Poll: Do You Like "Catcher in the Rye"?

[mikespoff]

No, you're not alone.

"Whiny kid whines for 100 pages" didn't really do it for me.

And for those who say "You obviously read it wrong, and just aren't smart enough to understand it": No, really, I understood it. But I didn't like it.

My fiancee doesn't like For Whom the Bell Tolls; I think it's great. That doesn't mean she doesn't understand it, she just didn't enjoy it.

 

[Pinstar]

Worst book ever.

I had the misfortune of being a mainstream student that got stuck in one of those hybrid classes with the non-mainstream kids to try and integrate them into the normal school system.

As a result the class took twice as long to cover any material. I had to suffer an entire marking period analyzing this entire flipping book.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

You're reading it wrong. He only says he hates those things because it's an adolescent defense mechanism so he can detach himself from the world in an effort to avoid the emotional pain he suffered after his little brother died. You have to take everything Holden says with a grain of salt.

OT: Obviously I enjoyed the book.

I get that, I explained that earlier that I understood his ways, but he is too unbelievably annoying to like. He didn't come from an abusive background or anything, his brother died, that's about it. So shut the fuck up Holden and stop complaining about what everyone else has accepted, and is apparently happy with.

You obviously don't understand. Apparently you've also never met a depressed person either. At such a young age he couldn't possibly have the mental strength to deal with something like that, especially since his parents weren't there for him as much as he wanted. Don't get snippy because you're not understanding or sentimental enough to empathize with the character.

 

[mikespoff]

My problem is this: Nothing happens in the book. At all. I wasn't expecting an epiphany or anything, that wouldn't have been in keeping with the tone. It fits with the book and its message that nothing changes in the end. It's just that it's really fucking boring to read as a result.
...

...
People need to think of Catcher in the Rye as more of a "sandbox" type of book than a linear game.

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea in principle, but a novel is a narrative medium rather than an exploratory one. I'm not convinced that the comparison is useful.

 

[Moosh50]

Meh. It's a good read IMO, but after reading it once I kinda let it get buried in the depths of my bookcase.

 

[Cmichaels]

Not really, a book were the main character whines and complains the whole time didnt catch me in to much. Plus everyone who reads it is bound to become an assassin.

MUST KILL JOHN LENNON.

 

[KingGolem]

Hated it. You see, I understand that it is a fantastically well written story of growing up and such. I should, since we spent weeks discussing its meaning. The problem is that it was boring at best and reprehensible most of the time. It was a pain to read. It was this book, and many other so-called greats, the works of Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, etc. that brought me to my current opinion of what a "great work of literature" is. I realize that the works of Salinger, the afforementioned writers, and others can masterfully convey a message through subtle literary devices, symbolism king among them, and end up with a beautifully written piece of crap. They're not fun or interesting to read at all. I feel that a well-written book should be both deep and meaningful as well as entertaining and compelling. If you only do one or the other, your book is irreparably flawed. That is why I feel that the speculative fiction genre is the best thing to ever hapen to literature in its entire history. They have had the most success at being both meaningful and interesting.

 

[Elementlmage]

No, you hate the character.

See, I never understood this. Like Yahtzee said, "deliberately annoying is still annoying." I really wanted to like Lord of the Flies, but the kids were so annoying that I couldn't stand it. It seriously got under my skin when the kids decided to screw around rather than maintaining the fire or something. I know that was the entire point, but I don't enjoy being upset by the books I read. I read for fun. It's like purposely designing a video game that doesn't work. Sure, you meant to do it but that doesn't make it fun for anyone. I can understand having unlikable main characters, as seen in Dirty Harry, but at least he was fun to watch. He was such a bad guy that he kind of became likable. I also can't stand protagonists that are unbelievably stupid (as seen in Romeo and Juliet) or main characters that are just plain boring (as seen in To Kill a Mockingbird). I can understand having deliberately unlikable characters, but making them unlikable and uninteresting makes for a book that's torture to read. I've never read Catcher in the Rye, though, so perhaps it's different in this situation, but I can see where the OP is coming from.

People read books to be entertained, not to have fun. Entertainment involves a whole range of thoughts and emotions, not just joy and fun. In fact, I think Bioshock would be a perfect counter argument. The society and events set up in Bioshock "don't work" but they set up a compelling story and wonderful gameplay. Lord of the Flies is the same way; they are young boys, and immature. They are selfish and stupid; they don't understand that by working together they are all better off and will survive. If the book were about a bunch of boys surviving on an island, getting along, and generally being good, it would be a bunch of boring drivel designed to lull 5 year olds to sleep at night. It is because they behave in a way that we would expect a bunch of spoiled kids to, that the story is so deep and compelling. We can look into the depths of their madness and stupidity and see the corollary to that in our own society. And the same holds true for Bioshock, To Kill a Mocking Bird, and Catcher in the Rye as well.

 

[Elementlmage]

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea in principle, but a novel is a narrative medium rather than an exploratory one.

Oh, but aren't they? You can't honestly tell me you didn't do some "exploring" when you read Heart of Darkness or Crime and Punishment for the first time, or the first time you picked up some Tolstoy?

 

[Matt-the-twat]

Too scared to read this thread for spoiler reasons as I'm actually about 1/4 of the way through the book as we speak

 

[Mushroom 118i]

Holden is a complete and utter dick.

The book is a masterpiece for almost that very reason

 

[ninja555]

Catcher in the Rye falls into the same bear trap as the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. Important themes but ultimately a failure because the characters in the story are completely unlikable or interesting in any way.

 

[Mr. Grey]

I read the book, hated it.

Don't get me wrong, it's not badly written. It's just not for me. Sorry, I just don't enjoy the idea of following a whiny know-nothing brat all around the city to his home as he bumbles along and in doing so makes Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes. Not to mention it's horribly depressing which I do not need to read.

This may be someone's cup of tea, but it certainly isn't mine.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

the book, i have read, stupid ass high school always forced us to read those fucking books, i fucking couldn't stand it.

i get all the themes, backdrop notions, ideas, and yes i will admit the words did flow nicely and i knew exactly what was happening the whole time, but the book is fucking boring regardless and holden is a dickhead so reading about it was such a fucking waste of time, i HATE being required to read those shit books, if someone likes it, good for them, more power to you, but i fucking hate being forced to read those books, its like being forced to play a 60 hour game from front to finish and pay attention to it the whole time, fuck. that.

 

[GrimTuesday]

I hated it... I fucking hated it. If I wanted to listen to a spoiled, whiny little rich kid complain about how much he hates society I would go read Siddhartha, at least he only does that for the first half.

 

[mikespoff]

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea in principle, but a novel is a narrative medium rather than an exploratory one.

Oh, but aren't they? You can't honestly tell me you didn't do some "exploring" when you read Heart of Darkness or Crime and Punishment for the first time, or the first time you picked up some Tolstoy?

The exploration is internal and based on the narrative. My point is that thematic elements in a book cannot just be presented as a buffet (as they can in a game). You don't skip arbitrarily through the pages or even chapters of a book; you expect each page to build on what has come before.

A "sandbox book", to me, sounds like a bunch of loosely-related chapters with no set order. That's not a novel. The thematic elements in a novel are woven into the narrative, and any grand statements that the book makes (which may provoke self-exploration by the reader) are framed within the context of the narrative. The author relies on the context of the narrative to give punch and accessibility to the grand statements.

Without a narrative, it's an opinion piece.

 

[aakibar]

what i have noticed was that the majority of the people in the world either hate or love this book there is no real middle ground

 

[Dukenstein]

I loved it for one reason. I hated Holden, I hated everything about him..yet I was able to see parts of me in him. He is just a really realistic character. Also, I really don't like all this book bashing, suck it up and read. Education is bliss.