Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 1,101-1,150 of 1,173

[James]

Glad you could clear that up. In such an eloquent way, too.

[Sheila]

I didn't get it either.

[James]

Nothing to get. Obviously.

[Hallie]

Well, this book definitely isn't as simple as understanding which spell makes the father fly. Wingardium Leviosa is much easily interpreted than a story on a person 'who is metaphorically killed by others when they do something.'

[Patricia]

You got it absolutely right. Holden is sinking further into depression and has no one to talk to about it. His heart is revealed when he states he wants to be the catcher in the rye who protects the little kids. He himself needs help at the same time he dreams of being the helper. Remember he is a teenage boy who lacks the vocabulary and the information to understand what is happening to him. At that time it was shameful to admit that you were deeply depressed. People didn't talk about mental and emotional issues.

[Karl]

As a teenager in the Fifties, I related much more to "The Grapes of Wrath" characters than Holden. Taking action and engaging in the struggle to improve one's situation was something I could relate to. I understood Holden (my cousin died, a teenage friend committed suicide), but didn't sympathize. I felt he didn't really try to deal with life and change things.

[Karen]

Karl wrote: "As a teenager in the Fifties, I related much more to "The Grapes of Wrath" characters than Holden. Taking action and engaging in the struggle to improve one's situation was something I could relate..."

Holden was trying to deal with his life all through the book- why can't some feel empathy for a character in a novel who is struggling? I don't quite get that.

[Hallie]

Karen wrote: "Karl wrote: "As a teenager in the Fifties, I related much more to "The Grapes of Wrath" characters than Holden. Taking action and engaging in the struggle to improve one's situation was something I..."

It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling.

[Karl]

Agreed. There is a passive aura about Holden that just did not appeal to me in my youth - a time when young people were expressing themselves through juvenile delinquency, morality movements, civil rights causes, the Beatnik underground, concern about Sputnik and the Cold War, and rock 'n roll. There was a lot going on, and TV and national radio were laying the groundwork for the activism that exploded into the Sixties.

[James]

I think most people tend to feel something toward an activist personality, whether it be sympathy to the cause or antipathy toward the rebellion. The standard attitudes seem to be two: (1) If you're unhappy, get off your ass and do something about it; and (2) if you don't like it here, go someplace else. But what about people who don't want to spend their lives fighting or conforming? What about those who would decide to live their lives doing neither? And what if you wrote a story about a teenager who is one of those people? I think Catcher in the Rye is one of those stories. And I think Salinger lived his life this way. He walked away and defined his own life without the need to fight or conform. I have a lot of respect for someone who can do that.

[Cosmic]

James wrote: "I think most people tend to feel something toward an activist personality, whether it be sympathy to the cause or antipathy toward the rebellion. The standard attitudes seem to be two: (1) If you'r..."

I totally agree! I think a lot of people conform in order to appear "normal". But is it human to pretend by adopting the same stage and script that everyone else does? Is that really normal? I think that Salinger is also asking us to question the status quo and those that try to keep us from questioning...."the morons."

[Araceli]

Charlotte 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 I COULD NOT GET INTO IT. HOLDEN JUST SUCKED SO MUCH AS A CHARCATER. lol and I honestly have no idea why its a lititure book like English & Literature is what I'm really into and I understand it but not this book it was so useless and did not enhance me on any Literature and I don't get why its a banned book its not a controversy thing the book just sucks

[Karl]

Araceli wrote: "Charlotte 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 ..."

I don't think it's that bad. It's just not very interesting. At least, not to me. Holden's not a character I was able to relate to.

[Monty J]

Araceli wrote: "Charlotte 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 ..."

Perhaps this review will help:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Araceli]

Lol at Month I still think the boom was total bullshit afyer Reading review sorry I already understood the literature but it was still quite boring and I hated Holden

[Araceli]

Meant *Monty not month haha

[Cosmic]

Araceli wrote: "CharlME I COULD NOT GET INTO IT. HOLDEN JUST SUCKED SO MUCH AS A CHARCATER. lol and I honestly have no idea why its a lititure book like English & Literature is what I'm really into and I understand it but not this book it was so useless and did not enhance me on any Literature and I don't get why its a banned book its not a controversy thing the book just sucks
..."

That was how i felt the first time i read the Catcher. But then i read it again to see if there was something i missed, after all i had friends that really liked the book.

This time i saw the book as an allegory about war power and money.

Check out my thread here:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Karen]

Hallie wrote;

"It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling."

Really? Isn't that what the whole book is about? Holden's struggling?

[Cosmic]

Karen wrote:

"It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling."

Really? Isn't that what the whole book is about? Holden's struggling?"

Well what is he struggling against?
School? Being manipulated by teachers? Being bullied by students? Being tested on how well he conforms to the school standards? Being systematically dehumanized in order to create a 'team' that can play the 'game'? Made to feel less than because he doesn't fit into the 'mold'? Not measuring up?

The problem I see with labeling him as someone in a mental institution is that he maybe actually acting normal and everyone else that is trying to create a 'theater of actors to follow their script' might be the ones that are sociopaths or mentally unstable.

[Monty J]

Hallie wrote: "It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling."

Here's a few struggles:
1--Academic performance. He's flunking out.
2--Stradlater, whom he fights over Jane Gallagher.
3--Trouble getting along with Ackley.
4--Mr Spencer, who criticizes him instead of trying to understand
5--Loneliness. He makes conversation with cab drivers & tries to get one of them to have a drink with him. He makes conversation with Ms Morrow on the train and with a group of nuns in a restaurant and with some tourist ladies from Seattle. He even tries to make conversation with a prostitute.
6--Girls. Sally Hayes just doesn't understand him and they have a falling out.
7--Illness. He's sick with fever.
8--Thoughts of suicide.
9--Money. He runs out & has to borrow from Phoebe.
10--Phoebe. She gripes at him for flunking out, but eventually reconciles with him.

[Hallie]

Karen wrote: "Hallie wrote;

"It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling."

Really? Isn't that what the whole book is about? Holden's struggling?"

It's supposed to be, but the effect isn't seen.

[James]

Hallie wrote;

"It's supposed to be, but the effect isn't seen."

You mean you don't see the effect. I certainly see a struggle.

[Hallie]

James, I'm not sure how exactly you can tell what I mean.

[James]

By your words. The phrase "the effect isn't seen" is inaccurate. Because others see it even if you don't. I assumed by your words that you meant that you don't see the struggle. If this is incorrect, feel free to clarify.

[Hallie]

I meant it in a different way, actually.

[Monty J]

Hallie wrote: "James, I'm not sure how exactly you can tell what I mean."

Maybe what we're experiencing here is an age thing.

When you're a young adult, the struggles you're going through don't seem to be struggles because it's just life. It's the norm. Later, when you look back on these events, you have more history to compare them with and can put them in perspective.

This book was never intended for young adults. But it's been marketed to the Y/A market simply because of the age of the protagonist/narrator. Some can get it, but most will not.

When I first read it at age 19, I didn't get much out of it and didn't like Holden at all. Decades later, it was a whole 'nuther book.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Hallie wrote: "It's because we don't get the feeling that he is struggling."

Here's a few struggles:
1--Academic performance. He's flunking out.
2--Stradlater, whom he fights over Jane Gallagher.
..."

Good details of Holden's struggle, thank you Monty.

[Matthew]

Hello all, I just ran across this article that shows how anti-obscenity groups in the 60s were going after Catcher in the Rye:

http://daily.jstor.org/j-d-salinger-p...

[Monty J]

Matthew wrote: "Hello all, I just ran across this article that shows how anti-obscenity groups in the 60s were going after Catcher in the Rye:

http://daily.jstor.org/j-d-salinger-p......"

Yeah, and the name "Charles Keating" leap off the page at me. He's like Richard Nixon and many other hypocritical crooks who manufacture a false social veneer to hook your trust, then steal you blind.

[Hallie]

Monty J wrote: "Hallie wrote: "James, I'm not sure how exactly you can tell what I mean."

Maybe what we're experiencing here is an age thing.

When you're a young adult, the struggles you're going through don't ..."

I think that might be true. I don't know how old the others on this thread are, but it is likely.

[Philip]

I should give it another read, nearly forty years on (it's short enough!).

[James]

I read Catcher in the Rye in college (18 or 19) the first time. I immediately connected to the character of Holden and his struggle living in a fucked-up world (my take on it). I have read it twice since, and feel equally as connected to Holden as the fucked-up world hasn't changed much at all (my take on it).

[Karen]

Philip wrote: "I should give it another read, nearly forty years on (it's short enough!)."

Yes! Read it again Philip.

[Sarah]

I've only read this once. I was 17 when I got through it and I didn't get it. I just think it's too soon for me to try again, for now I am perfectly content to say that I am blissfully ignorant of the underlying message that makes it a great novel.

[Uzma]

I couldn't fathom why people like it so much. Read on my friend's recommendation (who LOVED it) but I really didn't enjoy it.

It is a matter of choice, really and also how you live your life. I didn't feel any connection to the character.

[Monty J]

Uzma wrote: "I couldn't fathom why people like it so much. Read on my friend's recommendation (who LOVED it) but I really didn't enjoy it."

This review may help https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Hannah]

Totally did not understand this book! We had to read it last year for AP English and I hated it! However many people seem to like and even enjoy Holden's personality. I, however, was not one of them.

[James]

After reading so many posts here, I have a theory to posit. Since I don't know anyone personally, I may be way off base. But it seems that the contributors here fall into 3 camps:

(1) Hate it. Absolutely hate it. Don't "get" it.
(2) Love it. Absolutely love it. Really "get" it.
(3) Fascinated by it.

My guess is this: (1) fits the bill for people who are generally happy with society, and the role that they play in it; (2) are people who are unsatisfied with society is a very fundamental way and feel trapped by it; and (3) those who look mainly at the quality of the writing, the strength of the voice, and those who have an academic interest in the underlying influences and ultimate meaning.

If any of this is accurate, in my view, it goes to the power of JD Salinger's writing. If this is not accurate, then feel free to take these ideas and feed them to your goat. :)

[Karl]

James wrote: "After reading so many posts here, I have a theory to posit. Since I don't know anyone personally, I may be way off base. But it seems that the contributors here fall into 3 camps:

(1) Hate it. Abs..."

My goat has an entirely different set of teenage angst issues. But maybe Holden would be good shock therapy for what ails it. BTW, I think you've hit some nails on the head with your post.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "My guess is this: (1) fits the bill for people who are generally happy with society, and the role that they play in it; (2) are people who are unsatisfied with society is a very fundamental way and feel trapped by it; and (3) those who look mainly at the quality of the writing, the strength of the voice, and those who have an academic interest in the underlying influences and ultimate meaning."

Excellent analysis, to which I would append the following in #1: Teens and young-adults who are so immersed in their own transition that they haven't developed enough perspective to appreciate Holden's struggles. A bee sting is an abstract notion to one who's never been stung.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "My guess is this: (1) fits the bill for people who are generally happy with society, and the role that they play in it; (2) are people who are unsatisfied with society is a very funda..."

I agree. Maybe there should be 1a and 1b.

[Clay]

Remeber really loving Raise High The Roofbeams Carpenters/ And Seymour An Introduction much better as a teen. Read and reread it, many times.

[Jamie]

Catcher in the Rye just left me cold and bored.
Holden was uninteresting with his absurd amount of slang and teenage angst. After a couple of chapters I could predict almost everything he did. The plot was boring with almost nothing happening except Holden bothering people and being self-deluded. The language used was so repetitive, it became an annoyance.
This novel is supposedly about a troubled teenager who's mental health is deteriorating and wants to save children from "the phony world of adulthood" that he doesn't (but somehow also does!) wants to enter.
I felt no empathy towards this character that wanted to wallow himself in ignorance and hail children as these little geniuses while considering adulthood as phony.
This novel might've been revolutionary in 1950s America, but now it's (like a lot of other people described) about a whiny rich brat that either needs a kick in the behind or needs to see a doctor.

[Steven]

Charlotte wrote: "ll I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. "

That's basically it really. The book involves a very realistic account of what goes through the head of a guy of that age. There's serious stuff going on in his life, presently and past, and will impact his future. But in amongst that is a whole heap of crap that isn't really important at all; his views on others, their actions and their feelings toward him.

[Seth]

I'm amazed at how many people seem to think it makes them intellectually superior not to "get" the "Catcher in the Rye." Salinger wrote an expiremental stream of consciousness novel like Joyce, but instead of taking place in Dublin over the course of a day in the early 20th century, it took place in NYC over the course of a weekend in the early '50's, with America at the height of conformity after the war. It's almost impossible to write an experimental novel that finds mainstream approval, an amazing achievment.

[Hallie]

Seth wrote: "I'm amazed at how many people seem to think it makes them intellectually superior not to "get" the "Catcher in the Rye." Salinger wrote an expiremental stream of consciousness novel like Joyce, but..."

I doubt there is an "superiority" and "inferiority" here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just because you "get" the book does not make you "superior" to those who don't or vice versa.

[Seth]

It's not a question of my superiority, or not. The "Catcher" has survived this long because it is significant, and that's why we still talk about it. A world of pure orgiastic pleasure where all we do is pant like babies when we're happy is hardly the pinnacle of reason.

Truthfully, I've seen the rather edgy 'I don't "get" this book' message in my feed for so long, that I had to say something. I didn't get books in Jr. high that were classics, but really struggled with them. I just don't get the depth of a word like "get" regarding a masterpiece without further inquiry, or maybe it's a Facebook world where opinions rule the airwaves, artists be damned. I don't really give a crap whether someone likes the "Catcher" or not, but don't shit on literature.

[Sarah]

Seth wrote: "It's not a question of my superiority, or not. The "Catcher" has survived this long because it is significant, and that's why we still talk about it. A world of pure orgiastic pleasure where all we..."

I think in most cases it's not that people don't "get" it, it's just that it's not quite their thing and that's the way they describe it. I feel like even if you don't like a novel like Catcher you can understand the artistic value of it.

If you're talking about people that don't give the novel the artistic credit it deserves, then I agree with you. There's a difference between totally trashing a novel and simply not having a preference for it but still respecting it.

[Seth]

Sarah wrote: "Seth wrote: "It's not a question of my superiority, or not. The "Catcher" has survived this long because it is significant, and that's why we still talk about it. A world of pure orgiastic pleasure..."
This a very sane response, Sarah, and thank you.

[Sarah]

Seth wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Seth wrote: "It's not a question of my superiority, or not. The "Catcher" has survived this long because it is significant, and that's why we still talk about it. A world of pure orgi..."


No problem! It's just important to recognize why a book is important even if it's not really a personal preference. I'm not the hugest fan of Catcher but I do understand why it's important!