After re-reading portions of Rumpled Trenchcoats and Rubber Bullets while preparing this latest round of queries, I felt the need to revisit one of the most famous novels of modern time, J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher In The Rye. I didn’t like it when I read it before, but I decided to keep an open mind as I read it for the second time.
I still don’t like it.
There are those who will say that Catcher is a classic. I will not dispute that. However, Childe Harold is also a classic. Lord Randal is a classic. Everyman is a classic. That does not mean that they are good. What they are, which is what makes them classics, is that they reflect the time in which they were written, took revolutionary (or, in some cases, evolutionary) jumps in style or form, and greatly influenced works that came after them. None of them, however, stand up well against the passage of time.
Sadly, a lot of what makes Catcher unbearable are the things that made it revolutionary and innovative 57 years ago:
Holden, the antihero: Antiheroes as protagonists were not as common prior to Catcher as they have been since. Holden is not heroic. He isn’t even likable. He’s annoying, petty, depressing (appropriately enough, as he’s depressed), and borders on stupid. It was the presence of such a well-crafted character with no redeeming characteristics that swept through the literary (and popular culture) world like a sirocco wind blowing in warm, fresh air. Today, however, this type of character has been done to death. Salinger didn’t invent the antihero (that honor goes to Apollonius of Rhodes), he perfected it. Doing so, however, invited an onslaught of imitators who through their copying diminished the original.
The prose style: Let’s face it, Catcher really is the quintessential first-person narrative in the style of an extended dramatic monologue. Salinger really is unparalleled as a writer when it comes to an ear for dialect and creating a believable voice for a character, except perhaps for Mark Twain. However, the narration of Catcher, like that of his rival for the dialogue crown in Huckleberry Finn, does not age well. It is too grounded in the 1940′s and early 50′s. Popular slang has drifted over the past half century, and those not familiar with a lot of the terms used by Holden will get lost easily. Also, Holden tends to ramble. This is understandable when you consider his other character traits, but Holden is not someone you go to for clear, concise, narration.
That fucking ending: I hate it when stories don’t end, but just stop. Catcher is the worst offender in this case. True, there’s the epilogue, but there’s so much time that’s passed between the carousel scene and the epilogue that one can’t help but feel cheated. There’s a lot of story chopped out of there, which I would like to see. What happened when Holden finally revealed himself to his parents? Why is he in California? Is he institutionalized? Is he insane? If Salinger had left out the last chapter, it would have been a better ending, but it’s still too abrupt, and doesn’t tie up any of the story. The epilogue, to me, reads like something an editor forced the author to write to answer some questions he or she still had.
Books in the 1940′s had happy endings, or they had sad endings. Catcher has no ending, which was innovative back then, but today is just grating.
The plot: Or, should I say, the lack of one. Catcher seems to be following the Campbellian model at first, but its hero never leaves the Underworld, is never transformed, and never returns with a boon for mankind. Holden has no goal, no desires, essentially no character arc. His misadventures in Manhattan do not destroy the boy that was to make room for the man that will be, they just bump him around and kick him when he is down. Holden never learns from his mistakes. He doesn’t even acknowledge that they are mistakes. The Holden we have at the end of the last sentence is the same exact boy we meet at the beginning of the first sentence. I liken this to watching a man continually getting shat upon by a large bird, who keeps wiping the offal from his face, but never thinks to change his seat or chase the bird away. This may be funny to sadists, or Tom Green fans, but it is not enjoyable for me.
And this brings me to my biggest gripe:
Holden does nothing.
Holden spends the entire length of the story walking around, with no needs and no desires. Maybe Salinger was drawing inspiration from the Lost Generation that followed World War I, and anticipating the self-absorbed Baby Boomers that were being born as he was writing the story, but surely that’s no excuse for telling us a story that is no story.
Take a look at some of the characters from more modern works that owe their existence to Holden. Tom Henderson from King Dork has goals: get to know some mystery girl, get to understand his dead father, and make it through high school. Dennis Cooverman from I Love You, Beth Cooper may be carried along by the unyielding stream of circumstance, but at least he stands up and takes matters in his own hands from time to time. DeeDee Truitt from The Opposite Of Sex wants to scam a family member. The refusenik kids of Like We Care actively rebel against popular culture by not buying anything. Holden walks around muttering to himself. The kid can’t even get laid by a prostitute for pete’s sake. Honestly, if Holden had mentioned thinking about calling Jane Gallagher one more time, I would have screamed “JUST PICK UP A PAY PHONE AND CALL HER, YOU DICK! DO SOMETHING!”
If you are reading this, Mr. Salinger, please take it in the manner I intend: loving criticism. You are perhaps the greatest living writer, much more talented than I could ever hope to be. You have a unique talent with words. There’s a reason that Franny And Zooey was on the little bookshelf in the headboard of my bed all through my high school years. But what is commonly believed to be your greatest work just doesn’t push my buttons. It’s not aged well. In the end, what was innovative in the 1950′s is now old hat; it suffers from the curse of “it’s all been done before.” It’s the novel equivalent of reading an e.e. cummings poem: it was groundbreaking when it came out, but today you just want to smack the guy and show him where the SHIFT key is on the typewriter.
I’m with you on this; the funny thing now is that I’m almost finished with Jack Jones’ “Let Me Take You Down”, the biography of Mark David Chapman. And, well, while reading, I’m kind of reminded of something Tom said in “King Dork”, mainly (roughly) that the only thing worse than Catcher are the hardcore Catcher fans who think they’re Holden Caulfield. Though, I’m pretty sure most of those — while undoubtedly incredibly irritating — don’t shoot John Lennon.
Although I agree with all of your points, the only thing I would add would be the fact that you learn nothing from the literature. Great writing is about exposing you to the exotic, the secretive, the hitherto unspoken off. You better yourself or understand the world around you more. Holden doesn’t teach you anything you didn’t already know about angst-filled teenagers, so reading the book is like making an A in calculus, then being told you need to take algebra.
I was forced to read Catcher in my senior year. I was told it was a classic, so I was vaguely interested in it. Then I read it. Boy oh boy what a piece of shit that was. A story about a boy who goes around New York City doing nothing, whining about how everyone is a phoney, and saying “if you really wanna know” all the time and “good old” in front of everyone’s name. For Christ sake, he’s too dumb to know that ducks fly south in the winter. In my local newspaper, there was a tribute to J.D. Salinger. They say people in who work at Central Park services get calls from people who ask where the ducks go in the winter because they just read Catcher in the Rye. I guess you have to be kind of slow to enjoy the novel to begin with. That, or booksmarts with little or no common sense. I’ll never understand why people can love a novel that I see only as mindless dribble.
I would like to revise what i said last time i visited this site and apologize for those offended by it. I have come to realize the real reason i and perhaps many Catcher in the Rye haters really hate the book. It is because Holden Caulfield is just like me. That’s right. He’s judgemental. Like me. He hate assholes who pretend to be nice (phonies). Like me. He hates change. Like me. Above all, he hates himself. Like me. That’s right, I just said it, I hate me. What does it matter if I tell you guys. You don’t know who I am or where I live. I hate me. I never had a girlfriend and can’t look people in the face when I talk. I am a total douche. I cannot like Salingers novel until I like myself. People who like the Catcher in the Rye probably like it because they have next to nothing in common with the main character. Lucky you.
i loved catcher in the rye!!!
this is treason! its blasphemyyy!!! how does a JD Salinger lover not see the amazingness of the character of holden caulfield. he’s phe-nomenal.
I know I really wish he had just called Jane but I understood why he couldn’t…i mean imagine the conversation..eventually, he would have to tell her about how he’s got kicked out of like four prestigious school, he has close to no friends, and no goal in life, and the simple question of “how are you” would lead to the revealing of his embarressing state and an awkward conversation? that’s why he probably could never get in the “mood”.
And by the way…if you know ANYTHING about JD Salinger..he made very few efforts to publicize is work…and he probably wouldn’t feel very hurt over your criticism since he said he writes for his own pleasure. I like him–or the little that I know of him. I wish he were still alive. and I like Holden Caulfield. No matter how many times I read Catcher in the Rye I still laugh at the funny parts.
oo i didn’t see the last comment…at first the book made me feel kind of insecure, because i wondered if Holden would think I was a phony. I dont know. But honestly I don’t care. He doesn’t really take the whole phony thing seriously..its just his excuse for hating people who are more successful and happy than him. its kind of hard not to take the way he talks about people personally. but in your case its different lol. good luck with that…and stop being judgemental…and then you’ll start to like holden, and phoebe, and the taxi driver who told holden that ducks stay frozen in the ice till spring, and maybe even the freaky deekie teacher who spent the night petting his hair….AWKWARDDDDD omg
it sucked ass
I agree with the last comment.
I bought this book at an airport, read half of it on the flight, and threw the book in the trash after exiting the plane. Five years later I decided I must have been in a bad mood, so I bought another copy and read the last half. I threw that copy away as well.
I feel cheated for having read it.
This book was actually the worst book I’ve ever read.
Seriously,I think Catcher fans haven’t read any other books.
The Great Gatsby is the only so called classic novel that I liked. The rest seem to suck ass.
Seriously, read John Grisham, read Michael Crichton, read Stephen King. I highly recommend the Shining and The Stand.
Best of all, read George R.R. Martin, and his A Song of Ice and Fire series. The name may sound gay, but it couldn’t be more awesome.
If u read these novels or any of the authors mentioned above, you’ll find Catcher unfit to use as toilet paper.
If u hate ASoIaF and would prefer Catcher in the Rye to it any day, I NEVER want to meet you. EVER.
Man, it’s so good to see some reality. I read the book a few years back, and was like…WTF? This is the great book of our time? NOT!
It sucked to me, and quite frankly, I can’t remember ANY of it, it was that uneventful.
Now back in the day, maybe it was this great peace of work or something, and maybe for the time people thought it was cutting edge, granted. But today, let’s just say… not for me.
I actually just finished this book – I realized I’d never read it, bought it at a used book store last week and finished it just a few moments ago. Being totally confused as to how this book managed to be the legend it is, I typed in ‘Catcher in the Rye Sucks’ since that was my assesement and arrived here. It sucked and made absolutlely no sense. I kept waiting for a plot to sneak up on me. I’ll be returning it to the used book store tomorrow for some other poor sucker to purchase. Hell, a Harlequin romance novel would have been a better read…….or Dr Seuss…..
I stopped by hear after reading your ST XI dissection, which is brilliant.
I wrote my senior thesis on Catcher. I love the book, I still remember one of my best friends hearing I hadn’t read it yet, and him saying, “I envy you. It’s like meeting a child who hasn’t seen Star Wars yet.” I agree.
I also understand that you like his other work better, actually, I like the twinly* published novellas “Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenter & Seymour – An Introduction” better, in fact, it’s my favorite book. Interestingly, it’s Franny and Zooey I’ve never quite loved. I just don’t like the ending the – cold, almost superficial denouement about the Jesus prayer.
And to the poster who said read Grisham, King or Crichton? Those guys are entertainers, pop bubblegum writing. I like King alright – his old stuff – but none of that is going to levitate ya to a higher place**.
Same with Martin. Great writer! Borders on fantasy as lit. With Salinger, there’s no question.
Great day for banafish, btw.
* not a word.
** won’t you please fawn over me?
Yes this book sucked. Triple sucked. Date, Dumb, and Who the Fuck Cares sucked. Like a vacuum cleaner, sucked and blowed simultaneously. Yet English High Teachers all over still teach this as a “classic”. Sucks.
King and Martin’s stories have something Salinger’s lacks. A plot. I mean seriously, what is the point of the novel. A kid who puts off telling his parents he failed out of the expensive school he was at?
Comparing Star Wars to Catcher in the Rye is like comparing a pot of gold to a portapotty. Catcher is little more than Holden bitching and moaning about how much his upper middle class life sucks.
He calls everybody a phony, and constantly lies about himself. Nor does Salinger go thru the trouble of making Holden likeable.
The book seems to be little more than an angry letter the author wrote to himself when he was mad that just happened to get published. It should never have become as big as it is.
Oh, and by the way Holden’s Jane, JD Salinger IS still alive!
There are no funny parts in Catcher in the Rye that I know of. The story was bad. Just… bad.
Holden Claufield cried crocodile tears.he flunkded out of college’next has fun and misadventure in the big city’before he gets his ass whipped and/or disowned by his old man.
oh yeah, as for my above post, I’ve managed to turn my life around a bit. I like myself a bit now, not that anyone cares.
Point is, I like me, and still hate Catcher. I realize now it was never some internal struggle, the book just sucks donkey balls.
Is it just me, or do most so called “classic” novels suck?
What a letdown! After hearing so much about this book, I bought it and was quickly disappointed. It is so BORING! I was 60 pages into the book, and all Holden did was visit an old man, hang out in his dorm room… and that was about it. Other than repeating himself and adding “blank was the kind of person who always did blank” to the end of everything he described–for example “Kevin waved his hand. He was the kind of guy that always waved his hand. Kevin just sat there waving his hand. Good old Kevin the hand-waver.” The story just drags along and it’s not even that interesting. OK I get it, he’s an angst-filled teenager and a rebel who hates everything.
I made myself finish the book just so I could tell others I had read it, and it was such a chore. If you want to read a REAL classic about angst and the anti-hero, read “Ham on Rye” or “Factotum” or “Post office” by Bukowski. Now those are classics..
David Westerman, I couldn’t care less if you hated every book I have ever liked, but you seem really bothered by the fact that people actually like this book. The criteria you have for liking a book aren’t the same that other people require to like a book, or anything else for that matter. I think it’s fair to say that you hate this book, and that’s fine, but for you to insinuate that people who like this book are misinformed or not as well read as you, well, that shows your ignorance.
Wow. If ever a shallow examination of a novel be penned, here it lie. Catcher in The Rye is all about the very struggle to preserve innocence. And ultimately the inevitability that is must be lost in some ways. Holden Caulfield’s entire journey, the POINT of it, is his discovery of that very principle. Jane and her kings on the back row. Protecting that innocence, but there is only one direction to go, forward into the world of corruption. As far as the ending, a good book doesn’t need to be squared off at all ends. A desire of the unimaginative is to have the entire story laid out in front of them. Catcher is full of ambiguity. Salinger requires a little more of the reader. It persists as a classic, because you must think to read it. And when you do, when you truly grasp the novel, that is when you see the true value of it.
I Kinda agree. I think that it was written nicely and stuff but when it got to the end I was like WHAT THE FUCK? It’s probably one of those things that’s meant to “leave it up to the reader” to think about, but there’s no resolution. I keep thinking something’s going to happen to make a plot kick in, but no. I mean, you get to know the character, but then he never FEELS like calling the girl who he obviously really likes. Besides his sister, she’s probably the only character he really really likes. GOD it pissed me off. I feel really bad writing this because my English teacher gave me the book because she liked my writing and wanted me to keep going. I think it’s because my writing makes me seem alot like Holden, but nowhere near as much of a prick or world hater.
As of current date, I think Mr. Rall is our most accurate and perceptive cartoonist. Not actually my favourite, since I prefer a lighter hand and more humour, but still our most accurate and perceptive.
***
I was too young to have felt impelled to read ‘Catcher in the Rye’ surreptitiously when it came out, and too old to have had it assigned as required reading in school. It was when the movie ‘Conspiracy Theory’ came out that my friends all said, ‘How can you possibly not have read ‘Catcher in the Rye?’ So I had to read it then.
1) It is obvious that, at the end, Holden has been institutionalised in California, a place sufficiently remote that word can’t seep out and embarrass his parents. There’s no question, that bit is clear. Also, his brother is in California and comes by to see him occasionally. The ending is not at all ambiguous.
2) There’s the anti-war bit some of us who suffered through Vietnam still appreciate, especially looking at an anti-war bit from the late ’40s/early ’50s: Holden’s neuroses stem from his brother’s having been killed in the war. (Mr. Rall is the only cartoonist I’ve seen who seems to disapprove of the US sending carpet bombers to kill innocent Muslim civilians as vengeance for the Islamic fanatics who killed innocent American civilians. Most cartoonists say we must thank and honour the soldiers whose sacrifices–sometimes the perfidious natives shoot back–are keeping Americans safe. I’d have thought Mr. Rall would have appreciated the anti-war bit, but he seems unable to see it in perspective, feeling that, by modern standards, it’s much too impuissant.
3) The resolution is that Holden flunked out of an exclusive prep school. As a rich kid, he had a huge amount of pocket cash, and did not want his parents to find out, so he then proceeded to squander the entire amount in a single day, enough for a typical ’50s family to live on for several months. He tried to get a girl to elope with him. Finally, he called his sister who informed his parents, and he was picked up by the men with the white coats, the big net, and the long sleeved jacket that fastens in the back. Then he was shipped off to a funny farm as far from his home as possible.
4) The ‘unreliable narrator’ is a difficult device to implement, but Salinger does it well: Holden narrates, ‘Why is everyone saying I’m shouting when I’m talking normally?’ We know what the first person narrator does not. I was impressed. (Another example of this technique where most readers didn’t even realise it was ‘Bridget Jones Diary’.)
But the argot is very ’50s, and those not familiar with it would certainly have problems with an edition of the novel that lacked copious footnotes.
Yea this book sucked, all he did was preach about all the phony’s but really thats all he was, He couldn’t get laid at all even though he tried like 3 times, His only friend was his 10 year old sister that who was stronger than him and he got beat up twice but he didn’t learn from the first one Holden was a complete idiot
I’m glad to learn I’m not the only one who felt this book was bereft of value. While studying literature I was forced to defend my views on the work against a unanimity of opinion from my profs and classmates. I held my ground.
This story epitomizes everything that went wrong in our world beginning at the time it was published. If the generation that fought WWII was the greatest generation, they one significant failing: parenting.
They managed to raise an entire generation of humans with no grounding and no idea of self sacrifice. To suffer through an entire book of this idiot complaining about everything was simply more than I could bear. To have a world of opportunity laid out before you and reject it out of hand because it doesn’t suit you is the height of hubris.
Guess what, gang? The world does not bend itself to your desires. Learn to deal with that simple reality and find a way to learn happiness. The world is exactly what you perceive it to be.
EG
I couldn’t relate to Holden because he is a spoiled rich boy, and he has nothing to rebel against except a life affluence. That wasn’t my life experience, I hated guys who attended private schools, they have nothing to complain about. Also, he spends the book calling everyone a “phony”, which may be true, but what makes Holden think Holden is any less “phony” than anyone else? Finally, Holden is just not interesting. He doesn’t learn anything or teach us anything. The whole book is a muddled daze.
Another thing I hated about “Catcher in the Rye” was that when we discussed the book, the English teacher did not ask anyone whether they liked it or not, as was done with other books. We could only talk about how “brilliant” and “groundbreaking” “Rye” was and all the “thematic material” it contained. Apparently, the English Dept. wanted to shove this piece of junk down our throats, and allowed no room for dissent. Funny how a book supposedly about rebellion inspired educators to demand conformity from their students. You can bet any book truly depicting rebellion and free-thinking would never make its way into an American high school classroom. I submit “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Catch-22″ or even Jim Bouton’s “Ball Four” were more legitimate books about rebellion. “Catcher in the Rye” is about a selfish, grouchy jerk-off named Holden, not a true rebel.
Ok, I just had to read this a little while ago in my junior English class, i had liked most of the other books that we had read so i was hopeful. Oh my lord, “Cather” is without a doubt one of THE worst books i have ever read. I can appreciate the underlying preservation of innocence thing, but lots of other books have gotten across their messages while still having a fucking plot. I loved Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, and Huck Fin was good, but “Catcher” smokes pole
I realize that sometimes I just don’t get it. Sometimes I think that if everybody thinks that something is really great, and I don’t, that it means that I’m just slow, or unhip. I can live with that. As the years go by however,It dawns on me that maybe I’m not dumb. Maybe I was so ahead of my time that I was cool. O.K. I was never cool.
When I first read ” The Catcher in the Rye” as a teenager in the ’70′s, It was a big letdown. The main character was a whining little rich twit who didn’t know how good he had it. When I read it again as an adult in my forty’s, my opinion didn’t change. The story meandered all over the place and just sputtered out. Why was this book a classic that I was supposed to love and cherish?
When I read that J.D. died, I searched the web for hours, and all I found was praise for a book that I secretly thought sucked. In frustration, I Googled “The Catcher in the Rye Sucks”, and it brought me here. Thank you, all the people who’ve posted here. Most of you have captured what I thought better than I could have expressed it myself. I just wanted to know that I wasn’t alone. Now that you’ve inspired me, I’m going to Google ” U2 sucks” and “Fleetwood Mac Sucks”. I’ve wanted to get those two off my chest for decades.
You’re all a bunch of phonies, that’s all i’m going to say about you all. How really shitty and phony the pack of you are.
George Bush says this is his favorite book, and I believe him.
The was the only REAL president we ever had. The rest of them were just a pack of phonies, like I mentioned how you all were.
Holden
It is a book for teens and not really great literature. It is one of the books I read but did not take anything away from it other than what it’s like to be a spoiled person who had time to woneder around. Way too much hype for the what is was worth but better than any Hemingway snooze a thon novel.
If you don’t read it now, you are missing out on the experience of a lifetime. Of a lifetime.
If aliens came to our planet, and asked what we’re really about, really all about, we would hand them a copy to read and say,
this is what we are, the stuff we are made of.
And if they didn’t like it, you would know they were a bunch of phonies. A Bunch of real out of this world phonies.
Now it may be the only book I ever read, and I had to be forced to read it at that, for a test.
But to tell the truth, it changed my life.
My life was pretty bad, all up into junior high, and higher.
Then along came this forced reading, and made me think. It really made me think. Deep in my brain.
About how I’m pretty much that guy, and he is me, and maybe I should try to live like he does and not become a phoney.
You just can’t say he’s not the finest author on the planet, well he’s the finest one I ever read, that’s for sure.
And Goddammit, and excuse my french, but it’s so friikkin maddening when people say it’s not all that , or could be better, or worse, they “Didn’t like it”
If you didnt like it, why to go around whining and bitching whole day long, why not realize you just read bestest author of whole world and say “It was best I ever read!”
So instead of complaing like a idiot, maybe you just need to grow the hell up and do it.
Call me Holden, because I am very much like Him.
(that is, like Holden Caufield, the character and narrater of the book, who I am so simlar two)
ps- Hey, does anybody know where the ducks go in Central Park, in the Winter Time? I mean, do they migrate or what? Do they get on a fucking bus and go south? Or just freeze their asses off, ice skating and doing some god damn hijinks, like a pack of phonies.
You know what’s also annoying about “Catcher in the Rye”?
Royalties from this piece of shit enabled J.D. Salinger to live a comfortable life in a sort of exile, in a house up in New Hampshire,
where he never had to work again (and he barely published anything else, thank heavens).
By the accounts of his contemporaries, Salinger was in fact the prototype for the miserable little puke Holden Caulfield.
Salinger spent his “retirement” screwing teenage college girls,
probably the only good idea he ever had.
In fact, the only act of substance that can be derived from Salinger’s life is that he served hornorably as an infantryman in Europe in WWII.
Too bad the Germans didn’t get him.
David Westerman, just reading your comments depress me. And as for all you other people not liking the book, that’s fine. But you shouldn’t say bad things about my brother. He’s just different and all. He’s not like you guys. He sees things differently, and I think he really changed his life when he came out of that institution with the very soft walls and stuff.
I agree with you on this one. I read this book a while back and, while the character’s voice was excellently captured, I remember thinking that the entire book seemed to be devoid of any actual purpose.
I too came here while taking a break in some other more necessary research because that bit of “required” reading from my Lit I or II course in the late 70′s popped into my head and I recalled my views upon reading it and later re-reading it. It may be laudable in it’s capturing of the ‘lingo’ of teenagers of it’s day back in the early 50′s and it may have captured the ‘what’s life about’? angst of the “boomer” teens who grew up to become our English teachers in the 70′s and 80′s but I think the time has passed for it to be “required” reading and it deserves to be demoted to “suggested” reading. We were required to read many books in high school and later in college and most of them did provoke analytical, or soul searching thinking but for me. Catcher was the one that left me feeling like one of the few in the room who thought the Emperor had no clothes on. Some just simply thought it was stupid but those folks thought all the reading was stupid and those of us who really thought it was a dated turd were afraid to speak up for fear of being lumped in with those folks who ‘just don’t get it.’ Now that I’m approaching middle age I no longer succumb to that kind of peer pressure and I also know full well that if Catcher changed your life or made you feel less alone and alienated or made you get off the couch and do something with your life then great. If like me you thought it was an overrated turd…great too. Some people like olives, some people hate them…same thing.
I think this is probably the worst book (in my humble opinion, of course) that I’ve ever read.
I get all the ‘deeper aspects/between the lines’ type stuff, and still really, really despise it.
I consider it anti-individualist, anti-rebellion bullcrap. It’s as if individualism and childish lifestyles are impossible once you reach a certain age, and the only way to break free is to conform in some way. Holden Caulfield is so scared to fit in that he tries to be different, and his attempts to be different result in nothing but negative results. To me, the book is pretty much saying rebellion and individualism will get you nowhere. Just go to school, grow up, and conform.
Also, Holden isn’t an anti-hero. Anti-heros are at least likable. Holden is an anti-protagonist. If you like him, you should probably see a shrink. He is clearly on his way to becoming a pedophile. He’s already developing sociopathic/anti-social psychological features. He’s already deluding himself into thinking he’s a ‘hero for children’. He’s essentially impotent due to his lack of self-esteem, among other things. The list goes on and on, and if you compare Holden Caulfield’s psychological traits to that of a pedophile, the similarities are shocking.
All in all, this book sucks. This, of course, is my own opinion, and I completely respect those who enjoy it.
I literally just finished reading it.
As soon as I finished reading it, i went on google and typed ‘the catcher in the rye sucked’, and here i am.
The only reason I even read it is because I recently watched the episode about it on southpark making fun of it and wanted to see what the hype was all about, and my younger sister had the book lying around so I picked it up and started reading it, and the whole time I just kept thinking, ‘it’ll get better, it HAS to get better, hmm, maybe it has a dramatic ending that pulls it all together?’
no luck.
I can sort of see why some people might like it, reading deeply into the character and analizing everything. But you could do that with other books with better characters who actually go out and do somthing with their lives except complaining about everyone else. I understand that many teenagers are like this; complain about other people’s ‘phoniness’ and whatnot, but also knowing that your not much different from any of them either. but with Holden, he doesnt show even a glimps of maturity from all the things he goes through.
If the character had more depth to him then I probly would have liked it more, but since all we get to see in the book is a kid who complains and depresses about every little thing, there is nothing to learn from it.
My sister said she liked it, but when i asked her why, all she could say was ‘i dunno.. it had some funny parts you know’
I might add that she rarely reads so she doesnt know very many books to begin with.
I don’t have any problem with the fact that people like it, I think it just bothered me that its been so hyped up and so talked about, giving people false expectations on what a wonderful book its going to be.
this booked sucks, if i had a chance to meet holden i would so i could kick his ass
I never read many of the books I was supposed to read in high school or college, because, after being duped into reading one or two that sucked, I never trusted the teachers or professors who touted the crap. So after many years, and many degrees (I learned that you did not need to actually read the stuff to graduate) I finally decided to go back and try to read some of the books that I missed out on. I started with Catcher in the Rye. I believe that the literary critics, professors and teachers who touted this book would also loudly proclaim how wonderful the emperor’s new cloths look. About the only thing that makes this book worth reading, is that it mocks the intellectual establishment who lauds this type of book.
It is nice to see I’m not alone here. I couldn’t even finish it, although I managed to read at least half of it. I don’t know if it was revolutionary at the time or what, but if you take just the book alone, it sucks. It is boring as hell and it could be much, much shorter without losing anything. It could be easily contracted to something like this:
Phonies are all around, and it sucks.
While I don’t entirely disagree with the idea, I don’t feel like reading about a random delinquent doing nothing in NYC either.