Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 101-150 of 1,174

[Anum]

I did not get it at all either... I was confused from page 1 till the last...

[Angelica]

I understood the book, I just thought it was mindless reading and a waste of time. The author wrote a 300 page book and it could've been summed up in a few sentences.

[Joshua]

I liked it except I felt the ending was a let down.

[Sana]

The kid hated a lot of things. That really got on my nerves..

[Robin]

The kid was misguided.

[Phil]

Angelica wrote: "I understood the book, I just thought it was mindless reading and a waste of time. The author wrote a 300 page book and it could've been summed up in a few sentences."

This is more or less what I thought, too.

[Valerie]

My husband recommended this book to me because he rather enjoyed it. It took me two attempts, but I did manage to slog through it. Maybe if I had read it years ago when I was...(ahem)...younger, I might have enjoyed it more, but I thought it was painful to read about someone who was obviously very unhappy with thier life. All I can say is "I don't get it".

[Marvin Lee]

I have this book on my TO READ list because I want to know what the fuss is about.

I do know that a lot of hipsters love the shit out of it. Must be trendy to like it or something.

[Janet]

I read this book at 50. I could see that others would like it, but it does not speak to a 50-year-old woman. In fact, I don't think most teens would "get it." However, some teens have told me they absolutely love it. These happen to be smart, well-read, and individualistic teens. It speaks to those who sometimes would just like to chuck it all and go do what suits them at that moment--if only they were brave enough to do it (or were as mixed up as poor Holden). I have a 17-year-old student who wants to name (some day)her first son Holden, but her cousin beat her to it!

[Lauren]

I read this book when I was 20 and it was really depressing and annoying, so I finished it, just to say I've read it and that was it...Done...End

[Anna]

Karen wrote: "When I read Catcher in the Rye in high school, I saw Holden as a rebellious, misunderstood boy who was more intelligent and better than the adults around him. When I re-read the book as an adult, I..."

Very well-put, Karen. I agree, for the most part, with your assertion.

[Anna]

I find books more pleasurable when I don't go into them expecting some sort of profound enlightenment to occur. Sometimes it's just nice to read about the human-experience and see how different it is for each individual. Catcher is one kid's story, and Salinger told it brilliantly.

[Justin]

I read it for the first time last year, and I really enjoyed it. I didn't really "get" it, if there's something to get. It was entertaining, and, frankly, somewhat hilarious. Holden has a way of looking at the world that makes me chuckle. I guess maybe that's where some of the distinction lies. If you think he's funny, you generally enjoy the book better. If you find him annoying, you're not going to like it very much. I think it presents a strong message about discontentment, about finding your place in life, and perhaps even about how much we all think stupid things are so important in our own lives when we are young.

Either way, I thought it was pretty good. It's not my favorite book, but I wouldn't say I didn't like it.

[Jessalyn]

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 absolutley hated this book. i got the exact same thing out of it you did. i had to do a report on it and i didnt finish the book until the night before the paper was due haha i just couldnt make myself read it. normally i can force myself to read a book if i need to but this one, i just couldnt.

[Matthew]

It's all about his brother. Everything Holden does and all his cynicism can be related back to the death of his brother. I'm not sure if everyone got this because it took me a few times reading the ending as well, but HOLDEN IS IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL telling this story to a psychiatrist (Holden calls him a "psychoanalyst guy".

Holden believes that all mothers are insane, probably because he blames his own for the death of Allie

He asks for drinks everywhere he goes, and tries to get a hooker he doesn't end up using--all evidence that he wants to grow up fast because he believes all the adults he know are incompetent because they are the cause of Allie's death.

The fish and ducks in the story may be the best example. Holden is constantly asking Cab Drivers and other people what happens to the fish and the ducks in the winter time. He is so worried because in Holden's mind the fish and ducks are Allie, and winter is death. He wonders who will save them, and who should have saved his brother.

Although Holden cares about the fish, he lacks caring in many instances because he fears that he will lose what he cares about, as he lost his brother, and in turn he becomes cynical to the people and instances that he does not care about because he feels it is better to live cynically than to live with love and the possibility of losing what he loved and getting hurt again.

The book ultimately gets its title when Holden talks about the song that goes "if a body catch a body coming through the rye" (it's actually If a body meet a body coming through the rye )and says he would like to have a job where he saved kids lives from falling off a cliff. This is caused by the trauma Holden felt when he lost his own brother and wants to spare others from having to feel the same pain. Alternately Holden may feel that he wants to "catch" young kids from having to grow up at an old age like he had to do because his brother died and he felt that all adults were incompetent.

Lastly you can look at when Holden goes to his old professors house as a refuge, to a person he thought he could count on and that would "catch" him as he wants to catch others. He wakes up in the middle of the night to the "flit" professor stroking his hair, and realizes that this professor has not caught him like he thought he would and is a "flit" and that what Holden thought was true and right was actually skewed.

Ultimately his cynicism can be related back to his brothers death, but also the fact that his world is very skewed (being wrong about his professor, labeling students of his same economical class as phonies, being wrong about the song, etc).


Hope this helps guys.

[Justin]

Thanks! That was a very thoughtful analysis!

[Megan]

Well, I'm well into my teens and I don't understand Holden too much. I don't like the book overall, but I understand his want to be cynical towards the world. He thinks that could be alone in this world among those who are trapped within the middle. The middle would be described as to being past the age of childhood and the development into the adult world.

That's all I learned from English class. It was pretty helpful, but honestly, Holden's annoying.

[Farrah]

There is such beautiful irony in this book. Almost every chapter ends with a great sentence. In addition to what Matthew said above, this book also speaks to the time as well as the nature of relationships. In a subtle way, Caulfield/Salinger pokes apart the nature of society.

[Justin]

Farrah, that's so true about the great sentences. I think that maybe it's more of a writer's book than a reader's book. I found myself thinking more than once while I was reading it that I wish I'd written this or that sentence. I think it has a lot to do with Holden's "to hell with it" attitude. I find him hilarious, and the majority of that is Salinger's word choice.

[Farrah]

I actually just finished re-reading this book last week. I loved that as I was reading it, I kept calling everything a goddamn this or goddamn that. Good point Justin...it is more of a writer's book.

[Brit]

I Liked this book. I didn't like how he said Phoney every single page of the book...:( I thought it was an interesting topic but i wish something more interesting happened in it. I had to read it for school and had a study guide...Holden is a different character and its something that will bug you about him is the way he talks...other then that it is not a bad book.

[Olivia]

That's exactly how I felt about this book.

[Steve]

I'm going to say that the book blew me away when I read it. Of course, I was 13 at the time and it was probably the perfect age. In addition we are talking about 1964, so any book that required that you get your parent's permission to read had to be excellent.

I have no idea how I would react to the book now at age Sixty. I would almost be afraid to read it and find that it wasn't special anymore.

[Brianna]

I liked Catcher in The Rye but like all of you said through out the book you have one of those "Huh" and "What"'s. I understood it but him consistently going on and on about how his life isn't all rainbows and flowers, was really, really annoying. but I found the book to be worth reading all of because everyone around him pushed and strived him to keep going, but it proved to me that guy's can be more of a wuss than girls. (no offense to those guys)

[Rose]

Holden is trying to protect Pheobe from losing the innocents of childhood. A catcher in the Rye collects the wheat from the shaffe.

[Michael]

I tell you what I don't get, and that is why people obviously use the phrase "I don't get it" as some sort of euphemism for "I didn't like this book." Because I can only hope that you people who say you don't get it have some sort of basic human reasoning to sort out what you are reading. It's not hard. We're not reading Finnegan's Wake here. It's fine that you don't like the book, but please stop acting like it just baffles you how people can like a book you don't like, so that you must be missing something.

[Fadhilatul]

I love this so much!

[Allison]

I love this book, but as a high school English teacher I think I understand why so many people resist it. Holden represents something a lot of people can't relate to on a deep level, especially as adults--the loss of innocence. Holden, at 16, is just now realizing the world is an awful place sometimes, and that knowledge (and the knowledge that he can't protect his little sister from that fact) torments him.

In my experience, teenagers now come into this knowledge much earlier than they used to, so the idea that a 16 year old is this disillusioned seems crazy. Yes, Holden is self-absorbed and likes to whine, but he's 16. And, speaking as someone who enjoys working with 16 year olds immensely (I teach sophomores) this is what kids at 16 are like. The world does revolve around them (this is actually a cognitive stage, not just me being flippant) and life is tough, so if Holden seems a little self-centered, that's normal. That's the way kids are.

Salinger himself was a recluse, it makes sense he'd create a novel about a kid completely nonplussed by the outside world. It reflects his own view on how corrupt and confusing society is. As I've worked with students through this novel, most students come to the realization that unless the reader also feels this way about the world, they won't connect with Holden. And if you don't connect with him, this can be a tough read.

I also think that, due to the symbolism, characterization, and underlying themes, this is a book to be studied, not just read. Having someone to support the reading, talk to about it, tease out the confusing parts, etc makes the read a lot easier. Reading it alone might leave people feeling they "don't get it," like they are missing parts. A lot of my students think I am crazy in September when we start plowing through The Great Gatsby--this is my favorite book ever? Really?! But with a little support, they eventually fall in love too. My experience has been that Catcher is the same way.

[Yuhan]

I read Catcher in the Rye during high school and I remember the whole time waiting for there to be some sort of point or plot. I think my general impression was that it was kind of pointless. I'm curious what my reaction to it would be like now that I'm older.

I read the book in the first place because a high school teacher of mine talked about how his feelings towards the book changed over the years. When he first read it as a teenager he loved it, and very much identified with Holden. When he read it again some years later after college he was surprised that he found Holden to be a whiny brat. He read it again recently - now as a much older man with a college-aged son - he came to have another perspective and thought the book did essentially capture the mindset of a particular kind of teen angst.

It is always interesting to look at how our perceptions of a work change as we ourselves grow and change. So perhaps I should give this book another try?

[Lynette]

I first read it my sophomore year and absolutely hated it. I thought Holden was bitchy and spineless and a rattletrap--and I just wanted him to shut up. We were then given the assignment to write the next chapter for the book. I had him mouth off to the wrong people. He got shot and died.

I read the book (a good part of it anyway) as an adult to see what I may have missed as a teen. I still didn't care for it, but I did recognize the voice as being very appropriately for a teen of that era and could see why more often than not teens can relate to Holden. (I could also see in hindsight that I was never a "normal" teen and that it was inevitable for me to hate Holden.)

[crockpotcrosby]

It's a book that anyone can relate to and he tells the story with a lot of emotion and honesty. You don't have to "get" it, all it is, is a story about a teenager having trouble growing up. It's my favorite novel because it's easy to relate too, nobody wants to grow up, but the character change he goes through and he realizes that no matter what happens, you have to go for it. It's a poignant tale from the inside of a confused teenager's mind.

[Greg]

There's nothing to get here. The dialects are inconsistent, and the theme is poorly-presented. It's not a good book, nor a particularly groundbreaking one. There were plenty of authors writing in dialect long before JD Salinger. Twain claimed there were dozens in Huck Finn, and Faulkner requires reading aloud to even know what people are saying half the time.

[Jay]

I wonder why no one gets it into their heads that:

a) Holden is on the wrong side of mental stability when he reminisces about those two crazy days, and thus can appear to be a flawed narrator, or a prick, or a myth-maker, or all three, throughout the book.

b) He is equally in the dark as to why he was depressed, why he was hysteric, why the shit that happened happened to him, and yet he gives wonderfully zany reasons--this provides a wonderful comic undertone.

c) Holden is having a nervous breakdown, an experience beyond most 17 year olds, and he is attempting a glamorization while narrating it. He is trying to impress you, the reader, he is trying to seduce you, he is trying to act cute, and you can see through it. Do you think that Salinger was blind to the possibility of his readers being passably shrewd?

d)Everything that Holden Caulfield says in the book--and the book is him, after all--EVERYTHING he says is a reconstruction, and it is reflected by the surroundings he is in, as he speaks. A crumby sanatorium.

e) And finally, there is a terrible honesty in everything he says. Even his pretensions and his phoniness and "ten million goddamns", are ultimately attempts at honesty.

And it is this honesty that makes it the voice of a decent, average, shrewd, intense, paranoid kid, living in the 50's. And no, you don't have to "relate" to him, and no, he was not the "embodiment" of any goddam generation, and no, you certainly don't have to "like him" or "want to meet him". He was a spectacular failure, a decent kid that wanted to be the catcher in the rye. And Catcher in the Rye is a spectacular novel, more interesting and TRUE than The Diary of Anne Frank.

[Greg]

@jay -
I like plenty of books with asympathetic ranging to plain old distasteful and unreliable narrators.
This is just a poorly-written attempt at all the things you point out.

[Jay]

@ greg

Its always a little absurd to argue over enthusiasms. We hardly know why we like what we like. All we ever seem to do is label our prejudices!

Having said that, I believe that Catcher in the Rye is a book of dimensions. If you look through the clichés and absurdities of a seventeen year old’s posturing, you are bound to see something that is shockingly beautiful. Beautiful, but not obviously.

Beyond the superficial attraction of a rebellious teenager’s so-called "honest" rants, what I find in the book is a certain poignancy and tenderness, which, I believe is the mark of a work of art. Why poignant? There is a character thrown, without his consent, into a world of greater diversity and relentless truths, which his innate decency resents; he understands that life is mostly a constant shattering of your truths in the raucousness of a world that does not acknowledge nor cares for what you feel, think, are. And yet, he must go on living. Why tender? In the vulgarity of a clamoring world, there is always a soft melancholic love, a pathetic fragility that affirms life, again and again (in Holden’s case, Phoebe).

And all this is terribly funny. The violence done to your proclivities are humorous, and it is a poor intelligence that believes in tragedy or comedy, because always, always one must remember the humor of all this. The book is beyond the delineation of poor tragedy.

Now apart from this, there are the obvious beauties.

The rhythm of the recurring prose, certain brushstrokes of profound insight, observation, the way a crooked lip or a gaunt belly implies much more than its appearance and the freshness of Salinger’s basic premise, which, let it be said, is not mere “loss of innocence”.

I think one must read and reread and re-reread to make sure that the implications are never lost on one. I don’t mean “get between the lines” or seek for symbols (all of which are tedious, tiresome toils). I mean, discerning the inner harmony of a work of art, be it Catcher in the Rye, or Twilight, or Life as a whole.

Goddamn, I sound so phony! I just hope everyone gives Catcher in the Rye one more try. It is as profound as Ulysses—and yes, I am awake to the implication of that statement. But if you really, biliously, unrelentingly, wildly, madly hate it—shit, maybe it IS a bad book!

[Allison]

While I understand that people may not like a book--certainly that is our right as readers with preferences and opinions--I find it ridiculous to claim that Salinger's book is "poorly written." Salinger's work has survived for decades because many people see the inherent worth of his work. I dislike Heart of Darkness and The Scarlet Letter (despite my repeated attempts to "get them") but that certainly doesn't mean Conrad and Hawthorne are talentless. They just don't speak to me. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's worthless.

If we want to blame the writer, couldn't the writer just as easily blame his audience? Maybe you just aren't "talented enough" to get it? I don't believe that's true any more than I believe that Salinger is a bad writer, but it bears some consideration.

I think, as with all great works of art (paintings, music or books) that we need to see that not every artwork is required to speak to every single person on earth. Salinger cast his net as wide as he was able. If it does not catch you, perhaps it's a matter a style and preference rather than his talent.

[Sarah]

I think maybe it was a look into the typical teenager's mind. Maybe it was trying to make adults remember what it was like being a teen, and try to understand them. Or maybe it was trying to teach teens to stay in school. The writing dragged on though, in my opinion. I don't love it or hate it, I'm trying to understand it's purpose.

[Greg]

@Allison . . .
There are plenty of awful classics that stay in rotation for awful reasons.
Jebb's translations of the Greek Tragedies come to mind, just off the top of my head. People use them because they're the least-terrible translations in the public domain. They're still bad.

Sometimes things last for a long time for stupid reasons. The Catcher in The Rye's longevity baffles me, and I'm hardly the only person to think so.

[V.]

I think there's very limited value in saying Catcher in the Rye can only be appreciated at x age, as if all teenagers or 30-somethings must share the same world view.

Personally, I really liked the themes Salinger developed through the book, but failed to be emotionally gripped by the protagonist. Holden Caulfield is very precisely wrought and nuanced as a character, but ultimately I found his perspective frustratingly, unrelentingly myopic and that really alienated me as a reader. The only part of the story I thought particularly redeeming was from Phoebe's entrance onwards. Holden's desire to protect his kid sister was rather poignant, if bleak, and I recall the scene at the carousel vividly.

So while I can recognise the value in the underlying themes, for me, any book that I was going to consider a 'favourite' needs to emotionally suck me in, as well as rest on a foundation of brilliant ideas.

[Kim]

Allison wrote: "I love this book, but as a high school English teacher I think I understand why so many people resist it. Holden represents something a lot of people can't relate to on a deep level, especially as ..."

Thank you for the insight. It was, indeed, a tough character to relate to, which may be the exact reason I just could not get into this book. After reviewing some of the comments here, I am inclined to agree that this book may need to be studied (versus just being read). I just might have to come back to it...

[Kim]

Matthew wrote: "It's all about his brother. Everything Holden does and all his cynicism can be related back to the death of his brother. I'm not sure if everyone got this because it took me a few times reading the..."

Thanks, Matthew. This (coupled with a few more insightful comments) was definitely helpful. As I mentioned to another reader, I think this discussion has provoked me enough to consider a second read.

[Padavi]

I first read this book when I was about 16 (in the 60s) and I hated it. I thought Holden Caulfield was a self-obsessed pain in the a***. However, when I read it again about 25 years later, as the mother of three children, I saw it from a completely different perspective. I saw a lonely, vulnerable boy struggling between childhood and adulthood. His comment regarding Morrow's mother in Chapter 8, " Mothers are all slightly insane" is one I found to be very revealing. This is a boy who has been sent away by a mother so wrapped up in her own grief at the loss of a son that she has no idea of the damage the loss has effected on Holden. On my third reading, a few years ago I became more aware of the paradoxes in Holden's character and also how much humour there is in the novel.

[Dinah]

Did not enjoy this book. I expected a lot more out of it, not the rambling of a depressed teenage boy. I barely made it through. The first 3/4 was annoying, but the last bit was OK and I started to like Holden a bit. I did not "get it" at all though. I have been trying to figure out what I am missing.

[Tori]

I absolutely love this book, easily the best book i've ever read.

[Aaron]

Holden Caulfield is a foul-mouthed, cynical, rebellious, socially awkward teenager...... quite a specific taste you would say. So I presume anyone who did not possess any of these traits growing up will have quite a stern view of him but there is no doubht that Sallinger captured this personality very well and this is confirmed in the split opinion of Caulfield.

His actions, some might say are appalling and disgusting while some may revel in the rebelliousness and adventure of his actions and it is due to this divide thats makes the book a success. Holdens personality leaps out of the page whether you like it or not

[Richard]

dude, i couldn't get past the first three chapters, holden is the mosy annoying charcter of all time and i kinda want to burn the book. i don't why the book is popular. it makes me wonder if most people are crazier then me

[Signe]

i read this book when i was about 20, on my own accord, expecting it to be a 'stuffy classic'. what i found was a sensitive, conflicted teen-ager in the midst of an existential crisis - and i totally got it; i felt much the same way when i was a kid. i also found it refreshing for a story to be told by a kid instead of about one. yes, he may seem 'whiny', but when you experience the world and the people in it as 'phony', this is a side-effect as you are not mature enough yet to see it through a clearer lens. i love this book, and i love holden caulfield for helping me make sense of what i went through as a kid.

[Della]

I have just skimmed the other comments since there are so many. I read it when I was in my teens and was quite impressed. If I read it again now maybe I wouldn't be so much. I have a friend who thinks it's way overrated, think Holden Caulfield is a whiny, overpriveleged WASP who needs to get over himself, or something like that.(He also hates the 60s counterculture classics,such as The Teachings of Don Juan, that people rave about) But you could say similar things about Madame Bovary or many other literary characters.Characters have their own perspectives in life because of who they are and where they are--it's either a well-told story or it isn't. If you like this, you might like "Paul's Case" by Willa Cather. It deals with some similar issues, but is in third person.

[Joe]

This book sucks. There are probably more eloquent ways of saying it, but I go for the direct approach usually. LOL

[Faye]

I guess its controversial because of the last part.The unspoken revelation about how the Kindness of one person turn out to be Malicious.