the catcher in the rye

lateasever

anyone like it?

*Angel*

of course, didn't you?

wasted_winter

I've read it a couple of times over the years (in a non-psycho manner! ) and I utterly love it! In fact, I've just finished re-reading Franny and Zooey.

It's over fifty years old & I think it’s more pertinent for today’s society than it when Salinger initially wrote it. There is so much more to it than the age old story of teenage angst. Yes, primarily that is the story, and if that’s what you focus on, or take from the book then I’d recommend you read it along with Camus to gain a wider perspective on feelings of disaffection.
If you just want a good read then Catcher is an excellent choice – the dialogue is incredibly witty and sharp – even when placed alongside modern-day literature – you can only hazard a guess at how Salinger’s contemporaries regarded it!

In the end I love it because of Holden’s character – I think Salinger created a fantastically believable character in Holden (his characters are usually very good) and for me this is a rare occurrence in a book. I don’t think anyone can stand up and say ‘Oh, so and so is the perfect character’, an author may create and write believable characters but ultimately it is each individual reader to make an emotional tie. I made that connection with Holden & devoured the book.

I’ve even argued with people over the books ending – some people claim it is too ambiguous but I love it. I don’t find it sad or depressing – it’s the perfect ending to a fantastic book!

Classic Holden:

"If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like . . . and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth."

"I’m always saying ‘Glad to’ve met you’ to someone I’m not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though."

"I felt like jumping out the window. I probably would’ve, too, if I’d been sure somebody’d cover me up as soon as I landed. I didn’t want a bunch of stupid rubbernecks looking at me when I was all gory."

sleepwalker

read it a few times amazing book, that section when he is in the park with his sister is really beautifully written

read franny and zoey while on holiday the last few pages blew me away

americanCat

i had to read it for school but i really liked it. It's kinda funny how much the world's changed since then...

Blisterman

Its a good book, but Holden's too cynical for me to identify with.

pookie pixie

Im going to probably be ate for saying this but I found it extreemly hard to read the negitivity was too overbearing and I just gave up half way through. That said I didnt give up on Salinger and read Franny and Zooey after that and thought it was excellenty.

Velvet Vocals

God, I loved it!!! It's just so current, no matter when you read it. So engaging!
If you found it hard, I suggest waiting a while and trying again... it's worth it.

Alana

Blisterman wrote:

Its a good book, but Holden's too cynical for me to identify with.

I agree, I really did like it, at no time did I want to put it down-I could empathise with him mostly throughout-but part of me just felt...it aint all that bad-but then that's what made him great I suppose...

wasted_winter

pookie pixie wrote:

the negitivity was too overbearing and I just gave up half way through

You can't get killed for having an opinion!

I do agree somewhat with that statement. The book may come across as just melodramatic teenage angst - and if you attempt to read it as a novel, a story, you will end up disappointed.

The opening paragraphs of the book is the first clue that Catcher is not going to be a standard literary novel. The protagonist completely dismisses the Dickensian style of writing ("all that David Copperfield kind of crap") which was based on the development of a plot with exaggerated, yet recognisably realistic, characters. Wrapped up in the "David Copperfield" statement is a dismissal of the Bildungsroman - Holden's story is not going to be based on the moral development of a young boy into a man.

Holden even tells us this: he refuses to speak about his life story, where he is or why he is there. He chooses instead to speak about a time just before Christmas, before he arrived "here".

I think you should give it another try... if you've just tried to read it then put it away for a while & have another go when you have the time and peace of mind to let yourself get wrapped up in Holdens world... because once you get the character you won't be able to put down the book!!!

Gone West

I totally identify with holden. Does that mean im mental?

Sangre

It just didn't grab me. Didn't relate to the character and I didn't even like him. Although of course you don't have to like the protagonist for it to be a good book.
Read it a few months ago and I can't even remember the ending which shows how much of an impression it made on me.
Trying to get through all the 'classics'. Just finished All Quiet on the Western Front.
Now theres a book!

Dublin's Finest

I finished reading this book for the first time a few days ago. (Shame on me, I know.) I thought it was really good - it was just a really interesting character sketch.

It's got a bit of a mythic status now, i dunno if it's deserved or not, but outside of all that crap it's just a very good read.


P.S - Have they ever find out why assassins always read this book??

Kernel

Dublin's Finest wrote:

I finished reading this book for the first time a few days ago. (Shame on me, I know.) I thought it was really good - it was just a really interesting character sketch.

It's got a bit of a mythic status now, i dunno if it's deserved or not, but outside of all that crap it's just a very good read.


P.S - Have they ever find out why assassins always read this book??

I love Catcher. One of my favourite books, even if it is a cynical look at life. It has something to say, and has an interesting character and story.

Assassins read the book because they are probably manchurian candidates, brainwashed by the CIA or other secret US government groups, who probably use a certain phrase in the book as a trigger. Probably all part of the MKULTRA mind control program which took off in the 60s.

wasted_winter

Is The Catcher in the Rye a Mechanism of Control?

by Adam Gorightly


(Note: Originally published in Paranoia Magazine 1992)


One night not long ago, while dozing off to sleep, I was stirred from hypnogogia by the radio faintly humming by my head. When I heard the name J.D. Salinger my curiosity was immediately aroused and I turned the volume up. It was a brief news item, relating the event of Salinger's home burning down in New Hampshire. The news announcer described how Salinger and his wife had watched the conflagration helplessly from a distance, as the firefighters futilely battled to save their home. Anyway, this was the last I heard of the story, which isn't surprising given the elusive nature of Salinger, dropping from view as he did in 1965 and becoming a recluse.


Curious as to what Salinger had done over the years since his disappearance from the public eye, I chanced upon the biography In Search of J. D. Salinger by Ian Hamilton. One area of interest I had was Salinger's connections with U.S. Intelligence. My reason for this line of inquiry stemmed from my suspicion that his classic novel The Catcher in the Rye had been used as a "mechanism of control" in the assassination of John Lennon, and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. If you recall, The Catcher in the Rye was found in the possession of both Hinkley and Chapman after their respective rampages. In fact, when the New York City police apprehended Chapman in the aftermath of Lennon's assassination, he was sitting glassy-eyed and zombified, leaning against the Dakota Building, reading Salinger's book.


When I refer to The Catcher in the Rye as a "mechanism of control" I mean in the sense of a triggering device, which sets off a post-hypnotic suggestion, much like the queen of hearts in Richard Condon's Manchurian Candidate, unleashing within its mind-controlled subjects the command to kill. According to Hamilton's biography, Salinger was under the employ of Defense Intelligence during World War II, serving with the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), his time spent mainly in the interrogation of captured Nazis. Later on, toward the end of the war, Salinger was involved in the denazification of Germany.


Denazification could be construed as a code word alluding to the importation of high-level Nazi spies into the highest ranks of the American Intelligence Community under the auspices of Project Paperclip, the top secret operation -- which at the war's end -- smuggled hundreds of Nazis out of Germany. These "reformed" Nazis were then given new identities, in time forming the core of the new U.S. intelligence, defense and aerospace establishments.


According to the late conspiracy researcher Mae Brussell, it was this American/Nazi alliance that reformed the old Office of Strategic Services (OSS) into its new and improved Nazi-ised version: the Central Intelligence Agency. Perhaps, in this instance, Re-nazification would have been a more apropos term. From this point of reference, it would take a rather fanciful leap to entertain the notion that Salinger was part of this diabolical plot; and going even further to suggest that under the auspices of this new American/Nazi Intelligence regime he wrote The Catcher in the Rye as a "mechanism of control" to be employed in CIA mind-control experiments such as Project Artichoke and MK-Ultra.


Personally, I don't suspect that Salinger was wittingly contracted by U.S. Intelligence to covertly compose The Catcher in the Rye for nefarious reasons. However, I do consider it quite possible that The Catcher in the Rye has been used as a "mechanism of control." In this same fashion, the music of The Beatles was possibly used, in a similar manner, to not only program Mark David Chapman, but the evil Manson clan, as well. According to Vincent Bugliosi in his best seller Helter Skelter, the Mansonoids used bizarre interpretations of Beatles songs to guide them on their murderous rampages through the Hollywood Hills in the summer of 1969. Furthermore - according to Mae Brussell and other researchers - the Manson Family was nothing less than a full blown CIA Mind Control experiment designed to cast aspersions on the whole counterculture movement of the late '60s by showing that long hair, free love, rock music and drugs would lead the youth of America into a violent all out war against Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way.


Admittedly, these are tenuous connections, but are nonetheless areas that need to be delved into more deeply, especially when one takes into account the general progression of Nazi importees into the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the subsequent creation of mind control programs which reek of Nazi inspiration and influence. Mind programming seems over and again to rear its hideous head where major political assassinations have occurred. When these similar patterns turn up repeatedly, we are forced to ask ourselves if these are simply mere coincidence, or planned procedures executed to achieve a desired end.


So - going one speculative step further - not only can these "mechanisms of control" be employed in programming minds to kill political leaders and activists. In addition, they can also be used as a method to discredit the likes of Salinger or The Beatles by demonstrating to the world at large that such works of art (The Catcher in the Rye and The White Album) are dangerous to the minds of our country's youth, ostensibly driving them to madness and murder.

wasted_winter

wasted_winter wrote:

such works of art (The Catcher in the Rye and The White Album) are dangerous to the minds of our country's youth, ostensibly driving them to madness and murder.

When I read articles like that I sometimes wish there was someway to go back in time and give the author snapshot of comtemporary society - God, they were so innocent back then!!!

I have to say that before this evening I'd never really looked into the whole Catcher/asassin theory. When I read the book I was aware of this history but I honestly didn't GET IT!!! I did read that Lennon's asassin used the book as a type of 'tourist guide', visiting the areas Holden mentions. Perhaps he identified too much with the protagonist!

It's interesting but at the same time I have experienced people distorting literature to suit their own means -- An author can only write a book, it is up to an individual to interpret the piece.

Tiersal

As far as literature influencing murderers, an unsourced piece of flotsam just washed ashore from an unknown source that the BIBLE is referenced as a significant influence by at least 50% of murderers, or psycho's, or rapists, or the whole lot together. Hardly the type of book (the BIBLE) to be discredited by the god fearing americans, who also manage their own death penalty justice system week by week (without noticing the irony, of course!).

I hardly think l'il old Holdens sojourn compares........

Any thoughts?

Tiersal

By the way, I love the Catcher and totally don't get the Bible. The Catcher is a far far superior portrait of an anti-hero than the New Testament could ever be. Should I be worried??!!

wasted_winter

Tiersal wrote:

the BIBLE is referenced as a significant influence by at least 50% of murderers, or psycho's, or rapists, or the whole lot together.

I don't know about the 50% figure, but the Bible, Koran... or whatever religious text you happen to hold sacred plays a huge part in much of today's troubles. I can't speak about individuals - but it's very easy to see how a person could be influenced by such a book. It just reinforces my point: "An author can only write a book, it is up to an individual to interpret the piece."

wasted_winter

Tiersal wrote:

By the way, I love the Catcher and totally don't get the Bible. The Catcher is a far far superior portrait of an anti-hero than the New Testament could ever be. Should I be worried??!!

If you're looking for an antihero you should give Turgenev a spin. "Fathers & Sons" is a brilliant book and Bazarov is the perfect antihero!

OfflerCrocGod

I found it totally uninteresting and lacking any sort of satisfying content. Blah, overrated rubbish.

kawaii

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I found it totally uninteresting and lacking any sort of satisfying content. Blah, overrated rubbish.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:mad:

And to think I was going to join your religion!

OfflerCrocGod

kawaii wrote:

And to think I was going to join your religion!

I'm still superior to you though.

wasted_winter

I found it totally uninteresting and lacking any sort of satisfying content. Blah, overrated rubbish.

I'm still superior to you though

Hmm... OfflerCrocGod I think you might just be the Holden Caulfield of boards.ie!

kawaii

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I'm still superior to you though.

Your post count means nothing to me.

With time you will lose your followers and cease to be.

Ha ha ha ha haaaa!

LadyJ

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I found it totally uninteresting and lacking any sort of satisfying content. Blah, overrated rubbish.

I'm shocked and appalled! :eek:
It's a fabulous book. Glad I read it.
Wouldn't be me if I hadn't. Didn't like "Franny and Zooey" as much.

doctor evil

I like the book, been ages since I read it.

LadyJ

doctor evil wrote:

I like the book, been ages since I read it.

Read it again. It gets better!

Kernel

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I found it totally uninteresting and lacking any sort of satisfying content. Blah, overrated rubbish.

My God! You have no taste.

kawaii

Kernel wrote:

My God! You have no taste.

+1

LadyJ

Kernel wrote:

My God! You have no taste.

No soul either!