To answer questions about
The Catcher in the Rye,
please sign up.
Jean Cole
It's not about the story. It's about the context of the story.
We have to consider it in the context of the era in which this book was released. The era is post-WWII America. We had just defeated two evil empires, and our soldiers were coming Home Sweet Home to their happy-to-be-housewives and their 2.5 kids who were to be seen and not heard.
Readers who were born and brought up after the 1960s don't realize what a revolution occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Today being a free spirit and expressing your individuality is celebrated and encouraged. In those days you were expected to (as I was told) "Do as I say, not as I do." That may sound outrageous and unreasonable but it was, in fact, exactly what was accepted as good parenting.
And here we have 1) a main character who curses constantly, and unashamedly rejects the values of his parents and society in general and 2) a narrative style that is casual and conversational. These two factors were shocking and dismaying to some, refreshing and delightful to others.
And so Holden became a hero to some. Not in the conventional sense of the word, but because people related to him and they sympathized with the way he felt. He personified all that was wrong with society. If you don't go along, if you don't play the game, then the vast machine that is society will knock you down and even lock you away. Holden is not intended to be a hero in the conventional sense of the word. He is a tragic victim of the crappy world in which he has no control and where no one understands him.
I imagine that in 1951, when this was published, there were those who said "Yes! It's about time someone was honest!" and there were those who exclaimed "What is this world coming to?" There was change coming, that's for sure. This book was just one sign of the impending cultural revolution. That's why it's a classic. Think of it as a brick in the foundation of the revolution to come.
We have to consider it in the context of the era in which this book was released. The era is post-WWII America. We had just defeated two evil empires, and our soldiers were coming Home Sweet Home to their happy-to-be-housewives and their 2.5 kids who were to be seen and not heard.
Readers who were born and brought up after the 1960s don't realize what a revolution occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Today being a free spirit and expressing your individuality is celebrated and encouraged. In those days you were expected to (as I was told) "Do as I say, not as I do." That may sound outrageous and unreasonable but it was, in fact, exactly what was accepted as good parenting.
And here we have 1) a main character who curses constantly, and unashamedly rejects the values of his parents and society in general and 2) a narrative style that is casual and conversational. These two factors were shocking and dismaying to some, refreshing and delightful to others.
And so Holden became a hero to some. Not in the conventional sense of the word, but because people related to him and they sympathized with the way he felt. He personified all that was wrong with society. If you don't go along, if you don't play the game, then the vast machine that is society will knock you down and even lock you away. Holden is not intended to be a hero in the conventional sense of the word. He is a tragic victim of the crappy world in which he has no control and where no one understands him.
I imagine that in 1951, when this was published, there were those who said "Yes! It's about time someone was honest!" and there were those who exclaimed "What is this world coming to?" There was change coming, that's for sure. This book was just one sign of the impending cultural revolution. That's why it's a classic. Think of it as a brick in the foundation of the revolution to come.
G1g2g3g4g5gt .
To be honest, english isn't my native language and I'm very sad and a little bit outraged about the comments criticizing this novel. I'll do my best to make my point clear and in a respectful way. I think it's one of the best novels I've ever read. But if you are expecting a pretentious novel, this book is going to disappoint you. I am very disppointed with the comments saying this novel has no sense because you are missing the point grossly. Art is very strange, because not everyone understand it. Maybe some of you will never understand this novel, but I will try to share some of my thoughts (not all, because of the language) and hope some of you agree with me. The Catcher in the Rye is the most down-to-earth book I've ever read. Holden IS REAL. Salinger made an incredible character and you can feel him like a real person. It's funny how Holden's thoughts and impressions about art and life are developed in the making of the novel. Holden (and Salinger) says he hates falsehood. Then, he hates the cinema, the corny books ("they always have a character named David"), the 'phony' people, he hates when Ernie is playing the piano in a "phony way", when the actors of a play fail to represent truly a character. All those hatreds are thoughts and opinions about art and life from an artistic point of view and A Catcher in the Rye meets these thoughts: is a raw AND TRUE novel with true dialogues, true characters, true thougths and centered on Holden, an extremely alive and true character. This novel it's about true life and that's amazing. It's outstanding the way we can enter Holden's brain and follow every thought, feeling and movement. We can know much more about Holden than most of you will ever know about your own friends. As I said before, this is not a pretentious novel or candidate to win a Nobel prize and IT'S NOT the objective, remember: the author and Holden hate when Ernie is ruining songs by making horrible flourish. Also, we have to remember the whole novel it's a speech given by Holden, so it's not going to be any phony or pretentious. The objective of the novel is only TO BE TRUE and to speak about life with all his baseness but with a little of hope. It's pure art because it's pure expression. Holden and the novel reminds me of Le Petit Prince and a little bit of L'Etranger. Holden is like a grown version of Le Petit Prince, travelling around the city ("the universe") and running into "different planets" with people who annoys him and he is pity on them. But he is older now, and he reacts in a different way, he is anger, disappointed and he can't handle his feelings. Then, he is autodestructive, live an empty life and he is a nihilist. Like L'étranger, The Catcher in the Rye conveys us nihilist thoughts and feelings through Holden's life. That's why sometimes you can feel that nothing is going on but IT IS ON PURPOSE. As L'Etranger, The Catcher in the Rye tries to show us an empty life, the boredom that hides feelings of helplessness and desperate. Salinger tries to show this, through a boy doing nothing in particular during two or three days. That's why I'm saying this book is art, expression, an extremely deep novel with A LOT of content and thoughts, and we can learn very much. Holden is an artist and he struggles with the conflicts of an artist (indeed, he is a good writer, according the novel), but it's very easy just to say that "he is a teenager" and to criticize this book because of the language. This novel is very dynamic as we are in Holden's brain thinking what he is thinking and remembering what he is remembering step by step and he always do something. The problem of Holden is that he can't find happiness whatever he do and wherever he goes and that leads him to an empty existence. The novel also has a lot of simbolism, Holden is psychologically interesting, dynamic and interesting dialogues (Mr Antonelli, for example), interesting characters and a lot of beauty in small things. Holden and the author believe in the beauty of little things that not everyone can see them. Also, Holden has a story with a dead brother and Holden broke thw windows when it happened harming his hand for ever. It's not said, but Holden remember this episode any time: he only has to close his hand and it will hurt and then he will remember the day that his brother die. This novel is about existence, death, sadness, feeling lost and lonely, hating, society but IT'S ALSO ABOUT love (remember how much Holden loves his sister, his brother and Jane), searching of happiness, hope (remember the dialogue with Mr Antonelli), sensitivity, tenderness and the big heart of Holden. It is poignant to read the memories of Holden, how he loves Jane and her brothers and how dearly loves the small details ("he does not care if she Keeps her kings in the back row or not.". His love, is similar to Le Petit Prince's love and his rose). If you can truly understand this novel and Holden, you'll love it. During the novel, many of the characters seemed cynical with Holden and they don't undersand him. I think The Cather in the Rye is so bright that even in real life there are people who see Holden boring. If we all understand, the novel would have less sense. The thoughts about life, "to be and not to be", "the nothing" are very popular and interesting among the greatest novels and writers of all time, but people in this web for any reason doesn't like them in these novel. I'm sure Holden would be really disappointed and sad if he read these comments, because you are not actually reading and putting focus on this book. Once, I've read a book that said that a Russian could say thousands of truths to a classroom full of people, but no one would understand him. No matter how many times he repeats them or how strong he talks.
Stuart David
You either get it, or you don't. And if you don't get it, you never will. And this book will remain a classic, for all time. Because if you get it, you get it- and you know from the first line, the very first time you read it, that no other book in the world will ever matter even half as much. And it doesn't matter how many people in the world don't get it, because they are the people this book is about. And it's not for them, it's for us- us who have to put up with the people who don't get it. Day in and day out. We have to live in the world of the people who don't get it, and this is why we need this book. To stop ourselves from going insane.
Jez Keighley
To be honest I think it's over-rated. It has some good points (Holden's sister, his memories of his brother), but on the whole the annoying narrator (holden) is too much. It doesn't do it for me.
Carlos
I am hating this book! HATING it. It was selected for my book club.
I have no interest in reading about a privileged Caucasian teen bashing those in his surrounding. I cannot bring myself to finish the book.
Page 104 and I am done.
I have no interest in reading about a privileged Caucasian teen bashing those in his surrounding. I cannot bring myself to finish the book.
Page 104 and I am done.
David Weiss
It seems like the type of autobiography Donald Trump might have written when he was 16.
Lucky
Gods, I felt terrible rating this book 3 stars because I have this impression that classic books are suppose to be great "and all" (get it? XD) HAHAHA But then after seeing this question I was relieved to know i'm not the only one who doesn't appreciate it.
Shreya Saxena
Not every classic can engross your imagination. For me, Emma by Jane Austen was the most boring novel I have ever read. That said, I know why I didn't like it. The story is about Emma, a rich spinster who fancies herself as being a responsible match-maker. It didn't appeal to me, but going by the times when the novel is written, I can reasonably understand why a talented girl like Emma had nothing better to do rather than poking her nose in everybody's personal lives.
Catcher In The Rye is hailed because about it's 'direct', hard hitting nature. The writer unabashedly uses the language, pretty much the same way as any teenager does. It was banned in schools and was criticized because of the tone used and the rebellious central character portrayed in it.
Why it is loved? That's a subjective question.
I liked it because it connected well with me. Like Holden, we all face dilemmas in our lives - of not being able to decide to give a call to someone who we miss for the fear of being judged, the monotony of our lives frustrates us and I guess we all, at sometime or the other have felt like a loser at school or college or office.
However, we find solace in little things of life, like Holden does in his sister.
I wish I could go on and on about it, but I am not writer. You can find the explanation about the book and its theme online. Why it is named 'Catcher In The Rye' and the character sketches. Maybe you get some fresh perspective.
Catcher In The Rye is hailed because about it's 'direct', hard hitting nature. The writer unabashedly uses the language, pretty much the same way as any teenager does. It was banned in schools and was criticized because of the tone used and the rebellious central character portrayed in it.
Why it is loved? That's a subjective question.
I liked it because it connected well with me. Like Holden, we all face dilemmas in our lives - of not being able to decide to give a call to someone who we miss for the fear of being judged, the monotony of our lives frustrates us and I guess we all, at sometime or the other have felt like a loser at school or college or office.
However, we find solace in little things of life, like Holden does in his sister.
I wish I could go on and on about it, but I am not writer. You can find the explanation about the book and its theme online. Why it is named 'Catcher In The Rye' and the character sketches. Maybe you get some fresh perspective.
Deepak Pitaliya
You are not alone. I too do not understand why the book is rated so high.
Monika Geci
I've first read this book when I was 14 or 15 years old and I only remembered one quote from it because it made such an impact on me; "People always think something's all true. I don't give a damn, except that I get bored sometimes when people tell me to act my age. Sometimes I act a lot older than I am - I really do - but people never notice it. People never notice anything." And after almost 10 years, I decided to read it one more time, just to see. The book warmed up my heart in a way that is hard to explain but I'm gonna try.
I truly believe the whole book is about that quote; about being terribly misunderstood, society being blind when it comes to the things that truly matter, about seeing what is wrong with our world and the way we act and knowing how it can all be better but being aware that you can not change it and therefore being depressed, it is about being "young" and rebellious in a way where you just can not and don't want to adjust yourself to the rules of modern society because it doesn't align with your values. The only thing here is that the writer didn't showcase it in a sophisticated way but rather he decided to use Holden and the things that are happening to him to explain the bigger picture. Every single thing that Holden can't stand or that he hates, it's not about that specific thing (even though Salinger makes it look like it), it's about all the things in this world that make you feel like the one Holden hates. And if you ever felt like Holden, you can think of something else that made you "hate" something which makes you understand what he is talking about and therefore you don't take it literally.
Holden is a really important character in literature because of the way he is. One could easily think he's a stupid young boy who hates everything and is depressed all the time. But actually Holden is a an extremely emphatic intellectual who just figured out that it is easier to be "stupid" and a failure that it is for him to explain what is going on inside his head because, while observing the world, especially people around him, he figured that no one could actually, fully understand his thoughts. Holden is this guy that values honest human relationships above everything else and he constantly dreams about a world where that is possible to have, that's why he adores his younger brother Allie and younger sister Phoebe, they are kids and therefore honest, pure, playful and they don't understand what it means to be fake and act and pretend. When Holden was talking to Phoebe in D.B.'s room, she in a way accused him of there not existing one thing that can make him happy and it took him quite a while to think of something that did. Phoebe doing that perfectly showcased what everybody that knew him thought of him, but only Phoebe, because she is a kid, had the guts to say it to his face, and that killed Holden because it is not true. He couldn't think of something that made him happy because the things that make him happy aren't specific, concrete things but abstract ideas that in a way don't really exist because they are all based on human relationships and values. And that is when Holden thought about being the catcher in the rye. All he truly wants in life is for the kids not to die while playing, but not in a literal sense. What he wants to say with that is, that he wished people would stay honest and pure, as kids are, their whole life and not just fall off the edge while playing and becoming all the things he, and a lot of us, hate about adults. Because that's one thing he can't stand, people not paying attention and running towards the edge, falling off and ruining everything because they didn't care.
What I want to say is that, there is a lot of people who don't understand this book and why it's important and I think that is mainly because a lot of people don't understand people who are like Holden. And if you are somebody who is a lot like him, or you were in your teens, you laugh and cry while reading it and you fully understand him and the way he feels and you don't see him how he is portrayed but how he truly is and it in a way breaks your heart when you realize that the only way for a person like that to be "okay" is making peace with society never changing and in a way forever staying "quiet" even if he takes the advice from Mr Antolini and finds a place/thing/purpose that makes him feel better because that will only give him a little taste of solitude but it will never actually change the way he is because no matter where he goes, or what he does, he will always notice the little things that make people "phony" which is why he, a number of times, wanted to kill himself or run away. But he can never really do it because he actually loves life and people when he experiences something truly honest and pure, like his siblings, or the nuns, or Jane. And because he experienced it, he knows it's possible to have, but at the same time he realizes those things come and go and are actually quite rare to find, but never the less, he knows it exists and because those things are something that make him happier than words can explain, he just sticks around and desperately searches for it.
The book actually brilliantly showcases, through one character, how it is to be that kind of person. And therefore, it is a classic.
Also, the ending is brilliant because it is so true; "Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody." And that just confirms how much Holden actually cared about all the people he encountered even if he "hated" them, because he had a relationship with them and that is what he is all about; people.
I truly believe the whole book is about that quote; about being terribly misunderstood, society being blind when it comes to the things that truly matter, about seeing what is wrong with our world and the way we act and knowing how it can all be better but being aware that you can not change it and therefore being depressed, it is about being "young" and rebellious in a way where you just can not and don't want to adjust yourself to the rules of modern society because it doesn't align with your values. The only thing here is that the writer didn't showcase it in a sophisticated way but rather he decided to use Holden and the things that are happening to him to explain the bigger picture. Every single thing that Holden can't stand or that he hates, it's not about that specific thing (even though Salinger makes it look like it), it's about all the things in this world that make you feel like the one Holden hates. And if you ever felt like Holden, you can think of something else that made you "hate" something which makes you understand what he is talking about and therefore you don't take it literally.
Holden is a really important character in literature because of the way he is. One could easily think he's a stupid young boy who hates everything and is depressed all the time. But actually Holden is a an extremely emphatic intellectual who just figured out that it is easier to be "stupid" and a failure that it is for him to explain what is going on inside his head because, while observing the world, especially people around him, he figured that no one could actually, fully understand his thoughts. Holden is this guy that values honest human relationships above everything else and he constantly dreams about a world where that is possible to have, that's why he adores his younger brother Allie and younger sister Phoebe, they are kids and therefore honest, pure, playful and they don't understand what it means to be fake and act and pretend. When Holden was talking to Phoebe in D.B.'s room, she in a way accused him of there not existing one thing that can make him happy and it took him quite a while to think of something that did. Phoebe doing that perfectly showcased what everybody that knew him thought of him, but only Phoebe, because she is a kid, had the guts to say it to his face, and that killed Holden because it is not true. He couldn't think of something that made him happy because the things that make him happy aren't specific, concrete things but abstract ideas that in a way don't really exist because they are all based on human relationships and values. And that is when Holden thought about being the catcher in the rye. All he truly wants in life is for the kids not to die while playing, but not in a literal sense. What he wants to say with that is, that he wished people would stay honest and pure, as kids are, their whole life and not just fall off the edge while playing and becoming all the things he, and a lot of us, hate about adults. Because that's one thing he can't stand, people not paying attention and running towards the edge, falling off and ruining everything because they didn't care.
What I want to say is that, there is a lot of people who don't understand this book and why it's important and I think that is mainly because a lot of people don't understand people who are like Holden. And if you are somebody who is a lot like him, or you were in your teens, you laugh and cry while reading it and you fully understand him and the way he feels and you don't see him how he is portrayed but how he truly is and it in a way breaks your heart when you realize that the only way for a person like that to be "okay" is making peace with society never changing and in a way forever staying "quiet" even if he takes the advice from Mr Antolini and finds a place/thing/purpose that makes him feel better because that will only give him a little taste of solitude but it will never actually change the way he is because no matter where he goes, or what he does, he will always notice the little things that make people "phony" which is why he, a number of times, wanted to kill himself or run away. But he can never really do it because he actually loves life and people when he experiences something truly honest and pure, like his siblings, or the nuns, or Jane. And because he experienced it, he knows it's possible to have, but at the same time he realizes those things come and go and are actually quite rare to find, but never the less, he knows it exists and because those things are something that make him happier than words can explain, he just sticks around and desperately searches for it.
The book actually brilliantly showcases, through one character, how it is to be that kind of person. And therefore, it is a classic.
Also, the ending is brilliant because it is so true; "Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody." And that just confirms how much Holden actually cared about all the people he encountered even if he "hated" them, because he had a relationship with them and that is what he is all about; people.
Srilakshmi
You're not the only one. The only reason I kept turning the pages was the expectation that there was something better ahead. Way too over-hyped.
Magi Lena
You are not the only one. I understand now how overrated this book is. Defenitely NOT a classic! Not my kind of book. I didn'tlike the narration style nor the pace of the storytelling. I could list a thousand books few people have heard of, and nobody considers them classics but have captured my imagination and opened my mind in wonderful ways! So it's just a matter of taste and it also depends on what reading experience you have.
Chollie
The author's point of view is not my cup of tea. His angle at the time was unique but that doesn't mean that everything unique has to be labeled 'classic.' "It's cool! It's cool!"--nah.
This 'through the eyes of an adolescent' point of view just don't make it.
I agree with you.
This 'through the eyes of an adolescent' point of view just don't make it.
I agree with you.
Ian Broughton
It was a decent story. That being said; I don't see what all the fuss is about. I was disappointed. Do not read my comment or any other comments that shed a negative light on this book and decide to pass on it though. Read it. YOU may love it. It is a classic after all.
Piers Newberry
He just got there first, just like DuChamp, Miro, Picasso and Kerouac. They are definitely not great artists. There are many amateurs just as good. They are valuable simply because they got there first. In 1951 this book was revolutionary in the context of its time. You have to remember, for example, the adverts filled with massively phoney perfect families, this was considered the ideal. This book is a complaint about this innocent ambition for people in 50's society; its says no everything in life is messy; everything in life sometimes falls apart and that peoples minds are chaotic - the antithesis of 50's idealism. Hence the book garners the same infamy as DuChamps urinal.
It is also storyless to a degree which can be annoying for the reader, but moreover it is a study of character, which if you don't like the character, is an absolute disaster for the reader.
So not a book for everyone, but revolutionary in structure and highly remarkable in the context of its time. Similar to DuChamps urinal, it would be nothing more than ordinary if it was produced today.
It is also storyless to a degree which can be annoying for the reader, but moreover it is a study of character, which if you don't like the character, is an absolute disaster for the reader.
So not a book for everyone, but revolutionary in structure and highly remarkable in the context of its time. Similar to DuChamps urinal, it would be nothing more than ordinary if it was produced today.
Maryam
No, you are not. I have exactly the same POV. Couldn't understand why this book is this much famous. Maybe because I am reading it too late. The book is written 65 years ago and it may mean something for the people living in 1950s.
Franceseattle
It has been many decades since I read it, but I know that it failed to leave any valuable or positive impression on me. It was merely one of those many tiresome books about unpleasant people and situations I was required to read in high school. The people who have compiled these lists, at least 60-80 years ago, reveal their own point of view in their choices, likely members of the camp of people who believe that only depressing stories adequately reflect "reality" and therefore the most unpleasant, most negative, most "shocking" works of writing will be deemed of serious worth. Since most people are afraid of not looking sufficiently intelligent in the eyes of the educational-system elites, they'll just go along. It's the story of the Emperor's New Clothes in yet another setting. Who knows whether we'll still be reading this 100 years from now, the way we still read and perform Shakespeare, or read John Donne, Milton, Dickens, etc. The academic establishments that set out these reading lists are also people susceptible themselves to changing trends. It would be a good thing periodically to re-examine whether everything currently considered a "classic" really merits the title.
Vinaysheel Rao
You certainly are not!
Rylee Carpenter
This book sucks. I would not recommend it to anyone. It is the most overrated book ever written.
Marcio Rodrigues Pimentel
No you are definitely not the only one. Of course you will have all kinds of explanation about it, however the only thing that you need to consider is that was a big deal when was released, pretty much because of the language and the theme. completely over-rated, in my opinion. And I also find the reading veeeeeeryyyyyyyyyy boring.
Katt
That sort of is the point he's making! It disorients the hell outta you! Then you find your way! Most post-modernly unmodern readers cannot digest this sort of books 'cause they are used to expecting clear-cut, direct-bound journeys of excavation. This rather takes you there in a round-about way. First he gives you what you exactly want, then he keeps pouring it on and on until you want to puke on yourself. It is, and will be a classic, whatsoever!
Lucian
I was forced to read this book for some course at school. Hated every minute of it, so no you're definitely not alone.
Matthew Culberson
It's easy to knock this book now, because writing styles have changed so much in contemporary fiction. But for it time this was different than anything else out there and it was revolutionary in its perspective and style. It was modern fiction before modern fiction was cool.
Ez
No, you sure aren't. I agree with you 100%
Alea Pinar
No, you are not :)
Johannes
No, far from it. If you read my review, I pretty much trashed it, a lot of friends liked it, my ex loved it so I soldiered on. I took me a while to have it finished for I could tell my mind was drifting away throughout the pages, being gay, I could recognize some hints that was an issue with Holden too. His obsession to the point of being sexual, with this older famous borther. And then, that teacher... I fail to see what people find so compelling about this book for I could not.
Ocean Girl
I didn't think this book was interesting at all. It didn't have anything meaningful to say and it was really boring.
Aysscrim Kim
No, I actually wondering too why many people liked it.I don't even have anything learned from this book.
Fernando
I'm only on page 102. This is the first time I've read it. I had it on the shelf for a while and I purchased it on a lark given that it's supposed to be the book that gets you on the government’s watch list. It just now started getting interesting for me. I took a look at some of the comments and noticed that most of the negative remarks were made by 30 somethings and below. I’m 45. I’ve seen some things. At page 102 I can start to relate to Holden. I wonder if the age thing means the book is starting to loose it’s meaning to current society or if all these negative critics may have a different point a view if they were to read in again later in life. Only time will tell.
Hernest
I think you'll never appreciate this book unless you've gone through something which can be compared to Holden's experiences.
Soroush Modabberi
I was looking for a person who has my idea about this book. Very boring. Waste of time.
Jules Nymo
I think this book is for certain people who get Holden. Otherwise, everyone just doesn't like him. I really did, to tell you the truth. Everyone, on the other hand, is a phony.
Brenda
I just finished this book. It was in our bookshelf from one of my kids required reading lists. I wondered the same thing. This is just rambling on for 214 pages. Why are students required to read this? In my opinion this kind of book has the potential to turn young people off to reading. It didn't do anything for me. It is considered a classic, yet I had to force myself to finish it.
Marc Buelens
no, you are not alone... cursing, rejecting your parents' values etc does not make a book a piece of art.
Anton Bronnikov
No, you are not the only one. But then you might be not the only one who after some years will come back to this book and find some meaning in it that everyone else had missed.
Cassandra
I'm glad I'm not the only one! So, so glad that I'm not alone in this! Yes, there is a context to the story etc, and maybe if I had studied this book as part of a course I would have viewed it differently. But, I'm really not one of those to second-guess the meaning of things beyond the obvious. I found it so terribly boring :/
Lola
Read this book as a teen (since I had heard it was a book that captured the angst of a generation) and have always been bewildered by its place in literature. Holden is not especially interesting, just generically sulky and immature. I know some people loved it and his "cynicism" but he seemed affected and annoyed, not genuinely pained and alienated.
Moosey Mcmaster
Nope, not the only one.
A. D.
I read this book when I was a teenager and was totally lost like Holden. I think that's the best timing to read this book.
Jamie
When I initially read it as a teenager, I did not like the book. Yet, as I am rereading it now, I see it as a completely different novel from the one I first encountered. Perhaps, the book's significance depends on the reader's development. Maybe let a few years pass and give it another chance.
Sean
It's not considered a classic because it's plot was fantastic, the plot was very simple and had some to do with it's place up with the rest of the classics, but that's not the reason it's really up there. In all of the books pre-Catcher In The Rye that I've read and most if not all of the books post-Catcher In The Rye I've read, none matched the way this story was told. Salinger wrote this story in the point of view of Holden Caulfield and made sure to actually do it realistically with his thoughts bouncing all over the place like a real persons thoughts. This was a new writing style that like all other things in the world, some like and some dislike. But whether you like it or not it was a very big deal because of its new take on first-person writing. So it's been named a classic because of the way it was written, not because of it's plot.
Ryan
Dude I 100% agree.
Alex
I'm here with you, Jade. Holden Caulfield is one of the least likable characters I ever encountered.
John Cosco
I one hundred percent agree with you
Diane
I didn't care for the book either. Holden Caufield had no real problems; he was just a "victim" of too much excess. I couldn't identify with this, but apparently a lot of teenage males do.
I much preferred the movie "Rebel Without a Cause" to this, although Dean's character didn't have a lot to complain about either, except boredom and a wimp of a father.
Probably, "Catcher in the Rye" was a shocking and honest book for its time, but I don't find it really engaging. The plot seems somewhat simplistic.
I much preferred the movie "Rebel Without a Cause" to this, although Dean's character didn't have a lot to complain about either, except boredom and a wimp of a father.
Probably, "Catcher in the Rye" was a shocking and honest book for its time, but I don't find it really engaging. The plot seems somewhat simplistic.
Harry Moorehouse
It's about not always being able to be the 'catcher in the rye', you have to let people go...
Dogg Bookins
No, you are not the only one. Actually, if you want to look for a number of compatriots, just look at all the side characters in this book; they also find it boring. The only one that finds it really interesting is Holden. Well, and me too. There's no plot to the book. If that's what you're looking for go forward to RL Stevenson or Lee Child or James Clavell or JK Rowling. It's mainly a study of puberty and how one deals with transitioning from child to adult. The whole image of the Catcher in the Rye is that of safely transitioning from one to the other, being caught on the other side...
J S
In general, I agree with you. This book was not what I'd consider worthy, at face value, of being considered "classic literature." The writing quality itself couldn't really be good, by its nature. It was of a 17-year-old boy full of angst, spoken largely in a first-person narrative, so the language needed to sound like it was from an angry kid with a limited vocabulary. In other words, you were not going to get your socks knocked off by the mastery of language, like you would, with, say Hemingway or Vonnegut.
The reason this book was a success though, I feel, is that it was largely a reflection of the era and culture at the time. It was during an era where open criticism of people's motives was not commonplace. Hollywood and pop culture, newspaper editorials, and even books, didn't openly scowl at the phony nature of people in society. It was there under the surface, but not openly embraced. We have to look back to a society that was pre-Howard Stern, pre-Johnny Carson, pre-tabloid, and then immerse ourselves in how fake and phony that would have been to live through.
Then Salinger came and through Holden, said, "hold up a moment. These people are a bunch of frauds." I think that is why it was a success.
The truth is, it was largely a very boring book. There was very little plot, very little character development outside the protagonist, and nothing extraordinary that happened. There was no mastery of language in the prose, and overall, this book, in my opinion, wouldn't make any bestseller list if released today.
Still, it's worth reading to gain a better sense of the era, if anything.
The reason this book was a success though, I feel, is that it was largely a reflection of the era and culture at the time. It was during an era where open criticism of people's motives was not commonplace. Hollywood and pop culture, newspaper editorials, and even books, didn't openly scowl at the phony nature of people in society. It was there under the surface, but not openly embraced. We have to look back to a society that was pre-Howard Stern, pre-Johnny Carson, pre-tabloid, and then immerse ourselves in how fake and phony that would have been to live through.
Then Salinger came and through Holden, said, "hold up a moment. These people are a bunch of frauds." I think that is why it was a success.
The truth is, it was largely a very boring book. There was very little plot, very little character development outside the protagonist, and nothing extraordinary that happened. There was no mastery of language in the prose, and overall, this book, in my opinion, wouldn't make any bestseller list if released today.
Still, it's worth reading to gain a better sense of the era, if anything.
Jeffrey Gao
Nope, Holden Caulfield knows nothing about entertainment or having fun. Allie Caulfield would make a far superior protagonist.
Mercedes
With this book, It really depends on your age when your reading it (in my opinion) I love it so much in high school and I identified with Holden. I tried to pick it up again and found the main character excruciatingly broody and annoying.
Tal Zeiger
I think the point of this book, is the main character's thoughts on life, and the people he meets. This book really creates a great character, and after all this book introduced a whole new genre created by J.D. Salinger. Also, I think the book is very powerful because what Holden is saying, it's all just him being honest, and sometimes it's just the authors thoughts being told through the book.
Aelys
You have to be a Baby Boomer to like the book. The book is terrible. I grew up in poverty, even suffering from malnutrition, in the hovel of a violent drunkard. I went to one of the notorious underfunded public schools in the USA. I studied hard and got a full collge scholarship. I escaped the misery of my childhood.
The kid in the book goes to one of the best private schools in the country, but he gets kicked out because he's too self-entitled and lazy to study. The boy won the lottery of birth and thumbs his nose at it. He's a typical spawn of white american bourgeois.
The kid in the book goes to one of the best private schools in the country, but he gets kicked out because he's too self-entitled and lazy to study. The boy won the lottery of birth and thumbs his nose at it. He's a typical spawn of white american bourgeois.
Robert Hunter
I didn't understand it at first as required reading in high school, but understood years later. I grew up in 1950-60 and it was a different kind of book for its time and it created the same kind of reader opinions then as now. The responses were wide and intense, and was one of the most talked about books. I think that's why it became a classic, because it triggered such intense like or dislike, not only then and in the present. I sometimes wonder if Salinger intended to create this kind of responses from readers.
Charles Hampton
No. It isn't really boring if you enjoy listening to the ramblings of a dirty-mouthed adolescent who has severe mental adjustment problems. I think Holden today would be out attacking people who don't agree with his politics or scratch on the wall of the Supreme Court. Personally, I think the stream of consciousness style is boring and fuzzy. I much prefer real classics like 1984, Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged and Huck Finn. I think it was promoted so heavily was because of people who hope it would influence kids to anarchy. I found it unreadable without a pain killer.
Ronin
Another reason you may not enjoy this book, is that you have to have a certain mind to understand and enjoy it. Chances are if you do not see why this book is a classic is because you were not ready to read it , or you are in the category of what Holden considered a "phony" (for example never questioning anything, going with the flow , enjoying things because they are "cool" and not because you like it, never asking why, like Holden does numerous times throughout the book) Holden is quite a maverick and you don't have to be exactly like him to understand this book you do have to have an inquisitive nature.
Wendy
It is considered Literary Fiction; it is not about the plot, it is about the characters.
Lawrence P
Yes. No, kidding
J Smith
There is no plot. There is no real story. There is no real ending. The style and use of language is very sub-par (even while keeping the era in mind). I had to force myself to finish it since I had already started it and thought there surely must be more to justify its popularity.
Nothing "classic" about it and I won't even start comparing with someone like Charles Dickens. It's like the author went on acid or LSD and just wrote whatever came to mind in a chronological order.
I would rather recommend something like "Babbit" by Sinclair Lewis which is in a similar vein and era..
In all honesty, I think the only reason this book remained popular is due to the fact that Mark David Chapman who assassinated John Lennon had a copy of the book on him. Thus creating a "cult" around the book. And the free use of language (especially regarding "God") which was considered taboo at the time had pushed some boundaries. So kids who read it may have felt like some kind of "rebels" so to speak. Like I felt naughty and adventurous reading Lady Chatterley's Lover in the 80's as a teenager.
I guess many people can relate to it though. I could relate to a lot of it myself - but it is still badly written and a bit without direction, plot or conclusion. Still doesn't deserve the word "classic" - just breaking taboos and writing rules at the time really.
Nothing "classic" about it and I won't even start comparing with someone like Charles Dickens. It's like the author went on acid or LSD and just wrote whatever came to mind in a chronological order.
I would rather recommend something like "Babbit" by Sinclair Lewis which is in a similar vein and era..
In all honesty, I think the only reason this book remained popular is due to the fact that Mark David Chapman who assassinated John Lennon had a copy of the book on him. Thus creating a "cult" around the book. And the free use of language (especially regarding "God") which was considered taboo at the time had pushed some boundaries. So kids who read it may have felt like some kind of "rebels" so to speak. Like I felt naughty and adventurous reading Lady Chatterley's Lover in the 80's as a teenager.
I guess many people can relate to it though. I could relate to a lot of it myself - but it is still badly written and a bit without direction, plot or conclusion. Still doesn't deserve the word "classic" - just breaking taboos and writing rules at the time really.
Lucinda
That is probably the reason why I'll never consider it as a masterpiece in my mind. To me a masterpiece actually doesn't need context. It is self-contained and as a story anyone can relate to. Same with the characters.
Truth is, I don't know much about post-war America and I have to admit I don't really care about it. Same in many other parts of the world in fact. Plus this sense of victory and pride, well, there are many reasons why this period of contemporary history doesn't echo with my interests. It feels a bit to "manly" to me, and I felt the same with On the Road, which bored me to death.
Also there are many other novels where not much happens but I loved because of the style, characters or any other thing.
So Catcher in the Rye is probably an American classic in the standard acceptance of the term. But it will never rank as a masterpiece of modern fiction along with Steinbeck, Nabokov or Harper Lee.
Truth is, I don't know much about post-war America and I have to admit I don't really care about it. Same in many other parts of the world in fact. Plus this sense of victory and pride, well, there are many reasons why this period of contemporary history doesn't echo with my interests. It feels a bit to "manly" to me, and I felt the same with On the Road, which bored me to death.
Also there are many other novels where not much happens but I loved because of the style, characters or any other thing.
So Catcher in the Rye is probably an American classic in the standard acceptance of the term. But it will never rank as a masterpiece of modern fiction along with Steinbeck, Nabokov or Harper Lee.
Mary Fedyszyn
After reading these reviews I now understand why Salinger stopped writing. Please, all of you, leave Holden alone. Just go. Now.
Ash Arkham
It was controversial
Daisy
Reading literature based on plot will mostly be a waste of time. A lot of novels are less concerned with entertainment than with abstract concepts. Also, many people find Holden a character they can sympathize with.
Moonchild
Boring as hell!
Jeanne
I think this book makes a lot more sense after you have children. It seems like nothing happens and the protagonist could just shake the dust of his pants and stop being annoying and do better. But when you have a child who can't do that, who just can't function in the world for reasons that are incomprehensible, the book is shattering and captures exactly what you see when you try to help that child. Those children, like Holden, are often very intelligent, but lack the social smarts to get along with people and inevitably say or do the wrong thing which alienates them even more. When he said he wanted to a catcher in the rye to help children from going over the edge I knew exactly what he was talking about because there were a lot of suicides in my son's school one year. There are fragile children who for no apparent reason just don't click, don't synch. And the advice that he should use his intelligence to write stories to help those children, I felt that was what this book's purpose was -- to say you are not alone. But he will never get on life's carousel and grab for the brass ring and that is the heartbreak. You know he will fail out of the next school for no apparent reason and without intensive help will never do anything or be anyone. I found that heartbreaking.
Cate Bartholomew
No you're not the only one. The character is annoying. The gratuitous language is grating with little literary significance. The plot is virtually non-existent. There are lots of books on teen angst out there. I prefer House of Dawn by M. Scott Momaday. It's somewhat similar with similar themes and writing style but much better written overall.
Richard
It's like going to a major museum and standing there in front of a big-deal famous Dutch 17th century still life. You see a table with fruit and nuts and a lobster and a parrot and you wonder what it means or else you wonder if the still-life is better than "dogs playing poker."
You don't have to like it. If you don't "get it" then pass on. But if you think Harry Potter books are great then you're a moron. You. Really. Are.
You don't have to like it. If you don't "get it" then pass on. But if you think Harry Potter books are great then you're a moron. You. Really. Are.
A
But it's hilarious.
Amber
exactly my point!
Phillis
Yes. Yes you are
Åžeyma TopaloÄŸlu
yes you are the only one.
Adam Fenderson
I pretty much agree entirely with you.
Sriram
I loved the book. I loved the narrative... have not read a better one in a long time!
Andy
The message is that children are innocent, uncorrupted and the narrator wants to protect them from the world. It is profound and deep, but transferred to the reader in a bad way.
Danny
at first i struggled to keep onbreading the book and didn't find any meaning in it, on my own, not discussing it in class. The onpy way i could help is to suggest watching this it really is an eye-opener c:
Riyadh Hammadi
you're truly true.. I agree with you
About Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
