# Catcher in the Rye



## Neo (Jan 19, 2007)

Worst. Book. Ever.

Salinger should, by rights, be either dead or in hiding after writing this useless peice of rubbish.
Written in what I imagine was, in 1946, common speach, and even then a very bad excuse for it, the book centres round a dumb, backward degenerate who decides he's outside society and enmbarks on a cringe-enducing escapade of...well...I'm not sure...
His pathetic attempts to chat up women, with promises of "cocktails," "dancing" and "dinner" are trumped only by the sheer boredom and uselessness of the pages and pages of drivel. 
How many trees died so that this book could exist?


----------



## Yamato145 (Jan 21, 2007)

Catcher In The Rye is the biggest influence on my own writing style, it is an excellent book.
Oh an "speach" is spelled speech.
perhaps huked on fonix didn't work for you?
-YAMZ


----------



## Neo (Jan 21, 2007)

Hey..I did spell speech wrong. Huh.

Huked on fonix? That's a book, right?


----------



## tablemanners (Jan 21, 2007)

Also, just to be anal, it's inducing, not enducing, and embark, not enmbark.

But that's not why I'm posting. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I respect yours, but I've got to disagree. I mean, you seem to be branding the character boring and stupid because of his pathetic attempts to pick up women. Do you think a character has to look and act like Brad Pitt to be interesting?


----------



## strangedaze (Jan 21, 2007)

jd salinger is in hiding, actually.

and to be honest, i didnt like catcher, but im in love with his Glass cycle of stories.


----------



## Mike C (Jan 22, 2007)

strangedaze said:
			
		

> and to be honest, i didnt like catcher, but im in love with his Glass cycle of stories.



I loved Catcher. But the Glass stories were better. Bananafish is probably the most moving.


----------



## gingerpower (Jan 22, 2007)

Anyone who doesnt like Jd Salinger should be fed to a wood chipper :evil:
dont bother correcting my spelling i no it sucks


----------



## Neo (Jan 23, 2007)

I was a bit harsh, but I am adamand that it is a total peice of crap. See, now I am seeing the grammatical mistakes in my own writing. Darn.


----------



## Sock (Jan 23, 2007)

No book has been able to capture teen angst and coming of age better (and believe me MANY have tried). The topic of coming of age and/or  teen angst  has gained incredible popularity in film, literature and music, all because of The Catcher in the Rye. And guess what? They all are just copies of The Catcher in the Rye, and pathetic ones at that. The book is very accurate always contemporary and very moving, it focuses on real pain and confusion, rather than glamorizing it as all of its copies seem to do. It is a window into Salinger's soul and he shares the same emotion and voice as Holden, and his passion for the subject truly shows. Anyone who went through the feelings of unimportance and unworthiness, depression, social and sexual frustration or antisocial tendencies has read the Catcher in the Rye and gotten something from it. 

For its time it was very fresh and controversial. Young people everywhere were given a piece of literature that was aimed at them while not telling them what to do, or how to feel. It was uncensored, rude and anti-conformist: the voice of its generation and many generations to come.


----------



## riversource (Jan 23, 2007)

I really love this book, my favourite piece of Salinger's though is For Esme with Love and Squalor. Perfection.8)


----------



## Mike C (Jan 23, 2007)

Neo said:
			
		

> I was a bit harsh, but I am adamand that it is a total peice of crap.



Just as I am adaman*t* that you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed books unless they have short words and nice colourful pictures. 

Catcher is the most banned book ever in the US, so it can't be that bad. I mean, _Je_sus, maybe you should just _try_ to read the goddam thing in _context_.


----------



## Raging_Hopeful (Jan 23, 2007)

Whew. Criticize a classic and they burn ya. 

I... liked the book but I didn't LOVE the book. There were parts of it that were wonderful but parts of it felt a little dry for me. But it's all personal preference really...

But when it comes to influence, yes, Catcher in the Rye was a pivotal moment in literature, sending a ripple through the generations. They become classics for a reason.

However, I do think its silly for people to get up in arms over what books they liked and attacking people's spelling just because you're mad they didn't like your book? Silly silly.


----------



## Raging_Hopeful (Jan 23, 2007)

Not that I'm excusing poor spelling...


----------



## Mike C (Jan 24, 2007)

Raging_Hopeful said:
			
		

> Not that I'm excusing poor spelling...



I should hope not. We burn heretics 'round these here parts, missy...'

But seriously, anyone who writes off a classic by one of the great American writers as 'a total peice of crap' really just doesn't deserve kind words, especially when their posts suggest they are only semi-literate. You can love it, you can hate it, but having the vocabulary to be able to explain _why_ is mandatory unless Neo wants to make himself look wilfully ignorant.


----------



## Yamato145 (Jan 24, 2007)

I know we're on the same side Mike but you made the same mistake as Neo, it's piece not peice ... remember? I before E except after C lol.
-YAMZ


----------



## IJS (Jan 24, 2007)

Catcher in the Rye was an EXCELLENT book.


----------



## Mike C (Jan 24, 2007)

Yamato145 said:
			
		

> I know we're on the same side Mike but you made the same mistake as Neo, it's piece not peice ... remember? I before E except after C lol.
> -YAMZ



Heh. I deserve that... my excuse? I cut 'n' paste to get his quote exactly right.


----------



## Neo (Jan 25, 2007)

What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.


----------



## Yamato145 (Jan 27, 2007)

Neo said:
			
		

> What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.


You sure know an awful lot about it for it being unreadable ...
-YAMZ


----------



## Mike C (Jan 29, 2007)

Neo said:
			
		

> What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.



Why? What made it boring for you? The style, the characters, the storyline... what?

It's obviously not unreadable, as millions have read it.

And pointless? In what way?


----------



## strangedaze (Jan 29, 2007)

Mike C said:
			
		

> Catcher is the most banned book ever in the US, so it can't be that bad. I mean, _Je_sus, maybe you should just _try_ to read the goddam thing in _context_.



haha. well-played with the italics, sir. 

my two favorites from the glass cycle are banafish and for esme, and teddy, too. catcher wasnt bad, i just didnt diggit, you know? just like im not fond of 'Seymour: An Introduction,' which reads like jd bitching about his plight as a misunderstood artist.

all of that said, i dont really give a shit if neo doesnt like it. thats his / her problem. sha.


----------



## Neo (Jan 29, 2007)

Mike C said:
			
		

> Why? What made it boring for you? The style, the characters, the storyline... what?
> 
> It's obviously not unreadable, as millions have read it.
> 
> And pointless? In what way?


 
I read it about three-quaters way through and could not continue. The way it was written was silly. It really was. (*giggles*)
The way it was written, as well as the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).
How can this book be so popular? Have I got another Catcher in the Rye that is different to everyone elses?


----------



## riversource (Jan 29, 2007)

Neo said:
			
		

> The way it was written, as well as the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).


 
Correct me if i'm wrong - anyone but Neo - but that's the whole bloody point! It's about Holden not what he does so much.


----------



## Mike C (Jan 30, 2007)

Neo said:
			
		

> the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).



What you consider pointless actually is the point. It was a landmark novel because people just didn't write books like that then. Further, without books like 'Catcher', we'd never have had movies like 'Slackers'. Or maybe even 'Rebel without a Cause' - James Dean played a very similar character. Did you think that movie was silly?

What you think is silly is realism. Holden was the archetypal angry young man, and if you have trouble relating to it the problem rests with you and your lack of life experience, not the book. It's precisely because people can relate to Holden and his attitude that the book has become a classic of American literature. Transport him to a different time and place and he'd probably be a goth or emo, but his 'life is shit' attitude would be identical.


----------



## coral (Jan 30, 2007)

I thought it was a great book! But if you didn't like Holden (and by this I mean like him or like to hate him), I don't know how you could like the book.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson (Jan 30, 2007)

Mike C said:
			
		

> Just as I am adaman*t* that you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed books unless they have short words and nice colourful pictures.
> 
> Catcher is the most banned book ever in the US, so it can't be that bad. I mean, _Je_sus, maybe you should just _try_ to read the goddam thing in _context_.


Let's not base "not bad" on the banned status.  _Harry Potter_ has been banned all over the bible belt, and it's a piece of shit.

Then again, _Ulysses_ was banned, and it's the jesus.


----------



## Kathyrn (Jan 30, 2007)

I swore I wasn't going to do this - but I can't help it.



> What you consider pointless actually is the point. It was a landmark novel because people just didn't write books like that then. Further, without books like 'Catcher', we'd never have had movies like 'Slackers'. Or maybe even 'Rebel without a Cause' - James Dean played a very similar character. Did you think that movie was silly?



*Mike C*, don't you realize that you're trying to get through to something that isn't there? 

This is a perfect example of the internet gone wrong - someone who will spend time on a forum dedicated to a subject he knows nothing about  because it's easier than getting a life. This individual will never understand Holden Caulfield because _real_ life experience is somethinghe may know nothing about - therefore he cannot relate to a fictional character (no matter how well written - in fact probably because of how well its written) seeking to deal with it.

 Put Holden on a reality show and it may make more sense - Doode...


----------



## Neo (Jan 31, 2007)

Real life experience? If I was going to write a book about me, I'd make it a helluva lot more interesting than Caulfield's drivel. Yeah, he's fictional, but that makes it worse - a fictional character without a life. That's just totally sad!
And people like you tend to make assumptions about others without knowing shit. Kathryn, all I am saying is that I found the book boring and pointless, so calm down. If anyone needs to get a life it's Holden Caulfield.


----------



## umbramaker (Feb 6, 2007)

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> _Harry Potter_ has been banned all over the bible belt, and it's a piece of shit.
> 
> Then again, _Ulysses_ was banned, and it's the jesus.


I just _had_ to quote this because it's so funny!:mrgreen:

Also:



			
				Neo said:
			
		

> If anyone needs to get a life it's Holden Caulfield.


I was kind of under the impression that this was part of the point. The main character's name is Holdon. Take it apart: _Hold on_. Holdon didn't have a life because he didn't like change, and the book was him discovering the life he didn't have.

One of the biggest differences between books written today and books written years ago is the subtelty. Books today just don't seem to be as subtle as they were. (Correct me if this isn't the case). Allow me to quote _Catcher_:

_talking about Holdon and Jane playing Checkers..._


> "Yeah. She wouldn't move any of her kings. What she'd do, when she'd get a king, she wouldn't move it. She'd just leave it in the back row. She'd get them all lined up in the back row. Then she'd never use them. She just liked the way they look when they were all in the back row...Her mother was married again to some booze hound...Skinny guy with hairy legs. I remember him. He wore shorts all the time. Jane said he was supposed to be a playwright or some goddam thing, but all _I_ ever saw him do was booze all the time and listen to every single goddam mystery program on the radio. And run around the goddam house, naked. With _Jane_ around, and all."


This innocuous-looking passage says at least two important things: first, Jane was (sexually) abused by her stepfather; and second, that Holdon isn't as smart as the person reading the book. Holdon completely missed the obvious signs. So, the story aside, part of the thrill of reading this book is figuring out exactly what the author is saying by omission. Depending on what kind of books a person grew up reading, it's possible that this type of storytelling is just too unobvious. (I imagine that an author trying to get the same message across today might write, "I think her stepdad was abusing her or some goddam thing.")

So, now that my wall of text is done: is that it, do you think? Maybe it wasn't too exciting because it was so annoyingly subtle.


----------



## quarterscot (Feb 14, 2007)

_Catcher In the Rye_ has always struck me as a book that's got to be encountered at the right time. I read it when I was a teenager just starting to get totally fed up with life and I loved it. Likewise, I read _Catch-22_ as a teenager just starting to mistrust everyone in authority and I loved that too. I'm not sure I'd like either so much if I re-read them now. I'd probably be going "well, duh" to a lot of their insights.

That said, if all you want is a strong story filled with sympathetic characters, you should stick to a different type of book. Preferably one with lots pictures, where you can See Spot Run.


----------



## Neo (Feb 14, 2007)

The book I find agrees with me morally and basically in every way is Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho. The nihilistic and morally barren tone suits me perfectly. As you say, Catch-22 agreed with you at the right time, as did Catcher. AP agrees with me now. A world bound by morality, order and decency is a world full of lust and angst. A world devoid of morality is a world of pain. So everything is irrelevant and superficial - existence is pointless and your own wants and needs are what count. Catcher is too moralistic for me.


----------



## IJS (Feb 15, 2007)

umbramaker said:
			
		

> This innocuous-looking passage says at least two important things: first, Jane was (sexually) abused by her stepfather; and second, that Holdon isn't as smart as the person reading the book. Holdon completely missed the obvious signs. So, the story aside, part of the thrill of reading this book is figuring out exactly what the author is saying by omission. Depending on what kind of books a person grew up reading, it's possible that this type of storytelling is just too unobvious. (I imagine that an author trying to get the same message across today might write, "I think her stepdad was abusing her or some goddam thing.")


Exactly, you find things out about Holden that he doesn't realize himself. 



Spoiler



Towards the end of the book, it hints towards the fact that he's been sexually molested which starts to explain certain things about his personality that you see come through in his outings, personality traits and the way he views people as a whole. You basically grow with Holden and seeing his views from his POV as an angsty, angry teenager, and honestly, I've never seen a better portrayal which is why it's so damn awesome.



If you can't appreciate it, as Mike C said, it's really probably more your fault as you haven't had the life experience as of yet to be able to empathize with Holden. Someone else in the thread pointed out that reading it at a certain time in your life would increase it's enjoyment and I believe that to be one hundred percent correct. When I read it, I had almost identical feelings to Holden's in certain areas. I was an angsty, angry teenager and I disliked most of everyone I met. So when I read the book I was able to connect with Holden.


----------



## Black Riven (Feb 15, 2007)

I actually wasn't that impressed with the book either. I read it when I was around 15, maybe 16, and even had a literature teacher analyzing it for us, and it didn't strike a chord with me, even though I too hated just about anyone and anything, and that included Holdon. 

I have very little tolorance to stupid people, and it felt like the entire book I was dragged after his stupid decisions, and then had to listen to him whining about it. Basically, he was the kind of person I wouldn't tolorate around me even back then, angst is not an excuse to being incompotent and a loser. 

I also had a problem with many of his not angsty thoughts, like his tendancy to wonder where the birds go to when the lake is frozen. Me giving the author the benefit of doubt was the only thing that kept it from being unrealistic because, well, who cares about a bunch of birds!? 
So yeah, the meaning behind it is 'what happens to those birds when they have nowhere to return to, like me', but that's exactly my problem. Who reflects on himself through metaphores?! It just made him sound even more like an idiot than I already thought he was.


----------



## quarterscot (Feb 15, 2007)

Black Riven said:
			
		

> I also had a problem with many of his not angsty thoughts, like his tendancy to wonder where the birds go to when the lake is frozen. Me giving the author the benefit of doubt was the only thing that kept it from being unrealistic because, well, who cares about a bunch of birds!?
> So yeah, the meaning behind it is 'what happens to those birds when they have nowhere to return to, like me', but that's exactly my problem. Who reflects on himself through metaphores?! It just made him sound even more like an idiot than I already thought he was.


 
Fair point, and a good example of a novel being over-written. Anyway, the birds fly south. Surely even nihilistic teenagers know that?


----------



## Neo (Feb 16, 2007)

Black Riven said:
			
		

> I actually wasn't that impressed with the book either. I read it when I was around 15, maybe 16, and even had a literature teacher analyzing it for us, and it didn't strike a chord with me, even though I too hated just about anyone and anything, and that included Holdon.
> 
> I have very little tolorance to stupid people, and it felt like the entire book I was dragged after his stupid decisions, and then had to listen to him whining about it. Basically, he was the kind of person I wouldn't tolorate around me even back then, angst is not an excuse to being incompotent and a loser.
> 
> ...


 
My thoughts exactly. Spot on, thank you.


----------

