hype either. And it's not that I'm excited about it now. But the more into the book I got the more I saw that it's not so much that it was revolutionary in the unique voice it has (it was that at the time). It's not even so much about the unique character (although it has that too, especially in the honesty). What struck me was the theme of how humanity deals with change and purity, especially in the extremely tumultuous time of adolescence. He hates the superficiality and lack of innocence around him yet becomes a part of it. It's like he avoids change by being caught up in it. The key is his sister at the end. He doesn't see her as a phony. She's young and unspoiled. It's why he gets so much pleasure seeing her on the merry-go-round at the end because she's not going anywhere (not changing), and it's a moment of complete innocence. He doesn't know how to reconcile his growing up and becoming less innocent with his desire to stay innocent. So, in a nut-shell, I think it's about innocence, how time and change wear it out of a person, and how we deal with that as we grow up.
Anna wrote: "When I first started to read this book six or so years ago, I didn't get the hype either. And it's not that I'm excited about it now. But the more into the book I got the more I saw that it's not s..."Exactly. And that's the reason he wants to be the catcher in the rye, protecting the children from falling over the cliff (losing their innocence/becoming adults).
If you can relate to Holden Caulfield, see a psychiatrist!!!
Recently I read it again just after reading The Little Prince. I thought both are quite similar in many points..I love them all.
I read it, because it was after the death of Salanger. The kid was incompetant in school, and he goes back home to face the music to his parents, and he goes whoring in New York. What's the big deal?
John wrote: "I read it, because it was after the death of Salanger. The kid was incompetant in school, and he goes back home to face the music to his parents, and he goes whoring in New York. What's the big deal?"Then why did you rate it five stars? Why didn't you learn to spell the author's last name correctly? Why are you seemingly oblivious to the monumental irony of misspelling the word "incompetent" when criticizing someone else's school work (even if it is a fictional character)? Why doesn't Goodreads have an entry exam that people must pass before they have the privilege to comment? Or a separate forum for drooling miscreants? Why? Why? Why?
This book was published in 1951, meaning it was probably concieved and written in the late 1940s . It as a depiction of modern alienation from the point of view of a privledged teenager. I think the frank depiction of Holden's thought processes, particlarly the language made this book highly controversial for its time. It also articulated something about the empty phoniness of a materialistic status obsessed society that many were just beginning to feel. The book I would most compare this to is Huckelberry Finn, in that both are told from an adlolescents point of view in their own language and like any good novel describe a life altering journey.
Have any of you read Salinger's stories "I'm Crazy" ( Collier's, Dec. 22, 1945) and "Slight Rebellion Off Madison" (The New Yorker, Dec. 21, 1946)?(Both are available online.)
When I first read "The Catcher in the Rye" I was impressed with how easily Salinger pulled off that first-person narrative; maintaining a flow despite all the disjointed episodes. After reading the earlier stories (very rough in comparison) I'm impressed all the more.
Tim wrote: "Have any of you read Salinger's stories "I'm Crazy" ( Collier's, Dec. 22, 1945) and "Slight Rebellion Off Madison" (The New Yorker, Dec. 21, 1946)?(Both are available online.)
When I first read..."
Thanks for the tip.
I don't remember reading this in school however I am glad that I was introduced to it later in life so that I may get full appreciation for it. Holden is someone who lost his innocence a long time before this book even begins. His view of the world is shaped by the death of his classmate, and his brother and perhaps experience of attempted sexual abuse. Because he's seen then cruel realities of the world he finds it hard for him to fit in to the status quo. Multiply that by classic by teenage rebellion and here you have our character. Now wonder he's terrible at school. It's as if he's an adult trapped in a teenage body, killing himself to come out. The only reason the author does not go even more in depth is because it is fiction (for Christsake) even though most people who read this, especially today, can readily identify with the character witty cynicism. It's adorable that his closest companion is his young sister, who is although is not entirely innocent still has her a lot of her youthfulness remaining. Holden would rather stand in the rain watching her while quietly admiring the weather protection of his new hunting hat, than be care free with her on a merry go round. Such an adult thing to do? Although he feels dirty about himself he doesn't want to ruin her, the only thing that's still pure in his world. Holden will grow up as the title suggests to be the Catcher in the Rye one day. The reader will have to be able to relate in order to understand what that exactly means. Beautifully written.
Mark wrote: "John wrote: "I read it, because it was after the death of Salanger. The kid was incompetant in school, and he goes back home to face the music to his parents, and he goes whoring in New York. What'..."Bravo!!!
Pat wrote: "there was a point?"Wait a few years and try again. I couldn't get it when I was 19, but did 30 years later.
Here's a part of my review explaining why I liked this book:"However, there are a couple of things that I liked a lot about this book. What I really like about this book is the fact that Holden could have been described as a good student and a good friend with the same perceptions on certain things, but instead he's described as a guy who fails all the subjects at school, smokes cigarettes, and would rather drink scotch than cola. The book certainly implies that he isn't the best person to be hanging out with when you're 16, but he's sensible and he feels that the World he's living in is a bad place for him and his sister Phoebe because of all the hidden vulgarity that gets revealed to him. He is soft at heart and he hasn't reached that point in his life where he knows all the dirty answers to questions that are naturally revealed to one when mature enough. In short, he isn't mature but he's just a kid.
He's not exactly amiable, but he's sensitive and feels lonely when there is nobody to talk to.
All of this is exactly why I liked this book. All of this is also why I can somewhat connect with Holden, because he appreciates youthfulness much more than he appreciates the transition from natural innocence to adolescence.
I had always personally believed that childhood is the most important period of ones existence. I'd like to think myself as a pacifist just like Holden. I don't think there's anything more beautiful in this World than the innocence of children when they are not aware of all the vulgar that exists in this World and I think that the last few pages of this book were the best part of Holden's story because all his depression is soon forgotten once he sees a smile on his young sisters face."
I personally enjoyed it. There is some parts where I was like 'what the hell is going on?' however I loved the type of language J.D Sallinger uses. The 'It really was' almost after every sentence was fantastic!
Robin wrote: "I think since it was written from a teenager's point of view, it was unheard of when the book was first published, I am thinking early 50's or so. Or 60's. So given that it was written in that vei..."You're correct. Think I read it late 60's early 70's - even for those times it was an amazing, ground breaking read.
Around 250,000 copies are sold each year with total sales of more than 65 million books.
I'd say that in itself is amazing.
Robin wrote: "You're correct. Think late 60's early 70's - for the times it was an amazing, ground breaking read."If you're both referring to date of initial publication (which seems to be the case), Robin is more correct than you, Susan.
Little, Brown and Company publishing
July 16, 1951
If by "think" you mean the eras when the book seemed most relevant to a reader, I think the fact that it speaks to some readers who encountered it over the decades regardless of the decade (from reading this thread it's quite clear it has detractors as well) says a lot about how Salinger touched on some near timeless themes in American culture.
Mark, I read the book in the late 60's (still have the copy) it was published July 16, 1951. Salinger was around 30. He was first published in the 40's, shorts in a magazine, I believe, and later a short story collection in the early 50's. I remember he gave his last interview in the late 70's maybe early 80's.
Tim wrote: "Have any of you read Salinger's stories "I'm Crazy" ( Collier's, Dec. 22, 1945) and "Slight Rebellion Off Madison" (The New Yorker, Dec. 21, 1946)?(Both are available online.)
When I first read..."
I agree and his first person pushed those disjointed episodes, made his character more... disjointed. ha! I think the scene I remember most (fondly), still makes me laugh, is the dinner with the egg sandwich. OMG - LOL Brilliant. Of course, like I said, I read it in the late 60's early 70's and those times are still somewhat of a blur. LOLOLOL Peace.
I read it when I was a teenager, and I didn't get it either, and didn't see what all the fuss was about either. Maybe I would if I read it today, and if I should ever run out of other books to read, I might revisit it. At the moment I have no desire to though.
"Where do the ducks go when Central Park ponds freeze?" Knowing that Salinger immersed himself in Eastern religions, particularly Zen Buddhism, it hit me that this is Holden's zen koan(like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" His search for this is find some benevolence to the universe.
Kali wrote: "I'm sure this has already been said, probably many times, but I think it has to do with your age when you read it. I think this is the sort of book that really appeals to people at certain times. ..."This book is way over the heads of most young adults.
There were professional critics that didn't care too much for this book when it was first published. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/82560...
For some other insights into "great Literature" be sure and check out the other quotes tagged bad-reviews
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'm with you - I thought it was a load of tosh.
Moms the world over have been saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all" for centuries. We can embellish that sentiment so it has more relevance to Goodreads. If you are going to criticize, do so. Explain using CRITICAL THOUGHT MANIFEST IN THE WRITTEN WORD what you found lacking or disappointing in any given book. To post "it was a load of tosh" and not say why is equivalent to a self-indulgent child saying "I now wish my presence to be recognized" or, in words the self-indulgent child would be more likely to use, "look at me, look at me, look at me!"If that's the best you can do, there's always Facebook.
Mark wrote: "Moms the world over have been saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all" for centuries. We can embellish that sentiment so it has more relevance to Goodreads. If you are go..."Wow, Thanks for the lecture, Swami. I don't do Facebook, too many security concerns. You're right though - I should have said 'It's a COMPLETE load of tosh'.
Sorry my post was over your head. "Swami." I like that.
I read this in Jr High because it was required reading. I didn't like it, and at the time, I thought it was chosen to get the boys to read a book. I have been told I should try it again as an adult.
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..."Man, I'm so glad that others have thought the same as myself. I read it several years ago and couldn't understand why everyone loved it and that it was a masterpiece. I thought about reading it again later in life and see if i missed something based on my maturity level at the time.
I think i'll pass and glad others felt the same about this book as i did.
Thanks
I have started this book several times, as I grow older.....still don't get it and don't like it. That's that!
I read it both as a teen and as an adult. Neither time did I feel I related to it. Don't get me wrong; I love Salinger. I must have read "Nine Stories" more than 10 times. But maybe his maleness makes it harder for me to relate to Holden. The only thing I like about the book is that image of the children running through the rye--and trying to catch them before it's too late. It became very real to me in my work teaching urban middle school kids.
Caitlin wrote: "The only thing I like about the book is that image of the children running through the rye--and trying to catch them before it's too late."That's a good one. My favorite is the final scene where Holden and Phoebe have made up and he's sitting there in the rain, "practically bawling," as he watches her ride the carousel.
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)
I liked The Great Gatsby better, too. It could be because even though those characters are unlikeable, it takes place in an era that fascinates me with many parallels to our own time (see Anything Goes: A Biography of the Roaring Twenties by Lucy Moore). Maybe I just didn't like Salinger's style because I didn't "get" Franny and Zooey, either.