Opinions on Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye"

[AdriftatSea]

Sugaraylen - I'm not responding as a quote to you because then Rita would see what you wrote and she has had you blocked for a long time per one of her posts. This is out of respect to Rita. I understand you were attacked first because you stated you haven't read the book and your opinion on why you haven't read the book - because of your strong, and understandable reasons of why the book holds painful memories of Lennon being murdered. That does indeed fall under this very topic of Opinions on Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye' and imo you have every right to post your opinions here and why you haven't read it, do not want to read it and will not read it.

No one is wrong in their opinion here but WTF with all the insults and they are just about to get on my last nerve. Can't we all just get along and get back on topic now??

Thank you for not capturing his words, I do check his comments sometimes when he comes on my topics so I can report the trolling. Two get deleted last week and they were off-topic attacks talking about how miserable my life was. I wish the mods would forbid us to interact on every level.

I agree that even that opinion (altho bizarre) is valid as an opinion. It's equal to someone saying that they won't read CITR or watch Taxi Driver because of the assassination

attempt on Reagan.

But Rita, his opinions of the book are on topic in this forum.

Agreed, I said,"I agree that even that opinion (altho bizarre) is valid as an opinion."

His opinion on the book as we all have one. I don't see that he compared a person refusing to see Taxi Driver because of the attempted assassination of Reagan. I think he was comparing Tony Montana as an unlikable character. I could be wrong though. It won'd be the first time!

Edit: And that's just it... all of our opinions ARE valid. In a book discussion, we are looking at each of our opinions to garner knowledge, not throw stones. Not get angry. I have to mind my own advice and have deleted my angry comments! My apologies.

Still - who remembers the guy with his sweater that killed himself?

Edited March 9, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Lio]

Wow, quite a discussion. I really have to reread it this week, so I can join in the discussion... But I suggest, as we're talking about being cultured and educated, maybe we can discuss Ulysses next ? Is that intelligent/cultured/educated enough for all of you ? Because I've still only managed to read part of it and I could sure use some pointers there

EDIT:Adriftatsea: Sorry, don't know anything about the suicide.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Lio

[wasted]

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.

To a degree anything is a self portrait, I think it's his earlier self.

But not the point I'm trying to get, not saying I'm right.

What I'm saying is yes adolescents are viewed as whiny bitches. But they also do make a lot of sense, it's basic irony. So the writer latches on to it, the writer or artist is kind of adolescent. In the modernist sense exposing the truth. and there's kind of amusement in this character, just like Bateman in Psycho. We see ourselves in Patrick Bateman like we do in Holden. But then the hammer comes down. Bateman outlines his take on life and it wakes you up. Holders talking about being Catcher in the Rye you suddenly realise that he's right but this can't stand. Then he ends in mental institute. So that's where whiny bitches go if they don't grow up. That's not to say Holden isn't on the money.

The truth about us and American Psycho is more shocking. This time we find a killer amusing, glamorous. We are able to overlook a lot if they successful. Ellis eventually goes all the way says in the end nothing mattered other than how much money you had. This narcissistic culture where money is the core is revealed. The facade was everything if you have the money. Just an attack on the 80s.

Personally not sure if this way of making points is that successful. Oh irony of ironies.

Edited March 10, 2014 by wasted

[magisme]

You'd have to be a fuckin' moron to equate a writer to one of his characters. That's a move for elementary school kids .

[dalsh327]

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.

To a degree anything is a self portrait, I think it's his earlier self.

But not the point I'm trying to get, not saying I'm right.

What I'm saying is yes adolescents are viewed as whiny bitches. But they also do make a lot of sense, it's basic irony. So the writer latches on to it, the writer or artist is kind of adolescent. In the modernist sense exposing the truth. and there's kind of amusement in this character, just like Bateman in Psycho. We see ourselves in Patrick Bateman like we do in Holden. But then the hammer comes down. Bateman outlines his take on life and it wakes you up. Holders talking about being Catcher in the Rye you suddenly realise that he's right but this can't stand. Then he ends in mental institute. So that's where whiny bitches go if they don't grow up. That's not to say Holden isn't on the money.

The truth about us and American Psycho is more shocking. This time we find a killer amusing, glamorous. We are able to overlook a lot if they successful. Ellis eventually goes all the way says in the end nothing mattered other than how much money you had. This narcissistic culture where money is the core is revealed. The facade was everything if you have the money. Just an attack on the 80s.

Personally not sure if this way of making points is that successful. Oh irony of ironies.

The book goes pretty far into the insane to cartoonish levels of gore. Some people were shocked, some people were amused by it.

If Caulfield and Bateman had been around the same age, they probably would have avoided each other, Holden probably would have been non-existent to Patrick.

[netcat]

People who didn’t read it but have a strong opinion on it just remind me of an old anecdote about Boris Pasternak. His novel Doctor Zhivago was first published abroad and his communist “friends” didn’t like it, so they started the anti-Pasternk campaign in press. They put “a letter from indignant Soviet workers” on the front page of the major paper, and it started with the words “we didn’t read it, but we condemn it”. From that time on it turned into an idiom, meaning that people have no idea what they are talking about

When I was a kid, I was obsessed with CITR. Then I tried to re-read it several years ago, and I couldn’t get through the first 20 pages, it struck me just how poorly it was written…Then I came across this book by his daughter, Dream Catcher, not so long ago. And it seems like she hated him… And maybe she had reasons. She said that once when she was very sick, she asked him for help and he sent her a three-year subscription to some Christian magazine and said she must realize that her sickness was just an illusion… then I thought: well, he's no Holden Caulfield

[dalsh327]

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

Edited March 11, 2014 by dalsh327

[wasted]

Both characters are used to pick at there times. In the 50s Holden was kind of not meant to speak. This was before teen rebellion.

It's not that those characters are the same, it's how the audience takes notice of them. In the 50s Holden was wild, by the 80s it would have to be serial killer.

It's kind of weird to think that in the 50s Holden could be seen as so shocking. They are both good picks to stir things up.

Then the writer takes it further makes some sort of conclusion. Holden goes to mental institute but is crazy or seeing the truth?

Psycho seems clearer. Bateman in the end has a nihilistic worship of money. This is not an exit. Kind of no escape for Holden or Bateman or us. It's trying to claim that the new reality in the book is real.

Edited March 11, 2014 by wasted

[AdriftatSea]

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

[wasted]

I think it's more like Catcher is the book 60s liberals liked. And that's who became teachers. It's also good for reading comprehension and symbolism. It's also about someone school age. Not dauntingly long.

We did Silas Marner and MacBeth. Going through line by line. By night I read American Psycho and The Most Dangerous Band in the World by Mick Wall.

[AdriftatSea]

I love it, but it will always be synonymous with what Mark Chapman did in my eyes.

A brilliant book though.

Agree that it will always be synonymous with what Chapman did. According to the info from police reports released to the media around the time of the murder and in the year after Chapman was obsessed with the book. Didn't love it though. Lots of bad grammar, sentence structure, repeated the same words over, and over and over (a little humor injected there!) just to fill the pages. My opinion though.

Please tell me, why did you like it so much? I struggle to understand what it is about the book that makes people think it is a wonderful book. I don't understand that.

[AdriftatSea]

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

wow. just... wow.

Never read it, but it's a piece of shit book because the lunatic who killed John Lennon was reading it after gunning him down. So you agree with censoring liturature and burning books?

Beatles fans...

Personally I love it, I'm very glad I read it in high school, but I think there's plenty of reasons why so many people can't stand it. Mainly poor reading comprehension and feeling guilt for being such a phony piece of shit.

Can we please stay away from Godwin's Law in this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Chapman was obsessed with this book. At the time of the murder, this book was named in the media as one of the main reasons Chapman killed Lennon. It is understandable, I think, how anyone could have such strong feelings about this book if they were a young adult when he was murdered. I viewed Lennon not as part of The Beatles at the time. It was just different. Lennon was about the age I am now. Per Godwin's Law, once we cry Nazi's, it's over trying to get along or have a meeting of the minds. Having a strong, painful aversion / emotion to this book, a lot of people have that.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I'm weird like that about a lot of things to do with John Lennon, just a huge fan of his. Like a Lennon documentary'll come out and i'll watch it to death, like 10, 20, 100 times but on almost all of em, after I've seen them the one time from beginning to end i always tend to switch them off before the bit about his death, i just don't like it. I like to think I'm pretty strong gutted when it comes to this stuff, I've seen an enormous amount of horror movies, banned films, I even watched that fuckin' Luka Magnotta video where he killed and raped and ate that chinese guy, I've seen some pretty sick shit like, pretty much any nasty banned movie you can name I've seen it but i just don't like that...whole thing, that whole scene. In the same vain i wouldn't like to go to The Dakota, I just wouldn't like to. Call it bizzare, stupid, whatever you like but it is what it is I'm afraid.

And i really really really REALLY don't like Mark Chapman. I'm totally against the death penalty and all that kinda stuff but part of me really really wants to see that guy get hurt...badly. I can't bear the sight of him, i don't like his name, i don't like his face, i don't like anything to do with him whatsoever. I think it was Yoko who said when he got put away to never speak his name again because he did what he did cuz he wanted to be known and we shouldn't give him that...I'm not quite that bad that I refuse to speak his name but i despise that guy deeply.

Everybody has their thing that we don't like to hear a word against, for some people it's the victims of 9/11, for some it's John Kennedy, for some it's Gandhi, or MLK or Malcolm X (I could get behind the Malcolm one too actually) or Churchill or whatever. Some people have it for their flag, I have it for John Lennon, I'm sorry if thats bizzare or it makes me a nutty Beatles fan or whatever but it is what it is and I'm not gonna lie about it. I don't think the guy was infalliable or a God or something, in fact i think he had a massive propensity for being a cunt but i love John Lennon for the human being he was, not the God i or anyone else thinks he is cuz he wasn't.

I guess some of you would only understand if Axl Rose got drilled in the street, God forbid or y'know, X person you admire. I mean i don't sit around crying about it, dabbing my eyes with a hanky, it's just something that doesn't make me feel particularly in party mood y'know?

Edited March 11, 2014 by sugaraylen

[arnold layne]

I dunno Len. It's hard for me to become emotionally attached to someone I've never spoken to.

Edited March 12, 2014 by arnold layne

[ohlovelyrita]

People who didn’t read it but have a strong opinion on it just remind me of an old anecdote about Boris Pasternak. His novel Doctor Zhivago was first published abroad and his communist “friends” didn’t like it, so they started the anti-Pasternk campaign in press. They put “a letter from indignant Soviet workers” on the front page of the major paper, and it started with the words “we didn’t read it, but we condemn it”. From that time on it turned into an idiom, meaning that people have no idea what they are talking about

When I was a kid, I was obsessed with CITR. Then I tried to re-read it several years ago, and I couldn’t get through the first 20 pages, it struck me just how poorly it was written…Then I came across this book by his daughter, Dream Catcher, not so long ago. And it seems like she hated him… And maybe she had reasons. She said that once when she was very sick, she asked him for help and he sent her a three-year subscription to some Christian magazine and said she must realize that her sickness was just an illusion… then I thought: well, he's no Holden Caulfield

Interesting. Salinger was said to be big on herbs and natural medicine in his later life. He might have been trying to empower his daughter.

I know she really felt he was partial her brother which he was. I kind of remember from the Solano documentary that Salinger regretted not being a better father.

I highly recommend the documentary.

@Arnold Layne- "The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger, is home to the protagonist Holden Caulfield. There is no coincidence that he holds a striking resemblance to the author of the novel himself. Both Salinger and Holden have many aspects of their life in common.

Holden's story in The Catcher in the Rye begins with Holden at his school, Pencey Preparatory, which is a boarding school. He was sent there by his parents, who seemed to be withdrawn from his life. Similarly, Salinger's parents sent him to Valley Forge Military School, where he had a neighbor who always seemed to be barging in, resembling Holden's relationship with Ackley. The reader also learns that Holden is the son of wealthy parents from New York. It turns out that J.D. Salinger was also born in New York to upper-class parents. It seems as though Holden Caulfield's childhood is very comparable to that of J.D. Salinger's.

[ohlovelyrita]

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

Chapman was most likely a programmed assassin and a possible victim himself. The book could have just been a trigger.

Lennon had a 10k gov file on him. Promoting peace is war to policymakers.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Chapman was a victim?!?! Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, oh cry me a river for the fat prick up in Attica, nevermind John getting drilled in the street, suddenly Mark Chapmans a victim, dont make me fuckin' laugh with your government conspiracy bullshit, this is what gets on my tits about this conspiracy theory wankers, the sheer disrespect of trying to assimilate every little tragedy into their big fuckin' persecution complex, the sheer disrespect of making everyone from John Lennon to Princess Diana to the victims of 9/11 into pawns in their silly game, its vile.

To be so callous as to try and twist things like this into a validation of these bullshit theories that you base your identity around, to the point where you twist and manipulate peoples untimely deaths into a scenario where you can have the satisfaction of turning around and going 'see, i was right, they're out to get us'.

They say when you get to a certain level of fame that neither your life nor your death are your own, like when Indians used to say that photos took your soul away, they're damn right about that, there are certain kinds of people out there that look at or think about a person dead and twist the occurrence to some kind of validation of themselves and their ideas about the world. Oh yeah, and apparently, it's cuz they care, apparently they are out for justice, thats their cardinal interest in theorising and turning into a mass conspiracy any death or deaths of note that they can latch onto...and this do this by way of banter, give me a fuckin' break But to think that you can get so far up your own arse with this shit that apparently now even the fucking murderer is a victim, oh wow.

Edited March 12, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Guest Len B'stard]

I dunno Len. It's hard for me to become emotionally attached to someone I've never spoken to.

I see what you mean, I'm usually the kind of person to say that too. Perhaps it's just arrogance on my part, y'know, like you identify with something and become precious about it because in a sense it reflects you, by virtue of your identifying with it. Like people that take it as a personal affront when you slag off their football team and start getting ready to fight you. I'd like to think it was something more than that but one should never underestimate ones own propensity for such deep egotism. I don't feel it's that but then we're not always aware of the nature of our emotional responses, are we?

[AdriftatSea]

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

Chapman was most likely a programmed assassin and a possible victim himself. The book could have just been a trigger.

Lennon had a 10k gov file on him. Promoting peace is war to policymakers.

Conspiracy theorists, nuts that proclaimed he was a programmed killer. If there were such a thing, I doubt the govt would have let those ppl get caught, don't you? More likely a bullet between the eyes. The fall of Saigon happened in the mid 70's. Viet Nam was still fresh on everyone's mind. Prominent people that were 'for' peace, yes, govt probably did have a file on them. No, they were not murdered by our govt. Chapman was a crazy killer that wanted to be infamous, just like that guy that murdered Versace.

Of to work I go! Finally!

Edited March 12, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[netcat]

Interesting. Salinger was said to be big on herbs and natural medicine in his later life. He might have been trying to empower his daughter.

I'm sure that's what he thought. According to the book, he was practicing Zen Buddhism, Vedanta, Scientology, drunk his own urine, spoke in tongues... But you know when you are sick, and you ask your father to help you with money, to take care of you or you just want his compassion, but instead he gives you some Christian magazine and says your deseace is an illusion, then you really might get a revolution of consciousness

i guess im just lucky my Dad is not very "spiritual"

Edited March 12, 2014 by netcat

[Guest Len B'stard]

Drinking urine is actually like, i think certain South American nations or communities put a lot of stock in the nutritional value of it, the boxer Juan Manuel Marquez used to drink his own wee:

[ohlovelyrita]

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

Chapman was most likely a programmed assassin and a possible victim himself. The book could have just been a trigger.

Lennon had a 10k gov file on him. Promoting peace is war to policymakers.

Conspiracy theorists, nuts that proclaimed he was a programmed killer. If there were such a thing, I doubt the govt would have let those ppl get caught, don't you? More likely a bullet between the eyes. The fall of Saigon happened in the mid 70's. Viet Nam was still fresh on everyone's mind. Prominent people that were 'for' peace, yes, govt probably did have a file on them. No, they were not murdered by our govt. Chapman was a crazy killer that wanted to be infamous, just like that guy that murdered Versace.

Of to work I go! Finally!

Look up MK Ultra. No doubt an unstable person would be used in those experiments.

@Netcat- I wonder how old she was at the time and what his side was.

His life story is fascinating. His new doc was so exciting and revealing. They had

some incredible footage. I think most will find he wasn't a recluse just wanted his privacy.

I listen to a jazz show where the announcer will periodically talk about the life of Salinger.

Many generations to come will be intrigued by him.

[netcat]

@Netcat- I wonder how old she was at the time and what his side was.

i don't know, but i think she was old enough. She had bulimia and other disorders. Also she mentioned that when she got pregnant, her father told her go get rid of the baby as he was sure she wouldn't be able to take care of it, plus there was no need to bring one more miserable soul into this cruel world, or something like that...

On the other hand i remember reading somewhere that her brother Matthew called her book a "gothic fiction" and said he had completely different memories of their father. So i don't know what to believe.

But the more i read the biographies of famous writers, artists, etc, the more i get the feeling that when God gives you a great talent, he takes away basic human qualities, like the ability to empathize, be supportive, etc

[Amir]

Loved it when I first read it at 10 or 11. Reread it a few times during my teen years. Didn't read it for years, and the thought of reading the account of a solipsistic self-absorbed teenager didn't appeal to me in my twenties. But, on a whim, I decided to reread it a couple of years ago... and I fell in love with it all over again, but there was one line towards the end that really made me see the book in a different light an give it a new appreciation.

It's where the professor he stays with him at the end tells Holden he can't spend the rest of his life being mad at people for petty things like being on a sports team or whatever. Basically, calling Holden out on his bullshit and jealousy. Went completely over my head as a teenager, and I think it partly goes over the protagonist's head, too, as well as many people who read the book and claim they are Holden Caulfield or whatever nonsense.

[ohlovelyrita]

Loved it when I first read it at 10 or 11. Reread it a few times during my teen years. Didn't read it for years, and the thought of reading the account of a solipsistic self-absorbed teenager didn't appeal to me in my twenties. But, on a whim, I decided to reread it a couple of years ago... and I fell in love with it all over again, but there was one line towards the end that really made me see the book in a different light an give it a new appreciation.

It's where the professor he stays with him at the end tells Holden he can't spend the rest of his life being mad at people for petty things like being on a sports team or whatever. Basically, calling Holden out on his bullshit and jealousy. Went completely over my head as a teenager, and I think it partly goes over the protagonist's head, too, as well as many people who read the book and claim they are Holden Caulfield or whatever nonsense.

Good share! Yes, sometimes you got to admit you're wrong and you can be wrong. That's maturity! Maybe Holden thought

because he was sincere he can never be wrong. Had to tell someone today that if my information was wrong I would apologize

and they liked that. Now they are helpful. Solution pending and my apology to them forthcoming. win=win