/lit/ - Literature

good opinion, maybe. theres alot of stuff like how the ducks flew away and he wanted to know where they went? because he wanted to know where he should go since he left home. no shit.

FAGGOTS

The bit at the hotel about spitting water on girls faces was totally about cumshots

>>754115

Young chap, you seem to have taken a wrong turn at 4chan.org You are looking for a place called /b/

>>753645
If the hunting represents anything, its the "Catcher".
When its given to Phoebe, it was kinda like passing the torch.
But your theory isn't too bad bro.

the only part of this book that blew my mind was when he was talking about playing in the rye fields, being the catcher. the fact that there was a reference to the title caught my eye and I braced for something exciting to happen(it was near the end).

nothing happened, the book sucked

as for picking this book up more than once, or even a second time, why bother?

Fucking phonies.

I've heard this theory before and still say that it is deducting way too much depth of such a coincidental color "theme" (if you could even say theme); from a book that is not meant to be analyzed that deeply. He bought the thing for a dollar, and regardless of whatever that inflates to today, I doubt he took much thought of the color when he picked it up. He doesn't even really want people to see him in it anyway.

The entire book can be summarized in one sentence, anyway, so I'm just saying not to look into it that deeply.

>>754598
Ok, let's hear it.

>>754598

This.
The hat most likely represented nothing.

It seems Salinger was pretty diligent about every symbol in the book.

>>754604
One sentence:
--Catcher in the Rye is about an ungrateful, low self-of-steemed, whiny, social outcast who spends the entire span of the novel in a self centered pity party whilst labeling nearly everyone around him a phony.--

I'm telling you, it's a good thing it's a short book or no one would read it. You couldn't fit even one more page of whining in it without crossing the threshold of it being too whiny.

I just realized that I haven't picked this book up more than once, because I'm not a 16 year old /b/ tard.

Thanks for that revelation.

>>754641
Fucking this. God i hated this book

>>754641
That's the fucking point, idiot. Everyone on /lit/ hates Catcher because it's "whiny" while loving Notes from Underground, when it's basically the same shit. (though the underground man is infinitely more fucked)

>>754641

i love how people's biggest insult to this book is HE CALLS EVERYONE PHONIES AND BITCHES ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT IS NO BETTER. that's kind of the fucking point. he's supposed to be a goddamn unreliable narrator.

ps catcher in the rye is one of my all time favorite books. haters gonna hate.

>>754659
Thank you Pizza for getting it.
Holden goes around saying everyone is a phony but, he is one himself and everyone is a little phony.People do phony things, the easiest example would probably be a white lie.

>>754641
Well that was anticlimactic. You can briefly summarize the plot of pretty much any book.

>>754659
I agree
it's meant to be that way, it makes it a realistic portrayal of the thought process of an angsty teenage boy - or really, any everyday man and his feelings of frustration and discontent for the society around him, despite being a part of that society himself.

I don't think it's the best best best book ever, and I prefer the glass family chronicles over it any day, but people's hatred towards it seems to only stem from the fact that they hate holden (which is understandable) or that they hate how popular it is (which is pretty pointless).

>>754675

Summary is anticlimactic because....... (wait for it.....)
......because the book IS anticlimactic.

I don't hate the book, I just think it sucks. I've read worse, but I've definitely read better. The dislike for it being popular stems from the question of why the fuck is it popular to start with. It's frustrating to see such a lame book be more popular than true literary masterpieces.

I truly think it's just popular because it's easy to read and understand (thanks to having no real climactic developments; just some dude walking around in a pity-party) and because idiots (and 16 year olds) think it's a real novel because they are newfags and have a feeling of real self accomplishment for actually finishing a book longer than goosebumps. It's the same reason people like the Great Gatsby, which, at least, has a plot and is a story.

/rant

>>754747
I think people tend to over analyze it.
I think Salinger wanted to be deep, gave up, but then kept trying.
Whatever that means

>>754641

"self-of-steam"

Maybe you should get back to work on that novel rather than wasting your time on six-feet-under Salinger.

And yes, the book is full of symbolism. The fucking title is a symbol out of the book, albeit the most heavy handed of the bunch. Holden was abused, the red hat is his brother, he's telling the story from an insane asylum, none of which is explicitly stated but is inferred through the writing.

Did you think the Eyes watching Nick Carraway were just a billboard, or the Light on the pier was just a light on a pier?

Not everything is a symbol, but writers definitely put them in there. I'd hate to hear you read Pynchon.

"This orgy has nothing to say about the repressed sexual attitudes of the 1940s and the change to acceptance of the 1960s. These people just want to fuck."

Retard.

ITT idiots with no concept of literature trash a great book simply because they were forced to read it in highschool

>>754766
My high school abandoned it as part of their 11th grade curriculum before I reached the grade. I knew about its following so I asked for a copy, my teacher gave me one and I was happy, until I read the thing.

Nice try

Fight Club.
/thread

>>754788
how is that relevant at all

The CATCH HER in the EYE.

Mind blown.

>>754758

Self-esteem

>>754844

I know what anon was trying to write, but really?

Self of steem? Didn't even spell steam right.

>>754853

anon got "steem" right but >>754758 said "steam"

My word. Some of you are grossly unintelligent, and really can't think abstractly, critically, or analytically. You people have no place in literature discussion.

Firstly, I will address "It's the same reason people like the Great Gatsby, which, at least, has a plot and is a story."

The Great Gatsby is probably within the top three American novels every written. Ask any Eng, or Lit Ph.D and he will will tell you that this book is less of a story and more of an unbelievably complex narrative that comes second to none in representing what the United States is and what it means to be American.

That aside.

I'm sorry to report that non of you fully understand Catcher...

This opinion...
"Catcher in the Rye is about an ungrateful, low self-of-steemed, whiny, social outcast who spends the entire span of the novel in a self centered pity party whilst labeling nearly everyone around him a phony.--

I'm telling you, it's a good thing it's a short book or no one would read it. You couldn't fit even one more page of whining in it without crossing the threshold of it being too whiny."

or one of these pro-catcher opinions...

"i love how people's biggest insult to this book is HE CALLS EVERYONE PHONIES AND BITCHES ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT IS NO BETTER. that's kind of the fucking point. he's supposed to be a goddamn unreliable narrator."
"it's meant to be that way, it makes it a realistic portrayal of the thought process of an angsty teenage boy - or really, any everyday man and his feelings of frustration and discontent for the society around him, despite being a part of that society himself."

I will try to simultaneously discredit both of these reviews.

Catcher is not about Holden's complaining, nor is it about his unreliable narrative. It isn't a "pity party" and he isn't a part of the society he hates.

Catcher attempts, and succeeds quite well if you're educated enough to understand it, at boiling down the basic questions of
"What is humanity"
"is there even such a thing"
"How can I live with myself if I don't have a significant life goal"
"what is significant in this world"

It even begins to get existential and throughout the novel we seem shrouded ways of attempting to answer
"why we are here"

and perhaps the biggest question raised and dealt with in catcher is "how to come to terms with our finite lives."

Holden is a cosmic humanist-In much the same way Jean-Paul Sartre is. J.D. Salinger has been quoted to have based Holden loosely on Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Holden is a deeply troubled and disturbed young boy. His parents paid no attention to him growing up, (perhaps not, but this is how he see's it.) All of the attention they had was placed on Ali because of his leukemia. Holden then began living in a world where he hated Ali for ruining his child hood and "stealing" his parents. When Ali died Holden first began to hate himself to ever hating Ali. He rebels in school because what he really wants is a normal family, and to live at home and have an average life. This is why he continually gets kicked out of schools. It's an early cry for help. Because of Holden's retarded childhood (I mean "retarded" in the actual sense of the word) he is far more in touch with his emotions and stuck, psychologically, in the place he was when he first learned of Ali's death. There are several allusions of this throughout the novel. As Holden grows older, (perhaps only physically) he becomes obsessed with this idea of Ali as a "perfect-person" He see's bad things in the world around him, and for the life of him he can't figure out why they happen. Basic human emotions such as greed, lust, cruelty, pride and narcissism are incomprehensible to Holden. These are all bad things-and if Ali didn't have them, then no one should have them.

Holden understands, perhaps more than the world around him, that life is utterly disgusting without purpose. In a way, this makes catcher a type of manifesto against nihilism. He is a true optimist, perhaps solely due to his oddly stunted puberty.

While Holden may "whine" about the world, and all of its evils. He himself is nothing like what he hates. He is an individual, he values traditional beliefs on high-morals, contrary to the emerging pop-culture world of the fifties. He cares about others, and he strives to make the world a better place. He isn't guilty of a single crime he rails against. Yet he does often question himself, and whether or not his own beliefs are valid, and whether or not he may be a phony. Self-doubt is a principle human trait from time to time, however, Holden does not waver, and he holds first and foremost his strict system of morals and optimistic beliefs.

To put it simply, while it seems like everyone around Holden is given up on the idea of "good," Holden strives unconditionally to make the world a better place.

He understands the consequences of death, and believes that our time on Earth should be spent on something virtuous. He believes we should all live with happiness and substance. He believes we should all try to make the world a better place.

>>754882
please stop copypasting your homework onto here. noone cares.

Perhaps most importantly, he believes we should all hold reverence towards each other. This, lack of human compassion, and abundance of cruelty in the society around him, perhaps is the greatest factor in Holden's march towards the insane asylum.

Holden is not an untrustworthy narrator. Nor is his whining unjust. He is an emotionally disturbed young man who refuses to conform to an idea that has split the philosophy community for centuries: perhaps, we are evil.

Holden refuses to accept that, and sets out to explain how and why the human race is capable of so much more.

While some may call the book anti-climactic, and simply a series of diatribes, they are, in fact, reading the book for the wrong reasons. Catcher is not page-turner, it is not meant to read like Hemingway, Rand, etc. Catcher is a treatise of human kind; meant to be read with the same type of fine-tooth-comb you would read Thus Spoke Zarathustra with.

As for the ending...It's clear some of you don't understand the analogy or the metaphor. I could spell it out, and perhaps prove how exciting the novel really is. However, I will leave it at this. Just remember. This is not a simple novel. this is not a fun novel. It is a exposition on humanity. Salinger spent an enormous amount of time on Catcher, and every single word is there for a reason.

That is all I have to say.
My name is Leo Braudy I am the Chair in English and American Literature at USC. Feel free to e-mail me if you have productive discourse regarding my statements.

>>754869
>>754877
>>754879
>>754882
>>754884

holy fucking shit for the first time in history anon fucking delivered

>>754895
delivered what? a blow-hard's account of why he is fixated on a novel about a character that is fixated? Catcher... is the product of a sick society and specifically, one emotionally ill person, the ever isolated JD Salinger. Seriously, I have seen directors describe a film in this ''fine way'' and to watch the movie you would have to sedate me with Thorazine. A big deal can be made about any work of literature, do you remember the threads about The Penis Was? I think that poster was trolling and potentially trying to get an innocent professor swamped in butthurt or dickriding emails for the rest of eternity. Don't be taken in by anyone willing to wax poetic about something.

I call major bullshit

http://leobraudy.com/

i honestly didn't read it. but I saw some big fucking words. so Imma stay away from that ish and just assume hes right. thats how Bush got into office right?

>>754906

You say so much and so little.

So who is gonna email this duodenum to see if it's really him?

http://leobraudy.com/contact/

Goddamn, I can't believe no one is reading this man's deconstruction of Catcher, it is fucking amazing.

Brb, re-reading.

>>754925
you understand so little, and run away. could i expect anything less?

>>754931

Dude, I read it. It's amazing. It's sad to see some random jackass lambast it.

I guess pic related for the haters.

>>754906
>ad hominem
>begging the question
>anecdotal evidence
>straw man
>straw man

>>754938

I guess people would prefer to post TL;DR, which makes me wonder why they came to a forum about -reading-....

>>754641
>self-of-steemed
BAHAHAHA thanks for the laugh. That's the best one I've seen in a long time.

>>754906
AND THEN JOHN WAS DEMONS

>>754931

>deconstruction

You shouldn't use that word if you don't know what it means. It is not a synonym for analysis.

>>754957

I personally disagree, if only because he took the time to break "Catcher' up into easily digestible fragments.

However, I respect your opinion.

>>754962

No, see, that's not how it works. It doesn't even work if you go on the definition the word might have were you to ignore the body of criticism around it. Deconstruction of The Catcher in the Rye would take some of the basic assumptions (innocence vs. experience, good vs. evil, whatever) and attempt to problematise them. This is not at all what was posted. It being just, like, your opinion, man, has no relevance.

>>754984

>Deconstruction of The Catcher in the Rye would take some of the basic assumptions (innocence vs. experience, good vs. evil, whatever) and attempt to problematise them.

That is exactly what I see here, but I guess you're right.

Trying to break down The Catcher In The Rye into philosophical babble is precisely why Salinger hated his fans and sealed himself off from the world. Catcher is about a teenage fuck up realizing the world around him is terrible. No more, no less.

archive potential? Could be the tell-all critiquing thread of Catcher in the Rye, all perspectives given.

That was by far the best analysis of Catcher in the Rye that I have ever read. Sir, you have convinced me to love a book I once only had mediocre feelings for.

You also really make me want to go back to college :/

Really? I read the Catcher in the Rye. I thought it was absolutely dreadful.

>>754747
Woah, woah, woah.

I agree that the great gatsby is a easy read but I do not think the symbolism is light or that easy to understand.

You take that back, sir.

I read this book as a wee child and I remember absolutely nothing but a guy being raped. I was scarred.

I really feel like everyone in this thread is either trolling, or I didn't read the same Catcher in the Rye everyone else did

Haters gonna hate. This book was pretty damn good, the only point people seem to have against it is: He whines to much. And: Nothing happens.
What they really mean: I don't understand what he's saying. And: Why aren't there any explosions?

>>755677
This

>>755166

Are you 8? It's basic symbolism, anon.

>>754869

that was insane. My mind if officially blown.

>>755677
he does whine too much. Yeah, he's whining about some interesting issues BUT IT'S STILL WHINING.

Great book if you want to know about upper-class American entitlement.

>>753645

it think the whole point of analysis ITT so far is that Catcher is a book that (unlike Salinger's other works) goes beyond 'upper class entitlement' and seeks to answer questions pertaining to the workings of the universe

"His parents paid no attention to him growing up, (perhaps not, but this is how he see's it.)"
"He's not an unreliable narrator."
Uh. What? Also the fact that he bitches about how much shit he'll catch when his dad finds out was an obvious clue that his dad at least gives a damn enough to try and do this stuff for him. Butthurt teenager detected.

"It even begins to get existential and throughout the novel we seem shrouded ways of attempting to answer
'why we are here'

and perhaps the biggest question raised and dealt with in catcher is 'how to come to terms with our finite lives.' "
Yeah, I'm with you so far. I think his complete lack of answers on it, and the fact that he goes about it in an incredibly puerile manner are exactly why J.D. Salinger did nothing more than accurately describe a butthurt teenager, but ok, yeah, I'm with you so far. Find me a butthurt teenager with more than 10 braincells that doesn't get into this shit.

Your psychological analysis of Holden's condition is pretty sound, I agree and figured the same things upon reading it. But again, you go way out in left field here:
"While Holden may "whine" about the world, and all of its evils. He himself is nothing like what he hates. He is an individual, he values traditional beliefs on high-morals, contrary to the emerging pop-culture world of the fifties. He cares about others, and he strives to make the world a better place. He isn't guilty of a single crime he rails against. Yet he does often question himself, and whether or not his own beliefs are valid, and whether or not he may be a phony."
He has reasons for why he's a phony and they're justifiable ones, I remember this quite well. He's not innocent and he fucking knows it, he just stuffed it down inside himself and kept on walking. Let's check the butthurt teenager checklist: yes, I see the box here, self-deceiving righteous indignation: check.

>>755411
A guy was raped in Catcher?

My knowledge of this book isn't great either, apparantly.

>>756195
>>756195

EXACTLY thank you. I'm glad someone gets it. I couldn't agree more. That is exactly why Catcher is so fucking good.

Also, that one teachers analysis was amazing.

>>756154
>>756154
To this guy. It's not really whining if Holden is discussing important issues that affect everyone. So, your opinion sucks.

"To put it simply, while it seems like everyone around Holden is given up on the idea of "good," Holden strives unconditionally to make the world a better place.

He understands the consequences of death, and believes that our time on Earth should be spent on something virtuous. He believes we should all live with happiness and substance. He believes we should all try to make the world a better place."
Gosh. Wow. A teenager understands existential angst. Yeah, teenagers never get that shit, especially if they watch movies and TV. Plus they never break it down into a juvenile pattern of black-and-white, accusal and vindication. Oh no, never.

"Perhaps most importantly, he believes we should all hold reverence towards each other. This, lack of human compassion, and abundance of cruelty in the society around him, perhaps is the greatest factor in Holden's march towards the insane asylum.

Holden is not an untrustworthy narrator. Nor is his whining unjust. He is an emotionally disturbed young man who refuses to conform to an idea that has split the philosophy community for centuries: perhaps, we are evil.

Holden refuses to accept that, and sets out to explain how and why the human race is capable of so much more."
Where? Where is this implied at all? He has barely any concept of what good is. He's constantly wondering what good even is, and he never comes up with an answer besides his psychological fixation on Ali. And that's a fairytale, a child's concoction. Persistence in an appealing fantasy without rational basis because of its emotional appeal: butthurt teenager.

Look, I don't hate this book. It's not bad. But it's clear that what Salinger was trying to express is not all of this over-analyzed drivel.
He painted a deep and telling psychological profile of an emotionally disturbed, affluent young man. He researched very well certain conditions and concepts to carefully mold this kid, and then sent him through a weekend of hell that was the kid's own making and doing. It was a groundbreaking novel because of it's use of language and the way he tackled a naive approach to morality in an age when morality was being questioned at a furiously fast-paced rate.
But it is not that philosophically deep. It's a kid struggling to grow up when he's had challenges, many or possibly most of them, placed there by himself, and he's hindering his own progress. He's stuck in a shell and refuses to come out. That's the beauty of the novel, and the ending is one big huge metaphor for exactly what life has to give us: Guess what pal, nobody has the fucking answers. If you don't grow up and move along anyhow, you're a god-damned nutcase. And a big fat phony.

>>756214
>>756214
and
>>756202
>>756202

samefag is obvious

ya, and let's not mince words.

butt-hurt teenager ≠ disheartened and disappointed teenager

Okay. It looks like we all agree that Holden was FUCKING INSANE. Even the professor thinks so. Maybe the trick to Catcher is that Salinger was trying to say that the people that we in society would call insane (Holden) are actually the only ones disconnected enough to realize that we in society are the ones living absolutely insane. The fact that Holden is insane but see's more real problems and society than any functioning member of society would says something about how disturbed our society is. Oh, and the only person who actually wants to FIX the world is the person that the world considers crazy and locks away?!!?! What kind of shit is that. Salinger was saying that once you're out of society you realize how fucked up things actually are but no one listens and they eventually lock you up for wanting things to be better.

>>756232
Of course I was samefagging, fucking duh.
And yes it does equal disheartened and disappointed. That's exactly what I meant, and it's exactly why disheartened and disappointed male teenagers all over America relate to him. Holden's escapades are a narrative representation of disillusionment, and instead of rising to challenges, he cracks like an egg and splats on the hard surface of reality, which is what I was getting at. He's not a saint investigating eternal truths, he's a teenager connecting dots who can't handle the pictures they make.

>>756246
I didn't see that in your first two posts, maybe I was reading too fast or maybe you explained it a little better this time. But since you put it that way, Yeah I do agree with you, sorry for calling you out. Good point anon.

Holy shit this threads till up?

Nothing really blew my mind, so to speak. But I was taken aback at how pivotal and significant the head-patting scene was. Holden's narrow-minded view on everything is really challenged.

I guess I can understand all the hate towards Catcher, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and would go as far as saying it's changed my life.

>>754106
isn't that in the sopranos?

>>754117
omg
oloolololololololololololololololololololololololololololol.

>>756246
>>756246

Although, I still wouldn't use the term "butt-hurt" since that implies that he is upset over things that don't matter. And as numerous people on this thread have pointed out, the shit he is upset about matter very much. Which is why I use "disheartened" or "disappointed" instead of "butt-hurt"

>>756281
Ya know what I hate about all of this shit, especially in these threads? That people like you get attacked for saying things like that.
This book didn't change my life, and I didn't love it. So what man? Why does that mean there's something wrong with you? What does that really have to say about me? There's a certain hypocrisy in that the people who rail against this book don't realize when they're puking out all their venomous bile is that they're doing exactly what made Holden unsympathetic as a person for them.
If this book changed your life, if it made you think, feel, and behave differently, I've got two things to say to you buddy:
pic related. At least you've changed your life.

I thought this book as boring and holden was SO PHONY,IT KILLED ME

>>756310
I'm touched, anon. Thanks.

I would be hard pressed to come up with three 20th century american novels better than Catcher in the Rye. It says EVERYTHING, in fact, this may be the best piece of American literature in the twentieth century.

More people love the book.

Those who don't have horrible arguments that have been shot down multiple times throughout this thread.

That one professor kinda wrote the catch-all

The general consensus of /lit/ and the final word IS:

The Catcher in the Rye is a truly great book.

That was the winning statement and therefore the final statement, goodnight folks!

Well, it blew me away when I read it for the first time. Of course I was 13 or so and just as big a whiner as Holden, that probably has something to do with it. Probably would hate it too if I read it now for the first time.

>>756408
Shot down. Except for:
>>756202
>>756214
>>756223
The only articulate and reasoned counter-argument that no one shot down at all. Replace the word butthurt with disheartened, disappointed, and disillusioned, and it remains an argument that makes just as much sense. That's the only thing that was even said about it.

>>756419
HERP DERP DIS A BAD BOOK LOL. I DIDNT LIKE IT SO YOU ALL HAVE TO NOT LIKE IT TOO DEEEEEERP.

u mad.

>>756223
>>756423
HERP DERP I DON'T UNDERSTAND PRAISE WHEN I READ IT DERP DERP DERP IS THE BEST I CAN DO FOR AN ARGUMENT

>>756427
HERP DERP LOOK AT ME /LIT/ I SO WITTY. PROJECTION. PROJECTION. DON'T TELL FREUD.