Catcher in the Rye - Page 2 - Writers Forum

IJS · 01-24-2007, 02:43 AM

Catcher in the Rye was an EXCELLENT book.

Mike C · 01-24-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yamato145

I know we're on the same side Mike but you made the same mistake as Neo, it's piece not peice ... remember? I before E except after C lol.
-YAMZ

Heh. I deserve that... my excuse? I cut 'n' paste to get his quote exactly right.

Neo · 01-25-2007, 01:30 PM

What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.

Yamato145 · 01-27-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.

You sure know an awful lot about it for it being unreadable ...
-YAMZ

Mike C · 01-29-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

What is so good? I found it boring, unreadable and pointless.

Why? What made it boring for you? The style, the characters, the storyline... what?

It's obviously not unreadable, as millions have read it.

And pointless? In what way?

strangedaze · 01-29-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Catcher is the most banned book ever in the US, so it can't be that bad. I mean, Jesus, maybe you should just try to read the goddam thing in context.

haha. well-played with the italics, sir.

my two favorites from the glass cycle are banafish and for esme, and teddy, too. catcher wasnt bad, i just didnt diggit, you know? just like im not fond of 'Seymour: An Introduction,' which reads like jd bitching about his plight as a misunderstood artist.

all of that said, i dont really give a shit if neo doesnt like it. thats his / her problem. sha.

Neo · 01-29-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Why? What made it boring for you? The style, the characters, the storyline... what?

It's obviously not unreadable, as millions have read it.

And pointless? In what way?

I read it about three-quaters way through and could not continue. The way it was written was silly. It really was. (*giggles*)
The way it was written, as well as the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).
How can this book be so popular? Have I got another Catcher in the Rye that is different to everyone elses?

riversource · 01-29-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

The way it was written, as well as the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).

Correct me if i'm wrong - anyone but Neo - but that's the whole bloody point! It's about Holden not what he does so much.

Mike C · 01-30-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

the rather pointless storyline in which he just kind of drifts around New York moaning about school and the people he meets (and lies to).

What you consider pointless actually is the point. It was a landmark novel because people just didn't write books like that then. Further, without books like 'Catcher', we'd never have had movies like 'Slackers'. Or maybe even 'Rebel without a Cause' - James Dean played a very similar character. Did you think that movie was silly?

What you think is silly is realism. Holden was the archetypal angry young man, and if you have trouble relating to it the problem rests with you and your lack of life experience, not the book. It's precisely because people can relate to Holden and his attitude that the book has become a classic of American literature. Transport him to a different time and place and he'd probably be a goth or emo, but his 'life is shit' attitude would be identical.

coral · 01-30-2007, 12:07 PM

I thought it was a great book! But if you didn't like Holden (and by this I mean like him or like to hate him), I don't know how you could like the book.

Jolly McJollyson · 01-30-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Just as I am adamant that you're an idiot who shouldn't be allowed books unless they have short words and nice colourful pictures.

Catcher is the most banned book ever in the US, so it can't be that bad. I mean, Jesus, maybe you should just try to read the goddam thing in context.

Let's not base "not bad" on the banned status. Harry Potter has been banned all over the bible belt, and it's a piece of shit.

Then again, Ulysses was banned, and it's the jesus.

Kathyrn · 01-30-2007, 05:32 PM

I swore I wasn't going to do this - but I can't help it.

Quote:

What you consider pointless actually is the point. It was a landmark novel because people just didn't write books like that then. Further, without books like 'Catcher', we'd never have had movies like 'Slackers'. Or maybe even 'Rebel without a Cause' - James Dean played a very similar character. Did you think that movie was silly?

Mike C, don't you realize that you're trying to get through to something that isn't there?

This is a perfect example of the internet gone wrong - someone who will spend time on a forum dedicated to a subject he knows nothing about because it's easier than getting a life. This individual will never understand Holden Caulfield because real life experience is somethinghe may know nothing about - therefore he cannot relate to a fictional character (no matter how well written - in fact probably because of how well its written) seeking to deal with it.

Put Holden on a reality show and it may make more sense - Doode...

Neo · 01-31-2007, 02:38 PM

Real life experience? If I was going to write a book about me, I'd make it a helluva lot more interesting than Caulfield's drivel. Yeah, he's fictional, but that makes it worse - a fictional character without a life. That's just totally sad!
And people like you tend to make assumptions about others without knowing shit. Kathryn, all I am saying is that I found the book boring and pointless, so calm down. If anyone needs to get a life it's Holden Caulfield.

umbramaker · 02-06-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolly McJollyson

Harry Potter has been banned all over the bible belt, and it's a piece of shit.

Then again, Ulysses was banned, and it's the jesus.

I just had to quote this because it's so funny!

Also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

If anyone needs to get a life it's Holden Caulfield.

I was kind of under the impression that this was part of the point. The main character's name is Holdon. Take it apart: Hold on. Holdon didn't have a life because he didn't like change, and the book was him discovering the life he didn't have.

One of the biggest differences between books written today and books written years ago is the subtelty. Books today just don't seem to be as subtle as they were. (Correct me if this isn't the case). Allow me to quote Catcher:

talking about Holdon and Jane playing Checkers...

Quote:

"Yeah. She wouldn't move any of her kings. What she'd do, when she'd get a king, she wouldn't move it. She'd just leave it in the back row. She'd get them all lined up in the back row. Then she'd never use them. She just liked the way they look when they were all in the back row...Her mother was married again to some booze hound...Skinny guy with hairy legs. I remember him. He wore shorts all the time. Jane said he was supposed to be a playwright or some goddam thing, but all I ever saw him do was booze all the time and listen to every single goddam mystery program on the radio. And run around the goddam house, naked. With Jane around, and all."

This innocuous-looking passage says at least two important things: first, Jane was (sexually) abused by her stepfather; and second, that Holdon isn't as smart as the person reading the book. Holdon completely missed the obvious signs. So, the story aside, part of the thrill of reading this book is figuring out exactly what the author is saying by omission. Depending on what kind of books a person grew up reading, it's possible that this type of storytelling is just too unobvious. (I imagine that an author trying to get the same message across today might write, "I think her stepdad was abusing her or some goddam thing.")

So, now that my wall of text is done: is that it, do you think? Maybe it wasn't too exciting because it was so annoyingly subtle.

quarterscot · 02-14-2007, 03:23 PM

Catcher In the Rye has always struck me as a book that's got to be encountered at the right time. I read it when I was a teenager just starting to get totally fed up with life and I loved it. Likewise, I read Catch-22 as a teenager just starting to mistrust everyone in authority and I loved that too. I'm not sure I'd like either so much if I re-read them now. I'd probably be going "well, duh" to a lot of their insights.

That said, if all you want is a strong story filled with sympathetic characters, you should stick to a different type of book. Preferably one with lots pictures, where you can See Spot Run.