I really don't like this book

[Patrick]

My full review is on my blog here: http://www.patrickjmullen.blogspot.co...

Since my opinion is in the minority, I am of course open to hearing opposition.

[Autumn]

You won't hear it from me. Overrated crap novel.

[Monty J]

Obviously tens of millions disagree with you, nevertheless, CATCHER continues to be one of the more controversial novels.

You say you don't see much likable in the protagonist and he doesn't change to your satisfaction, the story doesn't go anywhere and you don't buy the dialogue and yet you buy the dialogue of Ulysses which is ancient by comparison. CATCHER is character driven, not plot driven. "The Odyssey" doesn't go anywhere either, or does Odesseus change, but look at the adventure of the journey.

Look at the characters with whom Holden engages during his three day "oddysey" toward home to face his parents after flunking out of his third or fourth prep school. What do we learn from these characters and the places he seeks refuge or the people (his parents) that he avoids? What insights into humanity, especially that of the urbanite in New York City, are revealed? Anyone fixated on mythology might have a hard time with realism. Holden didn't conquer anything. He was collapsing, and he held on until he collapsed. Is collapsing not change?

If we dismiss Holden's erratic, narcissistic, rude behavior as mere teenage angst, we're missing most of the story. Anyone who can't relate to a teenager spiraling toward a mental collapse will have difficulty with the novel. I had trouble relating to Holden when was 19, but not when I was 60 and had lived a while and understood PTSD firsthand.

What people get out of a novel is determined by what they bring to the experience of reading it, and we're all different.

[Patrick]

My point is that we more or less see that he's "collapsing" in the very beginning of the novel. It starts with him flunking out; he makes no jumps upward or downward from there. And I buy the dialogue and prose of Ulysses, which is extremely unusual, because it is poetic and stylistic. It's beautiful in its complications.

I've heard this described as being beautiful in its simplicity, but I personally don't buy that. I suppose it's a personal preference, but that's mine.

And I can definitely relate to a teenager spiraling towards mental collapse. When I was 18 I had a rehab stint at a mental hospital because I was bipolar. My point is that this narrative doesn't seem real. Nothing about Holden feels real, even if what he's going through is. It's all about the way it's told.

[Monty J]

I agree there's little poetic or lyrical in CATCHER. It's just slice after slice of realism. We can never make a Joyce out of a Carver. I wish we had more Joyces too, but the Carvers serve an important purpose.

The other issue that was a hurdle for me is the first-person voice. It is SO limiting, suffocating, actually, whereas Ulysses is third, according the narrator so much more freedom with language.

(Ouch! on the bipolar thing. Not easy stuff.)

[JinSoo]

Why, it felt very real. I think that is it. The problem is that Salinger worked only for that aspect. So, if that fails with a reader like you, Patrick, nothing is left to be liked.

I do not think this happens because Salinger did not have a right skill. You cited Joyce and Dickens but that was not fair(not for the reason you expressed in the post). You expected the character, Holden Caulfield, to grow or mature and make a progress but this book does not serve readers that way.

So, whether you like this book is very dependent on how you feel, not how this book is. Hating(or loving) this book is fine. It does not even have to be justified. The critique, however, should have been more thoughtful.

[Rhenus]

I completely agree with you peter, I really didn't enjoy this book. Holden is so self involved and spoiled, (flunk out of prep school because you misbehaved? I never got the oppertunity to go to a prep school because I was too poor!) the story so stagnant that that I LEMed (stoped reading) it, something I never do with books unless they are woeful.

I think we can all agree the point of most fiction is entertainment and exploration of ideas.
However neither of these are apparent in this book.
Its just the not very interesting portrayal of a spoiled childs selfish thoughts whilst not very much happens.

There are similair exploits and pointless low brow philosopies on blogs everywhere.


Please Jinsoo, tell me what the purpose of characters in books are if not to evolve and engage?

[JinSoo]

Characters are just tools. What happens to or from them is just one of devices. However, readers have a tendency to empathize with characters and fit their thoughts to those characters'. With many books, that is alright. With this one, no.
I read your review and I want to tell you that those people in your review are not commending Holden Caulfield.

[Rhenus]

JinSoo wrote: "Characters are just tools. What happens to or from them is just one of devices. However, readers have a tendency to empathize with characters and fit their thoughts to those characters'. With many ..."

So if characters are tools, and the tool "Holden" is not being used so that the reader identifies/empathises with him.

Then is he just a portrait of an angst ridden teenager?

Why would Salinger do that? Even more pertinent why did he think that would make the reader continue reading?

I think I just don’t understand Salingers motivations in writing this book, or get the point he is trying to make and why I should care about it.

I'm sorry about that review, it was written after I was looked down on; for not liking this book.

[[deleted user]]

i haven't had a chance to read any of the posts so cannot comment directly on what has been said. i do feel it needs to be said that there is nothing untoward by NOT liking j d salinger's catcher in the rye ... salinger was a man of his time and those who "cut their (literary) milk teeth" on this particular book are of the same time/mind set. we've moved on, though. the world is very much a different place now than it was "then" ... i lived then and read the book and it made a difference for me in several ways BUT i live now too and recently reread it and have a very clear sense of how it almost doesn't apply anymore ... either because i am older and have moved on or the world is that much older and has moved on ... in short, we (almost) know enough about authority's dangers so that perhaps we no longer need a "catcher in the rye" esp. a snippet young one like holden caulfield. i'm just saying ... ;-)

[JinSoo]

To Samurisloth,
Yes, I think this does not give any lessons directly. And, to be precise, this might be even less than a portrait. A portrait contains views of a portraitist while the book has Caulfield as the narrative.

So how did Salinger come to write this? Obviously, the popularity shows many people have gone through where Caulfield is and that must have been the selling point in his mind. The only difference is that he is just nearer to the brink. The book is a rogue when compared to other literary works. As a journal of a teenage boy, this book is so typical. This aspect, I think, makes people either love or hate this book. Though the author tried to show ideas of an ordinary boy, not everyone goes through the same mindset and those people have nothing to like in this book.

With the review, well, I did not feel the aggression.

I have a feeling, Maggie, you are showing us what people mean when they say getting old is a good thing.

[Grouchy]

I'm with you. It's been years since I read it, but I do recall thinking, "What the heck is all the fuss about? Salinger is considered a genius ... for this?"

[[deleted user]]

i'll take that as a compliment, jinsoo. thank you. it's not too harsh this getting-old business. i actually am enjoying life more than ever before. one reason -- i suspect -- is because i enjoy staying connected with younger generations which brings so much of interest right to me. thanks for sharing the youth, energy, and awareness/perspective. (sincerely typed)

[Jon]

Patrick wrote: "My point is that this narrative doesn't seem real. Nothing about Holden feels real, even if what he's going through is. It's all about the way it's told. "

Stop. Turn that over in your head. Turn it over again and again, like unpolished stones in a rock tumbler.

So many stories of various genres--Dune, Lord of the Rings, The Hunger Games (and about 90% of Hollywood movies)--are overtly fictional and fantastical but are narrated with a kind of plodding realism where characters behave with motivations and events happen because of causative precursors. If we give Salinger credit for having made a deliberate choice in the presentation of Catcher, we see that he chose nearly the exact opposite: a narrative so realistic as to seem directionless, somehow made to feel unrealistic.

As you say, Patrick, "It's all about the way it's told." As I say, we need to give Salinger credit in order for this tack to work. If we assume that the weaknesses in the storytelling are authorial, then yes, it's a terrible book written by a hack. However, if they are narrative (that is, intrinsic to the narrator rather than the author), then Salinger has given us a character who is on some level hiding and evading motivations and causal relationships. Between his experience and the retelling, Holden is constantly filtering and coding.

And that's the real fun of the book, this character richly flawed with mental and emotional hangups. Compare his use of language to the Nadsat of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It is less expressly artificial (and, to some readers, paradoxically less realistic), but it serves a similar purpose in Holden's navigation of the world. How does he "read" the actions of others, and how does he contrast them with his own? What do the things he says about other characters say about him? (Hint: your statements I quoted above could be summed up as, "He's a phony.")

[Monty J]

CATCHER vs THE ODYSSEY

Some question the modern relevance of The Catcher in the Rye, alleging its language and characters are dated. Some people say they can’t relate because the story lacks a linear plot or a main character that undergoes a transformation.

Classic literature is always relevant but may exercise the mind a bit. We don’t have to look too far to find modern examples of Catcher’s themes: Columbine High and other school shootings. Catcher is as directly relevant to these very real events as it is to modern films such as Breakfast Club, Ordinary People and Empire Falls, which deal with a teenaged male in emotional crisis.

Homer’s The Odyssey is a classic and it lacks a linear plot; Odysseus merely wandered home. What did Holden do if not this? Are our minds so benumbed by Hollywoodish formulaic plot linearity that we’re unable to grasp something with a bit more depth? Have we devolved literarily since Homer?

The Odyssey’s appeal lies in the engaging people, places and creatures who provided the challenges for Odysseus to overcome. Holden's struggle was internal, against an enemy that he had no skills to identify. Like a baby writhing in pain from colic, all he knew was that he felt rotten and he kept going from place to place trying to feel better. Salinger even provides a metaphoric clue in Holden’s drunken imaginings of being gut-shot.

Holden visited a teacher, Spencer, and was emotionally bullied. He visited his dorm mates and was beaten up and ostracized. Weren’t bullying and ostracizing complaints of the teen outcasts of Columbine? Andrew in Breakfast Club? John Voss in Empire Falls?

From the people and places in Odysseus’ travels we learn about diverse cultures and social customs. Is this not true of Holden? Through him, Salinger provides delightful vignettes of social interaction. Holden shares intimacies and frustrations of prep school dorm life, including a vivid scene of Stradlater’s preparations for a date. He details his jealousy over Stradlater’s date with Jane Gallagher. On the train to New York, he concocts a shameless elaborate lie to a fellow student’s mother. He engages with everyone with whom he comes in contact. If nothing else, Catcher is a travelogue of conversation.

He has engaging conversations with taxi drivers. He ruminates for the reader about his relationship with Jane Gallagher, describing their hand holding experience in detail. Holden talks at length about “kidding,” apparently a social custom in New York of telling elaborate but harmless lies to test people’s gullibility. “I think I really like it when you can kid the pants off a girl…” Eventually he admits, “Some people you shouldn’t kid even if they deserve it.” Holden details his sexual feelings and has a platonic encounter with a young prostitute.

So, the only complaint about Catcher being dated that I can wrap my mind around is the fact that teenagers today are having sex like rabbits and discussing it like it was candy. That’s pretty lame “if you really wanna know.”

Unlike Odysseus, Holden’s heroism lies not in overt physical prowess, but in his courage to hang in there. He’s spiraling down and doesn’t get help from anyone but a former teacher, Mr. Antolini, who lets him down, and his little sister whose comes through with loads of unconditonal love.

Nowhere in literature have I encountered such a rich and compelling case made for bearing down and getting a good education as the one made by Mr. Antolini. But Antolini's goodness is almost negated with what is interpreted by Holden as a pedophilic advance. Except for getting punched by Sunny the prostitute's pimp, this is the most heart pumping scene in the book as Holden rushes to escape. Evading a pedophile is one of those coming of age experiences that seems to appear on everyone's list, another life lesson in Holden's journey

And who but an ambulatory cadaver would not be moved by the sibling devotion between Phoebe and Holden and Holden's worshipful longing for his lost brother, Aliee? If Phoebe hadn’t been there that night might Holden have pulled a Gillettte Super Blue ritual like Conrad Jarrett's of Ordinary People? But Holden held on until he collapsed, just as Salinger, himself, did due to “combat fatigue” after Utah Beach, The Battle of the Bulge and visiting a concentration camp.

After Holden’s collapse he is well enough to tell us his story. That’s a pretty major transformation to me.

[Patrick]

I find it very interesting that I was entirely intrigued by your entire comment, yet I disagreed with just about all of it.

Internal conflicts are hard to write about in literature, I'll give Salinger that. That's because there isn't always a cause to them, and I know that better than most. And I must say that my favorite part of the novel was by far his meeting with Antolini.

A big problem I have with this book is that we are more or less told to believe that Phoebe is the one thing in Holden's life that he has going, but we never really FEEL it. He always seems irritated with her when he's around her, and that is probably just him externalizing his frustrations, I'll admit, but my point is that when he does that, we can detect no change from what he's like in the beginning of the novel.

[Monty J]

Patrick wrote: "I find it very interesting that I was entirely intrigued by your entire comment, yet I disagreed with just about all of it.

Internal conflicts are hard to write about in literature, I'll give Sali..."

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that the emotion stays relatively flat throughout the book, and it's puzzling. I'm assuming that's deliberate, and if so, what could be the reason? Realism? Realism would dictate that this is the way Holden actually feels. Numb. And numb isn't very exciting in a character.

Speaking from experience, emotional numbness/depression can a symptom of PTSD. You are flat most of the time. Nothing fazes you because you've been to Hell and back. When you've faced torture what is there to fear? When you've faced hopelessness and been taken down to nothing, what is there to get excited about? If you don't get your hopes up you can't be disappointed.

Phoebe was the one thing he could count on, and she didn't let him down. But don't expect the heart of an untreated depressive to soar over anything. After a long enough time they forget how to feel good and the feeling has to be relearned. That Holden didn't react more to her is merely keeping him in character.

At least that's one interpretation.

[Beth]

I hated this book. I did not relate to Holden or his struggles, and it is NOT because of a narrow construct of life, or my limited experiences, or lack of exposure to "good writing". Personally, I have always thought that this book was very "emperor's new clothes". Everyone thinks that they must like it, or otherwise be revealed as some sort of reading fraud. I understand that this book has been powerful and meaningful for many people and I'm not discounting that experience. However, there is certainly room for more than one opinion at this literary table!

[Kari]

Monty J. I agree with what you say. Your last sentence in mess.3 is so true. I didn t read the book when I was young, but aged 40 and I read it again not long ago. I do not understand why some don t get his heartbreaking cry. The book is very mooving and I do see what he wants to sream out to the world.

[Rohin]

I read it when I was 18 and could relate to the pissed of angst on a minor degree. His psyche just took it to whole new levels and some of the insights were amusing if not interesting. So yeah depends on the reader really to see what he wants.

[Brittny]

I loved the book because all he does is complain about the phonies... Not once does he notice that he, too, is a phoney! It's BRILLIANT! Makes you think!

[Mitchell]

I am not a big fan of the book either. In fact, I rated it three stars. I actually resisted teaching it, until I realized that I could use it as leverage to get a class to read ETHAN FROME, which was required for the curriculum. Since CATCHER was on the syllabus, but not mandated, I promised the class that we would read that next (they wanted to read it), if they would complete ETHAN FROME. It worked. We read both books. Although the more interesting discussions were about CATCHER, as they--being teenagers--loved it, and I hated it. It is not that it is a poorly written novel--it is actually quite well crafted. It is that as an adult, I find Holden to be an annoying whiny "poor little rich boy," and I find it difficult to sympathize with him. He is hard to sympathize with, even though it is later revealed that he is in a mental hospital, having had a nervous breakdown.

[Delaney]

I'm minority on this but I liked this book. Maybe how i just felt after reading was just so satisfying and it just spoke for it self that I loved it. I don't think you need to understand it how everyone else does but how you think it means and how this book means. Or maybe you think it's sucks but to me... well, I thought it was good. :)

[Aisha]

I know many people enjoy this book, but i really did not. I tried reading it a few years back, but i found the character so annoyingly irritating that I couldn't finish the book. He was a mixture of bnoxious and just plain stupid. I feel like this book is overrated. But i am going to try reading it again soon. Hopefully, i will be able to finish it this time.

[Mandeep]

Jonathan wrote: "Few people read this book and respond with, "Not bad." Either it resonates with the reader or it doesn't. I don't know enough about literary criticism to know if what resonates with me has literary..."
I totally agree with your point

[[deleted user]]

On the blog, you wrote:

"This kind of language made it controversial at the time, but it’s virtually swearing for the sake of swearing; there’s no point to it. Most of the time those words are used to describe things that he’s not even really frustrated over, making them utterly pointless. He also uses the word “old” to describe just about every character he comes across. Old Stradlatter, old Phoebe, etc. Again, it doesn’t make sense. It would make sense if it was used once to describe a person who he hadn’t seen in a long time, but he uses it to describe his sister when he’s frickin’ with her!"

Holden uses affected patois just like every other teenager. The patois changes, but the teens never do. Thus, one element of Catcher's universality is explained. Your observation of Holden's meaningless swearing serves to explain the character; it does not effectively serve as criticism.

I thought the book was okay. Never struck me as particularly brilliant or particularly terrible. I've never understood the vehement reactions on either side.

[Inês]

I really loved the book at its total

it basicaly talks about the translation (the Becoming an adult and start to take your responsabilities and stop acting like a child thing)

I really love the metaphorm of the title 8it is explained by Houlden in the book. He sees him self saving kids to fall into the dark side of life - the alchool the sex the drugs all of those things - he sees him self as a saviour to kids's innocence . He don't want them to be ruined by those things he wants that they contribute to a better future as he does this to protec his litle sister and by regret the lost of his young brother.


i love the style it is writen with all that sarcasm but also he makes critics to life 8if i don't mistake)

it may be phony sometimes and have some scenes a bit wird but in general i really loved the book :) but i respect your opinion

[Monty J]

macgregor wrote: "On the blog, you wrote:

"Holden uses affected patois just like every other teenager. The patois changes, but the teens never do. Thus, one element of Catcher's universality is explained. Your observation of Holden's meaningless swearing serves to explain the character; it does not effectively serve as criticism."

Agreed.

Holden's jargonistic delivery serves two primary purposes: a) it gives color and reality to his character, helping to define him as someone who doesn't "give a shit" about impressing people (and is therefore not phoney) and b) it makes the reader feel confided in by the narrator (Holden), that he's being totally truthful and honest (despite his avowed character trait of "kidding" people.) The language tell us he's not kidding us, but he will kid some of the other characters, like the student's mother on the train.

We may not like the character because of his gratuitous cursing, but we certainly know him better for it.

Notice that Holden doesn't swear with the nuns or the ladies in the nightclub or with Phoebe or with Sally or Jane, etc. He cleans up his language when he's in dialogue with another character, maintaining a cleaner public image as we all do, but when we're in his head, he's consistently "not phoney" and swears excessively.

[Inês]

Monty J wrote: "macgregor wrote: "On the blog, you wrote:

"Holden uses affected patois just like every other teenager. The patois changes, but the teens never do. Thus, one element of Catcher's universality is ex..."

totally agreed :)

[Swiss]

Patrick - I agree with you - I really don't like this novel. Read it in high school and hated Holden. Re-read for a literature course in my 40's hoping to see the book with different eyes and still hated Holden. I couldn't relate to his character, feel sorry for him or understand what the fuss was all about. But, obviously most of the literary world disagrees as this is considered a classic.

[Patrick]

Right. I'm not even going to take the stance that I've heard people take about this being a book about "rich white people problems." I just simply don't find any of Holden's qualities effective. He doesn't seem realistic,and he certainly isn't likable. And it's essentially a character-driven work, so I find this to be a huge flaw.

[Rhenus]

Patrick wrote: "Right. I'm not even going to take the stance that I've heard people take about this being a book about "rich white people problems." I just simply don't find any of Holden's qualities effective. He..."

well said, I think that essentially what many dislikers are trying to say.

[TheBookDude]

the most overated book i've ever read - having said that i didn't hate it but i don't think its the masterpiece its made out to be by some

[Nicz]

Historydude wrote: "the most overated book i've ever read - having said that i didn't hate it but i don't think its the masterpiece its made out to be by some"

i agree! some said that it changed their lives. how??!! err!

[Christine]

I found the book quite dull compared to everything else I was reading at the time (my teen years). The twist about hypocrisy and the portrait of a young man having a meltdown all seemed simplistic and exceedingly obvious and I just wasn't challenged or stimulated by it in any way when I read it as a teen.

I didn't hate it. It was forgettable to me. I was amazed to find it so admired, but to each his own. Generally I can get a sense of why a book is considered a classic from my own reading of it, but not this one. I will say Salinger is not a terrible writer like Rand or anything.

ETA: Intrigued by the discussion, I gave it another go. The conclusion I've come to is that Salinger did a decent job at creating a template for projection, given the correct life experiences. Not a minor accomplishment, given the literature in vogue at the time. Certainly my impression of his novel was affected by the much larger selection of books dealing with similar issues available to me in my teens. So while I still did not enjoy the book, or find its various messages enlightening or philosophically fresh, I can see why they might once have been and how lesser-read teens would find it wondrous.

[jewelofthecrowne]

Monty J wrote: "Obviously tens of millions disagree with you, nevertheless, CATCHER continues to be one of the more controversial novels.

You say you don't see much likable in the protagonist and he doesn't chang..."

I found this to be one of the very few books that I read in its entirety and really didnt like. However, I was a young person when I read it, and since it is character driven, I may have just found the characters too unlikeable. However, I have since seen in other works, how well drawn characters, even if unlikeable, can make for a good read. Your thoughts on this book have made me consider giving it another chance. (Its a short book, if it doesn't grab my interest again, I can always set it aside.)

[[deleted user]]

Zoe wrote: " Your thoughts on this book have made me consider giving it another chance. "

Good for you for contemplating another try. Different contexts often produce different reactions, I find. A book I hated might be different if I read it in another setting (eg. not-school or as an older version of myself). Or, books I used to love might seem silly as I get older....

It's always worth questioning ourselves and our opinions and even why we might hold certain opinions.

[Todd]

Holden is a 'selfish character who doesn't change at all' is what I'm hearing. If you have this opinion I wonder if you read the WHOLE book because it sounds like you gave up halfway through. {spoiler} If he's so selfish and unchanging then why does he decide to stay, and not run away like he's considering, and give school another chance? Oh, that's right, because he loves his younger sister so much he doesn't want to hurt her in the slightest of ways. Which is rather unselfish and mature... if you read the book.

[Maria]

I also disliked this book. Surely to goodness, there is another coming-of-age novel which would appeal to high school students, especially boys. Holden Caulfield? I think not.

[Todd]

Rule of the Bone, by Russell Banks seems to be the popular, modern alternative to Catcher.

[Michael]

Patrick wrote: "Right. I'm not even going to take the stance that I've heard people take about this being a book about "rich white people problems." I just simply don't find any of Holden's qualities effective. He..."

In response to Holden's unlikability. I'd like to quote John Green here:

"In response to the common criticism that the narrator, Holden Caulfield is unlikable, I regret to inform you that you are also unlikable. So am I. There's this weird but pervasive feeling in contemporary, coming of age fiction that characters ought to be either the person you want to be and the person you want to be with. And I am happy to acknowledge that Holden Caulfield is neither the guy you wanna be nor the guy you wanna be with. He's not Edward Cullen. But he is the guy you secretly know yourself to be, which I would argue in the end is much more interesting."


I think that it's fallacious to measure a book's good-ness on a measure of the character's likability. I think that the more important aspect to focus on is: does it reveal anything about human nature? And I'd argue that it does. It explores everyone about us that fails to relate to other people (everyone's failed to connect with someone before right?). It also explores the psychology of alienation and possibly adolescence.

You seem to want to judge the book by its aesthetics. But the reason why I consider the book to be a classic is the insights it provides, not the prose. Of course if you on't think that this book provides any insight of human nature then you're still justified in not-liking this book.

[Michael]

Maria wrote: "I also disliked this book. Surely to goodness, there is another coming-of-age novel which would appeal to high school students, especially boys. Holden Caulfield? I think not."

Holden isn't exactly meant to be perfectly appealing. If you don't like the book because you don't like Holden, then I think you missed much of the point. I'd like to quote John Green here:

"In response to the common criticism that the narrator, Holden Caulfield is unlikable, I regret to inform you that you are also unlikable. So am I. There's this weird but pervasive feeling in contemporary, coming of age fiction that characters ought to be either the person you want to be and the person you want to be with. And I am happy to acknowledge that Holden Caulfield is neither the guy you wanna be nor the guy you wanna be with. He's not Edward Cullen. But he is the guy you secretly know yourself to be, which I would argue in the end is much more interesting."

[Maria]

Maria wrote: "I also disliked this book. Surely to goodness, there is another coming-of-age novel which would appeal to high school students, especially boys. Holden Caulfield? I think not."

Thanks, Todd. Good to know.

[Rhenus]

michael wrote -"He's not Edward Cullen. But he is the guy you secretly know yourself to be"

I think most people are aware of their own self loathing.

Personally I did't dislike the actual character just the way he was written.
Since the Catcher is character driven there is no plot outside of Holden so you'd think the writing of that character would be masterfully done, but it's not.
Holden doesnt seem like a real person thats why the book falls flat at least that is how it appears to me.

[Lesley]

I totally agree. I was near the end and so bored by the story and so didn't care about the character that i stopped reading. I was left wondering why it was a classic.

[Monty J]

Todd wrote: "Holden is a 'selfish character who doesn't change at all' is what I'm hearing. If you have this opinion I wonder if you read the WHOLE book because it sounds like you gave up halfway through. {spoi..."

You nailed it Todd. It's puzzling why some people don't see what you just described.

[Darren]

This was one of my favorites when I was young. I still remember my father giving me this book with the red cover. I read it fast and re-read it often. Recently I have tried to read it again, only to find the main character, Holden, to be a whiny prep-school student with a lot of problems most average kids don't have. It's apparent Salinger grew up in that Separate Peace world, where many working class kids don't. Still, perhaps its a great American novel. Beyond his other 'sketch' books (of yet more kids I never knew) its his only novel, before he split Manhattan for the woods of New Hampshire.

[[deleted user]]

holden caulfield is indeed a well developed character. however i suspect he is not holding his own for today's readers because, although finely developed, is only one -- and a narrow one at that -- characterization of a snippet of a whiner who cares about important things but who doesn't know what to do to affect change except to be internal about the whole matter.

i also believe the mind-set of the time of writing/publication of this work is one that often didn't trust anyone over 30. not only has that idea shifted, the world itself seems to have moved on from this limiting mind-set of blaming authority ... and in light of the Occupy efforts, people under 30 (and many well beyond 30) are taking up the challenge of change and rather than internally complaining, subtly or overtly, are active agents against ideas or events over which it is worth being a "catcher in the rye."

so it seems logical that holden, albeit a well developed character, has limits in today's world of what it means to be a "catcher in the rye." holden has had a good run; my prediction is he will become a period piece, a window on another time and another place with a very interesting (but narrow) personality driving the story. beyond that, not much holding power for holden, imo. the world is larger and wider than the 1950s were.