Opinions on Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye"

[wasted]

Beat gen didn't really exist.

But Kerouac was kind of middle class. Willy said some mean things about him. That's another prob with the movie they seem really naive. I always read more as the literary figures not just 3 little kids driving around. The Burroughs was alright though.

[Guest NGOG]

Honestly it's because I connected with Holden in so many ways.

He's just extremely depressed and sees the world a different way than most.

Do you regard yourself as a Holden of sorts? Because something I would say is that Holden wasn't able to step outside his own body and contrast his views against the rest of society. Whereas based on the second point I've quoted, you can. That's good - you haven't become entirely invested in the merit of your own views.

While I don't see Catcher as the pinnacle of contemporary American literature - which from my experience, is certainly the way the UK education system portrays it - I don't agree with the analysis that Holden is just a "whiney little shit". What I see is somebody that desperately wants some sort of cause to believe in. Hollywood, the college "fucking game" - it's just not something that Holden can contrive an enthusiasm for. He is deeply frustrated by the empty, thoughtless way in which young people operate. Somebody like Lenny, who absolutely embodies the notion of happy-go-lucky, cannot relate to the programming of a character like Caulfield. Which is why to Lenny he comes across as total pretentiousness.

But there are actually many young people programmed like Caulfield (they just have to suppress it). They aren't governed by testosterone. They aren't impressed by glamour. They aren't driven by a letter that will certify their intelligence. But as Holden's relationship with his sister shows, they are fundamentally good people. They have an eternal struggle of trying to see the good in humanity. They want something to believe in.

Edited March 13, 2014 by NGOG

[wasted]

I always saw a lot of satire in Catcher in the rye. It's a complex piece of writing. To show no sympathy for adolescents, I do see how when he wrote he was doing a good thing but after youth culture it's like ok we've heard enough now just shut up we've got wars to fight. I think it's popular bcos people can relive that time and laugh about it. It's a time before they started lying to themselves. Salinger kind of sees that as a beautiful thing. But it's actually hard to tell. So it's not a black and white thing. You can take it to mean shut up Holden too. So I don't get the hate because it means what you want it to.

Edited March 8, 2014 by wasted

[ohlovelyrita]

Honestly it's because I connected with Holden in so many ways.

He's just extremely depressed and sees the world a different way than most.

Do you regard yourself as a Holden of sorts? Because something I would say is that Holden wasn't able to step outside his own body and contrast his views against the rest of society. Whereas based on the second point I've quoted, you can. That's good - you haven't become entirely invested in the merit of your own views.

While I don't see Catcher as the pinnacle of contemporary American literature - which from my experience, is certainly the way the UK education system portrays it - I don't agree with the analysis that Holden is just a "whiney little shit". What I see is somebody that desperately wants some sort of cause to believe in. Hollywood, the college "fucking game" - it's just not something that Holden can contrive an enthusiasm for. He is deeply frustrated by the empty, thoughtless way in which young people operate. Somebody like Lenny, who absolutely embodies the notion of happy-go-lucky, cannot relate to the programming of a character like Caulfield. Which is why to Lenny he comes across as total pretentiousness. But there are actually many young people programmed like Caulfield (they just have to suppress it). They aren't governed by testosterone. They aren't impressed by glamour. They aren't driven by a letter that will certify their intelligence. But as Holden's relationship with his sister shows, they are fundamentally good people. They have an eternal struggle of trying to see the good in humanity. They want something to believe in.

Good analysis. I was reading some comments on a thread by some early-20's kids who where put on meds when they didn't need them, denied meds when they needed 'em, switched meds for no reason, basically not being seen or heard just people unfairly told their problems lie with their thinking. One was told to snap out of it, another lied in bed for weeks after feeling like a lost cause.

Re: Houlden

Feeling things is not fitting in especially if you voice your discontent then people will try to make you "normal". They put

young people on meds that create longer dependencies/addiction than just letting those "coming of age' feelings pass. The young people

of today overall lack empathy more than any other generation. The are highly critical of others and bash others without a filter. For some, their mental chatter is negative and self-loathing usually bubbles over. Why do people feel the need to tell people they don't like them? "Just because you can doesn't mean that you should". The person being negative feels bad more than they feel good so they are unaware they are creating their own reality. A viscious cycle.

Edited March 8, 2014 by ohlovelyrita

[arnold layne]

Catcher In The Rye was published before the anti-depressant boom, which makes the book all the more fascinating. I would be lying to you if I said these drugs don't have any permanent mental side effects.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Catcher In The Rye was published before the anti-depressant boom, which makes the book all the more fascinating. I would be lying to you if I said these drugs don't have any permanent mental side effects.

I'll have em?

[arnold layne]

That wouldn't be wise.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I've probably had em before, Seroquels one i've had…and Tramadol, i have no idea where this stuff stands on the scale but it don't really do nothing but give you a good nights sleep..and even then with half a bottle of vodka

I'd love to be in America, just bullshit like you're sad inside and get yourself a load of free pills!

[Guest NGOG]

Catcher In The Rye was published before the anti-depressant boom, which makes the book all the more fascinating. I would be lying to you if I said these drugs don't have any permanent mental side effects.

Don't give too much power to drugs chico, they will eventually be eliminated from your body. It all depends on how long you've been on something; but their effects will go away.

Take somebody that's been ruined by heroin for example, while it takes time, they can eventually retain full functionality. What you need to is adopt the positive mentality that no drug can ruin your life. The body is capable of extraordinary comebacks if you equip it with the right conditions.

Edited March 8, 2014 by NGOG

[AdriftatSea]

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

[AdriftatSea]

It's my favorite book.

Honestly it's because I connected with Holden in so many ways. I know that's generally frowned upon, but that's the sad reality.

When I went to LSU, a girl who was quite fond of books stopped me because I was wearing one of my two "Catcher In The Rye" shirts. She began by saying it was an excellent book and then proceeded to trash the main character, calling him immature among other things...

The books protagonist is a troubled individual who many consider "whiney" and "self entitled", but this is only seeing the surface.

I think some people have this mind-set that a character should be a certain way, be a "hero", or act a certain way to their liking and that's just not possible nor realistic.

Holden isn't a bad kid. He's just extremely depressed and sees the world a different way than most. I think those people who dislike him as a character don't like him because they just cannot understand who he is. I don't even think teachers truly understand where he's coming from. In order to understand you must be that severely depressed and cynical of a person, and I am talking about severely depressed. I'm not sure, but it's safe to say most don't suffer from such issues as he displays throughout the book, not even in their teenage years.

What Holden believes is genuine. Teenage angst isn't truly displayed here because most 'teenage angst' is a phase. What Holden experiences isn't a phase, it's mental illness. Nobody should aspire to be Holden. Most likely, we will never know because it's a fictional story, but Holden's life will be anything but a happy ending. Essentially this book is a psychological tragedy in its truest form.

I think one of the saddest parts of the story is how he essentially lives for his sister. I cannot explain it but it's sad and terrifying in my opinion.

I agree it is sad, he is mentally ill. I don't agree that one has to have the same illness to understand. I understood Sylvia Plath's illness. I understood The Bell Jar. I don't see his mental illness the same. I think he is extremely self absorbed for one reason - he thinks he is normal. Sylvia knew she wasn't.

I bet lots of pretty girls stopped you on the LSU campus when you were wearing that shirt! My oldest daughter graduated from LSU! Geaux Tigers!

Edit: Come to think of it, she probably just stopped you because of you and she couldn't care less about your shirt!

Edited March 8, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[arnold layne]

Geaux Tigers.

[bran]

i think everyone at some point in their lives can relate to holden on some kind of level. it is one of my all time favorite books.

[wasted]

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

But that doesn't make it a bad book. If you want to take it on face value it's a well written portrait of a whiny bitch. Although in most of Salinger's other work he's kind of poking fun at the middle to upper class life. He kind of just lets the characters live but then subtly teases out different meanings. Maybe like Holden's Catcher speech or him ending up in mental institute. He's not going tell you. It's like American Psycho really. Why should I give a shit about serial killer? Both are a amusing on one level, then at some point there's some philosophical prose. Then at the end a kind look again, think about it ending.

[AdriftatSea]

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

But that doesn't make it a bad book. If you want to take it on face value it's a well written portrait of a whiny bitch. Although in most of Salinger's other work he's kind of poking fun at the middle to upper class life. He kind of just lets the characters live but then subtly teases out different meanings. Maybe like Holden's Catcher speech or him ending up in mental institute. He's not going tell you. It's like American Psycho really. Why should I give a shit about serial killer? Both are a amusing on one level, then at some point there's some philosophical prose. Then at the end a kind look again, think about it ending.

Not a bad book at all, but overrated in my opinion. I don't understand why it's required reading in many schools though. Good analogy with American Psycho. He isn't likable either yet interesting in a case study sort of way same as Holden. Good point.

[Broskirose]

Never read it. It held something of the stereotype of this rite de passage, every kid must read this, whiney coming of age must do thing and i'm just immediately suspicious of stuff like that, i worry that if i did read it it'd be hackneyed from the first page.

And also, and this is gonna sound fuckin' ridiculous but here it comes, i don't think I wanna read a book that led to the death of John Lennon, it'd make me sick, all I'd see through it was that fat ugly bastard and his ridiculous retarded thought processes, i don't think I'd be able to finish it, i don't wanna know about it. Yeah it's not the books fault, I'm sure it's great and wonderful but to me it's associated with that forever now and I'm just not interested in it. They could take every copy of it in the world and set it on fire and you wouldn't hear this boy complaining.

Yes, i understand this to be a totally irrational response and just completely unreasonable of me but what I can i say, there it is. John Lennon ain't around no more and it's partly to do with that piece of shit book, so fuck it. Sounds like a bunch of shit anyway, 'angst ridden teenager' yeah, boo hoo, I give a fuck

Dude...seriously?

[wasted]

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

But that doesn't make it a bad book. If you want to take it on face value it's a well written portrait of a whiny bitch. Although in most of Salinger's other work he's kind of poking fun at the middle to upper class life. He kind of just lets the characters live but then subtly teases out different meanings. Maybe like Holden's Catcher speech or him ending up in mental institute. He's not going tell you. It's like American Psycho really. Why should I give a shit about serial killer? Both are a amusing on one level, then at some point there's some philosophical prose. Then at the end a kind look again, think about it ending.

Not a bad book at all, but overrated in my opinion. I don't understand why it's required reading in many schools though. Good analogy with American Psycho. He isn't likable either yet interesting in a case study sort of way same as Holden. Good point.

To me whether you like the character isn't really a good way to judge whether it's a good book. In someways it's some level of praise, in that there is a character there at all. That's not to say it deserves all the attention. But that isn't something to put on the writer either. Moreover, the reason one book resonates with a culture has so many elements that it's almost out of the writers hands. You can see in the Oscars or Booker prize that they pick certain books about certain things, almost like based on the issue of the time. Catcher may have had that, it was a little in the hot stuff.

I don't think Salinger attended for Holden to become an icon of cool or rebellion. How the book was taken by counter culture. It's like because these things weren't talked about much, or at least laid down in a book, then it had this impact. Like Cubists don't get much play in 2012, it was done before.

I think that's why Salinger retreated, something personal to him, got taken and blown up, taken out of his hands. The culture, publishers suddenly decided we'll let this come out, this is something interesting but then it just got taken on in so many ways.

Ellis like Salinger was just writing about what he knew, both could have passed unnoticed but they hit on something the resonated with the culture. Neither are really master story tellers, they have a character and they have some sort of commentary. It's kind of weird they kind of exaggerate or take certain themes to conclusions which instead making a clearer point sort of attract the wrong attention. Like the expose a truth but everyone is like I love this. Like Gordon Gecko in Wall Street. There's a point where unless you just want it spelled out for you, the audience has to be take a certain responsibility. But the culture gravitate towards the extreme.

[supercool]

it's a great book, infinitely better than anything written by lennon

[Guest Len B'stard]

Never read it. It held something of the stereotype of this rite de passage, every kid must read this, whiney coming of age must do thing and i'm just immediately suspicious of stuff like that, i worry that if i did read it it'd be hackneyed from the first page.

And also, and this is gonna sound fuckin' ridiculous but here it comes, i don't think I wanna read a book that led to the death of John Lennon, it'd make me sick, all I'd see through it was that fat ugly bastard and his ridiculous retarded thought processes, i don't think I'd be able to finish it, i don't wanna know about it. Yeah it's not the books fault, I'm sure it's great and wonderful but to me it's associated with that forever now and I'm just not interested in it. They could take every copy of it in the world and set it on fire and you wouldn't hear this boy complaining.

Yes, i understand this to be a totally irrational response and just completely unreasonable of me but what I can i say, there it is. John Lennon ain't around no more and it's partly to do with that piece of shit book, so fuck it. Sounds like a bunch of shit anyway, 'angst ridden teenager' yeah, boo hoo, I give a fuck

Dude...seriously?

Why do you talk like a Ninja Turtle? Yes Dude, seriously dude, i have a negative association with it dude and as such dude i don't wanna read it dude. It's not that complicated a concept dude. In much the same way when someone pukes off of a kinda drink and they never drink it again, or if you're listening to a particular song on the radio when you get news that your old man passed away and then forever associate that song with that place/moment in time.

Whenever i think of that book i think of a fat ugly American shooting John Lennon by the steps of the Dakota and based on that i don't want to read the book

Edited March 9, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Broskirose]

I take it you don't read many books.

[Guest Len B'stard]

You do, why?

[Broskirose]

Well for one, you have really dumb reasons for refusing to read books so I imagine you don't read a lot. And you just don't strike me as the book reading type.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fair enough.

[wasted]

2666 by Roberto Bolano now that's a book.

[ohlovelyrita]

Well for one, you have really dumb reasons for refusing to read books so I imagine you don't read a lot. And you just don't strike me as the book reading type.

I notice this a lot about the new generation. They are intimidated by books therefore dismissive. A friend recently told

me that he has not read a whole book he thinks. I brought up CITR and he said that was the book he may have read the most in,

not close to finishing it. This person is a bout 25 and doesn't work. Similar is a lot of young people I know who can't name a

Beatles song, one was proud of it thought it made him more interesting!

CITR was written over 60 years, maybe we should be talking about how surprisingly relative is instead of being hypercritical!

It has sold over an estimated 65 million copies. Do you think if we put it to a REAL vote to the fans they be even 1/8 as vociferous

as bored, anti-social internet posters?!! Ironic that Salinger pretty much said he regrets writing the book. Like anytime else that

valuable artists share it gets the grimy fingerprints on it by society's lowest contributors who want equal time. Salinger IS Holden and people

put undue expectations on artists and go for the jugular when the artist sticks to their vision.Take Guns N' Roses, you buy their albums

for under $15 and you can play them an unlimited time. Has any fan said,"I want to pay again, I got TOO MUCH?"

The band made/makes a lot of people happy at home alone who feel connected to something. But.....come to a forum or web article

and people are furious that each album isn't equal or to their liking. You can buy a $4 hamburger and complain that your next hamburger

doesn't taste the same but it is ludicrous to take your entertainment so seriously. Some people really need to learn to "silence themselves".

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

But that doesn't make it a bad book. If you want to take it on face value it's a well written portrait of a whiny bitch. Although in most of Salinger's other work he's kind of poking fun at the middle to upper class life. He kind of just lets the characters live but then subtly teases out different meanings. Maybe like Holden's Catcher speech or him ending up in mental institute. He's not going tell you. It's like American Psycho really. Why should I give a shit about serial killer? Both are a amusing on one level, then at some point there's some philosophical prose. Then at the end a kind look again, think about it ending.

Not a bad book at all, but overrated in my opinion. I don't understand why it's required reading in many schools though. Good analogy with American Psycho. He isn't likable either yet interesting in a case study sort of way same as Holden. Good point.

To me whether you like the character isn't really a good way to judge whether it's a good book. In someways it's some level of praise, in that there is a character there at all. That's not to say it deserves all the attention. But that isn't something to put on the writer either. Moreover, the reason one book resonates with a culture has so many elements that it's almost out of the writers hands. You can see in the Oscars or Booker prize that they pick certain books about certain things, almost like based on the issue of the time. Catcher may have had that, it was a little in the hot stuff.

I don't think Salinger attended for Holden to become an icon of cool or rebellion. How the book was taken by counter culture. It's like because these things weren't talked about much, or at least laid down in a book, then it had this impact. Like Cubists don't get much play in 2012, it was done before.

I think that's why Salinger retreated, something personal to him, got taken and blown up, taken out of his hands. The culture, publishers suddenly decided we'll let this come out, this is something interesting but then it just got taken on in so many ways.

Ellis like Salinger was just writing about what he knew, both could have passed unnoticed but they hit on something the resonated with the culture. Neither are really master story tellers, they have a character and they have some sort of commentary. It's kind of weird they kind of exaggerate or take certain themes to conclusions which instead making a clearer point sort of attract the wrong attention. Like the expose a truth but everyone is like I love this. Like Gordon Gecko in Wall Street. There's a point where unless you just want it spelled out for you, the audience has to be take a certain responsibility. But the culture gravitate towards the extreme.

Interesting post. I was thinking similar thoughts. People calling Holden a "whiny bitch" as a reason for not liking the book

is tantamount to people refusing to like Oliver Stone's Tony Montana character for their hate of "psychopaths"

And Ellis's quote is wayyyy off. Salinger could not have felt that way. He refused rewrites

because he was Holden.

Edited March 9, 2014 by ohlovelyrita