The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
Phillip wrote; "Don't do the Lottery so hoping to if and when I retire (chance'd be a fine thing)."I understand that for sure!
Matthew wrote: "So why is it that so many in America feel as if the sky is falling?."For the simple reason that the same empirical "multinational" corporations that are having such success worldwide are also in control of our government, subverting our democratic process so successfully that the income distribution has become badly skewed. People, even a few Republicans, are slowly waking up to the fact that they've been had--that even the Supreme Court (money is speech!!) is owned by these gigantic extra-national entities.
We supply canon fodder to protect them and they show their gratitude by stripping veteran's benefits to the bone. We supply an educated, dedicated workforce and they strip away retirement benefits and beggar public education, threatening to privatize it.
This country is rapidly becoming a laughing skeleton of its former greatness, and we're racing toward a corporate driven fascist plutocracy.
No puzzle to me at all. When is everyone else going to wake up?
Read it because so many people, editors, critics, autors, etc, said it was a brilliant title... but I discover the only brilliant thing is how so many people can consider it to be a masterpiece when it's so... not a masterpiece. Excuse my lack of words to describe it, but in my opinion, it was just a kid who hated his life (or simple he just didn't like it as much) as MILLIONS of teenagers... nothing special, really.
Elizabeth wrote: "Read it because so many people, editors, critics, autors, etc, said it was a brilliant title... but I discover the only brilliant thing is how so many people can consider it to be a masterpiece whe..."Perhaps this will help: http://jdsalinger-me.blogspot.com/
Elizabeth wrote: "Read it because so many people, editors, critics, autors, etc, said it was a brilliant title... but I discover the only brilliant thing is how so many people can consider it to be a masterpiece whe..."And I see the book should have been interrupted as an allegory rather than a novel about a boy. By focusing on Holden you miss the message.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Monty J wrote: "Matthew wrote: "So why is it that so many in America feel as if the sky is falling?."For the simple reason that the same empirical "multinational" corporations that are having such success worldw..."
Have you read Eisenhower's Farewell Address? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_centu...
And as for Faux News, they're simply following Hermann Goering's lead: ". . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Cosmic wrote;"And I see the book should have been interrupted as an allegory rather than a novel about a boy. By focusing on Holden you miss the message"
Yes, the book should definately have been interrupted as an allegory.
Elizabeth wrote: "Read it because so many people, editors, critics, autors, etc, said it was a brilliant title... but I discover the only brilliant thing is how so many people can consider it to be a masterpiece whe..."Wow. And i thought I had rated it too low at 3 star. You gave it only 1 star. After a lot of thought, I just might give it 4 stars.
Renee wrote: ...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country..."That's essentially what Mencken said in his Notes on Democracy:
"...Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting..."
Matthew wrote: "That's essentially what Mencken said in his Notes on Democracy:"...Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting..." ..."
Reminds me how WW2 was labeled a "phoney war".
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
In the Catcher in the Rye you have 33 uses of the word "phoney". The first one is the school headmaster on page 3.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
This demonstrates that America was tooling up for a war. That wars are designed not just merely inevitable.
This is what The Catcher In The Rye has taught me through Salinger's use of allegory. Hope you will take a look and leave me a comment.
Cosmic wrote: "Reminds me how WW2 was labeled a "phoney war".https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."
I don't want to get involved in yet another group, but I couldn't let this one go by without a word.
It's a helluva long time since I read "The Catcher" but I do recall the often used term, "phoney".
The so-called "phoney war" of 1939-40, when France and Britain had the chance to attack Germany but didn't is seldom discussed. Why? Such an attack was never on the cards. Neither of the allies had a credible plan for invading Germany. Though their armies numbered many divisions (90% barely trained conscripts in the case of the French), they were not equipped for aggressive fighting. Nor did the French, who would have been in the forefront - have much stomach for war. Their losses in WWI had been appalling. The best they could hope for was to hold the German attack when it came. And they were pretty confident they could do this. Overly so, as it transpired.
You've also got to remember that in 1939 everyone was still reeling from the shock of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I don't think the Americans really understood how that changed the picture. A fresh and newly experienced Germany army which did not have to fight on two fronts would have been division for division a very mighty foe indeed. The Nazis had turned Germany into a militaristic state. Having been defeated in WWI without really losing on the battlefield, the Germans were hyped up into the belief that their time had come. Compared to that, the French and British were out of condition amateurs who had put their faith in technology (eg the Maginot Line & the long range bomber).
So it's a false phoney really. I mean, it's only phoney in the sense that the Clash of Titans America was waiting for, like spectators who have paid big bucks to see Ali and Foreman, would boo through the first coupla pussy-footing rounds.
Philip wrote: "The so-called "phoney war" of 1939-40, when France and Britain had the chance to attack Germany but didn't is seldom discussed. Why? Such an attack was never on the cards. ..."If I was playing chess and told that an offensive move should not be considered, I don't think I would be a very good chess player. To tell me that something was not on the table only makes me wonder who is making the rules to this game. I am just having a hard time buying this. These military generals are supposed to be professionals.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney...
Contemporaneously, the period of the Phoney War had also been referred to as the "Twilight War" (by Winston Churchill), the Sitzkrieg[1] ("the sitting war": a play on blitzkrieg) and the "Bore War" (a play on the Boer Wars). In Polish, it is referred to as the Dziwna Wojna ("strange war"), and in French, as the drôle de guerre or "strange war".
The term "Phoney War" was possibly coined by US Senator William Borah who stated, in September 1939: "There is something phoney about this war."[2]
At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."[6]
General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."[7]
This is also significant:
"The non-belligerent US contributed to the Western Allies by discounted sales, and later, the lend-lease of military equipment and supplies."
MONEY HONEY....and this is why I say that the Catcher In The Rye is about war and money and power and the use of the media. If there is no demand then there will be no sells.
The war was sold to get us out of the depression.
See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_...!
The film is about efforts undertaken during the Great Depression to boost the morale of the country. It is essentially a vehicle for a string of vaudeville acts and a few musical numbers. This film is best known for providing the first big breakthrough role for legendary child actress Shirley Temple.
See message 1083
I love this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pshgQ6...
In this clip we have Shirley in her army uniform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVJv4K...
Philip wrote: "The so-called "phoney war" of 1939-40, when France and Britain had the chance to attack Germany but didn't is seldom discussed. Why? Such an attack was never on the cards. Neither of the allies had a credible plan for invading Germany. ..."I beg to differ with you. There was a plan it was just not carried out.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney...
According to the Franco-Polish military convention, the French Army was to start preparations for a major offensive three days after the beginning of mobilization. The French forces were to effectively gain control over the area between the French border and the German lines and were to probe the German defences. On the 15th day of the mobilisation (that is on 16 September), the French Army was to start a full-scale assault on Germany. The preemptive mobilisation was started in France on 26 August, and on 1 September full mobilisation was declared.
A French offensive in the Rhine river valley area (Saar Offensive) started on 7 September, four days after France declared war on Germany. Since the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along their border with Germany. However, the French took no meaningful action to assist the Poles.
OK, so you've chosen to avoid the points I made about the relative states the armies were in, the turnaround in Russian policy (and their action in grabbing half of Poland for themselves) and the official French policy (despite treaty obligations to Poland) of resisting the inevitable German attack. Perhaps some anecdotal evidence will help you to see the actual position Britain and France were in?The first point is surprise. When the war broke out, my father had been living and working at the Hotel du Mont Blanc in Chamonix for the previous three years. As an illustration of the shock everyday people experienced over Poland, at the end of the summer season - ie in September - Harold Lee had organised a sight seeing trip of Russia. When he arrived back in England, he was questioned for several hours by the Security Services because in his passport he had visas to travel through Germany and Poland into Russia. Also, having completed the French leg of his overseas stay (as a trainee hotel restaurant manager he had to be fluent in two foreign languages) he had a job lined up in a German ski resort for the winter season. He had already started to study the language and had a German grammar book in his case. He had some explaining to do, but there was nothing unreasonable about his plans.
The second point is complacency. Before he left Chamonix, my father attempted to join the French army. He was turned down, the recruiting officer complaining that everything was in chaos. Another illustration of the mood in France, a few months earlier he had a conversation with a man from Metz. This guy, who was of course French, laughed at the strength of the Maginot Line, "It was built by Germans!" Meaning, German workers had been employed in the construction, and a full set of plans was therefore in German hands!
Thirdly, there is the traditional tendency of the British to do things in a calm, orderly way (which is often a play for time). Before the end of 1939, Harold Lee was back in France, now in uniform, where (as a catering worker, fluent in French) he was put in charge of the reception centre offiers' canteen at Le Havre. Before 1936, he had been at the Savoy Grill in London, so he ran the place as near to Silver Service as resources allowed. Havre was the main throughport for the British Expeditionary Force - and being in Normandy, was well away from the German border. Basically, the British high command were planning a resumption of WWI and were building an enormous supply chain - if not out of the range of the German bombers, at least beyond their fighter cover.
Fourthly, should we forget, there was still actual fighting going on. Phoney War or not, at sea Germany and her allies were blockaded. Though the U-boats and a few rogue surface raiders got through, the resumption of the blockade and the other economic actions taken, the German people were already on rations. Even US navy vessels were engaged by the U-boats and Condor aircraft. Over Germany, France and Britain, there were frequent air raids. While these were not very effective at first, at least they told people that German victory in Poland did not mean the war would end soon. There was no "over by Christmas" blarney in WWII.
Finally let's do some comparison with today's much more mobile forces. The invasion of France was preceded by the German invasion of Denmark and Norway in April 1940, meaning there were seven months between the start of the war and the start of the beginning (to paraphrase Churchill). Iraq invaded Kuwait on the 2nd of August 1990. It took the coalition until the middle of January 1991 - five and a half months - before Desert Storm took place.
Of course, Iraq was defeated by overwhelming force, whereas France, backed up by Britain, had the advantage - on paper. But I go back to the essential militarism of the German state at that time compared to their much more laid back neighbours. Churchill, taking over as France fell, complained he couldn't send men into battle the way he had in 1914-18. British and French soldiers, professionals and call-ups alike, were not fanatics willing to risk all in a chancer's grab for glory.
I tried to read it because it is a "classic". I just could not finish it. I was so bored!! I don't understand the appeal. Maybe when both of my boys are grown and out of the house, I'll take the time to try it again...maybe not.
Christel wrote: "I tried to read it because it is a "classic". I just could not finish it. I was so bored!! I don't understand the appeal. Maybe when both of my boys are grown and out of the house, I'll take th..."Perhaps this will help: http://jdsalinger-me.blogspot.com/201...
I started reading this book once and hated it. Later, after hearing how great it is, I thought I'd give it another try. I pushed through the first half, thinking, man, this kid complains a lot, and I thought it lacked depth. I was hoping for a great ending. After halfway through or so, it began to make more sense, (not much, but some.) In the end, I'm glad I read it, but gave it 2 stars out of 5. I guess, in a weird way, I can see why it's considered good writing. I did like parts of it.
Philip wrote: "OK, so you've chosen to avoid the points I made about the relative states the armies were in, the turnaround in Russian policy (and their action in grabbing half of Poland for themselves) and the o..."What you have written is on a very personal level. I don't know anyone personally that was in WW2 that I can talk to about this. So I am just looking at numbers on wiki. (I kinda don't even want to argue with you about this, because I am not emotionally wrapped up in it).
The German officer said they could have beat the Germans in a couple weeks. Instead it took four years. Maybe there were other reasons that they held off making an offensive attack besides the one you have given. But I am not going to argue about the state of the French military. The French were four times as large as the Germans. I don't see how the French were at a disadvantage, unless they had no weapons. Ultimately did delaying the war cost more French lives or save more? Immediately it may look like it saved more but ultimately I can't believe it.
The German officer said the French could have won. He also knew what state his any was in and probably a good idea about the French, because they did not take an offensive against the French.
I will tell you that I am learning History. I don't know it all. I am just pretending the German officer is telling the truth. Even the leaders of the world were questioning the French action.
This subject interests me, I have researched it, and I remember what people who were there at the time have said. I'm not emotionally wrapped up in it; my brother, after all, is now married to a German. I just want to draw attention to way things were on the ground at the time, which you may not learn from Wikipedia searches. My father described the young French conscripts that filled the trains during their mobilisation. They were mostly drunk, sent off by their families and friends with bags of food and bottles of wine. As I said, on paper the French had a huge number of men. They also had the world's finest tank force, having taken on the British invention and developed it far beyond everyone else. But they didn't have such a fanatical belief in their fatherland as the Germans did; and they did have a dread of war which came from their parents and grandparents.Marching deep into Germany was something no army would do without a very clear plan. Berlin, which had to be the objective, was very far to the east. Meantime, there were huge obstacles to cross. And most of all, it was the German people, who were organised along military lines. Remember that Hitler's regime was popular, had originally come to power through the ballot box, and even if defeated in a series of battles there was no clear political outcome in sight.
Jodl, whom you quote at his Nuremburg trail for war crimes, was trying to justify the continuation of the war after the fall of Poland. A professional soldier turned Nazi, he was one of Hitler's right hand men within the Wermacht. He fought tooth and nail to clear his name at the trial, and may not have been guilty of all the charges brought against him. However, it was proved he had ordered the execution of many prisoners of war and was hanged. Jodl was an archetype for the kind of politicised soldier that gave an ideological edge to the Wermacht. Notice how he was responsible for the execution of captured political commissars in the Soviet army - his communist equivalent. It's a terrible thing to say, but these kind of people had to be wiped out to rid the world of Nazism. So, a short knock-out invasion of Germany was never going to be enough with people like Jodl around.
To get back to the idea of a "phoney war" - what was the "cold war", then? Wasn't that "phoney", too, because it was only fought out in arms factories and the emergencies in proxy states such as Korea, Kenya, Malaya and Vietnam? Or were those wars "real"? "Phoney War" was, as said, a jibe coined by a ringside pugilist, eager to watch a spectacular fight but not - despite much provocation - ready yet to roll his own sleeves up.
Philip wrote: "To get back to the idea of a "phoney war" - what was the "cold war", then? Wasn't that "phoney", too, because it was only fought out in arms factories and the emergencies in proxy states such as Korea, Kenya, Malaya and Vietnam? Or were those wars "real"? "Phoney War" was, as said, a jibe coined by a ringside pugilist, eager to watch a spectacular fight but not - despite much provocation - ready yet to roll his own sleeves up. ..."I totally agree! What is phoney is that it is sold to us and the profits are made by others and sacrifices made by those that fight for the "phoney war." Who profits from the wars? How it's it in their interest to create a short war?
Fear is sold to us everyday.
We drink it like kool-aid.
What modern war hasn't been phony in cause?
Renee wrote: "What modern war hasn't been phony in cause?"Exactly. Salinger references the movie The 39 Steps...one of his favorite movies. But in the book The Catcher In The Rye he intertextually makes reference to the book by the same name but not the same story. To understand how Holden get a good Good-bye I suggest reading this book. At least the first chapter will show you that Salinger believed wars were conspired.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/558
I would never have read this book but for Salinger mentioning it in his book. Of course in his day this would have been a well known book. It started the spy genre.
Of COURSE wars are conspired, complicit and chicane.
Renee wrote: "Of COURSE wars are conspired, complicit and chicane."That is a great word "chicane"!
And it fits with the alliterative scheme :D
Renee wrote: "And it fits with the alliterative scheme :D"More alliterations, I love them.
The next "phony", if you really want to know is here:"Why? Oh, well it's a long story, sir. I mean it's pretty complicated." I didn't feel like going into the whole thing with him. He (Spencer- "survival of the fittest.") wouldn't have understood it anyway. It wasn't up his alley at all. One of the biggest reasons I left Elkton Hills was because I was surrounded by phonies. That's all. They were coming in the goddam window. For instance, they had this headmaster, Mr. Haas, that was the phoniest bastard I ever met in my life. Ten times worse than old Thurmer. On Sundays, for instance, old Haas went around shaking hands with everybody's parents when they drove up to school. He'd be charming as hell and all. Except if some boy had little old funny-looking parents. You should've seen the way he did with my roommate's parents. I mean if a boy's mother was sort of fat or corny-looking or something, and if somebody's father was one of those guys that wear those suits with very big shoulders and corny black-and-white shoes, then old Hans would just shake hands with them and give them a phony smile and then he'd go talk, for maybe a half an hour, with somebody else's parents. I can't stand that stuff. It drives me crazy. It makes me so depressed I go crazy. I hated that goddam Elkton Hills. Page 13
If you look up Hass and WW2....what do you get?
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..."George, I think you explained excellently why this is a classic novel. It addresses the timeless issue of "coming of age" with a really unique character, whether one likes him or not, the writing is solid.
I think one must take into account the sensation around the novel when it was released, being banned for curse words. That kind of thing always launches a book into success. Still, it is a fact, Teenage Angst will always be popular. 50 years from now people will be discussing why Twilight is a classic. :)
Bre 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..."TCiTR is much more than teenage angst though. Holden takes us with him as he travels around NYC and tells us his experiences of trauma in his young life, a vivid portrayal of his crisis.
Every human being has crisis.
Karen wrote: "TCiTR is much more than teenage angst though. ..."I agree Karen. I hope you will look at my next post in Breaking The Code To The Catcher In The Rye called Little Shirley Bean.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bre wrote: " think one must take into account the sensation around the novel when it was released, being banned for curse words. That kind of thing always launches a book into success. Still, it is a fact, Teenage Angst will always be popular. 50 years from now people will be discussing why Twilight is a classic. :) ..."After I first read the Catcher I felt the same way, it must be the cussing. I just didn't get it. Then I read it again and found a different way of looking at the Catcher. I started reading it like an allegory about WAR, Power, Money And the Stock Exchange.
I don't think that Twilight has the depth that TCITR has.
I doubt I will be picking it apart and finding a deeper meaning other than the story/ plot itself.
So far I have 15 posts on Breaking The Code To The Catcher In The Rye. Take a look:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Cosmic wrote: But I think that self government or self responsibility created a position of power for the people. Where becoming more dependent on the state created more chaos...Isn't this the case?Unfortunately, dependence on the state to a certain extent is a necessary evil, as Thomas Paine pointed out.
Here's a concise review of some of the problems that were associated with Athenian Democracy. These issues may also apply to some modern democracies.
http://classicalwisdom.com/plato-and-...
Matthew wrote: "Here's a concise review of some of the problems that were associated with Athenian Democracy. These issues may also apply to some modern democracies...."This is very concise and informative. Thank you for the link.
Here is a little piece from that article to wet others appetite.
"Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty. We become obsessed with our freedom and become willing to sacrifice necessary things like social order and structure to attain it.
At this point, the newly appointed leaders become very nervous. It was so easy to depose their predecessors, so why not them? These democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind. And so the democratic leaders will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people. To ensure their power, the leaders will create laws to bolster their position. The rulers will impose heavy taxes against the commoners to ensure they are unable or unwilling to fight back against this. And any who do oppose the leaders will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy. It is for this reason that there must always be some enemy combatant that the leader can cast blame upon."
Have you read this bookOut of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man
You might put it on your reading list.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of...
So I am not alone! Just didn't resonate with me at all. Guess it really is a like it or loathe it book! Like Catch 22.
Cosmic wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Here's a concise review of some of the problems that were associated with Athenian Democracy. These issues may also apply to some modern democracies...."This is very concise and ..."
Out of Revolution sounds good. Thanks.
Gary wrote: "So I am not alone! Just didn't resonate with me at all. Guess it really is a like it or loathe it book! Like Catch 22."Gary, I think it would help if you had been American. A lot of the references are American.
For example:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I believe the book is about WAR. I think it is a much deeper book than it has been given credit for.
I really didn't like the book either. Holden just goes on and on and on and on about nothing and changes his mind about everything. Cant see why its considered a classic at all
I read this book to see what the fuss was about. And I found it a complete let down. There's nothing one can really take from this book. I guess its just the way it has been written that makes it popular.
Neha wrote: "I read this book to see what the fuss was about. And I found it a complete let down. There's nothing one can really take from this book. I guess its just the way it has been written that makes it p..."What makes it a disappointment is that everyone is looking for a novel and Salinger has written an allegory...and one that reads better than say Ulysses. But I think that if you will take the symbols and the books and Google WW2 in that you will break the code of the importance of the book. If you rely on the educational system to tell you what it means well I think it is dubious.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Willem wrote: "I really didn't like the book either. Holden just goes on and on and on and on about nothing and changes his mind about everything. Cant see why its considered a classic at all"I would like to purpose that this book was written in code and that you can't really understand the "meaning" unless you break the code. I will give you a few examples here but I don't want to spoil it for you. (For more examples look at my book review of The Catcher In the Rye and also of the book The 39 Steps ) Holden is a car, (His purpose is to be a vehicle to carry you through the story, but this story is not about Holden Caulfield like David Copperfeld is about David) and Caul-field is taken Return of the Native and from the book David Copperfield. It was a good luck charm. Maybe since Holden is a car that GM bought the plant so they could make money making war machines, they will have more luck making money going to war....(battle)-field Look at the first page of David Copperfield and you will find what it means and how Salinger is telling you that you must unveil the meaning of this story.
No the book is written like none other and in it is a code that makes the Di Vinci Code look like child's play.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Look how many post and explanations I have cipher from this book and compare them to the "official" interpretation and I think you will agree that there is more here than meets the eye.
To identify with the selfish and self-absorbed it helps to be selfish and self-absorbed.
Gary wrote: "So I am not alone! Just didn't resonate with me at all. Guess it really is a like it or loathe it book! Like Catch 22."This review may help you get a better grip on it: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I just didn't get the book,may it was written well I guess but I didn't get the point until I looked it up, it has to do with not wanting to grow up and hoe Holden cares for kids and doesn't turst adults, if you need help I recomend John green crash course video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R66eQLL... but I'm still not getting why it is soooooo popular and I have a paper due on it wish me luck!
I hope the title of your paper allows you to express not getting it without losing you credit.
Holden is a teenage boy who is facing emotional stress brought upon by the death of his brother and the suicide of his classmate. He suffered a mental breakdown by the end of the book and is telling his story from an insane asylum. The novel is famous for its extreme censorship due to its language and theme and some topics, which were considered inappropriate for younger audiences a couple years after its publication in the 1950's. It challenges society norms, customs and tradition which then was considered perfect. There is a lot more the stories is meant to convey but that's all I can share now.
Samira wrote: "Holden is a teenage boy who is facing emotional stress brought upon by the death of his brother and the suicide of his classmate. He suffered a mental breakdown by the end of the book and is tellin..."Good post!
Karen wrote: "Samira wrote: "Holden is a teenage boy who is facing emotional stress brought upon by the death of his brother and the suicide of his classmate. He suffered a mental breakdown by the end of the boo..."Thank you :)
I've read Catcher in the Rye twice, both as an adult. What I see in the character of Holden Caulfield is a person who looks at the world around him and doesn't see or feel anything he connects with. He doesn't buy into the game of what path a person must take to be a productive member of society. He isn't interested in any game, let alone one that is clearly rigged. He ends up in a mental institution because society can deal with him no other way. They don't get it, and their only conclusion is that he must be sick. When all he wants to do is something with a real sense of purpose. In the 1950s, as it is now, it takes a brave person to fight conformity with raw honesty, and the true vernacular of the day (not the polite speak one is expected to use in the public sphere). And I applaud that bravery. JD Salinger really offered me a conversation in Catcher in the Rye, one I cannot really have otherwise.
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)
Beats the hell out of me.