The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
I have to agree. I read it back in high school, just to see what all the fuss was about, and ended it feeling confused and underwhelmed.
Kevin wrote: "It contains one of the best first-person narratives you can find"Pound for pound, it's the best book I've ever read. I keep a tattered copy in my backpack.
The next best first-person narrative is The Old Man and the Sea.
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..."Same here - I actually hated it!
Mark wrote: "Sorry my post was over your head. "Swami." I like that."No, it wasn't over my head Mark - the only thing I didn't understand is why you apparently lack a sense of humor (though your latest comment may redeem you) - that, and why on earth you've appointed yourself the Grand Arbiter of Goodreads Commentary...in any event, I expect to see you arbitrarily critique everyone else's critical posts of what is clearly one of your life bibles...I'm betting, by the way, that either Radiohead or U2 is your favourite band - either that, or you think Tom Waits is a musical genius.
Ken wrote: "No, it wasn't over my head Mark - the only thing I didn't understand is why you apparently lack a sense of humor (though your l..."Oh, I have a sense of humor. Maybe I'm a little too obsessive in my attempt to elevate the quality of discourse on this thread and throughout Goodreads, in general. Quixotic and, obviously, annoying to some.
I liked this book. I think it's grossly underappreciated because the symbolism in it is misunderstood. I don't see it as one of my "life bibles." I can count the U2 songs I really, really like on one hand. I have tried to understand what people think is so great about Radiohead at various times, but whatever it is, it has thus far eluded me (they often sound to me like a diluted version of U2 at their drabbest). I like Tom Waits. Being an Aussie (if I'm recalling correctly), you might find more stimulation in learning that I think Nick Cave has often, during his now lengthy career, been possessed of genius.
Let me guess: you think Stephen King is a better novelist than half a dozen who I would nominate for greatness.
Takes all kinds, Ken.
Ken wrote: "...appointed yourself the Grand Arbiter of Goodreads Commentary."I nominate Mark for Grand Commentator.
I didn't like Catcher in the Rye when I was a teenager or when I was teaching freshmen English. I always told students not to expect too much. The hype was overrated. And like some others said, they either hated it or loved it. Mrs. Lopez wrote: "I did not get it or like it. What I have learned in talking to others who have read the book is that one either loves it or hates it -- there is not in-between on this one."Kressel wrote: "I totally didn't get it as a teenager. I did when I re-read it as an adult."
George wrote: "I agree with you about Gatsby. Here's my review:
By some quirk in my personal history, I'd never read Gatsby. It has many beautifully written, poetic passages, and Gatsby's demise retains an ineff..."
George wrote: "I agree with you about Gatsby. Here's my review:
By some quirk in my personal history, I'd never read Gatsby. It has many beautifully written, poetic passages, and Gatsby's demise retains an ineff..."
Mark wrote: "Ken wrote: "No, it wasn't over my head Mark - the only thing I didn't understand is why you apparently lack a sense of humor (though your l..."Oh, I have a sense of humor. Maybe I'm a little too ..."
Indeed it does mate. And well said.
I most certainly did NOT get this book. Left it mid-way. Perhaps will read later.
How many of you, like me, read this book because is was required reading?
I was born in 1959 and read this book in high school, perhaps as a sophomore. At the time, I could completely relate to it and thought it was among the best books I had ever read. I remember writing what I thought was a great analysis debating/defending the idea that Holden was in fact sane, following a class discussion that concluded that he was insane. In the seventies, that book was still considered "racy" for teens. Now young people have seen it all (most households in our hood were banning Laugh In) and may find the book restrained. What makes it a classic is that most teens can still relate in some way to the themes of alienation, etc. Not to mention that the writing is superb, yet accessible. Have not read it since, but had my boys read it at 13 or 14 and both enjoyed.
Great comment Stephanie!
Never liked this book. I read it bacause it got such publicity but I found it boring and Holden a pain in the butt to be honest. Guess I just wasn't the target audience!
Erna, another book about a tormented young person (also a narrative) that I loved is Old School by Tobias Wolff. It's a great portrait and may be more enjoyable. References to Ayn Rand within, which also make it interesting. Happy reading!
Catcher in the Rye is about loss of innocence. I loved the book when I read it at the age of 16. Holden cannot cope with what he sees as the disingenuousness of adults that he encounters. It explains the reason why is so protective of his sister Phoebe. He does not want her to lose her innocence and experience the pain of his own disillusionment. Its a shame so many students do not 'get' the book. Often I find you can be dismissive of a classic on a first reading but enjoy the book on a second. Read it again and you may be surprised at how much you found you missed on the first reading.
The point of the book is the aleination Holden feels as he transitions into the adult world. As he enters the adult world he finds it morally corrupt. He can't fit in and he tries to navagate through it. Think of him as a sort of modern day Huck Finn.
Stephanie wrote: "I was born in 1959 and read this book in high school, perhaps as a sophomore. At the time, I could completely relate to it and thought it was among the best books I had ever read. I remember writin..."Well said.
It's so sad that so many read this book and simply don't get it. They're too put off by Holden's whiny personality to even want to understand where he's coming from. Of course he's whiny, of course he's self absorbed. Society puts so much emphasis on success, so much emphasis on knowing what you want out of life, so much emphasis on growing up...and he's just sick of it all. He wants to run off and live in the woods alone, and he's made up his mind to do it at the end. The only thing that changes his mind is his little sister. Because he loves her, and she looks up to him. She doesn't tell him what to do, or what not to do. And that convinces him to stick around and make something of himself...to give school another try, to give his family another try.It's like that old fable of the cloud and the sun. They bet one another they can take the man's jacket off, so the cloud blows and blows and blows, but the man only grips his jacket tighter about him. The sun just sits there and glows radiantly, and the man takes off his jacket of his own accord. The harder you try to force someone, the harder they resist it.
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 couldn't agree more. The prose is mediocre, the plot is hardly worth speaking of... what is all of the fuss about?
While I never saw the genius of The Catcher in the Rye I'm willing to take others' word for it. Just check this blurb from description found here for one of the editions.
The boy himself is at once too simple and too complex for us to make any final comment about him or his story. Perhaps the safest thing we can say about Holden is that he was born in the world not just strongly attracted to beauty but, almost, hopelessly impaled on it. There are many voices in this novel: children's voices, adult voices, underground voices-but Holden's voice is the most eloquent of all. Transcending his own vernacular, yet remaining marvelously faithful to it, he issues a perfectly articulated cry of mixed pain and pleasure. However, like most lovers and clowns and poets of the higher orders, he keeps most of the pain to, and for, himself. The pleasure he gives away, or sets aside, with all his heart. It is there for the reader who can handle it to keep.
Personally, I've read it twice, once in school and a second time 30 years later to see if I could spot what I'd missed the first time around. I read it first in high school and didn't much enjoy it.
I know it's a classic and quite typical high school fare but I think it's too advanced for most high school students to enjoy.
The story is at best morose and, while an honest depiction of a lost young man in a downward spiral, it's probably NOT the best fodder for young minds. It certainly wasn't for mine.
As an adult I can appreciate it more, but I can now easily understand my earlier reaction to it. It occurred to me that my objection to this book the second time around was similar to my annoyance with cats who bring home dead mice and leave them at your feet. Certainly there's unpleasantness in the world but don't expect me to appreciate having it tracked down and left knowingly at my feet. OK, what do I do with that knowledge?
It's even become so iconic that it's been used as the basis for another book by a different author...
60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye
While not quite the same as Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters it's a start.
If I were a sadist... or a high school English teacher...(I've sometimes wondered if those two things aren't more alike than we admit) I'd suggest comparing and contrasting this with The Kite Runner again a book that puts on display a lot of levels of misery but at least in that one, the author continues on and leaves the reader some glimpse of redemption.
"Kevin wrote: "It contains one of the best first-person narratives you can find"Pound for pound, it's the best book I've ever read. I keep a tattered copy in my backpack.
The next best first-person narrative is The Old Man and the Sea. "
I hated that one too! What a yawn!
Thom wrote: "It was written in and for another generation. The present generation may have difficulty following thought patterns of their parents and grandparents."I'm from the generation it was written for 17 years old. There was nothing special about the book.
Caitlin wrote: "I hated that one too! What a yawn! ."Yeah, I kinda felt that way about Eat, Pray, Love. We all have our tastes.
The way I've described this book is you read it as a teenager and totally identify with Holden, even though he's an exaggerated version of any teenager. Then you read it again as an adult and it reads like a comedy and you laugh at how unreasonable and douchey you used to be. Works on both levels.
I didn't much care for it; it was a quick read and sometimes entertaining, but it didn't resonate with me. There was nothing to make me sit and think about it. Just some kid bitching about his life. However, there are those who really liked it, so I guess it's a matter of taste
Even though most of the haters are vehement in their hate, they also remember quite a bit about the book. Great art is provocative!
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..."He was in prep school, not college. :)
It was written for adults and it doesn't follow the conventions of YA fiction such as maturation of the main character, so if you read it as YA fiction you will have problems with it. It is not exactly an easily accessible novel and it is easy to miss important points such as that Salinger deliberately has Holden misunderstand the lyrics of Robbie Burns' "Coming Through the Rye", so not only is Holden's fantasy of being the "catcher in the rye" a fantasy but a fantasy based on an error. What's more "Coming Through the Rye" although often considered a children's song is actually full of sexual imagery and references. And since Holden is self-identifying as the "catcher" that says very much about him and his understanding of both the world and his place in it as well as the sexuality of the novel. It's a pretty fascinating book that requires looking at very closely to even begin to understand it. If you enjoy that sort of thing, it's worth reading. Not everyone does. Truthfully, I think it is not an ideal work for YA reading.
It's incredible the number of people in this thread who didn't understand the plot.Re-read the book keeping in mind that it's a first person narrative by Holden during/after his recovery from mental illness. He's detailing how the death of his younger brother sent him into a downward spiral. His family fell apart, with his older brother and mother both "running away" figuratively. His parents sent him to boarding school instead of drawing him close to heal. The book is about his unresolved grief, and anger at the world/his family for moving on and pushing him away when he failed to get back to "normal" on their timeline.
That is why his imagining himself as the "catcher" who protects children from 'falling off a cliff' is important although the metaphor is even more complex than that as it also involves his sexual experiences. People don't get it because so much of it is expressed in metaphor, but I would disagree that he necessarily recovers. That is not at all clear.
Very true JR - that part is unclear. "I mean how do you know what you're going to do till you do it?" -- If we take his ability to apply himself at school as a measure of mental health, he definitely states that he isn't sure whether he can recover.However, with the epilogue-ish part referencing that he is seeing a psychoanalyst, after he was told he needed to and kind of avoided thinking about it, I interpret it as improvement or at least addressing the issue. Even if they imply it's because he had a psychotic break.
Kevin wrote: "Phylicia wrote: "It's incredible the number of people in this thread who didn't understand the plot.Re-read the book keeping in mind that it's a first person narrative by Holden during/after his ..."
What surprises me is the number of people who seem to think plot is paramount!
You can't deny that there is a correlation between people not understanding the plot, and thinking the whole thing was inane.
The style is of course what makes it, but without understanding the plot people are misinterpreting the style as shallow.
I'm 20. But under some circumstances, some people call me an "old soul." I have been wishing that I live in the '30s, '40s, or '50s. Maybe that served as a reason why I totally appreciated this book.A friend once said in her review that J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye” is such a depressing read. Somehow, that particular book description got me intrigued with the book. I couldn’t help but wonder: would I also have the same reaction when I get to read it?
The answer finally came when I learned the whole story of Holden Caulfied, the story’s main character. Unlike what happened with my friend, I was quite far from getting depressed while I was going on with the novel; even though most of the events related by Holden were usually mishaps, and Holden himself kept on mentioning about getting depressed and all. In fact, I find Holden’s sarcastic narration to be amusing and entertaining―if sarcasm had been a legit language, he must have been very fluent in it.
Aside from those, what made me appreciate this novel is that it unravels how exceptional Holden could be in his own ways. A portion of his mind may be full of cynicism, but deep inside his heart lies sincere compassion. He may tend to be distasteful towards some people that come along his way. Yet, at the same time he is also an endearing brother to his siblings and son to his parents. Despite his cynical manners, Holden is sensitive and shows concern when it comes to predicaments, especially involving his family. Furthermore, he also owns this kind of eccentric, dark humor which adds up some radiance to the plainness of the scenes he relates throughout the book.
Holden Caulfield is a perfect example of the character that others could easily judge right away, with his cynicism and passion for expletives, among his other flaws. Nevertheless, as the story progresses, it can be seen that he is still worthy to be known better, to be given with appropriate understanding.
If the readers could only give a proper attention to Holden and his not-so-mundane encounters, one may learn how to empathize, instead of agonize, with what he is going through. At a sudden glance, his narrations might seem no big deal… However, at a much closer look, every detail might actually have a certain significance that the reader should not dare miss. With a much better view of these details, the readers might be able to see the light amidst the murkiness of the world of Holden Caulfield.
Phylicia wrote: "It's incredible the number of people in this thread who didn't understand the plot.Re-read the book keeping in mind that it's a first person narrative by Holden during/after his recovery from men..."
Excellent post!
Kevin wrote: "What surprises me is the number of people who seem to think plot is paramount!"This is true. The world wants resolution. They want everything tied up in a nice neat package. Well, that isn't the way the world is. That's a fantasy. Sometimes we just have to find a way to live with our problems. We have to integrate them into our lives in as healthy a way as we can.
The film, Finding Forester, is said to be based on Salinger, and it does a great job of showing the long term effects of unresloved grief. This could be Holden, 50 years later.
I am really surprised reading all reviews on this book here. Maybe what they are saying is right, as in it is relevant to teenagers of that era. But to me it was mirror-gazing.Through the book it got me gripped as if I am reading my own conscious which for some reason never gave words to the feelings. Good or bad, irrespective to my current age (+plus two decades), I absolutely love it and identify with it.
Franny and Zooey also deserve a review. That too a detailed one. Maybe more detailed than the book itself. More so, because of the peer reviews here.
Would certainly sometime.
Mugdha, glad you had that experience, which was similar to mine and others who enjoyed the book! You are proof that it IS timeless!
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..."Moby Dick was a personal hell for me. Always wanted to read it, and then it popped up on one of my reading lists last semester.... absolute hell! So much talk about whaling and different types of whale. (Which is great if you're into whales and whaling)
However, it still stands as one of my proudest achievements having read it in only four days - but still, worst four days ever haha.
Also, I put The Catcher In The Rye in the same category as Moby Dick. Actually, that took me longer to read because I just couldn't get in to it. I'm not sure if age has anything to do with it - I was 20 last summer when I read it. Perhaps it only really stands in its own time as its alleged greatness seems to be lost on most of us.I don't really appreciate the comments that say you have to be a depressed teenager to get this book.
My teenage years were hell, and they're not exactly far behind me but that didn't help me relate to him or the book either.
Eleri wrote: "Also, I put The Catcher In The Rye in the same category as Moby Dick. Actually, that took me longer to read because I just couldn't get in to it. I'm not sure if age has anything to do with it - I ..."I lke your comment.
Eleri wrote: "...its alleged greatness seems to be lost on most of us."Most? Perhaps you should say "some."
The figures belie your comment. One Goodreads survey has it in the top American novels and another list shows it in the top five novels of the twentieth centry. The Modern Library's Top 100 has it at #65 in their top 100 list, and it's been on that list for over a decade. It's sold nearly 70 million copies.
It's a highly sophisticated and complicated novel. Many people just won't get it. But "most?"
"seems to be lost on most of us"seems... as in that's how it appears from this...
us... as in the people on this...
I'm not attempting to speak for the world.
calm down.
Eleri wrote: "as in that's how it appears from this... us... as in the people on this..."
Oh, it wasn't clear that you were referring just to the people on this topic. My apologies.
Among all the books that I've read till date, this is my most favorite book. Once I started reading it, I had to finish it in single read...it is so gripping.Shows the world from a teenager perspective which is quite shocking but true.
My favorite part is when the Protagonist talks about the Rye fields.
I read 'Catcher' when I was 15 and loved it. I read it again when I was 40 and thought it was inane. Maybe an age/generational/cultural change.
Jitendra wrote: "Among all the books that I've read till date, this is my most favorite book. Once I started reading it, I had to finish it in single read...it is so gripping.Shows the world from a teenager persp..."
Me too. My favorite part is when Holden is sitting in the rain "practically bawling" as he watches Phoebe ride the carousel.
Denise My experience was the opposite of yours. At 19, I didn't relate to it t all. At 60, it blew me away.
Spiritfeather wrote: "This is a book that one definitely has put into context. Because it takes place in the 60's, one has to be aware of what was considered acceptable behavior then as opposed to now. I read the book..."
Not set in the 60's but in the late 40's. Just when the conformist 50's was beginning and why it was so controversial. Here was a kid who couldn't toe-the-line and yet had a deep compassion for people - as much as he criticized the phoniness of people he saw that the real fault was in the society that forced people to be phony.He still felt a certain love and sorrow for them all - and felt as if he had to save everyone: he was the "catcher in the rye" trying to keep the kids from going off the edge. I deeply loved and identified with Holden Caulfield when I was a teenager(in the 60's by the way.) and I still think this book is a magnet for certain kinds of teenagers.
Spiritfeather, what struck me about your post was the comment about phoniness. Now kids don't have to be "phony" to survive in high school. You can be who you want to be. I am wondering if that what makes the enjoyment of this book somewhat generational.
I wonder how old most of you are. I read the book in its time and I remember the criticism of society and adults as phony very strongly -- hypocrisy and betrayal everywhere, unjust use of power (over teenagers, but endemic) to force conformity, and on and on. This was the stuff of Beatniks and Hippies. To me, present times are comatose. We protest in a different way. When I was in college thinking about being a high school teacher I had to write a defense of Catcher's being in the curriculum. The very idea of having to make such a defense is an instance of what Holden was disgusted by. In these ways Catcher is of its time. Readers who haven't gone through a Holden period will have to imagine what that might be like -- they would be the test of whether the book is a classic, if it were able to bring that kind of understanding.
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..."Read A Fine Day for Bananafish. Remember existential alienation, the mark of the intellectual. Salinger translates this pose into real anguish and ultimately suicide. I myself haven't encountered the Catcher/Gatsby dichotomy. I do wonder whence the idea of Catcher being plotless, or that modern literature in general is so. This makes me wonder what people's idea of a plot is, which would itself make a good discussion topic, methinks. Anyone? How to frame the question with the requisite nuance?
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)
Holden's problem is unresolved grief over two traumatic deaths--his brother Ailee and his dormitory mate James Castle. He has all the symptoms of PTSD. This is analyzed under the topic, "Interpreting CITR."