Thread: Dream Views Book Club - March - The Catcher In The Rye

Well I've read it. I didn't reread it like I was planning to, but that doesn't stop me from being able to make my comments now. RIGHT?

I didn't really like the book that much. Perhaps Alex D is right in that it had more of an impact and effect when teenagers weren't all "little Holdens" - but it read to me like a story of angst, angst and then some more angst. It was not so much a teenager's struggle, but more his insistence at projecting this 'phoniness' onto every person he met. It was, for me, just repetitive.

And perhaps a little depressing. Some parts were (unfortunately?) rather lucid, like at the start of the novel when he goes to see the old teacher. It got off to a depressing start, it was predictable, Salinger what a piece of crap.

Maybe there's something good about it. But for me I wasn't able to see past the 'theme', or should I say obsession of Holden's with 'phoniness'. The ending was alright, and at least he didn't exactly feel good about himself for being the way he is. I really didn't enjoy it, though.

Onward with Alice, I say.

Eh. Okay, I had to read catcher back in high school. I've read (or tried to) read it once since. To be completely honest, I don't like the book, at all. Bear in mind I'm working from memory here.

Holden Caulfield came off, to me, as a hollow and weak central character. As Kaniaz said, his obsession with "phoniness" is hard to look past. He also came off as listless, confused, etc. A lot of this is arguably part of the book's theme and purpose, as a book of teenage angst. I suppose to some extent, in order to convey teenage angst and the sort of critical period most people go through, of sort of listless angst - it;s neccessary to have a character who is... angsty. With no direction, etc. But, regardless of all this literary justification of Holden's nature as a weak and hollow chracter, I still just plainly don't think the book is that well written.

Catcher in the Rye was originally famous because it was controversial. Swearing, prositution, alcohol abuse, and homosexual undertones and some points. But since society has changed so much over the past 50 years, I think the only actual aspect of the book that was in any way exceptional, being its controversiality, has pretty much faded away. Leaving us with a book that is basically as hollow and uninspired as Holden's character. Catcher in the Rye simply hasn't withstood the test of time.

On the other hand, take something like Tolstoy's War and Peace. Despite being centered around a totally different culture, time period, and even LANGUAGE... it HAS withstood the test of time. Even without being part of the audience Tolstoy originally wrote for, and despite not understanding many of the cultural undercurrents of the book, we still are entranced by it. Because it's a masterpiece. It has soul. And it manages to convey "angst" much better than Salinger's hollow piece of rubbish. With the controversiality stripped out of Catcher, it's just a hollow piece of teenage-angst trash paperback fiction.

Originally Posted by Alex

For next month I've chosen Alice because quite a few people seem to be borderline obsessive over it... should be fun times.
[/b]

Originally Posted by Aquanina

[/b]

Actually it wasn't you at all. And I should edit that, makes me sound like a twat.

On the topic of the book, one thing I find interesting is the relationship between Holden and the author. Holden wanted to get away from societry, JD did. Holden hated society as a whole, so did JD. To me Holden is kind of an idealised vision of the authors self. I hate it when people do that.