The Catcher in the Rye
question
Why Is The Book So Hard to Read for Some?
Monty J
(last edited
Aug 04, 2012 11:30AM
)
Jul 20, 2012 09:52PM
[I created this topic after reading several posts by people who "just couldn't get into it" or had a strong dislike for it. Most of them were young readers, and I didn't like the book on my own first reading at nineteen. Several decades later I read it with a very different experience. So I was curious as to why such divergent reactions to the story. What follows is a probing for possible reasons.]
CATCHER is hard to read for some people. This may be in part because of the narrative voice and the confining first-person point of view. Another reason is the lack of a clear plot line. There's no antagonist or clear goal that the protagonist is striving toward. Holden just seems to wander from place to place until the story gets lopped off. This book requires a lot of reader engagement.
Salinger was stuck between a rock and a hard place in choosing a narrative voice. The conflict was all inside the adolescent Holden's head, and even he didn't know what his problem was. He just knew he felt rotten.
To gain intimate and unfettered access to Holden's inner turmoil, Salinger was forced into either first or second-person point of view. Both are tricky and limiting, but first-person is the less clumsy of the two. Either one feels confining to me and I would normally use them only in short stories.
First-person also confines an author to the voice of the character, hence we suffer the jargonistic language of a teenager. (God help us.) After a few pages, the reader will get used to it, but it still can be a nagging irritation, depending on the age of the reader. How many of us could withstand public scrutiny of our innermost thoughts (fears, anxieties, prejudices, sexual urges, the works) as Salinger so effectively accomplished in Holden? Of course much of it isn't going to be pretty; we self-censor our dark and whiny thoughts. But because we're in Holden's head we get a lot of bath water with the baby.
Given Holden's impaired mental condition, he's also an unreliable narrator. He's smart, but like most of us he's prejudiced and opinionated and exaggerates "a million times." We can't always trust what he says, and must keep second-guessing. That's both taxing and wearing on the reader. At least he didn't have to use the word "like" in every sentence, as has been so prevalent among teens and young adults since my high school years. (Or "Oh, My God!")
I give Salinger high marks for producing the authentic adolescent voice of a caring, conflicted, confused, arrogant, opinionated, intelligent and culturally evolved urban teenager trapped in an unresolved inner conflict (grief over the deaths of his brother and his classmate, James Castle) that he cannot escape without professional help.
The book clearly works for a lot of people because of the number of copies it continues to sell every year, a quarter-million or so, a half century after it was written.
CATCHER is hard to read for some people. This may be in part because of the narrative voice and the confining first-person point of view. Another reason is the lack of a clear plot line. There's no antagonist or clear goal that the protagonist is striving toward. Holden just seems to wander from place to place until the story gets lopped off. This book requires a lot of reader engagement.
Salinger was stuck between a rock and a hard place in choosing a narrative voice. The conflict was all inside the adolescent Holden's head, and even he didn't know what his problem was. He just knew he felt rotten.
To gain intimate and unfettered access to Holden's inner turmoil, Salinger was forced into either first or second-person point of view. Both are tricky and limiting, but first-person is the less clumsy of the two. Either one feels confining to me and I would normally use them only in short stories.
First-person also confines an author to the voice of the character, hence we suffer the jargonistic language of a teenager. (God help us.) After a few pages, the reader will get used to it, but it still can be a nagging irritation, depending on the age of the reader. How many of us could withstand public scrutiny of our innermost thoughts (fears, anxieties, prejudices, sexual urges, the works) as Salinger so effectively accomplished in Holden? Of course much of it isn't going to be pretty; we self-censor our dark and whiny thoughts. But because we're in Holden's head we get a lot of bath water with the baby.
Given Holden's impaired mental condition, he's also an unreliable narrator. He's smart, but like most of us he's prejudiced and opinionated and exaggerates "a million times." We can't always trust what he says, and must keep second-guessing. That's both taxing and wearing on the reader. At least he didn't have to use the word "like" in every sentence, as has been so prevalent among teens and young adults since my high school years. (Or "Oh, My God!")
I give Salinger high marks for producing the authentic adolescent voice of a caring, conflicted, confused, arrogant, opinionated, intelligent and culturally evolved urban teenager trapped in an unresolved inner conflict (grief over the deaths of his brother and his classmate, James Castle) that he cannot escape without professional help.
The book clearly works for a lot of people because of the number of copies it continues to sell every year, a quarter-million or so, a half century after it was written.
reply
flag
I thought it was a very easy read as far as comprehension and the like goes. I found it hard to read because I thought it was boring and Holden was exceptionally annoying. I really couldn't care less about him or his life. The book-a-minute version, found here: http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/... sums it up pretty well. "Holden Caulfield, 'Angst angst angst swear curse swear crazy crazy angst swear curse, society sucks, and I'm a stupid jerk.' THE END"
I liked it but I honestly don't relate to it in the same manner that I did when I was younger.
In the case of some of today's young people, maybe it is because not everyone is able to relate to Holden or what he is going through. Especially, if you are inclined to view most of his problems as things that he only brought upon himself. Some people may have the same reaction to Holden that I had to Elizabeth Gilbert in "Eat, Pray, Love"....I really didn't like her as a person and I wasn't able to relate to her because it was hard for me to see what exactly she was so unhappy about and why. What I mean is that saw it, but I didn't "get it", so to speak. For all intents and purposes, she had a privileged life, should have had it all and should have been gloriously happy. My most common reaction to her was "That ________ was amazing. What's her problem?"
Maybe reactions to Holden are similar? An inability to relate to him or truly see/"get" what his problem is?
In the case of some of today's young people, maybe it is because not everyone is able to relate to Holden or what he is going through. Especially, if you are inclined to view most of his problems as things that he only brought upon himself. Some people may have the same reaction to Holden that I had to Elizabeth Gilbert in "Eat, Pray, Love"....I really didn't like her as a person and I wasn't able to relate to her because it was hard for me to see what exactly she was so unhappy about and why. What I mean is that saw it, but I didn't "get it", so to speak. For all intents and purposes, she had a privileged life, should have had it all and should have been gloriously happy. My most common reaction to her was "That ________ was amazing. What's her problem?"
Maybe reactions to Holden are similar? An inability to relate to him or truly see/"get" what his problem is?
I find your insight about younger readers struggling with this book interesting because I've had the exact opposite experience. I read it in my mid twenties and thought, "I'd have probably liked this if I had read in high school or college." As it was I couldn't get into it. It just wasn't where I was at in my life.
I've never heard of anyone having difficulties with reading the catcher and can't really imagine why anybody would. the reasons Monty J stated above are, in my opinion, just what makes the book so great. especially the unreliable narrator - I just love it when you have one :) it's like real life, to other people we're all unreliable narrators. that also goes for the plot line; very much like life and therefore without a clear plot line.
and as to vocabulary - come one, it's not as if you're reading Shakespeare. I didn't have problems with it and English isn't even my native tongue.
and as to vocabulary - come one, it's not as if you're reading Shakespeare. I didn't have problems with it and English isn't even my native tongue.
Hello. I've heard the term "unreliable narrator" applied to Holden more than once now. Is the suggestion that he does not perceive events accurately, or doesn't report them accurately, or both?
If that's what it means, I don't see it that way.
I think he's incredibly observant. His great powers of observation are part of what makes the book so great. Nothing escapes the notice of this sensitive soul. Are people saying that events he reports are delusions? I don't see that.
Nor do I think his reporting of events is unreliable. People are most likely to dissemble when discussing themselves, but Holden is rigorously honest about himself -- time after time he criticizes himself and shows himself in a bad light. This candor is another source of the book's charm and power. He may not always understand the subtext of events he reports, like the reason the cabbie Horowitz was so "touchy" when asked what happens to the ducks in the winter — I'll admit that (channeling Holden) — but he still reports his observations in minute, credible detail.
If that's what it means, I don't see it that way.
I think he's incredibly observant. His great powers of observation are part of what makes the book so great. Nothing escapes the notice of this sensitive soul. Are people saying that events he reports are delusions? I don't see that.
Nor do I think his reporting of events is unreliable. People are most likely to dissemble when discussing themselves, but Holden is rigorously honest about himself -- time after time he criticizes himself and shows himself in a bad light. This candor is another source of the book's charm and power. He may not always understand the subtext of events he reports, like the reason the cabbie Horowitz was so "touchy" when asked what happens to the ducks in the winter — I'll admit that (channeling Holden) — but he still reports his observations in minute, credible detail.
I can't imagine grade school children being too receptive to Catcher.
It's one of those books that is popular to ridicule because it is to famous. I've had people ridicule it to me and then under questioning reveal that they've never even read it themselves, so I am guessing that at least some number of people who complain about how awful it is have never even attempted to read it. A small percentage, probably, but still a percentage.
That said, first person narratives are often hard to "get into". I will sometimes avoid a book just for that reason, even though I feel that Catcher benefits from it. Books about teenagers are often hard to get into.
I, myself, found the book to be hilarious and I'm surprised that the OP said it would be harder for young people to like. I read it as a young person and loved it, because I felt like it was pretty true to what it's like to be a confused teenager.
It's one of those books that is popular to ridicule because it is to famous. I've had people ridicule it to me and then under questioning reveal that they've never even read it themselves, so I am guessing that at least some number of people who complain about how awful it is have never even attempted to read it. A small percentage, probably, but still a percentage.
That said, first person narratives are often hard to "get into". I will sometimes avoid a book just for that reason, even though I feel that Catcher benefits from it. Books about teenagers are often hard to get into.
I, myself, found the book to be hilarious and I'm surprised that the OP said it would be harder for young people to like. I read it as a young person and loved it, because I felt like it was pretty true to what it's like to be a confused teenager.
I don't know, what to say.. I am 25 and recently read this book.. Can surely say, It's an epitome , feel like I should have read this long back, during adolescence.... One thing I realized is , every human come across what Holden Caulfield bear during his adolescence... This ain't just a novel.. But a lesson to learn..... I don't think the language is too hard to interpret.. One thing is obvious, the time this novel was written by was J. D Sallinger was ahead of it's time... I enjoyed reading, What about you?
This book was in fact dreadful. I read it because it was supposed to be a classic but all I found was a whiny teenager. This book would relate to the modern day "emo kids" which means they're just really emotional about everything and anything. The grass is never greener, the sun will never rise and they feel the world owes them everything.
I love this book. I like the way it's written and it's rather clever. Yes it's a coming of age book but it's more complicated than that because Holden's mourning the loss of his brother. Salinger did a great job with bringing a voice to teenagers and show their thought processes. I also love how he used metaphors and allusions throughout the book whenever he needed to. I definitely think it's a book everyone should read at least once.
I wouldn't say that anything about the style was difficult to get into, "Old School" by Tobais Wolf was a very similar style and I adored that.
(I am talking about a wider style, I find it hard to imagine that anyone, even a 19 year old, finds something difficult to read simply because it's in the fist person.)
I think stylistically it's very simple.
I suppose personally I didn't like much it because it was dull, and I didn't see any real insight in it.
When I found out that the "mark of a mature man" quote wasn't original to Salinger it really put the last nail in the coffin as regards to me liking it.
The book has a reputation that suggests that if you don't like it it means you didn't understand it. I think that has carried it a long way!
(I am talking about a wider style, I find it hard to imagine that anyone, even a 19 year old, finds something difficult to read simply because it's in the fist person.)
I think stylistically it's very simple.
I suppose personally I didn't like much it because it was dull, and I didn't see any real insight in it.
When I found out that the "mark of a mature man" quote wasn't original to Salinger it really put the last nail in the coffin as regards to me liking it.
The book has a reputation that suggests that if you don't like it it means you didn't understand it. I think that has carried it a long way!
Given that Holden and his issues are the whole sum of the book's content, if you don't like him, you're unlikely to like this book. And not liking a book can make it harder to read for a lot of people.
I didn't find this book hard to read or understand. I didn't like it simply because I found Holden uninteresting and, to me as a teen, just really whiny.
Also, if Salinger didn't want to use first or second person POV, he could have used third person limited. (The story is told in the third person, but only from the perspective of a specific view point character.)
I didn't find this book hard to read or understand. I didn't like it simply because I found Holden uninteresting and, to me as a teen, just really whiny.
Also, if Salinger didn't want to use first or second person POV, he could have used third person limited. (The story is told in the third person, but only from the perspective of a specific view point character.)
I started the book with a negative view so that's probably the first reason why I couldn't enjoy it.
If you know who Mark David Chapman and the significance of how he is connected with this book then you can understand my outlook.
I suppose I was looking to maybe get an idea of what this book meant in relation to his obsession. Sadly I just couldn't relate to the book and it disturbed me and upset me but I did have a tiny insight into it's role in the course of events between Chapman and Lennon.
So I don't think age has anything to do with having a hard time to read the book . It would be personal preference. and in my opinion, an individual's precognition as well as their level of sanity. (we should all know Chapman was not the first kookie to be obsessed with the book and then do bad things )
If you know who Mark David Chapman and the significance of how he is connected with this book then you can understand my outlook.
I suppose I was looking to maybe get an idea of what this book meant in relation to his obsession. Sadly I just couldn't relate to the book and it disturbed me and upset me but I did have a tiny insight into it's role in the course of events between Chapman and Lennon.
So I don't think age has anything to do with having a hard time to read the book . It would be personal preference. and in my opinion, an individual's precognition as well as their level of sanity. (we should all know Chapman was not the first kookie to be obsessed with the book and then do bad things )
I didn't understand the book when I first read it, but I knew there was more to it than I knew. So, I watched a review by JOhn Green, and my mind was blown. Is there a way to read books like this and understand them first time? Also, how on earth does someone write an amazing book like this?
It's also difficult for many young readers due to vocabulary itself. Many of the words and phrases throughout the story are not common in today's American English, at least not in that of most of the under-40s. I've heard many complaints from students about having to read this one with a dictionary close at hand.
I enjoy reading unreliable narrators, but I though Catcher in the Rye was a dreadful book, and wouldn't subject myself to it ever again. Holden is insufferable. I feel no sympathy for him whatsoever. All of his problems are brought on by being an insufferable jerk to everyone he meets. I've never understood people thinking that Holden is so profound, when he is precisely the opposite, he lacks introspection or conscience. He is almost a Peter Pan like character, refusing to mature, but blaming others for not lowering themselves to his own immature conception of the world.
Then of course there is no plot. At all. It's not difficult to follow, there is nothing to follow. The who book is just Holden meandering around New York City, complaining and swearing about how unfair the world is. Reading this for school was harder than reading Moby-Dick, which I think is a notoriously hard read for high school-ers due to its random asides about whaling techniques, history and whale anatomy. But even the driest chapter of that is less dull than Catcher in the Rye.
And maybe the worst thing about this book is how it's the "favorite book" of just about everyone who hasn't read any serious literature since senior year of high school. If anything, I find that discovering if this is someone's favorite book is a touchstone as to whether we are likely to have similar tastes in literature.
Whether people like it or feel akin to Holden or whatever, is entirely their taste and business, but I think that anyone who is at all literary can admit that this book is VASTLY over-rated.
Then of course there is no plot. At all. It's not difficult to follow, there is nothing to follow. The who book is just Holden meandering around New York City, complaining and swearing about how unfair the world is. Reading this for school was harder than reading Moby-Dick, which I think is a notoriously hard read for high school-ers due to its random asides about whaling techniques, history and whale anatomy. But even the driest chapter of that is less dull than Catcher in the Rye.
And maybe the worst thing about this book is how it's the "favorite book" of just about everyone who hasn't read any serious literature since senior year of high school. If anything, I find that discovering if this is someone's favorite book is a touchstone as to whether we are likely to have similar tastes in literature.
Whether people like it or feel akin to Holden or whatever, is entirely their taste and business, but I think that anyone who is at all literary can admit that this book is VASTLY over-rated.
I can see why this book might be difficult for some. Again, there's no clear plot line and the very limiting first person narrative (especially because it's Holden, who is unpredictable and unstable). That being said, I think to truly appreciate this book you need to be able to relate to Holden's struggles with himself and with the world around him. When you really understand a character, the lack of plot and the narration will become almost irrelevant. The book isn't meant to be super exciting and fast-paced, it's meant to make you think.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
