The Catcher in the Rye

Shryke

Just seeing the slagging this book is taking off some in the 'Critically Acclaimed Books You Hate' thread I thought I'd start a thread to get some more in depth opinions on it and maybe some discussion. It being late and me being a little tired from just having gotten off work I don't feel up to writing an essay on the subject at the moment but I still feel compelled to at least open the forum of thought on this.
For me Catcher in the Rye is a brilliant. It's just about a depressed and intelligent young lad in the regular world and it touches on something deep. I think maybe it's a state of mind you may have to experience yourself to appreciate how well it comes across but I was very impressed. It isn't long and it isn't a boring read. I think people are slating it more so because it is so famous than for any actual grounded reasoning. Or perhaps because they were made read it in school or college. I know I don't appreciate reading material being forced upon me. Even if it is good I may well resent it. Then again different strokes, different folks.
Thoughts, opinions, general witty banter?

HalloweenJack

I really liked the book. I've read it a few times at this stage.

I don't think it's as great as some people make out (though not here ) but it's still an interesting read. The style is pretty odd and the story is kind of rushed but I still find it interesting. It's not that long so it's not that hard to read.

I think most people can relate to the character (even though he's a bit of a drama queen) and maybe that's a bit scary to handle. After all, Holden does come across as a moan and a pain in the arse a lot.

Dades

I described it in the other thread as the Bridget Jones' Diary of angsty male teens.

It may have caught the imagination of similar-minded folk to Holden, i.e. immature, annoying angsty types - but that doesn't make it a good book. IMO there's no story worth telling and lead character is a pain in the ass.

The Emperors New Clothes, tbh.

Cadet?

Dades wrote: »

I described it in the other thread as the Bridget Jones' Diary of angsty male teens.

It's may have caught the imagination of similar-minded folk to Holden, i.e. immature, annoying angsty types - but that doesn't make it a good book. IMO there's no story worth telling and lead character is a pain in the ass.

The Emperors New Clothes, tbh.

I'll nail my colours to the post; I'm a huge fan of "The Catcher...".

I personally just think it's reached the point where it is no longer 'cool' to like it......It's like saying U2 is your favourite band or Friends is your favourite show- it's a kinda 'mainstream indie' (!) book.......

I also think the caricature of Holden as "annoying" or "angsty" is so cliched.....he's much deeper than that in my opinion.

It's defo true that its real appeal is because it strikes a chord with a lot of young teen guys going through a certain phase of their life- but to be derided or guffawed at because of this must be the height of litero-intellectual snobbery....Surely the point of any real piece of literature is to connect with it's audience......?

I remember reading it for the first time, and I swear to god it was before I had ever heard of it or any cultural references to it....I finished it in 1 nite, and I specifically remember underlining a quote of Holden's when he was talking to Mr. Antolini.......I'll always remember doing that and I'll always remember the quote.

It's a simple story with a plot that is not weak....but eh what's a better word....thin. But I think it was meant to be like this. It's not the plot that is meant to interest us, it's the characters all of whom we know at least one of in our own life. The book is a collection of set pieces of different periods in a certain type of perhaps introspective, sensitive tempermental young teen.

I like the way it's even keeled with no huge realisation/epiphany/happy ending. I like the way it plods along. It lumbers. It's not a sad or happy book...it's just a book that tells it like it is to be a teenager- neither great nor ****e.

Dades

Cadet? wrote: »

It's defo true that its real appeal is because it strikes a chord with a lot of young teen guys going through a certain phase of their life- but to be derided or guffawed at because of this must be the height of litero-intellectual snobbery....Surely the point of any real piece of literature is to connect with it's audience......?

The height of "litero-intellectual snobbery" involves reviewing a book with an agenda, i.e. with a view to making yourself look like an intellectual or a maverick.

Some classics are deserved of every amount of praise they receive, some are not. Ultimately that's up to the reader to decide. If someone reads a book and feels the story is disappointing and that the main character is an asshole - just because that book is touted as a classic doesn't make them a snob.

I thank my school curriculum for making me read The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Flies. But why Catcher in the Rye is so often mentioned in the same revered tones as them I'll never understand.

kovski

I'd be careful if I was you. Now that Obama's president they'll be keeping tabs on all you Catcher in the Rye fans. We know what you'r up to.

corkstudent

kovski wrote: »

I'd be careful if I was you. Now that Obama's president they'll be keeping tabs on all you Catcher in the Rye fans. We know what you'r up to.

Damn. I think what I'll have to do, is, pretend I'm one of those deaf mutes.

Diamond007

I think T.C.I.T.R is a fantastic book!

I find it fascinating yet incredibly depressing. The psychological battles of Caulfield, serve as the basis for critical argument. His self-destruction over a period of days forces you to contemplate society's attitude toward the human condition. I think the portrayal of Holden, incidents of depression, nervous breakdown, impulsive spending, sexual exploration, vulgarity, and other erratic behavior, have all attributed to the controversial nature of the novel though...

Im not a teen male and I found parts of the book incredibly true, I agree with so much of the thoughts put forward by Holden..

Parts of the book are incredibily funny too, I really do like it..

Cadet?

Dades wrote: »

The height of "litero-intellectual snobbery" involves reviewing a book with an agenda, i.e. with a view to making yourself look like an intellectual or a maverick.

Dades,

Was that directed at me?

Blush_01

Nobody forced me to read The Catcher in the Rye, so I have nobody to blame. I have to say I really didn't enjoy it. I can appreciate that it strikes a chord with some people at a similar stage in life, but Holden is so utterly unlikable and boring, it's very difficult to feel anything but distain for him. It's one of those so-called classics that I really could live without.

Dades

Cadet? wrote: »

Was that directed at me?

In response to your post, I expressed my own opinion as to what constitutes litero-intellectual snobbery. I don't believe an opinion can be directed at anyone.

To clarify what I think you are asking, I know nothing about you except your brief opinion about a book I don't like, so I have no reason to accuse you of intellectual snobbery.

Cadet?

post deleted

griffdaddy

I think people who are complaining that the main character is an ass hole are kinda missing the point. The whole point is that he's become disillusioned with the world and doesn't give a sh1t anymore. It's not a 500 page novel with intricate themes and issues because it doesn't need to be and you can't say it appeals to only teenage boys because the narrator is a teenage boy, the feelings he encounters are universal and transcend age groups or genders. The other reason it receives so much praise is because it utilises the idea of a first person narrator to great effect, the whole internal monologue filtered through retrospect works pretty well i think. It's not a great lament for the human condition or anything, just a book that skims the service of a far greater emotional deficit and does so in an accessible and meaningful way that's also a good read. If anything, it's a victim of it's own hype as it never sets out to be a great life-changing work, that's evident from the almost confrontational stance the narrator takes. I'd recommend to people who enjoyed it that they should try Nausea by Sartre, or Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky, they take a similar emotion and up the ante times 500million!

Hrududu

I think people who are complaining that the main character is an ass hole are kinda missing the point. The whole point is that he's become disillusioned with the world and doesn't give a sh1t anymore.

For me I got the impression that I was supposed to think he was really deep. But to be honest I just didn't like him. He spent the majority of the book thinking that people were phonies and that life wasn't all it was made out to be. To me thats just average teenage angst. I read it as a teen and didn't like it at all. I came back to it in my mid twenties, I thought maybe I wasn't at the right age to get it earlier. But no, same reaction as before. I just get baffled when I hear it praised. It's like the literary equivalent of a My Chemical Romance CD.

chris9999

oh, The Catcher in the Rye is my teacher's favorite book and she uses to talk about this book for hours, and hours, and hours,and hours, and hours,and hours........

studiorat

I don't it has lasted as well as other novels from the period. It's always felt dated to me, dated in a bad way too! Particularly the language IMO.

It was written in 1951 and while it may have been an introduction to teen angst it it's day it's been bypassed by what's followed.
Comparing it with say the Stranger written 8 years earlier and the Bell Jar written 12 years later it doesn't really make the jump to more modern reading tastes as the others...

Shryke

For me the book was more about the state of mind Holden was in than the setting he was in. I don't get how people write Catcher off as angsty. Depression might be common amongst teenagers but it's not isolated to fifteen year olds. I think the book carries a lot of emotion.
People act fake and the world is a mean place. That's not angst. That's fact.

brianthebard

griffdaddy wrote: »

I think people who are complaining that the main character is an ass hole are kinda missing the point. The whole point is that he's become disillusioned with the world and doesn't give a sh1t anymore. It's not a 500 page novel with intricate themes and issues because it doesn't need to be and you can't say it appeals to only teenage boys because the narrator is a teenage boy, the feelings he encounters are universal and transcend age groups or genders. The other reason it receives so much praise is because it utilises the idea of a first person narrator to great effect, the whole internal monologue filtered through retrospect works pretty well i think. It's not a great lament for the human condition or anything, just a book that skims the service of a far greater emotional deficit and does so in an accessible and meaningful way that's also a good read. If anything, it's a victim of it's own hype as it never sets out to be a great life-changing work, that's evident from the almost confrontational stance the narrator takes. I'd recommend to people who enjoyed it that they should try Nausea by Sartre, or Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky, they take a similar emotion and up the ante times 500million!

I don't think its missing the point at all, good writers can make their characters dislikeable but also allow the reader to empathise with them. Any time I hear something described as dealing with universal feelings I just feel its code for empty and bland.

ldee

catcher is a very funny and very sad book. you can read it as an "angst ridden teenager" and get something from it and read when you're older and get something else from it. Salinger was 40ish when he wrote it and does a worthy job of describing how an angry teen feels.

by8auj6csd3ioq

kovski wrote: »

I'd be careful if I was you. Now that Obama's president they'll be keeping tabs on all you Catcher in the Rye fans. We know what you'r up to.

manchurian candidate types beware:eek:

Shacklebolt

corkstudent wrote: »

Damn. I think what I'll have to do, is, pretend I'm one of those deaf mutes.

Excellent reference to the text!

ben bedlam

I loved Catcher. I know that some people have criticized it for not alot happening, but I think there is something very depressing yet intriguing as Holden wanders aimlessly through a lonely New York. I also think that I enjoyed it so much because I saw something of myself in Holden, and Id imagine that is the same for many people

The_Minister

I read it because it was apparently "The book of our generation, looking back people will say it defined us" etc

I wanted to smack him. Not a phonie smack mind, but a large, two-handed affair, with a delicious thump and whump, when my fist crumpled his bitter face and cut off his doubtlessly forthcoming whinge.

I quote South Park: "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy goth kid".

griffdaddy

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't think its missing the point at all, good writers can make their characters dislikeable but also allow the reader to empathise with them. Any time I hear something described as dealing with universal feelings I just feel its code for empty and bland.

I don't really get what you mean, is the point of literature not to be universally meaningful in some way? or at least universally meaningful in the domain of the intended audience? Fair enough, universal meaning and complex issues etc. can be difficult to access as a result of highly intellectualised or dense writing, and that's fair enough, those meanings and themes are probably better explored as a result, but i don't think there's any kind of inverse correlation between how good or interesting a book is and the universality of its themes. Going by that logic any work that deals with peripheral universal themes would be empty and bland, so that means no Shakespeare, no Joyce, etc. in fact no novels really.

hatful

I really enjoyed the first part of the book in the dorms with Stradlater and Ackley. Of course his character is both selfish and pitiable but isn't the book about mental health?