Catcher and the Rye

eileeness311 · Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:27 am

I recently decided to catch up on some of the books I missed when I was growing up and I dedcied to start with Catcher and the Rye by J. D. Salinger. However I am not getting why this book is a classic. It seems to me (and I have not finished it yet) that this kid is just rambling on about his life and his poor choices. I guess my question is Does this book have a point or is it really just the ramblings of some punk kid?

R. LeBeaux · Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:44 am

I think it has a lot to do with the time in which this novel was published. It was very daring story then, what with all the swearing and sexual content; things that are commonplace today. Also, back in the ‘50s, teenagers were becoming disillusioned with the way they were treated by parents and other authority figures, which eventually led to the “hippie” rebellions of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Nowadays, the thoughts and ideas expressed seem more whiny and pointless than they did then.

LS Burton · Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:00 pm

Well, it's an easy read about a kid trying to find himself, wishing for something real and true in his life in a society which, at that point, had a very polished veneer. He searches for meaning, wishing he could be a source for good in the world, but in the end, his only good move through the book - trying to preserve the innocence of the children of the school by scratching swear words off the wall - is a very small act, and eventually pointless, as he comes across another spot where someone has scratched FUCK into the wall, and this spot is permanent.

He can also do nothing to help anybody, not even himself, in a world that doesn't care and is essentially dark and manipulative.

I like that story, even if i don't necessarily believe the message, or like Holden himself.

Also, it's Catcher IN the Rye, as he imagines himeself as the man who could stand in the field and stop people from falling off the cliff and save them. If I rememeber right.

Shane1o · Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:20 am

Yes it's a good book, not a GREAT book. I've decided myself to spend two years reading the classics. Some have been classic, some good and (touch wood) none bad so far.
Example, I'm reading Doctor Zhivago at the moment which doesn't have near as many plaudits as Crime and Punishment but in my eyes is already much better.
Steinbeck, Lois Stephenson and Walter Tevis especially have been superb whilst a hidden gem, Donn Pearce's Cool hand Luke was a joy.

Stick with Catcher in the Rye, even if it's not the best, it's still good and worth having read, if only to say you have.

AnnaWins · Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:18 am

I usually try to avoid reading too deep into the "meaning" of a book in order to explain how popular it was/is. I think the reason "Catcher" resonated with so many people is how very true Holden was written. Salinger captured exactly the way most young people feel and think at that age. And though Holden may not have reacted to those feelings and thoughts the way most of us did – it was a rare glimpse into the mind of a young person. It was truth.

Hemingway once said: "I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things."

I think if an author can capture truth in his characters, it already has a leg up on a lot of over-written crap out there.

The language and talk of sex probably helped it get attention in the 50's and I'm sure Mark David Chapman's obsession with it leading up to his murder of John Lennon help to wrap the story in mystique almost 30 years after it was written.

giselle · Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:01 pm


	AnnaWins wrote: Hemingway once said: "I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things." I think if an author can capture truth in his characters, it already has a leg up on a lot of over-written crap out there.

I like this Hemingway quote and I agree ... we can derive meaning from the 'real' precisely because it is so clearly real and true, therefore creating confidence in what the writer is saying, a touchstone and sense of shared real, human experience. But the meaning we might derive is quite subjective because we see it and process it through the lens of our own unique experience, knowledge, feelings, personality etc.

I'm interested in reading Catcher in the Rye and discussing if others are interested. Would be a good idea to correct the thread title though (lol). I noticed it on the fiction list this time round but it didn't win.

pthreadneedle · Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:20 am

I know it's a very trivial quibble, but to be honest, the thing that bothered me most about this book is how tenuous the title seemed!

I don't think Holden would misremember the song lyric (he has "catch" instead of "meet") unless he was specifically thinking of "catch" in the sense of "meet" (i.e., "Try to catch Bob before he leaves early"). But he doesn't. He means catch in its most literal sense.

Also, even if he got his dream job of standing on a cliff, I don't think "catcher" is the right word for it. You'd call him a warden or some kind of lifeguard.

Forum rules

Catcher and the Rye Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!