J.D. Salinger: The Catcher In The Rye

[joquiero]

I did enjoy this book but don't understand why its such a classic - there just didn't seem to be anything special about it. I guess it was pretty unique when it was released and still retains some of that magic even though its not groundbreaking anymore.

A friend of mine though who spent a little time in catholic boarding school DID relate to it. He absolutely loved it.

 

[novella]

I think Catcher in the Rye is often misunderstood. Booksblog is right, Holden is severely depressed and in prolonged mourning for his brother. In fact, he is on the brink of a nervous breakdown, which eventually does put him in the hospital at the end of the book. For this reason, he is an intentionally unreliable narrator whose perceptions are colored by his unhealthy mental state.

Most of Salinger's work deals with such severe depression--at least one of his characters commits suicide (It's a Beautiful Day for Bananafish).

Catcher in the Rye also has a sense of humor in its use of language that may not be understood outside the US. I remember the line about the lady on the train whose hand was "lousy with rocks." That kind of phrase is specific to a time and place in America and is really funny.

I think the book was misread throughout the 60s as a text about teenage alienation, rather than about depression and loss and grieving. IMO, that misreading probably contributed to Salinger's self-imposed isolation and refusal to release the movie rights. Maybe he resented being the avatar for a generation at odds with its parents, when his conception of Holden Caulfield was really about a boy seeking comfort and refuge, not alienation and rebellion.

What's interesting is how many sickos cling to the book, even carrying it with them like a totem. Can't figure that one out.

Novella

 

[booksblog.co.uk]

What's interesting is how many sickos cling to the book, even carrying it with them like a totem. Can't figure that one out.

See the film "The Good Girl" for an example of this. It is strange though, especially considering the ending of the book is actually pretty positive.

 

[Thea]

The beauty of books is that there is no way to misunderstand them. I think most writers are aware that it is impossible to clearly communicate their thoughts in a book so that everyone who reads it will get the same message the author intended (if he ever intended anything to begin with). Just because someone understood something other than what you read the book to be about, doesn't mean they've misunderstood it.

We've all grown up thinking those Teacher's Helper versions of the books we read in school carry all the answers, but I prefer to think outside the box, read books and come to my own conclusions. As someone said in another thread, there are no answers in books, only questions. The reader is the one with the answers. That's how I look at it, anyway.

This is why I love book discussion forums, because I get to see what other people got out of books I've also read. It's usually something completely different from what I understood the book to be about, and rereading a book taking into account another person's perspective can be like reading an entirely different book altogether.

 

[novella]

The beauty of books is that there is no way to misunderstand them.

That's a ridiculous statement, the equivalent of saying there's no way to misunderstand any form of communication. Of course some books are misread and misunderstood! Some people just don't read very well. Sorry, but not every interpretation is valid, particularly those based on partial or faulty perception.

Take Ullysses. I was privy to an extensive argument between two Americans discussing James Joyce's repeated use of the phrase "dog's body" in Ullysses. These two people, who consider themselves "intellectuals" went on and on, reading every dang thing into that usage, but both were surprised to find out that 'dog's body" is a common phrase in both England and Ireland. They came to the book ill-informed and their interpretations were, as a result, extremely silly.

I find the same is true for many kids reading The Catcher in the Rye. For some reason, they see only parts of Holden's experience, but miss the big picture completely.

Novella

 

[CoolGuy]

I've read this book quite frequently everytime I read I sense something new. I get all the part where he has a problem.

I however don't like the abrupt end in the book. As if the story doesn't know where to go.

 

[hal9000]

Murphyz originally posted:

"...Holden Caulfield (which, incidentally, is one of the coolest names in literature)

Ya kind of, although it smacks of all those elitist East Coast Ivy-league schools and families and blah blah blah, which may have been the authors intent since many authors choose names mirroring their characters' personality traits. The name "Holden" is English and means "Hollow in the Valley."

 

[hal9000]

Take Ullysses. I was privy to an extensive argument between two Americans discussing James Joyce's repeated use of the phrase "dog's body" in Ullysses. These two people, who consider themselves "intellectuals" went on and on, reading every dang thing into that usage, but both were surprised to find out that 'dog's body" is a common phrase in both England and Ireland. They came to the book ill-informed and their interpretations were, as a result, extremely silly. Novella

Maybe Thea is referring to the overall meaning and ideology in a given theme, not incorrect interpretations of locutions.

For some reason, they see only parts of Holden's experience, but miss the big picture completely.
Novella

I agree.

 

[Darren]

Discussion: Salinger, J. D: The Catcher in the Rye

December 2004

A 16-year old American boy relates in his own words the experiences he goes through at school and after, and reveals with unusual candour the workings of his own mind. What does a boy in his teens think and feel about his teachers, parents, friends and acquaintances?

 

[Freya]

Good God. I've actually read this book. Hmmm. Once I've got over the shock, I might make a pointful comment about what I thought. There's something to look forward too kids!

 

[novella]

The opening reveals a lot about how Holden feels about his parents and his background. Also, it begins the thread about his mental health.

 

[Nosferatu Man]

I can't wait for your comment, Freya! My own comment goes like this:

Well, I love The Catcher in the Rye. I think I've mentioned somewhere else in the forum that I found it absolutely hilarious the first couple of times through, and I'll stand by that, but I'd like to say what I think about Holden himself.

He's one of my favourite characters that I've read about, and I sort of think I'm somewhat like him (although he probably wouldn't agree that he's anything like me!). I see him as a very perseptive and sensitive person. He's very aware of what's going on around him and he has his own opinion and view of what he sees. My favourite thing about him is that he's pretty sensible. For example, in Chapter 14 he tells us about a Quaker called Arthur Childs who went to the Whooton School with him. He used to get into arguements with Arthur about the bible. Let me just give you a small quote: 'I remember I asked old Childs if he thought Judas, the one that betrayed Jesus and all, went to Hell after he committed suicide. Childs said certainly. That's exactly where I disagreed with him. I said I'd bet a thousand bucks that Jesus never sent old Judas to Hell. I still would, too, if I had a thousand bucks. I think any one of the Disciples would've sent him to Hell and all - and fast, too - but I'll bet anything Jesus didn't do it.' I thought that was pretty sensible of Holden. And I agree with him. I reckon Jesus existed, but I certainly believe that he wasn't the one and only son of God. I think Holden recognises this, and he can remove Jesus from the religion that's been moulded around him. I think Jesus was just a regular guy, who was very wise and was a very nice person. But... I don't completely agree with Holden, because I don't think it's up to anyone but ourselves where we end up when we die (if we indeed end up anywhere).

I like to think I personally own the characteristics in Holden that I mentioned above, but we differ in (at least) one big way. He needs to be around people as much of the time as possible. There isn't much of the story where he's alone at all. I'm very different: I actually prefer to be on my own. I'm not saying that's a fault or a good characteristic in him, but it's just something I noticed.

To wrap up for now, my favourite part of the book is where he tells Phoebe about his wish to be the Catcher in the Rye when he's older. I think I was in tears when I first read that. It was so touching, and just about perfectly encapsulated Holden's character.

 

[novella]

. . . my favourite part of the book is where he tells Phoebe about his wish to be the Catcher in the Rye when he's older. I think I was in tears when I first read that. It was so touching, and just about perfectly encapsulated Holden's character.

The question is, why is he like that? Why does he wish that?

 

[Ou Be Low hoo]

The question is, why is he like that? Why does he wish that?

In my humble opinion, the reason is that he thinks too much and the simplicity of being a 'catcher in the rye' is what he dreams for...

The book is beyond comparison.

 

[novella]

In my humble opinion, the reason is that he thinks too much and the simplicity of being a 'catcher in the rye' is what he dreams for...

The book is beyond comparison.

IMO, he's still traumatized by his brother's death. I think he's also very self-aware of his depression and loss--even has a conversation about getting psychiatric help and is constantly seeking out someone who can help him. I think his quest is for the comfort of his family, and that he's not much of a rebel.

In fact, he's worried very much about his mother throughout.

 

[Maya]

It's an excellent read! I love the way it's told, very casually (not sure if that's the right word) and direct, through the main character Holden.

 

[Ou Be Low hoo]

IMO, he's still traumatized by his brother's death. I think he's also very self-aware of his depression and loss

High self-awareness - or in his case self-consciousness - and depression are both related to thinking too much rather than enjoying and accepting the simple things in life...like, in his view, being a catcher in the rye.

 

[novella]

Holden's world of privilege

An interesting aspect of Holden that's not discussed much is his privilege and open snobbery--though he accuses other people of being snobs all the time.

He's most comfortable at the highest, most expensive eschelon possible (Upper East Side NYC hotels, private schools, chic nightclubs), his frame of reference is always about that (makes of expensive cars, other people's clothes and jewelry, people's summer houses, what their parents do and can afford), and he openly judges people by what they have and own. In fact, he disdains the ordinary (tourists, people who aren't in the know about wealth and style, working stiffs).

It's funny that so many people read this book and perceive him as a regular kid, when he's living this rarified life and views anyone not in the same league as a nonperson.

Thinking about this some more, Holden might be the most Establishment kid in modern literature. Far from being a rebel, he believes that any woman who wears white after Labor Day or drinks a gin and tonic in the winter instead of a Manhattan is hopelessly clueless and lower class. He would never dream of wearing anything but tennis whites on the court.

Another interesting point of discussion: what does Holden mean by the word "phony"?

 

[Ou Be Low hoo]

Another interesting point of discussion: what does Holden mean by the word "phony"?

Someone that acts a certain way simply to please people - a sychophant- or just behaviour that makes him feel a little queasy...

 

[novella]

Someone that acts a certain way simply to please people - a sychophant- or just behaviour that makes him feel a little queasy...

But Holden is the one who lies to please or impress other people. Isn't that fitting his definition?

Also, he applies the term so liberally almost nobody is unscathed. In fact, I would say that anyone who is not "innocent" is a phony in his book. That is, anyone who is operating in the grown-up world.

OBL, any comment on the other point below? Just curious.