• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

J.D. Salinger: The Catcher In The Rye

Maybe the author’s intention was to reflect upon the matter of double standard. :confused:
I know it sounds a little stupid, but that's what I thought of, after reading novella's post (the long one).

novella said:
But Holden is the one who lies to please or impress other people. Isn't that fitting his definition?
Click to expand...

But don't we all, in one way or another do the same? Does that make us all phonies?

I'm not sure what Holden means by the word "phony", but while reading the book, I thought he meant people who didn't act like themselves.. hmmm.. I think I'll have to do more thinking about that one. Maybe he had this view of how people should behave, and if they acted in some other way, they were phonies?
 
Maya said:
Maybe the author’s intention was to reflect upon the matter of double standard. :confused:
I know it sounds a little stupid, but that's what I thought of, after reading novella's post (the long one).



But don't we all, in one way or another do the same? Does that make us all phonies?

I'm not sure what Holden means by the word "phony", but while reading the book, I thought he meant people who didn't act like themselves.. hmmm.. I think I'll have to do more thinking about that one. Maybe he had this view of how people should behave, and if they acted in some other way, they were phonies?
Click to expand...

Maya, I like this post. It's very reflective, just exploring this idea.

I'm not sure the author had this intention or not. Interesting question.

I think Salinger had a lot of anxieties and hang ups about social status, particularly of the Ivy League variety, so it's really a point of interest to me that he chooses to write about this social set.
 
Novella, your posts are very interesting.

My definition (and Holden's aswell, I think) of a phony, is someone who isn't honest with themself. You can be dishonest to other people, as long as you're aware of yourself and are being honest with yourself, without being a phony.

He wants to be a catcher in the rye because he loves innocence. The children falling off the cliff can be a metaphor for them falling into a life of bullshit and phoniness [I don't know about that spelling] and he wants to save as many people (especially children, before they grow old) from that as possible. But, I agree, he is very Establishment - although that didn't occur to me before I'd read Novella's post - and that's one of the phoniest things going. So, overall he isn't a very likeable character after all. But, he still remains one of my favourite characters. What a phony I am.
 
Now this might seem to veer off topic a bit, but I was over on the Gatsby thread before and thinking about these issues of class and authenticity and the reliable narrator, and it occurs to me that Catcher and Gatsby have some wild things in common.

Here's this first person Establishment narrator who moves through society rendering moral and social judgments on everyone. Does Carraway have Holden's cynicism? Probably not, but maybe a bit. He's certainly more tolerant of phonies, though he knows them when he sees them, and they come in all sizes.

And there's all the dancing and drinking and swanning around, mostly of little consequence--two worlds without real obligations, in which a person's actions are expected to have a certain purity as a result.

And this view of women as charmed creatures, at best, and completely voracious asspains at worst.

I don't know. It just was running through my mind like that . . .
 
The narrators of GG and CITR are both snobs, but think they aren't. So I can definitely see a comparison.
 
Ashlea said:
The narrators of GG and CITR are both snobs, but think they aren't. So I can definitely see a comparison.
Click to expand...

Also, just on a more general note, both books are very slim natural-language novels--almost novellas--that are particularly American.

But, of course, Nick Carraway is not troubled, which makes all the difference. His narrative voice purports to be more objective.

But, still, all the machinations of class in a "classless" society are preoccupations of both.
 
Greetings and salutations, all.

I read Catcher about a year ago, but it's still fresh in my brain. It also happens to be a personal favorite of mine.

Anywho, did anybody see how Holden renounced his title of "Catcher in the Rye" at the end?

I took his job as preventing children from jumping over the cliff as representing not letting them mature, and become the phonies that he so loathes. By preventing them from jumping over the cliff, he doesn't let them make their own mistakes, either.

Now, when Phoebe is on the carousel, Holden almost tells her to not try to grab for the ring, but thinks better of it. If you think about it, this is Holden letting Phoebe go over the cliff.

Anybody (dis)agree?
 
love this book and was glad i spotted the thread as it inspired me to re-read.

i noticed this time around it was published as a serialisation which would certainly affect the storystyle. not necessarily positively once reading it as a whole.
tho having said that it runs just fine for me. i think that's salinger's skillz.

holden might say hes a snob but despite that he'll talk to anyone. nuns, cabbies, hookers, mums. which says to me he doesn't really mean it.
he is one of my fave literary characs which isn't something i usually consider.


can some1 shed any light as to whether his ex teacher looking at him in the night IS freaky or if old holden misreads the site?
and did salinger write anyhting else? and if so was it any good?
 
:eek: I never liked him. I'd heard about the book and finally read it last year. I thought he was self-obsessed (but who isn't?) but I didn't think he really knew what he was doing or why. He went around dismissing everyone he met except his sister, but I couldn't see what gave him that right. He didn't know what he wanted people to be, only that they weren't it. But.... getting knotted up in stuff here.... BIG BREATH......

He didn't achieve anything, but not because he'd made a decision to rebel, just because he didn't seem to be able to get himself into gear. So what then gives him the right to criticise others for their decisions? At least they made them, at least they live their lives according to what they've been given. He wasted every opportunity and looked down on those who hadn't had them. Who's to say that other people's lives aren't good enough?

I found him deeply frustrating and depressing. He didn't show me anything, didn't make me see from his point of view... to me, the book was a nothing experience. I think I need to read it again because I'm sure there must be something in it that's made it a classic, but I'm reluctant.
 
I read this book just recently for the first time. I kept thinking Holden was going to die or kill himself. He had wild swings in emotions. I felt kind of … I don’t know… unhappy through the experience. I really like the character development and the prospective of Holden, but I think I’m more of a ‘happy’ book guy =).
 
It's been a long time since I've read this book but I do remember really enjoying it.

"Our foyer has a funny smell that doesn't smell like anyplace else. It isn't cauliflower and it isn't perfume-I don't know what the hell it is-but you always know you're home. "
-paraphrased.


I really love that quote. :p
 
The rye is childhood and holden is the catcher. He is trying to stop the children from falling off the cliff and into adulthood.

Holden sees adulthood as inherently evil. In some ways he is jealous of his brother for being able to escape from this...

Catcher is a brilliant book. I feel so many emotions toward it but the prevailing feeling is one of sadness pity toward a child feeling so confused and alone in this world.
 
Yaw Ince said:
The rye is childhood and holden is the catcher. He is trying to stop the children from falling off the cliff and into adulthood.

Holden sees adulthood as inherently evil. In some ways he is jealous of his brother for being able to escape from this...

Catcher is a brilliant book. I feel so many emotions toward it but the prevailing feeling is one of sadness pity toward a child feeling so confused and alone in this world.
Click to expand...

Amazing insight. One to which I can relate to. I am 17 and I do not want to grow up. *pouts*

I have to re-read this book since its something I would be able to identify with even better at this point in my life, than any other.
 
I hope nobody minds me dragging this thread up but oh well.

First off, I have to say I started reading this at 6 in the morning, last night actually, for some light relief straight after finishing Blindness, without any sleepy time beforehand. So no doubt most of the insights and symbolysm flew right over me. But I did love this book, a testament being that I read it in one sitting at such a ridiculous time. I got the initial impression that Holden is a bit of an arrogant arse. A tad more pretentious than a high school dropout deserves to be. But I liked him because he was arrogant towards the same people that I despise as well. (Hollywood ass kissers, jocks etc). A justified pompous pr*ck if you will. It really made me relate to him. That and nailing English without even trying and sucking big time at everything else. The book didn't go where I thought it would, (actually on reflection not a lot happened). But I finished it with the distinct impression that I had gained something from reading it. Which equals a good book for me any day of the week. I will have to read it again though when Im fully awake to fully appreciate it.
 
I read Catcher in the rye over the weekend. I could finish it in one sitting. Easy reading, good print, smooth flow. But, I wasnt really impressed with the book.
First of all, the language really irritated me. Listening to a teenager talk for a few minutes is bearable, but when the same language repeats for 150+ pages, I think it really tests your patience. This book really tested my patience and once or twice I had to stop myself from putting the book down.
It looked like an excerpt from the diary of a frustrated, depressed angry teenager. I really couldnt relate to the character or the story. Neither did I sympathise with the character, nor did I hate him. I was totally indifferent to him and the whole story. I never felt emotional, never! Neither did I laugh at the humor (was it there?) nor did I cry when Holden was with his sister. I mean, I didnt like the book. Period.
Am I missing something here? I dont know! But, the fact is I didnt enjoy the book even a bit. I wonder how it became so popular! People differ in tastes, dont they? :)
 
You know, sanj, I posted quite a bit on this thread, but I don't think Catcher is a great book.

What fascinates me is why it is perennially discussed as a certain kind of book (about rebellion), when to me it is clearly about something else.

Sometimes it's fun to talk about things that get a lot of attention, just because they get a lot of attention. Dissecting the social phenom.

What do you think is the difference between someone who loves this book and thinks Holden is a hero and you?
 
Well, novella, your question makes me think!!
The basic thing that could be different between him(who likes the book and worships Holden) and myself is that probably he is a teenager and hence can relate more easily to Holden's situation and frustration.
Another thing could be, the person really doesnt care whether he liked the book or not. But, he just says that he likes it because a million other people are saying so. This I have found is the case many a times -- especially when it comes to movie and music!! I know many people who like some song (Indian, Hindi movie song) just because its a chart buster. And it _always_ happens that I dont like that particular song, but like some other song from the same movie which didnt even make it to the list!
The third thing could be that I dont have something in me that makes me not like the book and he has all the things needed to understand and appreciate the book. It could be my nature, my age, the sorroundigns which I am in, the way I was brought up, my culture, my language -- anything!!!
These are the things I could think of. Let me know what your point in asking that question was!
 
sanyuja said:
Let me know what your point in asking that question was!
Click to expand...




My point is really just to get your opinion, as you seem to be a thinking sort of person. Some people don't like to look beneath the surface of their experience at the deeper connections.

This sort of relates to the thread "which character in a book do you see yourself in." I'm really surprised no one has mentioned Holden Caulfield there, because people who like Catcher often say they can see themselves in him.

There are (at least) two ways of reading Catcher. One is to be "inside" Holden and feel so psychologically empathetic that the entire narrative is read from his point of view, without seeing the larger picture of what Salinger is talking about. The other way is to look at the world Salinger is building and what his larger commentary might be about.

I think if you assume that you will be reading from "inside" Holden's viewpoint, you will judge the book by how much you empathize with the character.

To me, Holden is a character with very little self knowledge and almost no understanding of other people. But that doesn't detract from the narrative for me, because I enjoy Salinger's larger commentary about that social stratum and time in America.

Is this too obtuse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top