What's up with The Catcher in the Rye?

I hate my computer.

 

Argh something happened and it posted the same thing several times. Sorry everyone.

 

I hate how when someone doesn't enjoy something a following of people enjoy they think they are individualistic or unique for it. Something wonderful can be enjoyed by a large amount of people. Even if a large amount of people are following the book as some trend or whatever its still a great book. Holden's character is so fucking real he rocked the foundation of who i am. I was able to relate to him more than any other fictional character ive ever read about. The way he discribes how he imagined the hooker buying the green dress from a sweet little lady behind the counter is the same way i look at things. Scenarios we create in our minds to show how pure something can be seemingly but yet how dark and evil it really is. The absence of innocence in a innocent appearing situation. THe book is so honest it is almost erie (sp?). I am not saying you are wrong for not getting anything out of it but there is no reason to feel like part of the sophisticated and elite for not taking to a fasicinating book. The reason that this book applys to everyone is the book takes on complicated and interesting ideas but in an easy to understand manor. Holden caulfield is the instrument for dispersing this information and he works so perfectly because in truth he is such a normal, average, seemingly dumb , type of guy. But it is so amazing and beautiful the way he looks at serious and complex things in a pure state. Instead of him being some very intelligent and sophisticated errorless person, lacking in any sort of humility, he is just an average every day person. THat is why almost everyone , even people following the herd, can relate. It does not make someone more or less intelligent or unique because they do not enjoy this book

 

Okay, I'm going to have to say it again. No one thinks they're sophisticated, elite, intelligent or unique for not liking this book. Once again, it was a just simple question.

 

no im not directing that at you ist at the Good for you, babes. We have an 'individual' developing quite nicely, here. comment i was offended by

 

Yes, I know that's what you meant. But as I had stated in an earlier post I had the impression it was a 'good for you' for just questioning things in general, not for disliking something popular. I also don't think it was meant to offend anyone.

 

Sorry *electrica*,


Your right to question 'Catcher in the Rye'.

I did too the first time I read it.

It was only years later, when I understood a little more about the generation before me, that I found 'Catcher in the Rye' a revelation.

I feel so hungry to experience the spirit of those generations that came before me, it's as if to know myself, I have to follow this thread that goes back and back.

 

Thank you for apologising but you really don't have to. I don't get mad at anyone, I just don't want anyone else to be mad so I always explain things too much.
Trying to understand earlier generations is exactly why I read it in the first place. I read a lot of books for that reason, and some teach me, some don't. The Catcher in the Rye did teach me about past generations, it just didn't make me swoon or my heart thumpy or my brain take notice the way things like On the Road, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or even The Electric Kool Aid Acid test did. I still have to appreciate something that changed so many other people, even if I didn't like it.

 

I don't feel any different, I don't feel unique or like a individualistic person.

I just feel like I didn't like the book that much.

It's pretty strange that you would say all of that babble simply because someone doesn't agree with your opinion.

I don't believe anyone here feels sophisticated or elite because they don't like one book.

You shouldn't make such a big deal out of nothing.

No book burners here.

 

It's ok to dislike the book. But to say it's devoid of meaning just because you dislike it is silly. Don't worry; I don't think anyone here crossed that line. I just thought I'd say it.

*electrica* to answer your original question, figure out what the title means, and that'll be the key--to any book. If you can figure out the significance of the title, you're on your way. In this case, "Catcher in the Rye" is a lyric from a childhood song that Holden got wrong (it's important to note that he got it wrong). The song, as Holden imagined it, is about a superhero-type who catches little children who fall [metaphor: preserving childhood innocence].

The book is a series of vignettes of Holden attempting to defend innocence (his sister's, his brother's & ultimately his own) from the inevitable corruption. Catch the falling children who can't see their way through the rye.

Well, you know how it ends, and that's the clincher. The bottom line is that Holden had the song wrong all along, and it was inevitable that he would go mad clinging to his ideal of innocence. I think it's a sublime, timeless story, regardless of publication date.

P.S. It also helps if you've lived in NYC & visited that pond in central park. Especially when it freezes over in the winter...

 

i couldn't have said it better myself. I absolutely love this book and i can't even begin to tell you how many times i have read it. i definitely felt like i could relate to holden, that there was some very strange connection between some of the things he experienced and saw and those that i had experienced. the fact that he was a mere teenager...a regular kid just added to it. Great book, but i think that if you are searching for meaning from it...you wont find it. you just have to stumble on it and take it in as you will.

just a thought though :0)

 

I also loved the book. I had no idea about the connection to John Lennon until I read this.. lol now i feel ignorant. I felt I could understand Holden's idea of everyone around him being phonies, however it probably helps that I am a teenager and we are supposed to relate to him in this way. It wasn't exactly a life-changing book but it is one of my favourites, although I have many. xxxx

 

Much like m6m said, it came to represent an entire generations feelings towards the society in which they lived. The Picaro setup is nothing new, but Salinger's critique of the society at the time pointed out the not so great results of the materialist world that began after WWI.
Holden is a great example of the anti-hero who doesn't ever acheive his ideal identity, and in fact really acheives nothing from his journey (s).

Also, there is no connection with the CIA, thousands of dissodents identified strongly with Holden's dislike of the "phony" adult world, and those dissodents happened to be the ones targeted by the CIA.
Anyhow, as a lit major I could go on and on about the book, in fact I just wrote an essay including it, but I won't. Even if there was no other "meaning" in the book I think it is very entertaining.

 

I really liked it. I found it funny, amusing and insightful. It's ok if you don't like it though. I don't like alot of things that are popular, it doesn't make me less intelligent or cool than the people that do. If you don't like Catcher in the Rye, than it just isn't your thing.

 

I read this book when I was much younger, before it was even a class assignment. So, when I read it, I didn't have any prior knowledge or judgment of how it was. IMO, it was a great book. Holden Caufield represents a part of all of us. I found his pessimistic attitude to make him so much more of a real person than many other books I've read (and even many movies I've seen.) There were some very amusing parts and very insightful parts. There are certain meaningful symbols throughout the novel (the catcher's mit, the carosel, the prostitute).

 

i did a report on this book for my english class, and while i too liked the fact that he wasnt some hero, it was hard writing this report because you had to tell whether the main character was a hero or not...and he wasnt really either.

 

The reason the book is so vastly known...i have no clue. I do however know why I find it to be such an intriguing book. The main character Holden contradicts himself throughout the whole novel. He hates typical things. He says he doesn't want to be accepted, but there are many points which he will go on rants about how he did this and this but who cares because hes an individual and such. He wants to be accepted secretly, but more or less for being unique than commonly successful. Eventually (and no i don't believe he loses his mind) he loses grip on reality and the real things and then again his manifestations begin to collide. He also has a very interesting relationship with his sister Phoebe. He is stuck in this weird in between stage where he is no longer a child with innocence but is also not an adult. He can't choose what he wants to be. He is always trying to protect her from losing that innocence. His sister i think is the only one who gets this. He is also a very hypocritical person because he pokes fun at the typical people and love and such, but then he tries to get a girl to run away with him. And he is obsessed with his best friend. He's also a hypocrit because he calls people basically low lifes but again he considers suicide which is shown to be cowardice in this book (the only thing that stops him is his sister). It is also interesting how he refers to his brother as a hollywood whore instead of a writer. And the best thing about the book is that at the end you find out he is institutionalized and is writing from the hospital. THAT is why i love this book. But some people don't like to read in as much or have different interests as far as reading selection goes so it depends. So i would say in conclusion the mass symbolism and irony is what makes it so renowned.

 

havent read it, but i was kind of curious. i've heard a lot of people say they like it, and a lot say they hate it. i've never heard that it inspired lennon's death, only that mdc was reading it after he killed john.

 

haha you explained what the book is just right there. Its life at its greatest.