The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Did anyone else just not "get" this book?
I think the reason why Catcher is so popular is because if you don't get it-you just don't get it. But if you do, then it really clicks for you. Hate it or love it; there's just no in between.I guess it really depends if you went through that whole disillusioned teenager phase.
I read this book when I was 16, and I actually stayed after school to talk with my English teacher about it. I didn't "get" it, and so I asked her a bunch of questions (luckily she liked me, haha). What I decided after our discussion is that this book isn't really meant to hold a specific message. I think that it is dependent upon the view of the reader, moreso than many other books. It seems to just be a little piece of this boy's life, and seeing as life does not have some deep hidden meaning, neither does the book. Maybe I'm off on a limb and I really didn't get it? What do people say is the "point"?
I suppose that puts it in the same boat with Heller's Catch 22.
Maybe it is one of those books that you either get or you don't. I read it a few times over 30 years ago and absolutely loved it. It really began a thirst in me to read more fiction. Not sure if I'd enjoy it as much now that I've grown up and settled some in my life and my ideas; but I sure enjoyed it at the time. Top 5 all time best reads.
I will never include it in the classics !
I felt the same. Really wanted to read it as I'd heard it was great. Not so great... finished it, but wish I hadn't even bothered. X
I couldn't see what the fuss was about after I read it, and I always wondered if the writer had become a recluse after it became a success because he was embarrassed by the acclaim. One of the things that irritated me about this book was the red herring about the jacket Holden lent to a friend to go on a date, and when the friend returns, we are encouraged to believe he may have done something to the girl, and Holden's jacket may be carrying the evidence and thus implicate him. Then this is dropped. Whenever the red herring is more interesting than the main plot, you're on to a loser as far as I am concerned.
Dave wrote: "Awesome! South Park finally chimes in on "America's Most Controversial Book" in Season 14 Episode 2 The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. Mr. Garrison assigns Catcher in the Rye to our lovable 4th G..."south park is just the greatest! :)
I didn't understand the point of this book. I had to read it in high school and thought it was one of the dumbest books ever written.
I read this book years ago and then again recently. I still don't get it!
I laughed my ass off while reading this book, I found it to be an excellent read.Can we not just accept a book for what it is? Have we all lost our sence of humor?
Dina wrote: "I read it twice, during adulthood, and it made more sense the second time around. This is not a book just about a teenager; it's about a teenager with a mental illness, who acts out throughout the..."WTF? Srsly?
Disaffected and alienated youth is a subject of archetypical proportions. Holden is just an amalgamation of the cultural phenomenom that is known to exist as part of growing up in the US of A.Feel free to enjoy all the angst that is part of American adolescence.
I didn't like it when I was 16 because I just couldn't get past the idea that it was about a whiny rich kid. In reality, the book is incredibly dark, and when I re-read it a couple years ago I realized how awesome it was. I probably don't want to give out spoilers but if I was in that situation, I'd probably be a bit "whiny" as well. Frankly, the most uplifting part of the book is that he doesn't kill himself.
This book is a classic because it was the first book that had an unreliable first person POV. The whole book Holden is calling everyone he encounters crazy, but in the end we find out he is really the crazy one. That's why the book is famous. This technique gets used all the time now, but back then, it was the first.
It's so good to know I'm not the only one. Holden Calfield (sp?) is not a likable protagonist. He complains about his problems, while looking down on everything else around him and isolating himself. I don't think young adults need encouraged to be self-involved.
Not so much, 389. There's a book by Agatha Christie that is written from the perspective of the murderer which kind of omits this, and although the technique is really heavy handed there are lots of instances of people in the Victorian era saying "oh, dear reader, we did not tell you about X!".
The way jd salinger writes, the vocabulary he uses, how he describes things is amazing to me. A book written before its time.
Kristi wrote: "The way jd salinger writes, the vocabulary he uses, how he describes things is amazing to me. A book written before its time."To each his/her own, I suppose but I found it neither enlightening, profound nor the least bit interesting.
It's not so much pretentious but rather wholely undeserving of the reputation that has been imposed upon it.
I also was not impressed by this book. The plot was so vague and did nothing to 'pull me in.' The book didn't really teach any lesson, or give advice, so I'm not sure what its purpose was.
Robin wrote: "I think since it was written from a teenager's point of view, it was unheard of when the book was first published, I am thinking early 50's or so. Or 60's. So given that it was written in that vei..."Valid point!
Nick wrote: "I read this last summer and i really loved this book and I think J.D. Salinger meant to show you how tough it can be for a teen to try to make it out on his own in the big city. It shows his strugg..."I don't think these count as spoiler because this all happens in like the first 30 pages of the book... it's not just about dropping out of school. Holden's kid brother is dead and nobody seems to care about this than him. His parents, instead of, you know, parenting him, have shipped him off to another boarding school, where a whole host of teachers either don't care or don't know what to do. There's that wonderful part where the history teacher senses something is amiss but can't put his finger on it, and I think Holden for his part is expecting him, as an adult, to just understand what's going on inside of his head (he's a kid, what do you expect).
And then on top of that, Holden finds out that his childhood sweetheart, a girl he hung out with for a couple of summers and who he is obviously very fond of, was just date-raped by his roommate. And all he could do in response was get his own butt kicked by the guy. And on top of that, his roommate's homework that he completed, an obvious cry for help (talking about his brother's baseball mitt), was thrown back in his face by his idiot rapist roommate because it was weird or something.
It's against this backdrop that he "tries to make it on his own". I won't give away the rest of the book but the whole thing seems to be leading towards a big suicide. I mean, dang. This kid's life really is pretty messed up.
Had no intention of writing a 'comment'. However a variety of perspectives and the whole range of emotions/sentiments made interesting reading.Reading the book certainly isnt like reading any other conventional classic. Thats why it jolts the reader. The language itself was disliked ( using the word softly)in the 60's. The emotions are very much common among the 'urban teenager' today. Perhaps even more aggressive and even more volatile.
Suggest that one should try reading the text again.
For me, the language is cold and killing - at times scraping on my bones.
Stockwell wrote: "I read it to see what all the fuss was about and I still have no idea. All I got out of it was a teenager whining about his life and college and girls and how everything sucks. I don't understand w..."I couldn't agree more!! I thought it was dreadful. One of the most over-rated and over-hyped classics ever. While reading it, I kept waiting for some plot redemption that never came. Awful!
To understand this book, I think you need to look at the writer first. It was rumored that JD Salinger suffered depression after the war. Likewise, Caulfield exhibits signs of depression over the loss of his brother. I can't say that it all made since, but looking it like a cry for help, for attention, then it all kinda clicked.
Stephanie wrote: "To understand this book, I think you need to look at the writer first. It was rumored that JD Salinger suffered depression after the war. Likewise, Caulfield exhibits signs of depression over the l...""Calls for help" shouldn't be published and treated as must-read classic literature.
Aha! I couldn't get through it. Thank God I didn't have to read it in school.
I loved this book when I read it in high school, even though I wasn't a stoner with deep feelings of alienation. Then I read it in college and I loved it again. I plan on reading it and loving it again this year. I don't know what it is about this book, but it's pretty divisive. For me, it's fascinating to peel back Holden's layers. He projects himself as a guy who hates the world and doesn't care about other people, but underneath all of that teen angst, is just a severely depressed guy who cares more deeply than he can handle.
Dave wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "To understand this book, I think you need to look at the writer first. It was rumored that JD Salinger suffered depression after the war. Likewise, Caulfield exhibits signs of dep..."Why not? I don't think Salinger was "calling for help" at all. But to say it shouldn't be published, that the guy can't reel over his feelings and publish it is wrong on so many levels. I didn't know that anyone of us was an authority on what should and shouldn't be published.
I didn't enjoy Holden's whining or the storyline, really, but I thought the writer's voice through Holden's internal monologue was BRILLIANT. It was the sharpest, freshest voice I had ever read up to that point.
this is the book that drives me into nothingness. why? I just can't simply understand this one.
Melissa wrote: "Referencing Paul's comment about a classic standing the test of time, I find myself wondering what makes a book a classic? And why? I picked up "Moby Dick" recently expecting a rollicking good re..."The issue may have been that you were expecting an action-packed epic battle, when Moby Dick is about a sailing voyage; most of the book is dry and boring because Melville wanted to mirror how dry and boring 99% of a sailing voyage really WAS.
My son is a huge fan of JD Salinger's work. So I thought I would give this classical novel a try. My comment: What's the big deal? Maybe you can not read this book when you are 45, you have to be a male teenager to appreciate the subject matter? Mmmm.
Lisa wrote: "My son is a huge fan of JD Salinger's work. So I thought I would give this classical novel a try. My comment: What's the big deal? Maybe you can not read this book when you are 45, you have to be a..."Yes. The book mainly deals with themes like identity, alienation, and teenage angst, so if your first read was at 45, you're most likely "too old to worry about those things", the book won't really speak to you.
But if you read the book as a teenager, you can identify with it more, and then as you get older and re-read it, you can start to understand and pity the main character rather than emulate him; it's a book about growing up, and people that have already achieved that aren't going to get as much out of it.
The people who like it, because they identify with Holden, are missing the point, he's a self absorbed twat who doesn't realize as he bitches about people being "phonies" he's the biggest "phony" of them all. He's not a hero, he's not someone you should be happy to be, he's overall a loathsome individual, who wants to rage but just can't find his fight.
Yes that's the teenage experience, but that doesn't make it a good book or a good trait.
P.S. I read the book as a kid, hate it, still hate it. Teenage angst is "trendy".
I read Catcher in the Rye as a angsty teen, and I absolutely HATED it. I re-read it upon starting college, and hated it even more. I finally read it for the third time in grad school, thinking perhaps my perspective would have changed with age, and I despised it so much that I used a large nail to nail the book to the wall. I hung a frame around it, and told my friends that the book sucked so bad that I actually got joy from seeing it impaled.The Great Gatsby was nearly as bad. I think I may just have a problem with crappy, overwrought symbolism.
This is not your typical novel. You need to go much more in depth with it. You really have to scrutinize the character of Holden Caulfield. You need to do some actual research. You need to really think to get the gist of this book.
I didn't understand this book whatsoever, either! I had to read it for summer reading going into 9th grade, and was clueless. I had to write an essay about symbolism as well, and had no idea what to do. It wasn't inspiring or deep at all to me; all it was was depressing and stupid to me. All Holden did was whine and complain about life. I did not get, or like it at all!
Allen, it has nothing to do with not UNDERSTANDING the book. I understood it perfectly well. I simply despised it. It has nothing to do with thinking or research - it has to do with personal preference.
Kelly wrote: "Allen, it has nothing to do with not UNDERSTANDING the book. I understood it perfectly well. I simply despised it. It has nothing to do with thinking or research - it has to do with personal prefer..."Honestly, I felt a tad let down when I finished the book. I read it, expecting something great would happen. However, that never happened. I had to really think about what made the book so special, and I finally figured it was mostly because of the social commentary in the book.
When I started reading this I thought it was going to be one hell of a book, but as I kept reading it was just a kid talking about his life and being a huge downer. Maybe I don't understand the "symbolism", but there really wasn't much to it, the book was dry.
Meghan wrote: "I didn't understand this book whatsoever, either! I had to read it for summer reading going into 9th grade, and was clueless. I had to write an essay about symbolism as well, and had no idea what t..."This book doesn't need to have a great plot. It's social commentary.
Jamie wrote: "I enjoyed this book. When I finished it, I was a bit confused. I had mixed feelings about it, and settled on it being "just okay." Over the next day or two, I couldn't stop thinking about it. I rev..."Very well said, Jamie. I was confused when I finished the book because I was expecting more action, which never happened. Most people who say they dislike this book only dislike it because they're so used to the traditional format that writers use. Unlike most other novels, The Catcher in the Rye barely has a climax. If anything, the climax is set before the events in the book, when Holden finds out he got kicked out of the school. The rest is basically social commentary, which is the most interesting part about this book.
This book deals a lot with maturity, the resistance to grow up, the fear of growing up, hypocrisy, the protection of innocence, and so on. There are symbols and motifs in the book. The red hunting hat symbolizes Holden's desire to be different, although he still wants to fit in with other people. This is why he takes it off when there are people around. It might even represent innocence.
He erases the profanity on the walls of that elementary school because he wants to help children maintain their innocence. He isolates himself from the world because he wants to protect himself. He notices a lot of phoniness and shallowness around him.
I'm sure EVERYONE who reads this book would be able to relate to Holden in some way or another as long as he or or she thinks more about this book instead of taking everything literally. This book has symbolism.
Symbolism? Please tell me more. I missed it for one.
I'm glad I read these comments ~ I thought I was the only that didn't get it.
So, basically what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if a work of fiction is engaging or interesting - as long as it is social commentary. If that is true, then why even write fiction at all? I think the reason was to try and make this perspective accessible to the masses. I concede that the book is successful in this aspect. Holden gave a voice to an entire generation of disaffected youth. But successful does not equal good, or interesting - even as social commentary.I must also disagree with your statement that EVERYONE relates to Holden. I most certainly did not, and I still maintain that this book is the most boring thing I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
If you can't relate to being 15-17 and feeling caught between the innocence of childhood and the expectations that will soon be forced upon you as an adult, then congrats I guess, you are literally the most well-adjusted person on the planet. Also, Symbolism: the title itself, the fact that all 3 Caulfield children possess literary talent, Holden's hat, the scene with Mr. Antolini, I mean off the top of my head there's at least 5 more references I could make; not seeing the symbolism that the book is practically dripping with is not the fault of the book, it's your inability to read critically.
I get people not understanding certain works of literature, things like Shakespeare are just plain written in a different language, one that one has to make a serious study of in order to get anything out of. But the language of this book is the language of The Great American Novel, and if everything happening is just blowing right by you, maybe taking a course on literature is a good idea.
Ugh, this is why Salinger disappeared forever afterwards, so he wouldn't have to argue about this kinda thing. :)
Hey I got the symbolism and it made a whole lot of sense to me. I can put myself into Holden's shoes in some cases, but the book just wasn't my style, nor was it something I enjoyed reading. I finished it, and just thought "meh, I can find better." Hell the writing was great overall, and the commentary was different, but I myself didn't enjoy the book, and honestly there's really nothing wrong with that. I don't hate it, just didn't particularly think it was anything special, or over the top wonderful.
Derek wrote: "If you can't relate to being 15-17 and feeling caught between the innocence of childhood and the expectations that will soon be forced upon you as an adult, then congrats I guess, you are literally..."Derek, I'm glad you're one of the people who share my viewpoint on this. People obviously don't understand that this book has a lot more to offer than they see on the surface.
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)
That's not true because it was already a classroom staple long before Lennon was gunned down in 1980.