I just read Catcher in the Rye the other day and although I did connect with Holden in some aspects...

It's implied that his teacher molested him but the pheobe part went over my head entirely.

pleb
it's so fucking explixit. it's a brutal version of lolita

Can someone pls explain the rape part. I really don't want to reread it just for a part that may not even be there.

If it's so obvious then why is your response to retarded? Also it was published four years before Lolita so does that make Lolita a subtle version of Catcher in the Rye or what are you even talking about?

newfag everybody, lol

You obviously haven't fucking read Lolita shut the fuck up

OP is a flit

You can be over 18 and still be an angsty, whiny, underdeveloped sack of shit, you moron.

and you were too dense to see that he was baiting for that exact response

It's a stupid meme and it isn't there. They say the reason why Holden asks where the ducks are all the time is because he raped Phoebe in front of them, and he wants to leave no witnesses.

I didn't like the book either. It felt as if anyone could've written it, using a few standard set of sentences over and over and over again, glossing over stuff and never saying anything profound. Obviously that's the idea, but what's the point if you don't relate to Holden and therefore are truly unable to understand how it captures the teen angsty shit? The merit of the book lies exactly in capturing the angsty teen mind and some of its developments, because it's not in the prose, ideas, his criticism or analysis of the world, etc.

Have a read:
postflaviana.org/a-pedophile-fantasy-in-the-rye/

>I didn't like the book either. It felt as if anyone could've written it, using a few standard set of sentences over and over and over again, glossing over stuff and never saying anything profound. Obviously that's the idea, but what's the point if you don't relate to Holden and therefore are truly unable to understand how it captures the teen angsty shit? The merit of the book lies exactly in capturing the angsty teen mind and some of its developments, because it's not in the prose, ideas, his criticism or analysis of the world, etc.

lol pleb

Please share your thoughts about it. I'd genuinely like to hear why the novel is so good other than capturing the teen angst mind.

What kind of faggot teen were you, Veeky Forums?

Like Holden or like Alex DeLarge?

I thought I was Alex but I was really justhe Holden.

Holden obviously, Alex was way too edgy

not him but I'll share my thoughts on what you wrote.

First of all the prose is kind of alligned with holden as a character. It may seem very simplistic and superficial to you, but Holdens true nature kind of seeps through. It's more effective when you learn about a characters motivation or worldview through how he portrays himself, than through some heavyhanded monologue.

In terms of Ideas or criticism of the world, yes you won't really find something lifechanging. The philosophy and worldview of holden, while it is personal and touching, probably isn't anything new to you . The main thing I liked about the book is the depiction of holden as a realistic character. You say the book just captures angsty shit well, but holden is really much more than just angst. It's painful to see how he genuinely cares for people, and at the same time can't seem to help anyone or connect to anyone. The people that surround him care about different stuff than him. He doesn't really get modern life. Why we all pick careers, live for status and so on. It's empty to holden, only alienating him further. Holden is very realisticly and sympathethicly portayed, even if you don't relate.

The thing about Catcher in the Rye that people often don't understand is that Holden is a severely mentally ill teenager in the midst of a serious nervous breakdown.

Holden, and I can't emphasize this enough, is a child. He mourns a loss of innocence that he simultaneously lionizes, clings to, and truly never had. Childhood is made up. Being an adult is made up. There isn't REALLY that much of a dichotomy -- adults are children with better morals.

Holden can't synthesize all the bad shit that's happened to him into meaning because, again, he's a child. He doesn't have the life experience to cope because he's in the midst of getting the life experience that's harming him.

He's grieving a thing that doesn't exist because he lacks the emotional intelligence to put together what's really bothering him.

He feels burdened with the knowledge of the world because he doesn't understand it. The world's full of phonies because he can't form human connection.

The Catcher in the Rye is a tragedy. Isolated teenagers relate to him because he's the only person they connect with. They're together in isolation, and it's a huge relief to finally feel like someone gets it.

This is probably a jumbled schizophrenic mess but I think I got the point across? Idk.

Holden wants to be the magician but he's the fool. He needs to become the hanged man to transition but can't let go of his ego. To use hippie dippie tarot metaphors

whats more of a tragedy? having none of holdens perspective or fullblown understanding his view? the book spawned a literary genre which makes up the majority of the contemporary aesthetic. the growing child in a desolate world. funny enough YA is basically this generation's bible. and to criticize it is to partially play as holden calling people phonies.

It is literally a perfect representation of the uncertainty and loneliness which particularly afflicts teenage boys who are both attempting to become men and also incapable of letting go of their childlike tendencies. Holden's parents are not featured for a reason - no kid that age actually cares about their parents at all. He fails school and moves around because no kid at that age gives a fuck about learning because your body is telling you to reproduce and hunt - his red hunting cap is a symbol of him attempting to be manly. The whole book is a series of events wherein Holden attempts to do adult activities and ends up not being able to complete them because he's still a kid, but the book is also a monumental achievement in how it models the male mind and gives a sufficient critique of adult life and American culture in the mid century because of Holden's unique perspective on everything. Salinger's powers of observation were unrivaled.

>This is probably a jumbled schizophrenic mess

Pretty much

>tfw you relate to holden at 27

this guy is talking out of his own ass, don't listen to him

All right, thanks for the information. I did oversimplified matters obviously. Salinger portrays his inability to connect with others, and how he both fails to position himself in both the modern world and (even) in his own criticism and of that world. He is confused and can't meet his own demands due to self-deception, fear etc. There are several memorable scenes, but they remain in the background, rendered insignificant by Holden, latent intellectually but manifest in feeling, which is why Holden doesn't have any profound observation because he makes it so, but still undergoes a much unpronounced development throughout the book. That is well done, as are many of the aforementioned things. Though I don't think it completely dismisses my criticism of the book. Portraying Holden in the way Salinger did is limiting and limited as well. Besides that, many sentences, ideas, observations, paragraphs could've easily been cut or mimicked. One could argue that that is precisely because of Holden's nature I described. True, but that would also indicate its rather serious limits as well. I guess I lean more toward the latter. What do you think?

>Salinger's powers of observation were unrivaled.
No fucking way.

bump

I don't really think anything could have been cut, everything adds to how holden is described. Perhaps you found some things to be drawn out, but you can't really show the inticracies of his character without having the way things are presented be meandering and unfocussed. Of course this limits other aspects. You can't have holden discuss something very in-depth, because this would show that he has deep insight into how things are (and would by consequence make him come across as more secure). If this book were to be more upfront and thorough in its observations, it would kill what people like about the book (you seem to understand this though).Your criticism is somewhat valid, the book doesn't contain any explicit insights into the world, but the book can help people in understanding themselves (and to a lesser extent others) by looking at holden. There's no intelectual analysis to be found.