So, I've noticed that almost everyone who has read "The Catcher in the Rye" by J. D. Salinger either loves it or hates it; there seem to be few people who say it was just an "okay" book. Why is this? Why does everyone seem to either love it or hate it?
I personally just like it; I don't feel particularly strongly about Catcher in the Rye. But I can see why people would love it, it's well written, well characterized, and it's a voice of a generation in the same way that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a voice of the 70s drug counter-culture. It's not, however, a favorite novel.
Yeah, I see what you mean about it being the voice of a generation. After all, Holden Caulfield is a universal character in many ways. I know that I identified with his personality quite well. So I suppose what I don't get is why some people loathe the book. I mean, sure, you could just dislike it if you want, but what about the book could cause some to loathe it?
I think people might loathe it for the same reason they loathe many books: they were forced to read them at school. Kids, especially rebellious teenagers, do not like being told what to read, and they'll probably have a strong negative reaction to anything they're forced to read. So Catcher in the Rye gets a bad rap. Same with Lord of the Flies. And To Kill a Mockingbird. And Of Mice and Men. Etc.
Lol, especially to read about rebellious teenagers! I first read Catcher because all of my friends read it. I was 16 and I was irritated by language, by Holden and by the colour of the cover. Not to mention the lousy translation. Baah. Then, I re-read it 10 years later. And I loved it. I didn't fall in love with it, it's not on my Top 10 list, but I found Holden to be an interesting, good written character, among other things.
Many people loved the book because it's a classic and it was the first time a book in its day and age decided to depict an angsty, cynical teenager that swears a lot. It was new and daring at the time and, now, I guess it's not as daring; however, it's still an accurate depiction of many teenagers, especially those in the west who have too much to whine about, generally. Someone could hate it because maybe, I dunno, Holden whines too much or there was no visible direction in the story or something. There are many reasons someone can love or hate a book.
Yeah, I can see your point about Holden whining a lot, although just about everyone has one reason or another to whine, right? And many other books lack direction, but are still well-written and well-liked. Take The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. That story had absolutely no direction whatsoever, and yet, many consider it one of his finest stories (though I disagree).
I didn't love it, or hate it. It was just OK for me. It was not at all what I thought it was going to be though. I was quite surprised when I read it.
I totally agree ^ It wasn't what I was expecting at all. I was slightly disappointed really as I have heard lots of people rave about it so my expectation where high. It was alright, not a book I'm hugely passionate about.
I am one of those who are pretty indifferent to the book. I liked the writing and the story, but I just couldn't enjoy the character. He was just really whiny and unlikable to me. Perhaps because growing up I never felt a need for rebellion and alienation, and has always been generally happy. Maybe because I have read too many books about angsty teenagers and grown exhausted by them....
I loved Catcher as a teen but haven't read it since. I have a feeling if I read it again I wouldn't love it as much as I did back then but I would probably still like it quite a bit. I think the reason people love/hate Catcher is based almost solely on their connection to Holden. Catcher is first person Holdenmania, so if someone has an affinity for Holden and can relate to his being than they'll love the book. Elsewise if they think he's whiny, they'll hate it. For the most part, I think it's really that simple.
J.D. said he didn't write for others. He wrote for himself and didn't care of he published or sold the story. Why do you write?
Fear and Loathing had nothing to do with the seventies, it was the mantra of Rolling Stone. I read the book, enjoyed it, made it through twenty minutes or so of the movie, but the only influence it had was with the media, who wished they were doing that instead of book reviews and Watergate stories. Costenada was much of the same. BTDTBTTSALI
Nah. I'm a tyro idiot. Don't feel bad about pointing out my shortcomings (idiocies). I'll grow into the culture. Thanks. But I still wasn't wrong.
I read the book last March for a school project. The book had a tremendous impact on me. As a child, I had loved to read, but I didn't read books that much in middle school, the exception being a seven month Stephen King phase. This book helped me discover actual literature and inspired me to learn how to write. I didn't have that 'intense' connection with Holden that some teenagers form, but it is a well crafted novel. I'd rate it as one of my favorites. A lot of people read it when they're experiencing teenage angst and disillusionment with society, and they love that they can relate to a fictional character who embodies many of their current feelings. As the years go on, nostalgia most likely intensifies their feelings. Edit: Wow. Didn't notice the thread's date.
I read it at 13 for the first time (then again in high school American Lit), and fell in love. Maybe it's about when you're exposed. Most of my high school classmates found him to be a whiny mess, but I got him completely (in my eyes, anyway). JD Salinger made me want to write a book just as powerful.
I actually prefer Salinger's short stories to Catcher. "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" is especially good. Highly recommended.
I loved CitR immediately, even though I was assigned to read it in high school. I immediately identified with Holden, in the sense that I was a misfit myself. I can understand the "whiny" complaint, because if one isn't a misfit the points do seem petty. But when you're at the sharp end of the barbs, they have a different significance. Anyway, I think Salinger's characters are pretty well-drawn, and the story of a nervous breakdown gives him a wide-open tableau for exploring emotions.
I feel like I cheated now. In my second year of Uni, my lecturer recommended A Curious Incident of a Dog in the Nighttime and Catcher in the Rye. I read ACIoaDitN and loved it for various reasons, then tried CitR and couldn't read past the first couple of pages. I was not gripped, I was replused by the characters and just wasn't drawn in. Do I consider myself to be one of the those who hates the book? I can't say for certain as I didn't read enough to truly tell. What I do know is that it seemed to be on a topic that didn't interest me, set in the real world (for which I hardly ever read or enjoy). I've been told that it's a good rite of passage book, though.
I'm in the crowd that loved it at first read. I have strong views of duplicity ever since I was a kid and rarely have I read anything that synchronized with my views of it. The only other one is an anime called Neon Genesis Evangelion.
I don't know if I like the book or not, I never read it. I do know that I hate the concept of the book. I'm one of those guys who'll hate anything if forced to do it. The book was never required reading in any English I ever took in school, not even in college. However, you must realize that I'm a 'boomer and books on "self awakening" are a dime a dozen.
Give it a shot, it's a short read. In reading your posts Tourist, I'm surprised you think you wouldn't identify with it. I don't interpret it as an "awakening" novel at all. I find it's a very simple story about a teenager who wants to "be". Yet, the world around him has so many disparate agendas, both good and nefarious. It's about the struggle to be free, but perhaps not being ready for it. It's brilliance in my opinion is it's simplicity and the style of first person narrative Salinger uses in such a unique way.
