Welcome to Writing Forums, one of the fastest growing writing communties on the web.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and photo galleries. By joining our free community you will
be able to talk with other writers, get feedback on your work to improve your writing skills, discuss ideas, share tips & tricks, network and make friends!
Location: Northumberland, because Olly Buckle can't take a joke.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
The book I find agrees with me morally and basically in every way is Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho. The nihilistic and morally barren tone suits me perfectly. As you say, Catch-22 agreed with you at the right time, as did Catcher. AP agrees with me now. A world bound by morality, order and decency is a world full of lust and angst. A world devoid of morality is a world of pain. So everything is irrelevant and superficial - existence is pointless and your own wants and needs are what count. Catcher is too moralistic for me.
__________________
Much of the urge to ban is driven, just like Puritanism, by the fear that some people, somewhere, may be enjoying themselves; the rest by the terror of politicians and bureaucrats who fear that if they don’t do something, anything, we might begin to wonder why we pay them.
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.")
Exactly, you find things out about Holden that he doesn't realize himself.
Towards the end of the book, it hints towards the fact that he's been sexually molested which starts to explain certain things about his personality that you see come through in his outings, personality traits and the way he views people as a whole. You basically grow with Holden and seeing his views from his POV as an angsty, angry teenager, and honestly, I've never seen a better portrayal which is why it's so damn awesome.
If you can't appreciate it, as Mike C said, it's really probably more your fault as you haven't had the life experience as of yet to be able to empathize with Holden. Someone else in the thread pointed out that reading it at a certain time in your life would increase it's enjoyment and I believe that to be one hundred percent correct. When I read it, I had almost identical feelings to Holden's in certain areas. I was an angsty, angry teenager and I disliked most of everyone I met. So when I read the book I was able to connect with Holden.
I actually wasn't that impressed with the book either. I read it when I was around 15, maybe 16, and even had a literature teacher analyzing it for us, and it didn't strike a chord with me, even though I too hated just about anyone and anything, and that included Holdon.
I have very little tolorance to stupid people, and it felt like the entire book I was dragged after his stupid decisions, and then had to listen to him whining about it. Basically, he was the kind of person I wouldn't tolorate around me even back then, angst is not an excuse to being incompotent and a loser.
I also had a problem with many of his not angsty thoughts, like his tendancy to wonder where the birds go to when the lake is frozen. Me giving the author the benefit of doubt was the only thing that kept it from being unrealistic because, well, who cares about a bunch of birds!?
So yeah, the meaning behind it is 'what happens to those birds when they have nowhere to return to, like me', but that's exactly my problem. Who reflects on himself through metaphores?! It just made him sound even more like an idiot than I already thought he was.
I also had a problem with many of his not angsty thoughts, like his tendancy to wonder where the birds go to when the lake is frozen. Me giving the author the benefit of doubt was the only thing that kept it from being unrealistic because, well, who cares about a bunch of birds!?
So yeah, the meaning behind it is 'what happens to those birds when they have nowhere to return to, like me', but that's exactly my problem. Who reflects on himself through metaphores?! It just made him sound even more like an idiot than I already thought he was.
Fair point, and a good example of a novel being over-written. Anyway, the birds fly south. Surely even nihilistic teenagers know that?
Location: Northumberland, because Olly Buckle can't take a joke.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Riven
I actually wasn't that impressed with the book either. I read it when I was around 15, maybe 16, and even had a literature teacher analyzing it for us, and it didn't strike a chord with me, even though I too hated just about anyone and anything, and that included Holdon.
I have very little tolorance to stupid people, and it felt like the entire book I was dragged after his stupid decisions, and then had to listen to him whining about it. Basically, he was the kind of person I wouldn't tolorate around me even back then, angst is not an excuse to being incompotent and a loser.
I also had a problem with many of his not angsty thoughts, like his tendancy to wonder where the birds go to when the lake is frozen. Me giving the author the benefit of doubt was the only thing that kept it from being unrealistic because, well, who cares about a bunch of birds!?
So yeah, the meaning behind it is 'what happens to those birds when they have nowhere to return to, like me', but that's exactly my problem. Who reflects on himself through metaphores?! It just made him sound even more like an idiot than I already thought he was.
My thoughts exactly. Spot on, thank you.
__________________
Much of the urge to ban is driven, just like Puritanism, by the fear that some people, somewhere, may be enjoying themselves; the rest by the terror of politicians and bureaucrats who fear that if they don’t do something, anything, we might begin to wonder why we pay them.
