I recently read that book, and i can't quite figure out why it was such a hit.

To me, It seems as if the main character is just undergoing a big whinge...
It just goes on and on about one person, never seeming to explore the bigger issues of the time..


Also, isn't it interesting how 50 years ago, this book was banned, but now it's a compulsory high school study (in Australia).

In 1960, a teacher was fired, and later reinstated, for assigning the novel in class.[18] Between 1961 and 1982, The Catcher in the Rye was the most censored book in high schools and libraries in the United States.[19] In 1981, it was both the most censored book and the second most taught book in public schools in the United States.[20] According to the American Library Association, The Catcher in the Rye was the 13th most frequently challenged book from 1990–2000.[1] It was one of the 10 most challenged books in 2005, and came off the list in 2006.[21]

The challenges generally begin with vulgar language, citing the novel's use of words like "fuck"[22] and "goddamn",[23] with more general reasons including sexual references,[24] blasphemy, undermining of family values[23] and moral codes,[25] Holden's being a poor role model,[26] encouragement of rebellion,[27] and promotion of drinking, smoking, lying, and promiscuity.[25] Often, the challengers have been unfamiliar with the plot itself.[19] Shelley Keller-Gage, a high school teacher who faced objections after assigning the novel in her class, noted that the challengers "are being just like Holden ... They are trying to be catchers in the rye."[23] A reverse effect has been that this incident caused people to put themselves on the waiting list to loan the novel, when there were none before.[28]

Mark David Chapman, who assassinated John Lennon, was carrying the book when he was arrested immediately after the murder and referred to it in his statement to police shortly thereafter.[29] John Hinckley, Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was also reported to have been obsessed with the book.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Ernies

To me, It seems as if the main character is just undergoing a big whinge...

It is what that character is whinging about that is the point of the book. Is his whinging reasonable? Is he being realistic about life and other people? Is he overprotective? Does he expect too much of other people? What's all the stuff about "phoniness" about?

The book has a lot to say about the human condition. It doesn't pretend to be about current affairs.

I thought the book sucked. Its like I was supposed to like it just because it was a classic. YAWN!

I studied it in my final year of high school.

It's multi-layered, once you start looking.

I didn't want to like the book because I had to read itandI hate being forced to do things, but I thought it was a very good book. Holden had a lot of issues that he needed to deal with and he was just running away from them. I think it describes the confusion of adolesence very well. I think everyone goes thru it in one way or another.

I thought the book sucked. Its like I was supposed to like it just because it was a classic. YAWN!

What about the book sucked? Can you give examples? Just wondering why you didn't like it. :shrug:

I studied it in my final year of high school.

It's multi-layered, once you start looking.

Studying it now mate. I see the layers, but it's hard not to be put off by the tone.

I believe children should be brought up to read about true American family values as exemplified by those simple, god-fearing, bible-reading , church-attending folk, the Waltons. I'm talking of genuine all-American hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Grandpa Walton sure knew how to tell those godless evolutionist where to get off. I remember his famous retort " tell your Mister Darwin that my folks were reading the bible when he was knee high to a grasshopper. My axe was designed and made by Fred Phelps over in the next county, so don't tell me that it was evoluted."

LOL.

You're not serious...right ?>

LOL.

You're not serious...right ?>

I have never been more serious in my life. I just worry about what will happen when all the trees on Walton mountain have been chopped down. I expect the whole family will go to Washington and bring their cracker-barrel philosophy to the unenlightened. Then they will become senators and John boy will make president,

There is a precedent for this. How about the cowboy from Texas, who lives in the White House ?

I have never been more serious in my life. I just worry about what will happen when all the trees on Walton mountain have been chopped down. I expect the whole family will go to Washington and bring their cracker-barrel philosophy to the unenlightened. Then they will become senators and John boy will make president,

There is a precedent for this. How about the cowboy from Texas, who lives in the White House ?

He was born and educated on the East coast, if I remember correctly.

I just had such a hard time caring about the main character. It was like "yeah yeah, blah blah, who cares" Same with that dang Fahrenheit book. Best books I read in school were Grapes of Wrath and To Kill a Mockingbird.

He was born and educated on the East coast, if I remember correctly.

I know you can prove he was born. But educated ?

I thought the book sucked. Its like I was supposed to like it just because it was a classic. YAWN!

No, it's a classic because it's brilliant.

You didn't get it. That's cool. But don't knock what you don't understand.

If you think The Catcher in the Rye sucked try reading The Great Gatsby or In Cold Blood

No, it's a classic because it's brilliant.

You didn't get it. That's cool. But don't knock what you don't understand.

I understood it. I got it. I found it wanting. It was ok, but I didn't find anything about it that makes it a classic. Maybe for its time it was, but if re-released today, I don't think it would fare so well. If it is classic, it should be timeless.

If you think The Catcher in the Rye sucked try reading The Great Gatsby or In Cold Blood

Great Gatsby, I strongly agree. :zzz: Didn't care about any of them.

Studying it now mate. I see the layers, but it's hard not to be put off by the tone.
That is part of the point, the being put off by the tone. Who is this kid? How did he get this tone? What does it say about society that he has this tone? about us? About boys anyway and men?

What was hiding in little happy on the surface middle class 50's american life?

There is a precedent for this. How about the cowboy from Texas, who lives in the White House ?

His kind of cracker (barrel) has been using the Waltons and effectively for a long time. When their trees are gone the Waltons might camp out in front of the white house, but they ain't getting in. Which is both good and bad - I mean if you look at what we have now.

If you think The Catcher in the Rye sucked try reading The Great Gatsby or In Cold Blood

:eek:You cant be serious!! :eek::eek:

You cant be serious!!

my response to all three can be summed up as follows:

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

my response to all three can be summed up as follows:

:zzz::zzz::zzz:
What literature have you loved?

What literature have you loved?

I love Indian literature, British, Spanish and French literature (the last two in translation). :p

As an indicator, Somerset Maugham is my favorite. :)

I love Indian literature, British, Spanish and French literature (the last two in translation). :p

As an indicator, Somerset Maugham is my favorite. :)

More indicators. I have tried Maugham and not finished. Of course I do this a lot, swirling around like a buzzard. Whom else?

More indicators. I have tried Maugham and not finished. Of course I do this a lot, swirling around like a buzzard. Whom else?

From older authors, I like Dickens, Austen, Garcia de Marquez, Swift, Twain, Voltaire, Balzac. From newer ones, Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy, Jhumpa Lahiri. I like the style of Michener and Wilbur Smith, the language of Cronin and John Irving. I like story tellers. :p

Which Maugham have you tried?

my response to all three can be summed up as follows:

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

Ok, Mine was quite the opposite I must say.Fitzgerald I would call a great storyteller. I have never read Dickens or Austen, although my wife keeps telling me to do so. Of indian writers, I like V. S. Naipaul (spelled correctly?).

What about the great Russians. I am on Dostojevski now, Crime and punsihment.

Or Joseph Conrad? He is also one of the great classics.

Ok, Mine was quite the opposite I must say.Fitzgerald I would call a great storyteller. I have never read Dickens or Austen, although my wife keeps telling me to do so. Of indian writers, I like V. S. Naipaul (spelled correctly?).

What about the great Russians. I am on Dostojevski now, Crime and punsihment.

Or Joseph Conrad? He is also one of the great classics.

I found Dostoyevsky tedious, even though he tells a story. He seems determined to wallow in verbosity. Couldn't get through Anna Karenina. Loved Maxim Gorky.

Lord Jim? Its one of those I've been meaning to get to in the last three decades. :p

Love Kipling too. His short stories can be read for pleasure over and over. Also Faulkner. Haven't read much fiction for some time now. Must not forget Amitav Ghosh (Calcutta Chromosome, Glass Palace) or Vikram Chandra (Red Earth, Pouring Rain)

That is part of the point, the being put off by the tone. Who is this kid? How did he get this tone? What does it say about society that he has this tone? about us? About boys anyway and men?

What was hiding in little happy on the surface middle class 50's american life?

Hmmm. Thats what my teacher keeps telling me, but as a teenage i cannot empathize with this guy. Like WTF?..This is rebellion ?. No, It's cowardice.

Hmmm. Thats what my teacher keeps telling me, but as a teenage i cannot empathize with this guy. Like WTF?..This is rebellion ?. No, It's cowardice. he's not meant to be a role model or necessarily likable. I did like him in part. I was also revolted by him.

I found Dostoyevsky tedious, even though he tells a story. yes, his focus is not on narrative, it is on character and change in character. But let me try to seduce you into liking him, because I think part of what Dostoyevsky is doing is something you would respect SAM. He creates characters with differing skills, temperments and philosophies and then lets them crash into each other. More than perhaps any other author he does not end up affirming one point of view. He allows several to be 'right' or make sense and in their struggles and mutual suffering and conversation, small changes come about.

I love Dostoyevsky.

I also like good story tellers. I find it odd, in a way, you included Austen. I mean there are stories, but they are very middle to upper class english nothing really happens type stuff. I also loved Garcia Maquez. Even more Fuentes and the short stories of Cortazar. Wild.

One Japanese writer Murukami: The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A lot of story. Really different. Odd. Toss in a little surrealism.

I haven't catcher for years, as i remember it's not the easiest thing to read and a finished feeling that Holden Coldfield wasn't a very nice person.

yes, his focus is not on narrative, it is on character and change in character. But let me try to seduce you into liking him, because I think part of what Dostoyevsky is doing is something you would respect SAM. He creates characters with differing skills, temperments and philosophies and then lets them crash into each other. More than perhaps any other author he does not end up affirming one point of view. He allows several to be 'right' or make sense and in their struggles and mutual suffering and conversation, small changes come about.

I love Dostoyevsky.

I gave up on him after reading Crime and Punishment in school; but you make me feel like I was too hasty. :p

I'll have another look; he's a little dark for my tastes, from what I remember.


I also like good story tellers. I find it odd, in a way, you included Austen. I mean there are stories, but they are very middle to upper class english nothing really happens type stuff.

Austen is a personal relationship. I read her very early and identified with her predicament in several ways, being the kind of person who is surrounded by well meaning but intrusive people who cannot fathom or who I cannot seem to penetrate through the thick fog of conventionality that surrounds their behaviour and thought. I understand her need to dissect them and laugh at them because otherwise the pall of everyday existence is brain numbingly dull. She lives in a world that is restricted to her by the expectations of others and makes gentle and not so gentle merry of them.

I also loved Garcia Maquez. Even more Fuentes and the short stories of Cortazar. Wild.

Haven't read Cortazar.

One Japanese writer Murukami: The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A lot of story. Really different. Odd. Toss in a little surrealism.

Yes, I heard that is his best work, I'll look it up the next time I dive into a used book store. I browsed through the Elephant Vanishes but don't recall if I read it.

I haven't catcher for years, as i remember it's not the easiest thing to read and a finished feeling that Holden Coldfield wasn't a very nice person.

I had great poblems with it. Maybe because I read it at the age of 31 not 17.......

I liked the language, but the main character started to annoy me. My wife found the book awful

see, is it really a classic? Or was it just so offensive and controversial for its time that people assumed it was great groundbreaking literature?

One of the funniest pieces of graffiti I ever saw was "Fuck you Holden Caulfield". Laughed my ass off!

Good book though, yeah...

Finally. we're done with the damn book. yeah, I'm gonna go graffiti "Fuck you Holden" somewhere.