Did anyone else just not "get" this book? Showing 251-300 of 1,174

[Georgia]

I think Lunabell has touched on one factor that is very important in this classic - the use of the unreliable narrator to reveal Holden's character. What I haven't heard anyone bring up yet is the type of situations that Holden is criticizing and "whining about". And I believe that is where the key to the novel lies.

Isn't he always complaining about the phoniness he sees around him, the accepted norms of society that just dont hit him as right? And why would those things hit him as wrong unless he has an underlying character that wants to see higher standards upheld? As an immature adolescent, he cannot recognize that what he defends shows the superiority of the character he is developing. The delicacy of his feelings against hypocritical and exploitative norms (remember how he complains about not being able to have sex with a girl he doesn't know, as his peers expect him to)confuse him, but only because in his immature state he doesn't have the experience to know that he is right and they are wrong.

At the end, when he decides against running away and stays by his sister's side (family love and loyalty),his affection for her has kept him from leaving her side. Family love, pure love, has kept him back from running off. Though we can't say that is an immediate happy ending, we can expect in the future, when Holden has come into his own, he will recognize who he is and recognize that life requires those with high standards to uphold them against society's onslaughts.

I "get" the novel.

[Kris]

I read this book years ago, when I was young. I thought it was depressing and really rather boring. Yeah, so he was not a happy camper, so what? A whole book about the dissatisfaction of youth? Not my favorite book.

[Sharon]

Georgia wrote: "I think Lunabell has touched on one factor that is very important in this classic - the use of the unreliable narrator to reveal Holden's character. What I haven't heard anyone bring up yet is the ..."

Wonderful. Thank you. We all should be seeing the layers of and significance of these events and decisions in his road to maturity. Enjoyed your comments.

[Georgia]

Sharon wrote: "Wonderful. Thank you. We all should be seeing the layers of and significance of these events and decisions in his road to maturity. Enjoyed your comments.
"

Hi Sharon, glad you understood what I was trying to say. As I think over the novel more, I reflect on many such instances that show Holden's underlying character.

1)He didnt think it was right that people left old Ackley out of things just because he was a pimply boor. Holden puts up with him coming in and out, being generally annoying, because he feels pity and empathy for the pimply nerd's lonliness. He is compassionate

2)He's offended by Stradlater is going out with Jean because he knows Stradlater isn't going to give a damn about her as a person, but just wants another conquest. He values female friends, respects them as people

3)He goes to see the counselor who is sick, disgusted at having to see the aged humanity of a respected figure up close, but he is respectful enough to make the visit anyway. He has a sense of respectful behavior

4)He tries to humanize the prostitute, unable to objectify her, even as she treats herself like trash. She's so dehumanized by her circumstances, she can't understand that her "john" might just want to talk. He is confused by dehuminization of people - doesn't get that yet.

I could go on and find every instance of Holden's fine qualities coming thru - his desire to protect his sister, his obvious love for her...All of these qualities that shine through the immature confusion of his self-talk come together best in the fact that he wants to protect all kids from having to cross that gap (fall off the cliff) by being the "Catcher in the Rye".

[Sharon]

Georgia wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Wonderful. Thank you. We all should be seeing the layers of and significance of these events and decisions in his road to maturity. Enjoyed your comments.
"

Hi Sharon, glad you..."

A joy to read ...thank you. Makes me want to read the book, yet again. All the best. S

[Karl]

Georgia wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Wonderful. Thank you. We all should be seeing the layers of and significance of these events and decisions in his road to maturity. Enjoyed your comments.
"

Hi Sharon, glad you..."

These are good points to remember as they get lost in the focus on Holden's negative qualities.

[Georgia]

The irritation at Holden expressed by so many here (and everywhere) is a natural reaction to the typical adolescent speech mannerisms and constant complaining. I have to admit to my own annoyance with Holden's repetitive verbal idiosyncrasies. The first time I read it, I almost didn't finish it either.
Now I realize that Salinger INTENDED for his readers to react like that at first - just the way typical parents usually react to their adolescents' complaints, "whining" and seeming inability to "grow up".
But when it dawns on the reader that Holden is complaining about some very real disconnects between the way things should be and the way adults have long ago learned to accept they are actually going to play out, the reader can apply that AHA moment to their own teenagers' irritating whining...maybe the kids have a valid point, even though they cannot express it in language we could better accept because they themselves don't realize what it is that is essentially wrong yet.

And THIS experience of an AHA moment that the work potentially provides, couched as it is in such brilliantly mimiced teenage lingo that it actually irritates us just the way teens really do...is what makes the book a masterpiece.

[Brandie]

Maybe I read it too late as well, at the age of 39. I only stuck with it because of all the fuss about it and kept thinking that somehow it would maybe end well and then I would 'get' it. Nope, just didn't happen. I liked The Great Gatsby, so it wasn't an era thing for me. I just didn't like it.

[Esdaile]

Georgia wrote: "The irritation at Holden expressed by so many here (and everywhere) is a natural reaction to the typical adolescent speech mannerisms and constant complaining. I have to admit to my own annoyance ..."

The trouble with this argument is that many people (and I am one of them) were irritated not so much by the main character as by the entire book (admittedly there is not much to the book other than the boring main charcater) while reading the book when they were themselves still teenagers. I read the book because it was mentioned in another (also overrated) novel, "The Collector" by John Fowles. In Fowels'story, a woman who is kidnapped keeps a diary in which she more than once praises "Catcher in the Rye". That is what prompted me (I think I was 17) to read Salinger's novel myself. I now believe that although both books were overrated, "Catcher in the Rye" is even more overrated than Fowles' "The Collector" which, while full of an intense energy similar to that in "Catcher in the Rye", has more thought and reflection in it of the kind which you might mull over after you have reached the end. I remember some of the ideas in "The Collector", while "The Catcher in the Rye" left me so cold and disappointed, I remember no argument or turn of phrase whatsoever. If "The Catcher in the Rye" shows an ability to imitate, so be it, that does not make for a masterpiece. The so-called "Aha" moment, the cord of familiarity, is common to very very many novels and that does not make them all masterpieces.

[Tara]

I "got" the book, I just don't 'get' why it is such a big deal. I couldn't find a single character to care about, in fact by the end, I loathed most of them.

[Michele]

I read this book about 27 years ago. I do not think that I loved the experience; I also read it in high school. But I had a great English teacher. She really made us appreciate the book, trying to make us identify different cliques within our school and attempt to explain why we liked/didn't like certain groups and whether or not our images of those groups were true, or not.

Holden is an annoying unlikeable character. But, why? Why are people--teenagers as well as adults--so disconnected from each other? Why do people rebel in the ways that they do? How does acting as if all is well on the surface (happy little suburban lives) affect society?

Why do we need to like Holden? Not all books are about happy, easily-identifiable characters. Neither are all people. I don't think this book is like a night out of the movies. More like a visit to the art museum. Making you think without necessarily making you like it.

There may be many books about disaffected youth today, but I am not sure how many books featuring teens addressed this kind of discontent when the book was first published. It was challenged, censored, and banned all over the place because it was unusual (even in the 1990s) for all kind of reasons, but ultimately because it allowed teens to embrace negativity; to reject culture. I would consider it a ground-breaking book. Without Catcher in the Rye, many of today's troubled teens books would be less likely to exist.

[Sharon]

Michele wrote: "I read this book about 27 years ago. I do not think that I loved the experience; I also read it in high school. But I had a great English teacher. She really made us appreciate the book, trying ..."

Excellent.....thanks.

[Pauline]

I just read this book within the past year because of the hype surrounding it and John Lennons killer. I still dont get the hype.

[Dave]

Michele wrote: "I read this book about 27 years ago. I do not think that I loved the experience; I also read it in high school. But I had a great English teacher. She really made us appreciate the book, trying ..."


Bah... I don't buy into that deeper-meaning clap-trap. That's just a cover story used to prove it's alleged value as 'educational fare'. Your English teacher bought into the myth of it's relevant value and sought to impart that upon her students. Coerced reading for some other motive besides personal enjoyment destroys the desire to read - rather than enhancing it.

[Georgia]

Crab meat is one of my favorite foods, but I would find crab very unpalatable if I only knew how to bite down on the outer shell.

[Candice]

Sorry, but I "didn't get" most of the books I was forced to read in high school. I always thought my teachers were overanalyzing the books to death. I grew frustrated and a bit cynical, and hated the required reading.

I came across this recently and I have to say, my sentiments exactly. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpr...

[Sharon]

Candice wrote: "Sorry, but I "didn't get" most of the books I was forced to read in high school. I always thought my teachers were overanalyzing the books to death. I grew frustrated and a bit cynical, and hated t..."

Thank you...blue curtains says it all. What happened to reading for the pure pleasure of it...spending time with a story, set of characters? Over analyzing and searching for meaning....back in class! Been there, done that. Now my time to read and enjoy or not and share the reasons why with fellow book worms but the dissecting really takes a lot of joy from the reactions to the read that come to the individual through their own baggage and experience or maturity....as I see it.

[Karina]

I read this book with my class and the whole class hated it and we were all confused the teacher had to literally explain to us every single thing :)

[Shari]

I'm one who LOVES (I repeat LOVES) this book. But to each his/her own.

[Karina]

:)

[Jennifer]

This book is one of my favorites EVER!!! (I LOVE HOLDEN CAULFIELD!)

[D.S.]

Holden is basically the first goth/emo kid in literature.

[Dave]

David wrote: "Holden is basically the first goth/emo kid in literature."

Being goth before goth was cool doesn't help make this pretentious waste of pulp the least bit tolerable.

[Missy]

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 felt the same way you do after reading it. I think it is because so many books and movies have played on this theme since the book was written in 1951 that we're desensitized to the angst presented in the novel.

[Sarah]

I, like many of you here, read it in high school. I loved it then and have always said it was my favorite book. I re-read it again when I was 22 then again recently (I am 28), and I still love it. Brings me back I suppose. It is dated obviously, but really it is a great perspective novel. No matter what your opinion of Holden is, you really get into his mind. Salinger did a fantastic job of creating this character (again, whether you like him or not) and dove into his mind, giving a sense of connection.
Love, love character based novels, and this will always be one of the best for me.
But I completely understand if others don't feel the same, especially if they don't like the character himself.

[Ed]

Holden is the embodiment of all the phonies he hates. In a book like this, you can have it two ways: Either the 'hero' is a jerk and he gets what he deserves, OR you grow enamored with him and want the best for him. Neither scenario happened in Catcher in the Rye. In my personal experience, there are two types of people who like this book (everyone else doesn’t): ONE is the high-brow beatnik wannabes who use it as a condescending tool to speak down to those who actually enjoy good books (often doing so with vague references to other classic writers while engagin in drawn-out descriptions of the mundane details in Catcher) and TWO, people that have read maybe 6 books in their life (if that!) and bask in the mystique and the resulting nobility that goes along with claiming that this literary failure is their "favorite"...

Salinger hated the type of attention this book received and dismissed the whole thing as a dragged out fad, never quite recovering from it personally, despite forever trying and seemingly apologizing for it, till the end... It's as though Salinger himself felt as a phonie for having written this book, and having used the type of bait-and-switch that made it popular. I hope the irony is not lost in the fact that the book mostly appeals to those who are total phonies (phonies being the focal point of this book). Due to my love of nearly all “classics”, I persistently read this book several times in order to “get it” (at different ages, including at Holden’s age over two decades ago and lastly in 2010). Considering all this and the fact that even the name of the book is a letdown of a joke, my reaction was always the same thing you get from a bad mislabeled YouTube video: “I want my time I spent on this thing back”…

This book is all about its memorizing title and the self-feeding hype. At least we can seek some comfort that our generation (gen x and younger) was force-fed this thing, as opposed to falling for the original bait, like the boomers or older gens did...

[Joanne]

Ed, this makes me want to read it again, and see if my opinion has changed. It was so long ago that I read it.

[Ed]

@Dave: I totally agree, I think the handful of supporting arguments on this long vine, mostly fall in the category -and under the characteristics- of what I described in my original comment above...
Candice also has a great point and a good link!

Few people genuinely like this book, Salinger himself, certainly was not one of them. People have the right to think what they want of a certain book, some people like Mein Kemp... fine. However, as eloquently put by O Wilde, there are only two types of writing: Good and Bad. In my opinion, Catcher is in the latter category. Most readers did not enjoy Catcher, nor did they like it... and no amount of hype or high school force feeding will change this fact.

Furthermore, as a writer, if I say something I wrote 15 years ago was not to my liking, I'd hope that it would carry some weight, since I'm the one that wrote it (believe me, I feel this way about a few pieces). Salinger was always annoyed that people would not pay attention to his opinion of Catcher... Having said this, I consider Salinger to be a great writer and a good man.

[Jason]

Ed,

I enjoyed the book, and I've never used it as a "condescending tool to speak down to those who actually enjoy good books." I have read multiple books before and since Catcher. It is far from the best book I have ever read, but I don't feel it deserves the smear it's receiving on this board. It has merit.

I agree that Holden is the embodiment of the phonies he hates. This is obvious in the scene when he complains about the "f--- you" written on the walls when you (the reader) know by this point that he would be the type to write and/or say something so vulgar.

It's okay if people don't "get" this book. It's also okay if they do. I tire of judgements of readers' opinions and interpretations. Ambiguity is designed so we can form multiple meanings and one opinion is no more correct or valuable than the other.

And yes, Salinger would hate that we are discussing this book as we are. I think he was prouder of Franny and Zooey (a much more enjoyable, but less popular book).

[Liz]

yeah the first time I read it, I HATED this book. The second time I just disliked it. The third, I just didn't like it still. And there was a lot about the character that was like me. I just didn't like it.

[Regina]

why would anyone read a book again if they didn't like it the first time and then go and read it a third time? If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. Stop thinking it will be better because other people have loved the book. It's okay!

[Emily]

There are so many comments that I won't read them. But maybe you didn't know that The Catcher in the Rye was first book written to teenagers. This was so popular because teenagers had some hero to feel the same with. It was first time someone pointed out that teenagers don't have perfect life but they have their own problems, own wishes and dreams. All other books about teenagers have at least some detail or idea from that book. The good thing is that the main character is a kind of idealist, he wants to save children, a kind of act like saving the world. The Catcher in the Rye is important because it changed a lot of people at the time it was published.

[Alo]

OMG DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THIS STORY !!! THIS BOOK WAS BUTT !!! I DID NOT LIKE IT AT ALL ! THIS BOOK MADE ME DEPRESSED AND ANNOYED WITH EVERY FREAKIN NERVE IN MY BODY !

[QR]

Well back then it was "eye-opening" and I guess now the controversial parts and the "life sucks" depression isn't as a surprise anymore.

[Laney]

Oh My god, i sooooooo get you! It has a great moral meaning and all, but i HATE holden soooo much. Plus, what the point of a book if nobody gets eaten by a dragon or at least almost gets eaten by a dragon? Please, someone explain why this book is so "classic" and whatever!

[Cj]

I found Holden to be unlikable... and some of his actions were just flat out face-palm worthy. Not a giant fan of the book overall.

[Tara]

I didn't find anyone to care about in the entire book. It seemed like a slice of a life I didn't really want to know about.

[Katie]

I enjoyed the book. I think if I met someone like Holden in real life he'd be extremely irritating and I wouldn't want anything to do with him, but he amused me in the book. I think it was that everything was extreme to him, things "killed" him, and I liked the inexperienced conviction he had with that.

[Jason]

Tara wrote: "I didn't find anyone to care about in the entire book. It seemed like a slice of a life I didn't really want to know about."

What about Pheobe, Holden's younger sister? His relationship with her is what redeemed him a bit in my eyes. I really think she was his anchor, keeping him from drifting too far.

[Georgia]

Salinger probably negated the book in the end because not every artist is able to stand up to the herd of people who don't understand what he is saying. Some artists cannot stand the rejection of being misunderstood by so many. It doesn't at all diminish the book's significance that he negated it in the end.

When a discussion moves into the the road of personal attacks it is no longer a discussion, but an argument, and I have no interest in continuing the dialogue. I'm sorry you don't get the book. I'm sorry Salinger suffered from the herd not understanding him. That must have made him feel really badly. But personal attacks against those who do get it quite clearly don't make you look anything but incapable of a civilized discussion.

[Ed]

You are entitled to your opinion and apparently feel entitled to implied condescension as well... I see about 90% of the postings on Catcher to be very disapproving, with some of the outright vulgar and angry, in comparison, my comments were quite subdued! There were no personal attacks on a single person on this vine by me, only conveyance of facts and my own opinion and observations, stated as such. I believe what you are doing is the exact thing you are accusing others of, albeit in an indirect fashion, still uncivilized, indeed... Also the whole "not getting it" and “getting it” is reminiscent of adolescent speech and falls in the category of the specific attitude that was described in my original post (kind of reminds me of a homeless person with an arrogant sense of entitlement that used to read Catcher over and over and argue with everyone at my work building about it, saying we did not “get it”).

Most people are not a fan of Catcher, Salinger included, as early as 1954 (not at “the end”) when the book was still receiving rave reviews. I believe it to be bad writing and lacking any definable structure frame (abstract included) and void of storytelling tools and of character development. This book is all about its memorizing title, taboo forays into the unspeakable and the ensuing self-feeding hype... If you care to discuss the matter any further, I look forward and will only respond to specific comments / observations regarding the characteristics of the book. Best regards…

[Tara]

Sometimes 'getting' a book has to do with WHEN you read it. If you are too young for it or too old for it, it just doesn't mean anything to you. Sometimes you aren't in the right frame of mind to 'get' it. When I was in my early twentys, I read 'Dune' and I just hated it. I labored thru to the end and it meant nothing to me at all. Then I picked it up and re-read it when I was forty-five and I was riveted by it and couldn't put it down. I went on to read all the following books and was enthralled. Plus I read all the prequels as well that were written by his son and a co-author. Sometimes you just have to be in the right 'place.'

However, I don't think I could have enjoyed 'Catcher in the Rye' at any age.

[Tine!]

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 creation of character and his stream-of-consciousness technique are superb. Just because one doesn't like Holden, doesn't make the book inferior. The fact that Salinger caused that reaction speaks to the excellence of his writing. Holden is pretentious, he is whiny and self-absorbed--like some teenagers, but still distinctive in his voice."

Thank you.

[Sharon]

Tine 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..."

Thank you George. Agree.
Also Tara has a point that is true for me. When I read CITR in my teens it meant nothing to me. A few of the "meaningful" books of that time did not work for me. Was I too immature or inexperienced? I bought CITR in my late thirties again and read it. Enjoyed it. This angst that fills Holden may explain a good many functionality problems with many youth through the decades in fact. Also agree, one does, to a degree, still have to remember the time setting of the story...

[Ally]

I feel like this is a book written by a very old person about a teenage perspective he was never actually part of, but wanting to feel like a teenager again, he only feels very old and cynical. So, in order to be 'down with the kids' he writes a very old and cynical teenager. Add more symbolism than plot and you have GREAT LITERATURE.

Honestly, I feel about the way I did when I read The Stone Angel in high school, when reading this book. A book about Holden's CRUSHING AND INCURABLE loneliness can really only be appreciated when you are old enough to understand that yes, the world can be alienating, but it's still a decent world. I feel like English teachers make kids read this book in high school as a way of saying, "This is what life is like, so if you think NOW is bad, shut up, because you've got a long way to go." Which is kind of awful, really. Also, Salinger is a sexist ass, and it comes through in all his characters. Excuse me for my feminism for a second, but Holden is meant to be a teenage everyman, but his experience is very male. No, I don't just mean the bits about the hooker and wanting to take care of a woman. I mean the whole, "I am so lonely, nobody will give me what I'm asking for. But I can't talk about how I feel or what I want, because nobody ever taught me. Can't I just be understood intuitively through excessive use of metaphor?"

I found him very hard to identify with, and it's a very character driven piece. So I hated it.

[Olga]

I did not like it. I think I never finished it. I think I lacked life experience at the time.

[Sharon]

Olga wrote: "I did not like it. I think I never finished it. I think I lacked life experience at the time."

Think that was my problem too. Was always curious so went out many years later, bought the book and enjoyed it....

[Katie]

Ally wrote: "....I found him very hard to identify with, and it's a very character driven piece. So I hated it. "

Sarcasm? You gave it four stars?

[Marian]

This may be my favorite book of all time. It's about love of a dead brother and how the family cannot get past his death. It's about a boy who wants to wipe out all the profanity in the world so the kids don't see it. He wants to catch them in rye so they don't fall off the cliff. It's about a boy having a nervous breakdown and no one seems to notice. Didn't you think it was hilarious when he went to the bars in the Village and he thought they would serve him? He is so wrapped up with himself he doesn't see how people really see him. Didn't you love Phoebe, his little sister- the only person who understands him? I could go on and on. Didn't you love how he called everyone a phony? No one uses that word anymore and it is such a great word. I read Catcher in the Rye about every two years and have read it many times. Let me tell you how happy I was when I walked into my daughters first apt and saw a framed picture of the original dust cover of Catcher in the Rye on her wall. That girl has great taste in books!

[Kevyn]

I hated it. I thought it rambled and was one long boring paragraph. Didn't appreaciate it at all.