Went on a date with a girl from work and we started discussing books she mostly reads YA nowadays but he favorite book is Wuthering Heights I told her mine was Catcher in the Rye she twisted her face in disgust and told me she despised it.
I looked at the reviews on Goodreads and the majority of reviews from women are negative. The reason for this seems to be around Holden that he is a weak, boring character.
What's Veeky Forumss thought on Catcher in the Rye
Other urls found in this thread:
rationalwiki.org
dailycaller.com
whitegenocideproject.com
reddit.com
twitter.com
Never read it but my mom liked it, so that's at least one woman
I've noticed, anecdotally, that if the main character is not likeable then it ruins a book for women. Ignatius, Holden, Humbert Humbert, Oedipus, and Marlow have been cited as "ruining the book" for multiple women in the classes I've been in. Maybe it's because women tend to empathize more or maybe it's a product of the digital age training people to automatically decide if they like or don't like something.
Chicks dig Lolita, what are you talking about? Also anyone who says the Theban plays are among their favorite works is a poser and a pseud
it doesn't matter what women say.
I know some grills that love this book. It's just the kind of book that people either despise or worship.
>I've noticed, anecdotally, that if the main character is not likeable then it ruins a book for women.
Yeah great point. I think there's a biological element to it as well that woman are repulsed by weak men. I feel if Holden was a girl woman and she felt alienated, confused and sexually abused like Holden was the book would be beloved by women.
They're examples of works I've seen women disregard because the main character isn't likeable enough for them. I really don't give a shit if anyone likes them at all but that they're ones with unlikable characters. Like I said, I think this is more due to mainstream culture favoring a like/dislike mentality cultivated by social media. Things aren't considered holistically. I want to shoot myself when anyone says "I liked/didn't like the work" whenever a professor starts off discussion because that's as shallow as an analysis can be.
Holden is a well fleshed character that has enormous depth beneath the bratty behaviour and his clumsiness. Teenagers and people who despised him because "they couldn't identify with him" completely miss the point of the entire novel.
Catcher in the rye isn't just the story of a spoiled brat who wastes his parents' money. Pay attention to what you read.
i'm pretty sure a lot of men have the same opinion, or rather those who'd have this kind of opinion don't bother reading books to begin with
Holden raped his little sister, no excuses. No sane person would ever like this book.
...
I can appreciate that it was groundbreaking and I sometimes catch myself thinking about the metaphor of saving children from falling off the clif into adulthood(?). I would also say disliking it because Holden is the biggest phony in the book is wrong. Holden himself would probably be embarrased about it but being edgy is just a part of growing up and differenciating yourself from others, especially your parents and people in authority. It was for me at least. All in all I liked it, however, it is not my favourite book.
But that's because for women it is a power fantasy to ensnare a male and lead him to his demise just by existing, if not the ultimate power fantasy.
This is spot on. Women hate weak men more than they glorify strong men. But also they have trouble with distinguishing between a thing and the concept of the same thing, and with getting on a kind of meta observational perspective.
Women don't understand Catcher because literally the entire book is making fun of normies and normie culture.
They also hate Holden because he points out uncomfortable truths they would rather stay in denial about.
Since the majority of women are boring normies, they are incapable of understanding this satire and thus don't get the book as a whole.
It's a teen angst book. If you are older than 16 and still think it's good, you are an immature man.
I remember buying a copy of Catcher in the Rye a few years ago. I thought it was pretty lame with the whinging main charecter shit but they wouldn't accept any returns at the local book store (the one I bought it from) I always thought it was retarded how you cant return books and the guy at the counter was a smug NIGGER anyway. This is exactly the type of shit that happens letting minorities work with the common people they treat like shit. Nigger is lucky I didn't bust out my fucking niggerknocker and crack him over his disgusting fucking nappy head. I swear something needs to be done about all these cocky niggers trying to act high soceity. God I fucking hate niggers so god damn much.
I also like Catcher. Do Womyn really dislike it?
Is Catcher the ultimate pleb filter?
yes, but in the opposite way you're thinking
It's a crumby book. It really is. I'm a patient guy. I really am. But this one really ticked me off. This goddamned kid is a real piece of work. He's the pits. A real phony. He really is. A lot of people like this book. Not me. I just can't stand it. It's a crumby book. It really is.
...
The book is not sufficient enough as a stand alone. You have to read at least Franny and Zooey to fully get it.
This post absolutely killed me. It really did.
Disliking blacks has nothing to do with pol and is uncontroversial generally speaking. Less uncontroversial, but true, is what I'm about to say, which is that Catcher is a mediocre book that was written by a jew and has become required reading because it glorifies youth rebellion and degeneracy, which will catch on with a certain portion of young white men who read it, is subversively beneficial to the jewish power structure, and therefore ends up being read by and sticking with people who rarely read books. It hooks a low cognitive cohort of young guys since this is one of the few books they'll ever read and contains childish experiences weak thinkers with low expectations will relate to and think are cool. But the bottom line is that it's a subversive book and has found its way into the curriculum of high schools for this very reason. It's literary trash, though, and if you like it you are likely very young, not bright, or a jew.
Meanwhile I'm sure you've done a lot of reading that isn't Breitbart. Fuck off moron, you're projecting your worldview and conspiracy theories that place you at the center of the universe.
I might be the most well-read person on here. Try to make a counter-argument next time. Calling things you're too much of a brainlet to understand "conspiracies" is not a viable substitute for one.
I can tell a guy is a flit just by the way he writes.
This post is way too redpilled for Veeky Forums. I admire what you're trying to do, but Veeky Forums will always be 17 year old fedora tippers who think they know how the world works because Mr. Bernstein made them read Guns, Germs and Steel.
Just let it go man. Reality will redpill them all hard in a few years. You don't need to do any work.
I did make a counterargument, that you don't prove things. You say things assuming they're true, throw out things that don't match your worldview, and then project that worldiew in the inane bullshit you spout. You aren't even capable of forming thoughts, you're only capable of repeating shit you saw on /pol/.
Not him, but /pol/ is right about nearly everything. You should go there some time and maybe you'll realize you've been lied to your whole life and maybe learn a thing or two in the process.
Or you can stay on this shithole board that moves at a snail's pace and discuss which Joyce fart letter has the best prose. It's your call.
I was a regular user of /pol/ for years. I'm capable of thinking so I outgrew it.
>repeating shit you saw on /pol/.
Never been there.
>You say things assuming they're true
Like you just did? Hone your discoursal abilities, this is weak sauce.
I find this odd but yes, in my experience, females do enjoy Lolita.
The point wasn't /pol/ in specific, it's that you repeat things that you see other people say constantly and that you base everything you think on other people's baseless assumptions.
To my knowledge, I expressed a very unique point of view above. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to find and post a source where the opinion I expressed is being made by someone else.
>things that never happened
That's not how it works.
Liberals can become conservatives, but once you become conservative you will never again become liberal. Pretty easy way to tell you're full of shit.
This guy might be right , but I also think that they just like the taboo of the book. I've never met a girl that actually read Lolita. They just liked the image surrounding it.
This is one of 3 books I wasn't able to finish.
It is fucking terrible. I was bored out of my mind.
What were the other two?
they see a whiny, spiritless and uninteresting guy saying her things without nothing really Deep or resounding happenned,
i thing the catcher is something more subtle than a guy talking about his "not so different" shit. that is what they essentially see.
anyway is not a woman thing.
I'm sorry if the websites a cite look a bit memetic, it's just that I only see that worldview from very popular and meme driven sources.
Also let me say that I believe your worldview involves races requiring seperation for their best interest and the belief that "the jews" or "marxists" in general are trying to destroy western civilization (coded language for white people).
rationalwiki.org
dailycaller.com
whitegenocideproject.com
reddit.com
I could keep going, but it doesn't really matter.
I told you the truth about my life and you're just flat out denying it. You're completely insane.
Opposite for me, Catcher in the Rye actually got me back into reading.
He's generally correct, though, but about people getting redpilled and not necessarily about them becoming "conservative"; it's a one way street. As I said, I'm not from pol and took a different route, but I also had trouble believing you could have understood the perspective there and then later on decided it was wrong. That just doesn't happen, so when someone says they took the redpill then "untook" it, it's very hard to believe you fully understood the foundations of something like the jewish question. In fact, I'm quite certain you did not, since it's not a matter of opinion.
Well, I appreciate you kind of trying here, but those don't seem to mirror anything I specifically said. I was genuinely curious but was rather confident that it was an original thought (though in all honesty I do recall mention of Catcher/Salinger in something I read wrt the JQ years ago and was half hoping you might dig it up for me).
Nabokov loved it. Hemingway loved it. Roth loves it. But ok then.
I once had a girl ask me what I thought of Lolita at a party and I didn't know how to reply so I just said I hadn't read it and walked away.
>I'm correct because and you're ignoring the facts
>these sources that say exactly what I said are wrong
I can't tell if this is satire anymore.
Were I to politely hint that you may have a less than firm grasp of reality, would I be the first? Those websites you linked to said nothing about this book.
I know a really chavvy lesbian girl who adores Catcher in The Rye.
What? I wasn't referring to your view on Catcher, I was referring to your worldview. Did you see how many times I said worldview? Are you fucking blind?
Beckett loved it too. As for me, I think it's hard to find anything better. A perfect book.
17 year old detected.
My girlfriend loves Catcher in the Rye
>things that never happened
But it happened to me too. From the ages of 15 to like 18 I was a die-hard /pol/yp. Now I'm a communist.
>b-but my views are right and anyone who agrees with me could not possibly change their mind because I'm right
Have you ever considered that you and /pol/ are not infallible?
So I'm with a girl and she has on one of those pointy goddamn sad little cone bras and she asks me to take off my goddamn shirt before we make out. So I do, and know what the hell she does? She laughs at my back acne for chrissakes, just point and laughs right there in the bedroom and all. So I call her a phony and get up to leave the goddamn room but she grabs me by the arm and looks at me with these big ol' wet movie starlett doe eyes. Christ, that always kills me. It really does. So I make up my mind to stay. and she's giddy and beside herself and all and we start to make out but then I get this feeling, like way deep down in my stomach, this queezy feeling, and I remember jane gallagher in her red and whtie sweater and I realize what I'm doing is just wrong and phony and all and I just up and walk out of there. And then, on the train home, wouldn't you know damn well know it, it just starts up and raining and I feel like gods up there, but not with the apostles, just alone, and he's judging me for what ive just done. But I couldn't help it. That phoebe is just so sexy. She really is.
You only took up that track after you returned with links that did not show that my opinion had been expressed by others, which was your initial claim. You accused me of getting my perspective from pol. I said I wasn't from there and that my opinion to my knowledge was original. So I asked you to show how it wasn't. You decided to make this about your interpretation of my general worldview when you didn't find anything.
This has been about your worldview the entire time. Look at your posts, then look at my posts, then realize how dumb you look.
my mom likes catcher in the rye too
And she's quite the woman, so at least two
I kekd so hard I raped my sister
>thinking this shitposter is actually from /pol/
Breitbart is light years left of /pol/
>using mainstream media memes on Veeky Forums
It's like it's your first day here
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I grew out of /pol/ too but I can acknowledge that it is right about certain things
If you go to the opposite of /pol/ it means you were just a brain dead follower going there for the memes and never bothered to actually self improve and get redpilled. And now you think you grew out of it
>If you go to the opposite of /pol/
I didn't go the opposite of my beliefs per se. I was always, far, far to the left economically of /pol/. At the time I would have called myself Strasserist but if it was today it'd probably be NazBol. I just gradually came to abandon the nationalism and anti-Semitism so eventually all that was left was the radical socialism, naturally when you're not worried about Jew boogeyman anymore that level of socialism is going to develop into communism.
>and never bothered to actually self improve and get redpilled
In the time since starting to visit /pol/ I've stopped being fat, started seriously reading books, started playing music and painting, and stopped being a KHV.
I don't know why you think changing your mind is such a bad thing.
You go through this feeling for a little while but then you come to appreciate the book again when you have more distance from that time.
Faulkner too.
I've only met a handful of people who have read Lolita, and most of them have been women
how does it feel that, owing to your massive ideological shift, no one will ever trust you, on either side
I didnt like it but my mom did too.
What are some other essential /mom/core reads? Excluding oprah's book club picks.
I was a conservative when I was fifteen.
>I didn't like it by my mom did Too
What the fuck does that mean?
Maybe he simply won't tell anyone when he goes to wobbly meetings.
You
>an idiot raised by fairly intelligent parents
That's how that happens.
My mom loves Joseph Conrad, so I don't know if I have a good base to judge an overall.