I finally got around to reading The Catcher in the Rye recently, and I must say it was quite enjoyable. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly qualifies it as this flaming "classic" that usually makes people foam at the mouth when they talk about it. Perhaps all the build-up it's gotten has ruined its excellence for me? Perhaps I can't fully appreciate it because I never read it as a teenager? Or perhaps it's not quite as great as everyone claims? Help me out with this. I will even make a list of its pros and cons, from my point of view, to get you started.Pros:
* Salinger is a very witty writer and I laughed out loud in several spots.
* The story flowed very naturally and held my interest easily.
* The character of Holden Caulfield is incredibly well-developed. He really does jump off the page.
* Salinger is excellent at writing in Holden's "voice." He never does anything that seems out of character.
* I can relate to a lot of the feelings that Holden has...like how the smallest things that strangers do can make him want to puke. (After all, I do ride the subway every day.)
Cons:
* I'm not really sure what the point was! And is it wrong that I would laugh at this character who is obviously going through some kind of mental breakdown?
* How many times can one kid use the words "goddamn" and "crumby?" I mean, come on. I understand about staying in Holden's voice, but it started to drive me a bit crazy.
* The reveal as to what the title referred was kind of a let-down.
Pull up a chair. Have a cup of tea.* Discuss. But let me repeat for all the Caulfield disciples...I liked the book very much. I'm just not sure I would call it one of the greatest pieces of American literature, as it so often is.
*You know how I feel about coffee. Don't you?
Comments
As for me, I read it 1) as a teen boy, and 2) with very little build-up as to its "greatness." I liked it a lot and saw myself in Holden from page one. And I haven't picked it up since.
2) There really is no point or climax, it's just a slice of life.
3) I'm glad you didn't call it "Boy Interrupted."
I'm kidding.
I haven't read this since like 1992. But I flip through it occassionally.
Holden leaps off the page like you said. Although I haven't read it in years, I'd say, from what I remember, it still stands up as a proto-typical "rite of passage," or "coming-of-age story."
Maybe it's just one of those things you have to read in your teens. I don't know.
Glad you read it. Now get on with reading Vonnegut!
Have a great weekend!
~xo
Lee Ann
It certainly is a book that appeals more to an angsty teenager than to a coiffed and polished woman of the world like yourself.
Seriously - I finally got around to reading this in my 20s. Same impression as you - great story, but not the epic I expected it to be.
Back in my day, we just read the book. I would say it's the Gen X book before there was Gen X.
~Jef
I used to teach high school English, and even the remedial kids loved this book more than the superior Great Gatsby, mostly because it cursed and hated stuff and didn't sound stuffy.
Salinger is about 2/3rds the writer people give him credit for being. Franny and Zooey and Nine Stories are impenetrable in parts, bad at times, but occasionally brilliant and always interesting is better than 93% of other authors. Plus, he's crazy, and people respect that.
I think it just has more appeal if you are closer to that age. it's not a book I would read again.
I just posted about Nikki Sixx's book. I wish I could not relate to how f'ing depressed he was.
The book was one of the first novels to talk about teen angst, so it was revolutionary for its time. If memory serves, it takes place around 1950 -- the post-war headed-for-Eisenhower years.
Why is it still relevant? Because teens today can still relate. My sixteen-year-old nephew read it over the summer. He got it and loved it, got/loved like he did Fight Club.
In summation: A novel written nearly sixty years ago, one that first broached teen angst, is still relevant today. We can relate to it more than we can the life of the March family.
i read it again recently, and.. yeah. i mean i got through it this time, i mostly enjoyed it, but definitely feel the way you do about it.
I sat down to try to write a comment and then read Beth's and she more or less said exactly what I was going to say.
I do think you have the same take on the strengths and weaknesses of Catcher in the Rye that I saw in it. I was never one of those wowed by the thing. To me, it was just a very strong narrative voice.
Like Beth, I believe the book largely anticipated the post world war 2 rise of "youth culture" and thus struck a chord for the angry, alienated, etc. in a time that was big on conformity.
Well done..
..as long as they're real!
¦:¬|
1) who is holden talking to? (hint-it is not you)
2) where is he while he is going on and on about the recent events in his life?
Keane (the professor) :)
Or some shit like that.
You keep dissing my book and I'm going to have about two hemorrhages apiece, though.
Catcher In The Rye is one of those books best appreciated by people in the throes of coming of age. That way, they can gaggle conspiratorily about all the subversive stuff they've had their tiny skulls exposed to.
Once you've reached a certain age, it isn't really that big a deal.
Sheesh, Pittsburgh women...
Now, can someone do a post about how the whole teenage phenomenon came to be, and how it's a recent and manufactured 'age'.