What does Veeky Forums think of Catcher in the Rye?

>tfw you've hooked up with 11 girls
>tfw you've bitched out on losing your virginity in each case
>tfw 18 years old with trust issues from family problems

Fuck, I always thought Holden was sunuvabitch for how bitched out with Sonny the prostitute, but now I have the sad realization that I am Holden but an even bigger bitch!

How do I fix myself Veeky Forums? What I'm doing is very abnormal and wrong for a teenage male to be doing

Decent book and easy read, it's not one of the best but it's a good way to get people into reading more books.

It's a love it or hate it book, depending solely on the main character's relatability.

If you're going through a particularly confusing or tulmutuous time in your life, especially in your teenage years, you'll love it. Holden Caulfield's commentary on the events you experiences and has he deals with them are extremely relatable to a socially stressed individual overwhelmed with a corrupt and unfair world. A person who is emotionally wrecked and often lashes out at people around him/her, knowing that it's unreasonable or inappropriate but doing it for a myriad of reasons (to let loose steam, fight some conceived absraction of your confusion, or 'get back' at a "phony" world) is going to connect and sympathize with Holden's plight. People who constantly feel victimized when put down by the world, even if it's their fault, and who are just in a really emotional time feel Holden's struggle. The book's really good at that, and it even uses unconventional (even inappropriate) language to describe the world instead of a structured literary method, in a sort of rebellion against the very system Holden and the reader resent being associated with as a society.

On the other hand, if you tried hard to get good grades in school, have a job, are raising a family, recognize and try to learn from your mistakes, and are generally a responsible person who actually works hard, you're going to hate this book. In fact, you're going to hate this book with an unholy passion. Holden's the apitamy of an irresponsible, stupid, unaccountable, annoying, uncreative, lazy, piece of actual human garbage you'll ever read in a novel. He's literally punchable from the first sentence to the ending paragraph of the book. Mentally challenged dogs make better decisions than he does, and when they make mistakes they also realize how the screwed up and don't blame the "phonies" in the world for their problems. Holden is quite possibly the worst character ever written in fiction. The book doesn't appeal well at all as you age, either. Most likely, as you grow up you'll get a job, get married, and pay taxes. When you look back over this book, you'll wonder why you ever liked it as a teenager.

The big reason it has so much appeal is because it's a nice source of empathy for teens and young adults going through rough patches and needing something to relate to. Heck, I hated it when I read it in class, but after going through some tough times a couple years later, I couldn't help think back and kinda' liking Holden. Then a month passed, I got bust again, and I got back to hating the book for the terrible piece of literature that if is.

Holden was unhappy about stuff, that makes him whiny.

so its a book for stupid losers with no self control and no desire to improve!

thanks for clarifying

...

very strange post

I still believe that the whole point of this book is to find your inner Holden and kill him.

>It's a love it or hate it book
for me it was kind of a meh book
so now what
fight me!

Stop being so neurotic and just stick your goddamn prick in some sort of a hole. Just get over it, you pansy

In high school I checked this book out of the library and read it while ducking out of laps in gym class. Super comfy.

It's an amazing book, but Franny and Zooey is better

I'd say it's a must read for anyone that had read Cather.

Whether they liked it or not. I feel like, if you loved Catcher then you won't really like yourself that much after reading FaZ, and if you hated Catcher, there might be some better understanding of the "attitude or whatever" you hate.

Do I take the bait?

>Them digits

Great book but not even Salinger's best work. Unfortunate that it's been so thoroughly canonized in high schools.

Franny & Zooey was better

So you can literally empathise only with people who are in the exact situation you are in, in life? If you can't then they are whiny?

There's tons to be said for the way Holden feels and I imagine that tons of people feel similar to him, at least somewhere deep within themselves. The older you get, the better you become at simply hiding it or ignoring it/pretending it's no longer there.

If anything, someone who pays their taxes could feel even worse than Holden does because they are buying in to a system that does not give a fuck about them.

I cannot see how you went from understanding the value of the book as a communicative work for troubled youths to calling Holden the worst character ever written in the next paragraph.

Read it for leisure in middle school, ended up having to read it in high school as part of curriculum. Our class spent an entire semester on it so now I'm so sick of the damn book I still gag when I think of it over a decade later.

Murrican education at work.

It's good in the sense that 16 y/o's identify with the protagonist while any1 above 21 knows he's a fucking fagget.

Same for your post.

JD Salinger is one of the all time greatest American authors, & it is unfortunate that Catcher is so widely misunderstood.

You can sympathize and empathize with people going through all sorts of problems and emotional periods.

The problem with Holden's character is that he's completely unlikable unless you're in a period in your life where you're essentially him.

He:
1. Blames other people for his mistakes.
2. Blames the world for being corrupt and "phony" in situations that are in no way related to such issues.
3. Thinks he's smarter than he actually is, in yet can't seem to pass a single class.
4. Almost gets molested by his teacher. *Gasp!* it's almost as though rooming in the house of someone you hardly know beyond a classroom setting might be a bad idea!
5. Thinks little of people around him while having little to no self-awareness that he's as rotten a person.
6. Is a jerk for his family's contribution to his education. Sure, I wouldn't be happy at all if my parents sent me off to some school, but I wouldn't act like a faggot about it.
7. Upset that a pimp beat him up and stole his money. Wow! It's almost as though dealing with society's worst will end badly! Who would've thought?!
8. Loses his team's sports equipment in the train, and then has the audacity to openly not care about it in front of his team. A literal faggot. But hey! Look at this hat I brought! It's red. What does that meeeeeeaaaaan????

There are people who are born crack babies, in foster care, impoverished, mentally challenged, depressed and suicidal, and kids who have cancer. This little shot has the world delivered to him on a silver platter and he does nothing but act like a super-faggot, and then have the nerve to pretend he's introspective.

At the same time, there are people who, seemingly irrationally, are in situations where they act this way. Sometimes they know why, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have reasons and sometimes not. But people in these periods of their lives can relate to Holden, regardless. That's his only value as a literary character. For anyone else in society today, they seem him for what he is: a complete beta, ball-less loser little shit, who needs robbery taken out to the backyard and shot like a lame dog, which really is already going too much out do the way.

From that cover pic, Phoebe was clearly leading him on. The little whore.

...

Holden is not unlikable at all. Did you even read the book or are you just going off Sparknotes? The book is about dealing with grief and the loss of innocence.

I must admit i have not read this myself, does this book have something to do with whole grains?

Literally the worst thing Salinger wrote.

Nine Stories - 10/10
Franny and Zooey - 9/10
Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction - 8/10
Catcher in the Rye - 6/10

>"the book is about loss!"
>brother revealed to be dead in the beginning of the book
>literally never brought up again
>character acts less grieving and more just moody for the rest of the story

>"it's about innocence!"
>the world is phony
>character imagines himself saving kids in a field of rye
>that's it

You're talking shit. The book hardly recognizes the very stuff it's designed to address, or at least what people claim it's supposed to.

>Holden is likeable at all
The only barely redeeming quality of Holden is that, in the epilogue, he grows up and decides to return to school because he misses his old acquaintances. However, this is called into questions, since not even a fucking chapter ago he was considering embarkinnout west. The only reason he didn't is because he was convinced otherwise by a little fucking girl. Even before that, he wanted to run away with a girl he hadn't met up with in ages, much less into the "wilderness."
The kid has the mental capacity and forethought of a retarded fish. How can you like someone who isn't just stupid, but thinks he's smarter than the world around him? Literally kys.

You're completely incapable of reading literature. Did you even attend high-school? This sort of thing should have been covered in your 9th or 10th grade English class. Unless you have High Functioning Autism. in which case I'm sorry but you should refrain from commenting in the future.

>lol did you just read spark notes?
>this wuz in skool did you even read it?
>wow you have an opinion that isn't evry1 else's? Lol ur dum
>r u retarded?

Wow! Thank you for enlightening me with your unequaled prose and unparalleled reasoning! I guess I really was wrong! I especially respect the point you made about absolutely nothing other than attacking me on information you don't even know about me and basing your entire criticism of my opinion not being the norm concerning this book around the fact that it's commonly taught in high school curriculum. Brilliant!

I also did read it in high school. And it was shit. The reasons given by the teacher and the course for the book's purpose, symbology, and metaphors were shit then, and they're shit now.

Of course, that's my opinion, which you're freely open to tear apart and disagreee with. But if you do, try to respond with more than "ur dumb."

How is it misunderstood? I thought people loved the book. Is it not interpreted correctly or something?

I can't. You are in the computer.

More like Raper in the Rape Raper Rape, ammirape or am I rape? Rape.

I disagree.

ch..checked

Impressive...

What do you mean by "thoroughly canonized?" Is that a bad thing?

Who was in the wrong here?

They're both terrible people.

Why are you bringing this up? This isn't /tv/.

Do Hamlet next.

Quagmire is the obvious evil; Brian is the pseud
who, deep down, is the same as Hitler

I can't even start because you fundamentally misunderstand the point of literature. I advise to you pick up "How to Read and Why" by Harold Bloom, and also try to audit a basic introductory class on literature at your nearby community college. You need to re-teach yourself how to read.

Holden "The ducks leave the sea, I leave the scene" Caulfield
Holden "Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am" Caulfield
Holden "Flunked out of Percy Academy for fulfilling my fantasy" Caulfield
Holden "Getting the honey out of Sunny" Caulfield
Holden "It's not phony to fuck a loli" Caulfield

Guys does anyone have a link of the scanned PDF's of 'The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls'?

I remember reading it on imgur back when it leaked in 2013 but now I can't find it anywhere.

There is no reason to do that, the book is shit and only Americans seem to care about it because they learn it in school

It's so commonly taught in high school classrooms that many at Veeky Forums treat it like a meme. Its notoriety also overshadows Salinger's other works in the popular imagination, which is unfortunate because they're often at least as good. It's hard to tell people I'm in love with Salinger's work without sounding like I only ever did my high school reading, in other words, but I'm more talking about Nine Stories and F&Z.

>I can't even start because you fundamentally misunderstand he point of literature
What point? Is there a correct way to read stories? I wasn't aware that there was one specifically correct way to read a story and glean the right analysis from it. Is anyone who doesn't subscribe to this correct way of reading literature objectively wrong? If so, tell me, because for all I know maybe you're telling the truth. Go ahead and take as many posts as you need to explain it to me, because I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong.

>you need to re-teach yourself how to read
This is your biggest problem. You tell me that I'm wrong, but you never explain why I'm wrong. Your posts have no substance. They're all claims and no structured argument. You criticize me for beinf ignorant or wrong, but make no attempt to explain HOW or WHY. In fact, this is so prevalent in your posts, looking back you can spot them:

>you're completely incapable of reading literature
>d you even attend high-school? This sort of thing should have been covered in your 9th or 10th grade English class. Unless you have High Functioning Autism.
> Did you even read the book or are you just going off Sparknotes? The book is about dealing with grief and the loss of innocence.
> can't even start because you fundamentally misunderstand the point of literature.

If you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about at all, that's great. PROVE ME WRONG. Don't just attack me for being retarded, or make assumptions that I ever read the book or went through high school, or "fundamentally misunderstand the point of literature," whatever the fuck that is in your purview.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but provide some structured argument. You just look stupid if all you do is claim stuff but never actually even ATTEMPT to back it up.

> advise to you pick up "How to Read and Why" by Harold Bloom,
> try to audit a basic introductory class on literature at your nearby community college.
This is the only point you provided which has any value to it, since you're suggesting ways I can improve on what you believe is my "reading problem." I won't do the later because I don't have the time, but I'll look into the former in my campus library. In the best case scenario, it turns out that I need to seriously reconsider the way I read and dessiminate plots and information, and you were right all along. At the very least, maybe I'll learn something that can bolster my reading skill that I didn't know about before.

So they're really worth reading? If I really didn't like "Catcher in the Rye" very much, is there a chance I might actually really like his other works?

I know that feel. I got Nine Stories as a gift but didn't read it for several years because the cover and title didn't excite me. I eventually read it and it blew me away. All of the stories are god tier. I can't even begin to understand how Salinger pulled this off. You see a piece of yourself in each of the characters. Nine Stories is without a doubt the best short story collection ever written.

>the book is good/bad because of I think positively/negatively of the main character
Pleb.

The real issue with giving the book to high schoolers is that they may not realize Holden's flaws. They take his narration at face value and refuse to think, and then bring his attitude into their own life, adopting him as a hero for their values.

the truth is you lost your virginity a long time ago, and are now merely chasing the shadow cast by a imagined world embodied by a human female body, identity inconsequential. RIP human

It was a comfy ready. I enjoyed his journey.

in his time jeans were considered rebellious
today jean-wearing, being a directionless decadent manchild of lax-morals "rebellion" is the establishment so contemprary catcher in the rye would be a tracksuit wearing family man trying to be purposeful in a world full of holdens

>Holden is not supposed to be interpreted as a good person
>interpreted as a flawed character

This is interesting. It changes a lot of how I think of the book, and I'll have to reconsider some of how I think about Holden and the story.

More important, thought is that your one two-three sentence post made me rethink more about how I think about "Catcher in the Rye" than this absolute mentally challenged fucktard:

It's just clear at this point that you are incapable of appreciating art. I mean, just look at these sentences.

>On the other hand, if you tried hard to get good grades in school, have a job, are raising a family, recognize and try to learn from your mistakes, and are generally a responsible person who actually works hard, you're going to hate this book. In fact, you're going to hate this book with an unholy passion.

What do you think art is? Do you think it's something to make you feel better about yourself, to entertain you for a few moments? With such an oblivious viewpoint it's quite obvious that you've never created anything in your life, and that you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of artistic creation on the deepest level, that I doubt you'll ever be able to recover. Some people just don't have the talent or disposition for it, you clearly have neither. I'd stick to watching the newest television pulp serials, and in the future I'd refrain from making any serious posts, and stick to making shitposts, I get second hand embarrassment from reading such puerile nonsense written by a full-grown adult.

Holy shit, you're hilarious.

So, it's not just that I misunderstand how reading works, now, but it's also that I don't understand the broad spectrum of art as well?

Also, good job citing an earlier post in which I criticized the main character for being unrelatable, and then trying to stake out a vague claim that I don't understand art. You're probably restructuring your boneless scrutiny of my opinion since in this post I admitted that I believe I am wrong now and should revise my thinking on Holden's character, which means my views on the reading have been challenged and I *GASP* have learned something from another user. Interestingly, it wasn't from you, because you STILL have yet to offer me anything to seriously question my opinions.

>What do you think art is? Do you think it's something to make you feel better about yourself, to entertain you for a few moments?
1. No, I don't think that art is there simply to make me feel better. Art has a broad range of uses, characteristics, purposes, and messages. No idiot thinks it's so one dimensional. I'm not claiming that. You're the one spouting that that's what I think.
2. I wrongfully interpreted Holden's character. I would say that I concede that to you, except you're late to the party, because I JUST DID THAT IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO. Good job dredging up an old antiquitated post that no longer has relevance to bash me.

> With such an oblivious viewpoint it's quite obvious that you've never created anything in your life, and that you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of artistic creation on the deepest level, that I doubt you'll ever be able to recover.

You're baffling. Even when I JUST called you out for doing nothing but assuming things about my character on these wild adventures of conjecture and personal attacks in this post: you still turn right around and DO IT AGAIN. Do you even think before typing something?

It's also interesting for you boldly assuming that I have never created anything in my life, considering that I've made lots of art (I'm not a master, though; I don't profess to be). I enjoy drawing and some digital art, but then again, you wouldn't know that. You just make stuff up about me and personalize your attacks instead of offering criticisms of real substance.

>Some people just don't have the talent or disposition for it, you clearly have neither.

Paradoxically, this interestingly enough heavily suggests to me that YOU'VE never actually picked up a pencil, brush, or chisel in your whole life. If you've ever met a really good artist, you'd quickly find out that if there's one thing they do, it's that they work and practice their skill. A lot. People call it talent, but that's mostly the work people use to describe artistic ability and skill. No one's born with a brush in their hand. Are there people who grew up with natural predispositions? Absolutely. Picasso and Mozart were geniuses, but it'd be an insult
Cont. next post

it is, but salinger was pretty good at writing innocent stories that flowed easily as you read them. a talented author that comforts a reader rather than challenging one.

brian is the hypocritical left
quagmire is the alt right

both are shit, and theyll turn you inside out if you are a centrist or a communist.

deaths from riots are the only way we'll reach a synthesis

-to imply that they were simply "born with it." They had to sweat, bleed, and cry every bit as much as everyone else who made it to their positions had to. Most people who study or practice art realize this and, ironically, you don't, from what I can gather from your post.

I have no idea what your problem is, but you refuse to criticize me on any stable ground. You constantly try to bite at my character, something you know nothing about, instead of digging into the meat of what I'm saying and picking out the flaws like this guy: , and he did it in, like, two sentences!

At this point, if there's something, ANYTHING that I can get from butting heads against you, the densest motherfucker on this board, it would be that you specifically pick out something I've said (that's relevant, none of that goalpost-moving of reading to art and bringing back old comments that have already been nullified) and actually MAKE me think rather that say that I SHOULD think, without providing any further explanation.

All that, or you're a troll and you've been leading me one for nearly a day now.

I unironically believe this. If you look at the imagery it's all there, getting wet in the rain etc.

Jesus fucking Christ, all I can say to you is that you're either mentally retarded, have Asperger's syndrome, or are some sort of engineer or computer scientist that is incapable of understanding the world except throughout their small lens. Go read Malazan or whatever spergs like you are usually into, and leave literature to the big boys. You're a lost cause. Just look at this:

>On the other hand, if you tried hard to get good grades in school, have a job, are raising a family, recognize and try to learn from your mistakes, and are generally a responsible person who actually works hard, you're going to hate this book. In fact, you're going to hate this book with an unholy passion. Holden's the apitamy of an irresponsible, stupid, unaccountable, annoying, uncreative, lazy, piece of actual human garbage you'll ever read in a novel. He's literally punchable from the first sentence to the ending paragraph of the book. Mentally challenged dogs make better decisions than he does, and when they make mistakes they also realize how the screwed up and don't blame the "phonies" in the world for their problems. Holden is quite possibly the worst character ever written in fiction. The book doesn't appeal well at all as you age, either. Most likely, as you grow up you'll get a job, get married, and pay taxes. When you look back over this book, you'll wonder why you ever liked it as a teenager.

Either this is the greatest bait post ever written, in which case I applaud you, but if you're serious then this reads like a middle-schooler talking about a video-game that they hate on GameFAQ's then an analysis of literature. A person who was serious about literature wouldn't even begin to approach a novel with the mindset that you have, like I said previously the way you approach art is fundamentally flawed. I think reddit.com/r/books might be more your habitué

Most people are too retarded to get past Holden's character flaws to enjoy the book. They see his disillusionment and radical sort of half-assed delinquency to be a weakling condition and not a character strength, because Holden is a young man discovering himself and thats what all men at that age who have trouble fitting in feel like. The narrative voice is beautiful and gently touches on so many aspects of human existence (as the teenage mind does, incapable of full adult comprehension) and then yes the Caulfield family psychology is very heavy stuff if you read into the book. Through Holden's encounter with nuns, prostitutes, crossdressers, pimps, gays, graffiti, girls, other boys, the museum exhibits, and his siblings the psychology of the troubled American male trapped inside the 1950s American cultural dogma is illustrated beautifully. When I read it for the first time I read it in two days in my junior year of high school and it was the most cathartic literary experience of my life. Maybe its just me, but Holdens narration so closely mirrors an intelligent young man's inner monologue that it is a raptive read.

Yeah no I think responsible people can enjoy this book. It was one of George HW Bush's favorite novels and it simply focuses on how difficult it can be interacting with the world sometimes. I think everyone can relate to that through Holden's emotional overreaction to everything which goes wrong in his life, and also his flat indifference to a lot of the demands society makes of you. Everyone has those days when you just want to sit down and talk to someone, smoke a cigarette, and feel the underlying sadness of your life. I think people who never feel depressed would hate this book, but thats not most people. People who hate this book are literarily uneducated because they focus so much on Holden's actions and thoughts insteaed of on what Salinger is using him to illustrate.

He did say some really stupid stuff, but he also admitted he was wrong and is willing to change. Give him a break.

That's it. I give up. You win. In this very post, you just repeat the same patterns as your last posts like a broken record:
1. Attacks me personally
> Go read Malazan or whatever spergs like you are usually into
Check.
2. Makes massive assumptions on who I am
>Jesus fucking Christ, all I can say to you is that you're either mentally retarded, have Asperger's syndrome, or are some sort of engineer or computer scientist that is incapable of understanding the world except throughout their small lens.
Check.
3. Cites an old post which i admitted was wrong and stupid
>Just look at this:
>On the other hand... it as a teenager.
Check.
4. Simply says that I'm wrong without explaining how or why
>A person who was serious about literature wouldn't even begin to approach a novel with the mindset that you have, like I said previously the way you approach art is fundamentally flawed.

Ya' know what? I'm done. I'm tired of responding to you. I gained so much more from other people in this thread, that I really don't care what you think anymore. And I've got two things I've learned from this thread:
1. I mistook Salinger's book, and it warrants a new read.
2. I picked up that book you recommended on how to read.
3. You're retarded or a troll.

In the end, I think I came out with more. Go ahead and have this victory. You win.

I did hear that this was one of Bush's favorite books, but I couldn't see why. I didn't like it when I read it in high school, probably because I was one of those people you described as never properly been in a depressed state. Throughout this thread I've realized that I probably wasn't looking at the book through the best lense to get the most out of it. I'll have to re-read the book to garner a better and more developed understanding.

Its great and a lot of the reasons people dislike it are autistic

what reasons