Author Topic: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated  (Read 9379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline James

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2010, 07:10:26 AM »
Read about half of it, put it down, don't think i'll ever pick it up again especially after reading this thread.
Faith is not a useful tool for discerning truth- Matt Dilahunty

"Christianity-That's messed up!" - Denise

Offline Felt Martin

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2010, 01:27:09 PM »
I loved it.
It's difficult to judge but I think I would get even more out of it now despite being much older than Holden these days.

I don't know if this is true or not but it appears that more and more often now, people can't or don't separate a character from the work.

Holden can be extremely annoying and dislikable but the book can still be brilliant.

Offline Joe B

  • Quasi-Jock
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4255
  • Now with Preposterone
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2010, 01:36:58 PM »
It was the only reading for my winter session class that I didn't finish. Got about halfway through and went to sleep at a half-decent hour instead of finishing it.

Didn't sell it back, so I'll probably give it another go someday.
You underestimate the amount of people who are literally Hitler.
-Colts Homer

Offline ApplePieFromScratch

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2010, 05:42:01 AM »
Why do the ducks fly south in the winter?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - CS
"Takes a lot of time to push away the nonsense" David Byrne, Talking Heads

Offline Iconoclast

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2756
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2010, 10:01:23 PM »
Does anyone else dislike this book as much as I do?
Here is my review of the book
"It reads like a  boring diary of a whinny teenager"
not very articulate, but oh well  ::)

So what are your opinions about this piece of shit book?
Seconded
"Everyone should try to end the day a little smarter than they began it" - Warren Buffet
www.thelongrunblog.com - Critical Thinking on Money, Finance and Economics
2012
"it is a mind over bladder thing" - Stonequarry

Offline Hittman

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2010, 10:27:25 PM »
I recall liking it when I was fourteen.  It was refreshing to see I wasn't the only screwed up teenager in the world.

No idea if I’d like it now, and no desire to find out. 

Offline random poet

  • That's bullshit!
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2119
  • On n'a jamais le temps, le temps nous a.
    • I have a LJ
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2010, 01:34:53 AM »
first of all, if you are badmouthing catcher, you are officially a punk. but it's ok; we can work on this. i'm going to try and get you to "get" this book.

catcher in the rye is overrated because it was hyped up to all kinds of extents. like how some people think the FBI and/or the CIA are tracking everyone who buys this book. that sort of stuff. in terms of quality, it is a very strong work and worth the appellation of "classic," clearly. but it's not actually salinger's best work. it just so happens that it is his most well-known, but really, franny & zooey is better (even "nine stories" would be better if it wasn't for that awful last short story of the bunch, "teddy"). in fact, in actual fact, franny & zooey is the definitive achievement of mankind. but we're not talking about f&z.

ok, back to catcher: sure, when people first read this book, when they are teenagers, they can identify with holden and how it sucks being a teenager. i'm not saying that's not what the book is about. but i think holden's story is also a way of illustrating some deeper point.

some people will tell you the book is about ducks. don't listen to them. the ducks are a symbol. (but not a metaphore.)

right, deeper point. yes. see, alienation and incomprehension in the face of the world are not only staples of angsty teenagers. the world is something alien to us. one is a mind inside a body (and yes, they are the same, i'm not saying i'm into dualism, but that's the way it feels to people), and everything else is ... you know, "not-self." one needs a way to interpret the world, to make sense of it, to see it through other people's eyes as a way of acknowledging that they are also, just like oneself, a mind, with its own consciousness and its own sort of method of apprehending reality. building such a model in one's own mind is a struggle, and i think holden is grasping at that process, but he's so forlorn and rejected at all turns that he is lacking the basic interactions a person has to go through to build an adult personality.

i guess maybe that is my very convoluted way of saying this is a coming-of-age story, except it's not! there is no coming of age in the story. it only alludes to it. these are just a series of disconnected events that feel real to the reader but also hollow, which makes one hope holden will catch a break. it's about empathy, but as exemplified in this one poor kid which nobody would ever imaging everything that's going on in his head.

i feel like i'm not being particularly eloquent, or even intelligible. this guy will do a far better job than i:
Catcher in the Rye, Part 1
The Catcher in the Rye, Part 2

do you see? do you see why this book is awesome? why it's taught in highschool alongside farenheit 451 and stuff? it's important.

but franny & zooey is far better. obviously.
Aujourd'hui j'ai vu un facteur joyeux.

Offline Bunsen

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8198
  • Big Pharma wants you to think cooked milk is safe!
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2010, 01:26:06 PM »
If I want to read a hack coming-of-age story, I'll read one that's at least well-written.  Maybe Nersesian's The Fuck-Up.

Offline David "Stubb" Oswald

  • Ass. Professor of Agronomy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4243
  • Lived, perspicacious, philosophic wisdom.
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2010, 12:04:05 AM »

I have also found that most "classic" literature suffers from this same problem (e.g. Moby Dick.)

God yes.


Moby Dick was pure brilliance you philistines.  Why do you think my middle name on here is Stubb?
If you read a book and it changes your life, you are fucked. -Seth Romatelli

Offline MountainManPan

  • Banned
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2010, 12:05:38 AM »

I have also found that most "classic" literature suffers from this same problem (e.g. Moby Dick.)

REmember the cook on the boat?

God yes.


Moby Dick was pure brilliance you philistines.  Why do you think my middle name on here is Stubb?


Remember the cook on the boat? Man, that was soo racist.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 12:15:11 AM by MountainManPan »

Offline Bunsen

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8198
  • Big Pharma wants you to think cooked milk is safe!
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2010, 12:07:17 AM »

I have also found that most "classic" literature suffers from this same problem (e.g. Moby Dick.)

God yes.


Moby Dick was pure brilliance you philistines.  Why do you think my middle name on here is Stubb?

Moby Dick was a 675 page extended metaphor that would have dragged on too long if it had been a sonnet instead.

It's fine, but a seminal text of the English language, it ain't.

Offline David "Stubb" Oswald

  • Ass. Professor of Agronomy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4243
  • Lived, perspicacious, philosophic wisdom.
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2010, 12:14:16 AM »
The problem with Moby dick, and I do admit there is one, is the middle of the book.  The first part introducing the characters and the hunt for Moby Dick was entertaining and well written.  Then there are several hundred pages of nothing happening, interseeded with irrevevant historical information on whaling that completely destroys the tempo of the book. 

The only part I liked about the middle was Melville's discussion on whether a whale is a fish or a mammal, which apparently was a topic of controversy at the time.  Melville beautifully lays out all the evidence supporting a whale being a mammal, mostly on the basis of comparative anatomy; and then concluded its a fish because it lives in water.

Then after struggling though the middle you come to the end, and the pace quickens, Ahab goes insane, only a few see it, and nature prevails over the insanity of man.  Ignoring the middle of the book, a paragon of English writing it is.
If you read a book and it changes your life, you are fucked. -Seth Romatelli

Offline MountainManPan

  • Banned
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2010, 12:16:23 AM »
I have a strong affinity for the novel as well, mainly due merely to the fact that it takes place in and itself was written in Massachusetts.

Offline Bunsen

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8198
  • Big Pharma wants you to think cooked milk is safe!
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2010, 12:19:57 AM »
The problem with Moby dick, and I do admit there is one, is the middle of the book.  The first part introducing the characters and the hunt for Moby Dick was entertaining and well written.  Then there are several hundred pages of nothing happening, interseeded with irrevevant historical information on whaling that completely destroys the tempo of the book. 

The only part I liked about the middle was Melville's discussion on whether a whale is a fish or a mammal, which apparently was a topic of controversy at the time.  Melville beautifully lays out all the evidence supporting a whale being a mammal, mostly on the basis of comparative anatomy; and then concluded its a fish because it lives in water.

Then after struggling though the middle you come to the end, and the pace quickens, Ahab goes insane, only a few see it, and nature prevails over the insanity of man.  Ignoring the middle of the book, a paragon of English writing it is.

So your argument is if it weren't absolute dreck and pablum for hundreds of pages on end, without rest or redeeming qualities, it wouldn't suck?

I guess that's true of most books.  Twilight: New Moon, the Great American Novel.

I have a strong affinity for the novel as well, mainly due merely to the fact that it takes place in and itself was written in Massachusetts.

So was Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision.  What's your point?

Offline MountainManPan

  • Banned
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Catcher in the Rye = Overrated
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2010, 12:22:57 AM »
The problem with Moby dick, and I do admit there is one, is the middle of the book.  The first part introducing the characters and the hunt for Moby Dick was entertaining and well written.  Then there are several hundred pages of nothing happening, interseeded with irrevevant historical information on whaling that completely destroys the tempo of the book. 

The only part I liked about the middle was Melville's discussion on whether a whale is a fish or a mammal, which apparently was a topic of controversy at the time.  Melville beautifully lays out all the evidence supporting a whale being a mammal, mostly on the basis of comparative anatomy; and then concluded its a fish because it lives in water.

Then after struggling though the middle you come to the end, and the pace quickens, Ahab goes insane, only a few see it, and nature prevails over the insanity of man.  Ignoring the middle of the book, a paragon of English writing it is.

So your argument is if it weren't absolute dreck and pablum for hundreds of pages on end, without rest or redeeming qualities, it wouldn't suck?

I guess that's true of most books.  Twilight: New Moon, the Great American Novel.

I have a strong affinity for the novel as well, mainly due merely to the fact that it takes place in and itself was written in Massachusetts.

So was Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision.  What's your point?

Mitt Romney's book is a classic of American literature?

 

personate-rain