Jump To Content

LearnHub



The Catcher In the Rye is Overrated (Discussion)

oLahav saidMon, 09 Jun 2008 21:10:08 -0000 ( Link )

Sorry if you’re Caulfield fans, but that’s what I really think.

I’ve read it twice, once for no reason and again for English class, and I don’t like this book. I especially don’t like Holden… a lot of people like him because they can “understand” and “relate” to him. Well, I can’t, I think he’s a jerk.

The only thing I like about the book is the ducks question. It’s deep.

I just don’t see it as such an incredible classic… it’s basically a depressing book about a mentally ill kid who goes to the big city. I’ve analyzed the themes and the symbolisms and all that in class, they’re fine, not Shakespeare, but ok… as a book though, it’s really a frustrating read. Holden is a really annoying character, I’m just glad he’s not real.

Why are you just sitting there? Reply!

Actions
Vote
Current Rating
0
Rate Up
Rate Down
No Votes
  1. acrosstheuniverse saidMon, 09 Jun 2008 21:24:53 -0000 ( Link )

    I never had to read this book in high school, but I did try reading it a few summers ago. I also didn’t get into the book. Maybe it was the way it was narrated or something, but I just couldn’t fall in love with it. I think I got to chapter 5 or something and sent it back to the library!

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  2. Malgosia saidMon, 09 Jun 2008 22:59:56 -0000 ( Link )

    I read this book at least 10 years ago but my dislike of it is so memorable that it still evokes strong emotion. I couldn’t stand the main character, Holden. Simply put, he was a loser. I just wanted a truck to run him over so I wouldn’t have to hear his inane thoughts anymore.

    Others have told me that you have to be a teenage boy to “get it”. Really? Is that what teenage boys are like?

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  3. windwind saidTue, 10 Jun 2008 14:36:41 -0000 ( Link )

    I totaly agree. I think it has to do with people believing that everyone wants to stay a child, innocent, pure, real blah blah blah… like what’s with his brother, why doesn’t he like him being a Hollywood celeb and all that? Children want to grow up, and by the way I don’t think they’re such wonderful creatures anyway… By the way I don’t agree with the ducks being so great either. I guess they fly away, what’s the big deal?

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  4. windwind saidWed, 11 Jun 2008 14:30:45 -0000 ( Link )

    Wow, I didn’t think about the ducks being a symbol before. Do you have any books that you recommend for reading?

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  5. serjo saidTue, 24 Jun 2008 02:06:21 -0000 ( Link )

    I liked the book! Not only because it talks about juvenile depression (wich is a serious matter), but else because I admire how the author, beeing an adult, could write as if he were an adolescent…

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  6. chandra_avinash saidSat, 16 Aug 2008 13:31:36 -0000 ( Link )

    While I do feel that it’s over rated, I disagree when you say that the book encourages depression. I guess part of the appeal of the book lies in how it portrays Holden’s angst and cynicism as its expression and at the same time, shows us how much he cares for his sister. Holden as a character is pretty unique and his cynicism makes him quite a caricature of the stereotypical “hard man”. I wonder if you guys have read Vernon God Little? I hope I am not alone when I say that I see similiarities in the characters.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  7. lucyinthesky saidMon, 24 Nov 2008 18:47:05 -0000 ( Link )

    I can’t say that I’ve read Vernon God Little…

    @oLahav, I think you’re right. It’s probably – I won’t say “insane” – perhaps, “on-the-edge” teenagers or adults that can relate to Holden’s character. I think his dissatisfaction with the world is because he is SO sensitive and so initially innocent. He becomes easily disappointed and can’t really face up to the “real world”, thus feeling sorry for himself and diving into a tailspin. I think his bitterness and sadness is his one way of coping with the world.

    I don’t think this book encourages depression or violence either. I believe people who are like Holden’s character are the ones who already identify and relate to him. Otherwise, they wouldn’t “get” what he is saying. I think Holden just wants to belong, but feels like he can’t. Therefore, he gets angry and bitter. But I think his alienation is of his own making.

    I think the story and the behaviour of the characters is interesting – I suppose it was popular because it was never really written like that before – but I can’t say I particularly like Salinger’s style of writing.

    oLahav, why do you say that Holden is more fake than any of the other characters in the book?

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  8. avicster saidTue, 25 Nov 2008 10:25:15 -0000 ( Link )

    oLahav, I’m pretty sure this has been a disappointing debate for you so far. After all, you pick up a book you know a lot of people love, you call it overrated, and you don’t get even one response that’d make it worth your while – just a couple of mild disagreements. Everybody here agrees with you! Isn’t that a drag?

    Anyway, here’s the thing: first of all, it is by no means necessary to “relate” with any of the characters in order to enjoy a book (of course, I need to add the customary IMHO here). The character is either well-developed or it is not. While the protagonist of the book may seem like clinically depressed, bordering on “special”, or as somebody put it rather imaginatively, a “loser”, the point is not to feel the same way he does. The point is, it’s not the author’s own story, yet he writes it as if it were. Despite the inexplicable despise Holden seems to be able to generate in this community, allow me to quote him:

    “What really knocks me out is a book that, when you’re all done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it. That doesn’t happen much, though”

    Having a taste for depressing books doesn’t require you to find a manifestation of your own sad life in the story. I don’t identify with any of the characters in Virginia Woolfe’s “To the Lighthouse”. I don’t agree with the philosophy of objectivism which forms the bedrock of all of Ayn Rand’s works. I personally find Howard Roark a self-obsessed jerk. But I recognize a well-written book when I read one. Also, good books (fiction of course) are usually not meant to highlight any social issue. They’re just meant to tell a good story. “Catcher…” does not propound either support or cure for the clinically depressed. Which reminds me,

    “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written”

    As I’ve also said in another discussion on the “worst book you’ve ever read”, you have to be just a tiny bit screwed up to enjoy “Catcher…”. What that means is that you should have the ability to appreciate all kinds of characters, even those you don’t agree with ideologically. Anyone read “The Curious incident of the dog in the night-time”? Anyone watch “Rain man”? Their fan communities are not made up of autistic people.

    Truly screwed up people will find any reason to kill themselves or others with a book in their hands, claiming that it inspired them to do so. The Old Testament is probably the most insanely violent book in history, and I have a strong suspicion that it was not meant to be taken seriously :)

    Anyway, if any of you are looking to develop a taste in stories that punch you in the gut, I strongly suggest reading more of Salinger and Kafka. You can start here: http://www.freeweb.hu/tchl/salinger/squalor.html http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/stories/kafka-E.htm

    And please remember, it’s just a story! You don’t need to pretend to be either Esme or Mr. X to enjoy it.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  9. oLahav saidTue, 25 Nov 2008 15:57:13 -0000 ( Link )

    avicster- I have to agree with some of your points (but counter others).

    You don’t have to relate to a book to enjoy it, that’s perfectly true. The examples you gave are valid, I’ve enjoyed the Curious Case of the Dog, because it was written in an interesting way and provoked some deep ideas.

    However, in the case of the Catcher, I guess I hate Holden’s character so much I can’t like the book. The book is all about Holden, and it’s written from his point of view, so clearly since I don’t like the guy I wouldn’t necessarily appreciate the way he narrates a story (especially if the story is depressing).

    I’ve read some Kafka, like the Metamorphosis, and I found it too weird to make any sense. But nothing in that book caused me to get an antagonism as I felt towards Holden. I really hate the guy. Maybe because I knew of a few people who were like him in real life and I really hated them, I don’t know why I hate him this much, but it prevents me from enjoying the book on any level.

    Hopefully that explains my opinion a bit more.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  10. oLahav saidThu, 27 Nov 2008 15:50:03 -0000 ( Link )

    Yeah, that point seems contrdictory, but looking at Holden it’s logical. Nobody is like Holden in the sense that nobody is completely detached from society, thinking that everything is phony and totally hating the world except for those pure, childish innocent things. But a lot of people are like Holden in the sense that they try and convince themselves that they’re the only non-phony thing around, that everybody around them is phony and that they should just run away and hide in a field of rye. A lot of people wish they could run to the rye, but nobody actually does.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  11. lucyinthesky saidThu, 27 Nov 2008 16:38:06 -0000 ( Link )

    “Nobody is like Holden in the sense that nobody is completely detached from society, thinking that everything is phony and totally hating the world except for those pure, childish innocent things.”

    @oLahav – Actually, I think there are people are like that. I felt like that for a while. I don’t think you can assume people don’t feel this way. Think about it in terms of sociology – society is all about assumed roles. So in essence, the way we behave and the ways we believe we will find happiness (a.k.a. money) are fake in relation to children, who are unaware of these social roles or beliefs. This is still a contradiction of sorts because children have social roles to play (although less complex). It’s interesting how in the book he calls himself a failure, though. Holden is insanely judgmental of people, and I think part of the reason he is this way is because he wants to be immune to adopting these social roles as well.

    It’s interest that Holden’s last name is Caulfield – a “caul” is that membrane which covers the head of the fetus during birth. Sorry if I got off-topic. But there is a lot of symbolism in the book which can be appreciated in the novel, even if the novel itself is so annoyingly written. It’s like that annoying guy in class you hate because he answers all the questions, but is usually right anyway.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  12. windwind saidSat, 29 Nov 2008 14:33:25 -0000 ( Link )

    I didn’t like “The Catcher in the Rye” mainly because I can’t tolerate books that are intolerant.

    It is evident that the author has 0 tolerance towards people that have different values/ideas than himself. Every thing is black &white for him, take his older brother for example – all white in his 1st book, all negative when writing for hollywood.

    Isn’t it a bit too childish an approach? A bit dangerous too in my opinion.

    In “To kill a mockingbird” you get a feeling of compassion and understanding even towards the biggest bigot. That’s what makes a book great in my eyes – always to be able to see the others’ point of view and certainly not to judge. You cannot judge someone until you’ve been in his shoes-and waiked around in them too for a bit. The Old Testament tells a story of true to life people with all their weaknesses alongside their greatness. And it does not lose compassion for them. The same with “Rain Man” and “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time”. Indeed the autistic child hates his father – we the readers understand him. Isn’t Caulfield a bit like an autistic child in the sense that he can’t see anybody elses’ point of view? Isn’t it so as well with the ex soldier in “For Esme with love and squalor”?

    Isn’t it perhaps so with Salinger himself (a recluse…)

    By the way that is not to say that I didn’t enjoy some of his works. (2 sides to eveything, remember?)

    A good day for Banana Fish, everyone!!!

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  13. oLahav saidThu, 04 Dec 2008 14:37:28 -0000 ( Link )

    Maybe we should develop a Cheshire cat-based religion. People would sure smile a lot more…

    I agree that a book is only dangerous if placed in the hands of dangerous people. And to be honest, I think if a person is crazy enough, any book would do the job. I mean if somebody believed too strongly in Doctor Seuss and decided he has to re-enact the Cat in the Hat sequence, can you imagine the destruction that would follow?

    So ok, I’ll take your point that calling Catcher dangerous may be invalid (disregarding the Lennon case though).

    I will agree with windwind on the point she raises- I like books that make you relate and understand characters. Because Holden is such a bad narrator who can’t relate to anything and anyone, it gets hard for readers to gain good insight into other characters except Holden (whom I personally dislike). You can get glimpses of Pheobe and a few other people, but mostly it’s just Holden hating everyone, so everything becomes skewed and biased. You can probably argue that it works with the book, because that’s the whole point of Holden’s view of the world… but I don’t enjoy it all that much.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  14. windwind saidThu, 04 Dec 2008 17:24:36 -0000 ( Link )

    Oh well.

    Books (and for that matter newspapers’ articles, TV news broadcasts etc.) can influence people. In that they can be dangerous in my opinion. Hitler’s book did not kill people, but…

    You did not discuss the most important point that I made – that of intollerance.

    If “The Catcher…” reinforces someone’s intollerance of others’ opinions , way of living and beliefs then YES it can turn them into bigots. Bigots are not necessarily red necks “phony” religious conservative . They can be “open minded”, literary scholars liberals as cynical and patronazing as Salinger is.

    Of course all of this is irrelevant if you consider Caulfield an unreliable narrator. I am not sure that he is ment to be one, mainly an above-it-all childish (in a good innocent way) character who, upon meeting the adult, phony, money-grubbing un-pure “true” world cannot come to terms with it and collapses. (Again much like the writer himself). Do you think that if the protagonist is also the narrator then the view point hovers on the extreme or that he usually becomes unreliable? Not so in ”..a Mockingbird” . No, I do not agree with you on that and I don’t think that Holden or indeed Salinger would.

    The Old Testament has a lot of violence in it. If anything it is the most true to life, un-phony book ever to be written. Those children cursed, or rather laughed at Elisha and he got back at them.(Yes, I looked it up). Do you think that their punishment is too severe? I am not so sure. Elisha certainly detered others. Is being nice and tolerante towards your enemies a better poicy?

    But we are not here to discuss the Old Testament – by the way can’t you read The Book, enjoy it, agree or disagree with it without the belief part? I think it deals with the most fundamental human traits-and these are not often very pretty or fine coated as people would want to believe.

    Anyway – back to The Catcher..- I don’t mean to say that people shouldn’t read it or anything (I am usually against censurship)only that I wish they would be aware of its intollerance and be guarded against it.

    I wish it but I would not force my point of view on them.

    oLahav – Holden doesn’t hate eveyone -he only hates those that don’t think or act like himself. We certanily percieve the others through his point of view, flawed as it is, the problem lies I think with the author who “idenfies” too much with his hero.

    But I also agree about the peace part. Much as I enjoyd figuring it out – I really don’t want to become Holden myself.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  15. windwind saidThu, 04 Dec 2008 23:22:01 -0000 ( Link )

    I don’t know..

    I think Caulfield relates much of what Salinger believes himself. But as this is too much of a high standart (to use your quote) to live by, he prefers to leave it all together. Hopefully temporarily so for himself, seems not so for his creator.

    An unreliable narrator should give you the sense that what he believes and feels subjectively is not so in the reality of the story. Did you get that feeling in The Catcher? I did not. I got the feeling that all the phony, superficial unpleasant characters that Caulfield describes are really so and the question is – what do you choose to do about it. By the way I know an excellent short story that portrays a REAL unreliable narrator. It’s called: “My Side of the Matter” and it’s by Truman Capote.

    I don’t always agree with Wikipedia.

    “Phony” religious red neck conservatives are only bigots if they assume that scholarly liberals are always wrong about everything. If they don’t assume that and ALWAYS judge and form their own opinios based on what they hear and see (and most definitely not on what they hear through the media) than how can they be bigots? I guess you get all kinds.. By the same token I guess that not all “open minded” liberal scholars are patronizing bigots but do you know what? I think that they tend to be more so because they will seldom question themselves or get scrutinized by others. Certainly no one will call them stupid – although in a lot of cases they are..

    Oh well, I guess I have my own prejudices, like everyone else..

    Oh please don’t read the Bible like a horror story. Suppose that someone would describe what’s going on in this day and age.. Has so much changed since those days? Turning children into ruthless war machines and so on.. Again I do believe that what is described there is basic human characteristics. By the way Elisha did some pretty good things too… I think that what happend to those children shows his greatness – what a great prophet he is. And yes by our standarts it sounds terrible but in an “eye for an eye”era.. And who’s to say what is better? Certainly it is less phony… And yes, those children were his enemies at that time. Children can do terrible things..

    I know, I know, you don’t agree with me. Probably even shudder with horror at my insensitivity…How can I say that about little children, horrid as they may be, in the Biblical context as it is…Well, that’s the beauty of being able to speak one’s mind without fear of being labeled. And I wonder what I would find if being allowed to probe just a bit deeper into your inner soul.. Are there no prejudices, rigidity of thought, hate or fear lurking there? OK, maybe I’ve gone too far. Foregive me, I am really tired, It seems like I spent hours writing here.

    Shall we agree to disagree?

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  16. windwind saidFri, 05 Dec 2008 17:17:00 -0000 ( Link )

    I won’t write about The Catcher anymore as I do believe that I said all I had to say about it. It is certainly a thought-provoking book, if nothing else.

    God may have created a perfect creature – but He gave him the ability to choose and that, I guess, made all the difference. Man could have lived, blissfully unaware, in paradise forever…

    And on that subject – it is my belief that violence is unavoidable in our world as it is such an inherent part of man’s nature (not necessarily of womens’ by the way). But is it necessarily detrimental to man kind?

    Violence=survival skills=inovations=better life quality and so on.

    At least that’s one way of looking at it…

    Is self-defence also considered violence? Is protecting your near and dear a violent action? If you strike your enemy before he gets the chance to strike you – even when he is in the midst of planning the attack, are you the aggressor here? Where do you draw the line? How can you tell? How do you know?

    Not all is as it seems, sometimes the victim is not the victim at all, sometimes violence is the answer. And sometimes it is not. The world is most certainly not black &white.

    And that’s a good thing after all. Imagine how boring it would be otherwise..

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

  17. avicster saidFri, 05 Dec 2008 18:09:43 -0000 ( Link )

    Well in that case I live in a very interesting place :)

    I know whatever happens in this world is a part of it, including differences of opinion. I really have no strong feelings about violence, or much else for that matter. My stand in most cases is that of a passive observer, unless it affects people I know. But that is probably just another human imperfection.

    I won’t discuss God and religion anymore. That really is a discussion for another day and place. Your belief that God knows our future but lets us choose will open up the oldest debate in philosophy.

    So, in the words of Mr. McCartney, let it be.

    Actions
    Vote
    Current Rating
    0
    Rate Up
    Rate Down
    No Votes

    Post Comments

Your Response
Textile is Enabled (View Reference)