Poll: Do You Like "Catcher in the Rye"?
- Thread starter xXAsherahXx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think people who dislike The Catcher in the Rye because they despise Holden Caulfield are missing the point. He isn't a likeable character on many levels, but he is a believable one.
So many stories have Mary Sues and two-dimensional characters who always do what they believe is right and who always follow their unwavering intuitions. These are great from a plot standpoint, but not from a character standpoint. They don't really speak to the human condition, either.
Holden is three-dimensional, which doesn't make for neat or comfortable reading. He is a hypocrite, and he hates things without really knowing much about them, just like the rest of us at times.
If you read the book, though, and say "I am nothing like Holden," you are probably in need of some personal reflection.
So many stories have Mary Sues and two-dimensional characters who always do what they believe is right and who always follow their unwavering intuitions. These are great from a plot standpoint, but not from a character standpoint. They don't really speak to the human condition, either.
Holden is three-dimensional, which doesn't make for neat or comfortable reading. He is a hypocrite, and he hates things without really knowing much about them, just like the rest of us at times.
If you read the book, though, and say "I am nothing like Holden," you are probably in need of some personal reflection.
I read the damn thing and still dont get whats so great about it... of course I hate whiny people, so maybe thats it...
I found it, from a completely unbiased standpoint, to be a completely self-absorbed pretentious mess with delusions of grandeur. Everything the book conveys had been conveyed before and better, namely in Kerouac's On The Road. Yahtzee said about Halo 3 that '[Halo 3] is by no means bad. What it is is average; boiler plate; run-of-the-mill - competent, its only unique feature being the degree to which its stuck up its own arse.' That statement entirely reflects my attitude towards this piece of so-called seminal literature. Sorry if I have offended anyone who genuinely liked this book, I really didn't like it at all.
I liked the style and the way you can get to know the character, but it fucks me off because his character never freakin develops. He's a spoilt asshole at the start and he's a spoilt asshole in the end. I thought he was going to meet up with Jane eventually or we'd find out whether the guy who hit him at the start ending up rooting her, or that something would actually HAPPEN. It just didn't really seem to go anywhere and the ending just kinda popped up... I dunno I like the way it was written, but the plot is boring.
I get the whole comment on the teenage mindset thing, I like to think I get the social commentary, and I get that the audience relates to Holden whilst also despising him, and eventually realises that all the traits you hate about him are traits you hate about yourself.
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. It's good, theoretically speaking; well written, with 'real' characters and a message and all that jazz. It's just not so good, practically speaking; it's dull.
Thankfully I never actually had to study the book (Although this does mean that I read it voluntarily). No, I got the far more interesting/generally better (IMO) 'Of Mice and Men'.
And I envy the group who got 'Lord of the Flies', because that book is amazing!
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. It's good, theoretically speaking; well written, with 'real' characters and a message and all that jazz. It's just not so good, practically speaking; it's dull.
Thankfully I never actually had to study the book (Although this does mean that I read it voluntarily). No, I got the far more interesting/generally better (IMO) 'Of Mice and Men'.
And I envy the group who got 'Lord of the Flies', because that book is amazing!
its an alright book. I dont htink alot of people like it cause they're forced to. and if you're forced to do something, even if you love it, you dont like it as much.
But its no where near the evil people made it out to be, nor is it a great novel of amazingness they try to sell it as.
But its no where near the evil people made it out to be, nor is it a great novel of amazingness they try to sell it as.
I think that's a common criticism, but it largely stems from how formulaic Western stories tend to be with regards to endings. It's such a common trope to have a climactic ending that subverting it can be very dicey, similar with downer endings or ambiguous/unresolved endings. People need to think of Catcher in the Rye as more of a "sandbox" type of book than a linear game.J03bot said:
I love it, but I wasn't forced to read it for school so that may have helped.
I do, however, hate Stone Angel, The Great Gatsby, Othello, Heart of Darkness and The Crystallids.
I do, however, hate Stone Angel, The Great Gatsby, Othello, Heart of Darkness and The Crystallids.
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.ImprovizoR said:
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.
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.JUMBO PALACE said:
The reason Holden never does anything spectacular is because he is fundamentally afraid to do so. His younger brother's death traumatized him, and the lack of emotional support he craved from his parents drove him into a self centered depression. The book is about a young man struggling to remain detached from the world in an effort to avoid any more emotional pain, and his slow mental breakdown until he finally becomes hospitalized for his depression. There's even hope at the end, where Holden reflects and says he actually misses the people he has met.Timmaaaah said:
Wait, didn't he get the crap beat out of him when he refused to pay the hooker and her pimp stole the money from him. But, that would mean something exciting, hilarious, and poetically just occurred and by your and many others peoples descriptions and attitudes towards this book, that would be impossible!Bigderf said: