Why is this book regarded as a classic? I enjoyed reading it but I don't think there's any depth to the story...

Why is this book regarded as a classic? I enjoyed reading it but I don't think there's any depth to the story. Am I missing some underlying deeper meaning?

because it's one of the strongest examples of the literary device of voice and its influence on culture.

how is this book an influence of culture apart from being regarded as a classic by said culture?

that's too broad a question. one example of it's impact would be that it was David Chapman's favourite book and he was reading out of it after he shot John Lennon. another example would be its role, along with James Dean, in creating the "disaffected teenager" archetype still used in media today.

All of the meaningless anecdotes are references to things in his own life that he can't emotionally process.

Interesting, I did not know about both these things, thanks for clearing that up for me. I recently got back into reading and started coming to Veeky Forums because of it, but wasn't sure that I would ever get sincere answers here or that it was just another shitposting board.

that's cool man. hope you enjoy reading again. Veeky Forums is both, just depends on the time of day.

Don't mean to keep you occupied but I just wonder what books you recommend. I haven't read any for years since I didn't care for them anymore trough puberty I suppose. So far I've only read the catcher in the rye and finished 1984 yesterday, already have animal farm which I'll read next. I picked those because they are classics and I'd like to go trough a few of those first, are there any classics you would recommend?

I really didn't care for this book at all.

Is it just me?

As I said I enjoyed reading it but it helped that it was an easy read, if it were any harder to read I probably would've become bored with it.

Depending on how you were brought up, you might not really get the book on an emotional level.
It's about becoming an adult and accepting the (shitty) world with all its nonsense.

I hated it the first time I read it. Hated Holden, hated Salinger for writing it.

When I took another look at it later, I began to realize the brilliance of what he did. Salinger had undiagnosed PTSD. Holden is telling the story from some sort of mental institution. To maintain that voice so consistently for over 200 pages was quite a feat. It resonated with an entire generation.

This.
Not that guy, but if you're just getting into reading I'd recommend Slaughterhouse 5.
It's an easy to read classic that deals with emotional issues in an interesting way, like catcher does. It's also funny.
Regarded as kinda pleb tier around here, but only because it's easy.

classics? well some of my personal favourites are:

rudin by ivan turgenev
kristin lavransdatter by sigrid undset
tristam shandy by lawrence sterne
the female quixote by charlotte lennox
confessions of a justified sinner - james hogg
two series ladies by jane bowles
the sorrows of young werther by goethe

but in terms of books you "should" read then moby dick by herman melville and don quixote (raffel's translation) by cervantes would be the best place to start.

oh and add hamlet by william shakespeare in the "should" pile.

slaughterhouse 5 is great and definitely not pleb tier. elitism is stupid. literature is all about taste and if you're not reading things you like for fun then its a waste of literature.

Alright thanks for the suggestions. I'm starting to get so much books on my want-to-read list that might have to get a job to afford them all.

It's regarded as a classic because it was written a little while ago and it's ideas are still more than valid today.
Pretty much the main thing that makes any older book a classic.

Of mice and men, Steinbeck

If you figure it out, please let me know. I always ask others, and they say that I just don't get it without actually explaining it (or explaining it well).

it has the best prose and aesthetics out of any work in the century it was published

Haha you guys are really funny. Good jokes boys.

This post just kills me.

Because it resonates with people. If it doesn't resonate with you on a obviously perceptible level, it's probably because of the environment you grew up in and not because you're missing the secret decoder ring

>don quixote (raffel's translation) by cervantes
Reading translations...

This is probably the best answer that I've heard. Essentially, It isn't a good book, but a lot of people like it because it resonates with their own adolescence.

>Essentially, It isn't a good book.
I don't know how anyone can think this unless they were forced to read it in high school and resent it because of a bad experience.
And I don't get the argument of people liking it because they were angsty teens, most teens seem not to like it.

Catcher is really the most perfectly put together book I can think of.
Everything Holden does shows something about him, every interaction he has reveals more about his viewpoint, and the brief glimpses of the problems he's dealing/dealt with make everything have even more meaning, and make you even more connected.
But the entire book is written in such a casual, believable voice that nothing seems shoved in to reveal character, it all feels natural.
It's just long enough, everything has purpose, it's a fun easy read, and honestly Holden is one of the best characters I've ever seen.

I'd like for anyone who thinks the book is bad to tell me why they think it is. What is wrong with it? What would you change? I'm not trying to trap anyone and shit on their opinion, I'm genuinely curious as to why people would think its bad.

Perhaps the great distinction is that I don't see Holden as a deep character. He just seems to me to be an angsty teen, and his voice just seems to be angst. Nothing is believable to me, I don't think that this person exists in real life, Perhaps I know too many multi-dimensional people. He has his moments, but it seems like the events and realizations that should result in development and maturation don't because there is no substance there to develop or mature.

...

I guess we just disagree.
I think there is a lot of substance there, and I'd say that in the end he does become more mature in some way, he doesn't outwardly change in any obvious way, but just like his narration, it's subtle.
I think.
Holden is angsty, but that isn't a bad thing. He's angsty for a reason.
What would you have wanted from Holden in his development or depth of character?
It seems to me like he is very deep. His past and his different internal struggles, and how they relate to his outward struggles and interactions seem very sincere, and to me he just comes across as a real person who could exist.

>the most perfectly put together book I can think of

start with the greeks

Name a better one then, senpai-chan.

The Great Gatsby, if you haven't already. Another example of an easy-to-read classic.

I thought we were talking about coherence. I can't name a book that is BETTER, because that's a value judgement, but if we're talking about cohesion, we're looking at devices that tie the work together, e.g. parallelism, recurring motifs, underlying themes, world-building, etc.

I would say as far as cohesion, look Brothers' Karamazov or C&P. Catcher in the Rye just PALES in comparison to the cohesion of these works. Salinger is dealing with the exploration of one character through sort of a constant, whiny interior monologue. Dostoevsky explores multiple characters, and each one of his characters is dealing with more than just "muh brother" or "muh cynicism", or this Barrish fear of growing up. They're fleshed out better than Holden Caulfield. No author understood people as well as Dostoevsky--his books were like falling into caverns you didn't know existed inside of these basic characters. He understood the contradictions that exist inside of any person--Sonya, the golden-hearted prostitute, the proud and pathetic Raskolnikov, the doomed human Christ Alyosha, the cynically innocent Aglaia. These characters are as real as Holden, but there are tons of them, which means there are more underlying themes to tie them together (guilt, fear, religion, love, crime, poverty/wealth, etc.) were Holden is only really suffering with the loss of his brother and his fear of growing up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not harping on Catcher, it's a great work. It's just not the "most perfectly put together (sic) book" out there.

>Confessions of a Justified Sinner
I love you user. That and The Hill of Dreams were monumental reads for me.

When I called Catcher perfectly put together I was talking about the themes and the devices used, but I was also talking about the experience of reading it.
It is a short book, and it is not overly ambitious, but it is ambitious enough. What it sets out to do is worth doing, and it does it without ever wasting any time or being uninteresting in any way, in my opinion.
I certainly wouldn't call Holden's problems barish. They may not be problems worth philosophizing over for hours, but they are not even really the point. The point is how Holden explores the problems. While "how people (don't) deal with problems" also isn't a very ambitious subject, it is still worth doing, and is handled incredibly well. And while he may not be fleshed out in the same way a lot of great characters are, he is fleshed out in the way that you would know another person in real life from talking to them, and this only makes him feel more real.
I have not read Dostoyevsky yet, so I can only speak on other long books with multiple deep characters and say that a lot of the time when it comes to being very well put together, the water is muddied by excess. This isn't always the case, but I haven't found anything near Catcher, except maybe Lolita, or Young Werther, in their perfection of form, but even those do not really compare.
So I guess I just mean that Catcher is great at what it does, and while reading it I was impressed with everything, and looking back there isn't a single word I would change.