J.D. Salinger: The Catcher In The Rye

[Stewart]

Today I finally read The Catcher In The Rye. I must have bought my copy about twelve years ago when I was seventeen, and it's sat on the shelves, yellowing with age, ever since. I don't think I've ever attempted it before, pretty much because I thought I knew what it was all about. In truth, I hadn't a clue. A famous opening, a character called Holden Caulfield, and something about a kid sister doesn't constitute knowledge of a book. Imagine my surprise when there's bugger all baseball (where I'd assumed the catcher part came from) and the title is another American classic referencing a Robert Burns poem.

The biggest fear in reading the book was that I may now be too old for it, so goes the notion that it's best read in your teens. But either way it's a damn enjoyable book, although I can understand why it may be even more influential to a younger reader. By the time you're past twenty the world has kindly battered you with 'Fuck yous' all the way and you're not as likely to be standing on the precipice of the big bad world learning to fall.

Overall, a , although I don't doubt that if I'd read it back when I bought it, I'd be giving it a .

[titania7]

Stewart,
I'm pleased to see a review on this American classic. I must make a confession: I've only read parts of this book. But I do like Salinger quite a lot, and your write-up is just the impetus I need to finally sit down and read The Catcher in the Rye all the way through. To follow-up this initial foray into Salinger's world, you might want to look into reading his collection, Nine Stories, as well as Franny and Zoey, his other novel. We're in the same age range. Thus it is my hope that, like you, I'll appreciate a book that was probably intended for a younger audience. There is a bit of mystique that's built up around The Catcher and the Rye. John Hinckley, the man who stalked Jodie Foster and tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan was passionately fond of the book. Moreover, Mark David Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon, had a copy in his possession at the time the killing. Curious, isn't it?

The book is also high on the list of many actors and actress's favorite books, among them: Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder, Ethan Hawke, and Gwyneth Paltrow.

I don't know which writers are fans of the novel, but I do know that Flannery O'Connor liked it so much she read it one day.

~Titania

[Mirabell]

In a different board there have been clashes of the pro-Catcherites and the anti-catcherites. I could've sworn you were one of the former, stewart.

I think it is vastly overrated. A nice YA book. I read it at 20. Was considerably too old for it.

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by Mirabell

In a different board there have been clashes of the pro-Catcherites and the anti-catcherites. I could've sworn you were one of the former, stewart.

With the exception of titles where I think the author is controlling the characters, I think I'd always be pro- the book, regardless of whether I got to grips with it. I'm all for Pynchon, even if I can't folow a page of him.

I know I've made mention of The Catcher In The Rye in one of my previous reviews, although that was in reference to my foggy - or misguided, if you like - understanding of it, although that's probably just down to the book being a poster child for rebellious kids everywhere.

A nice YA book. I read it at 20. Was considerably too old for it.

I'm trying to put together a lengthier review for my blog and looking at the Wiki page for it last night I was surprised that Salinger wrote it for adults, even if it read more by teens. While there's an age where it may be influential, I don't think there's an age where you are "too old for it" otherwise.

[saliotthomas]

I enjoy the book and read it quite late.It's a real novel and well written,not like say Jonathan Livingston Seagull,but one of those book it's good to have this "blasé" attitude about,The outsider is another one.

[sara]

I read it as a teenager and I liked it then.
I am pretty sure that if I read it now, at 32, I would be tempted to think that I am a bit old for it, but then again I prefer to dismiss this kind of notions.
If a book is good, it's good regardless of the reader's age- it may not be so influential, but good/bad has (almost) nothing to do with that.
And no, I wouldn't call it overrated (even though that is a word I tend to use a lot).

[Cocko]

I read it last year for the first time at age 32... I quite enjoyed it, and in fact I don't think age played too much of a factor in my appreciation of the work.

However, from my perspective it is hard to say whether the book deserves its lofty place in history. I say this only because there is little subtext other than disenfranchised youth, while this alludes to other themes of interest the novel doesn't really dig deep enough for my liking into the motivation for these feelings. That said, the quality of writing in the first person is remarkably strong and it is the nuances of Caulfield’s narration that is the real page turner and for many this alone is the mastery of the book. That said, it is hard not to be slightly annoyed at a poor little rich kid that complains for 200 pages.

[Beth]

I read it for the (at least) third time about five years ago at age 43. And it was just as fresh then to me as it was the first time. I get a copy for pennies, give it away, always replace it with another just as dogeared as HC.

[titania7]

Originally Posted by Stewart

I'm trying to put together a lengthier review for my blog and looking at the Wiki page for it last night I was surprised that Salinger wrote it for adults, even if it read more by teens. While there's an age where it may be influential, I don't think there's an age where you are "too old for it" otherwise.

Stewart,
I'll look forward to the longer review of The Catcher in the Rye at your blog. It's interesting that you should have come across that info at the Wiki page about Salinger writing this book for adults. I know of several graduate courses on the American novel that have included The Catcher in the Rye as part of their curriculum. Of course, we're all different, and what might seem superficial to one person at the age of twenty, for example, might seem entirely different to someone else. I also think we tend to come to books with certain preconceived ideas. It's inevitable, isn't it? As in all aspects of life, it's nearly impossible not to have a few prerecorded notions in our minds about certain works of literature. The same goes for musical compositions, works of art, and even movies. Approaching something (and yes, even someone) with a fresh, untainted outlook can be difficult. I admire you for giving The Catcher in the Rye a chance, Stewart. And I'm infinitely interested in knowing what else you have to say about it.

~Titania

[titania7]

Originally Posted by sara

If a book is good, it's good regardless of the reader's age- it may not be so influential, but good/bad has (almost) nothing to do with that. And no, I wouldn't call it overrated (even though that is a word I tend to use a lot).

Sara,
I concur completely with your sentiments. A book is either good or it isn't. To subscribe to the idea that the age of the reader has any bearing on or correlation to the quality or literary merit of a book would be absurd. Obviously, one is more capable of appreciating certain works of both fiction and non-fiction at specific ages. For example, I daresay I wouldn't have benefited nearly as much from reading Hannah Arendt at the age of ten as I would now.

And for those who don't know, Stewart's more extensive review of The Catcher in the Rye has been posted at his blog. At the risk of running out of superlatives to describe Stewart's review, I will simply say it is, in a nutshell, positively brilliant. Check it out, guys and gals:

booklit

Kudos to Stewart on bringing an exquisitely fresh perspective to an All-American classic!

Best,
Titania

[Jayaprakash]

I read it first when I was 13. Loved it at the time. So true, so very true, I kept mumbling to myself in awed self-recognition. Now - well, that Caulfield lad's a bit of a whiner, isn't he? What I like still is how well Salinger captures the way it feels to be a troubled adolescent, angry, lost, confused and desperate to seem worldly wise and find a place in an unwelcoming world.

[Heteronym]

For me, Salinger is a lot like Nietzsche: either you read him during your teenage nihilistic phase, or you'll never care about it. I had the good lucky of reading this novel too late so Caulfield's pretentiousness didn't get hold of me. Where people see an icon of freedom, I just see a dumb semi-rich kid shirking responsibilities and making a fool of himself all the time.

Like a friend of mine said, "Salinger makes Caulfield such a moron, I think he's just making fun of teens everywhere." I couldn't sum up my impressions better

[Coyote]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

Like a friend of mine said, "Salinger makes Caulfield such a moron, I think he's just making fun of teens everywhere."

I don't know if that's true. Salinger (when he spoke to the public) often said he always felt closer to the youth than he did to people his own age, and befriended local high school students where he lived. If you look at some of his other characters you'll see that they're often suffering from "coming of age" or "mid-life crisis" type scenarios themselves. Franny (Franny and Zooey) is caught up in religion while Seymour (A Perfect Day For A Banana Fish) can't cope with the "married life". I think Salinger is for the most part, a sincere author.

[Marie Grantaire]

I read Catcher in the Rye at around age 16, and, to be honest, I despised it. Well, not the novel. I just thought that Holden Caulfield was a useless moron who was throwing away everything good in his life and had a crazy fascination with his younger sister.

"Salinger makes Caulfield such a moron, I think he's just making fun of teens everywhere." I couldn't sum up my impressions better

I couldn't agree more. I'm thinking maybe I should re-read it and see if I find it funny.

[e joseph]

Too old for the book? I don't buy it. Is now a good time to confess I still love James and the Giant Peach?
I read Catcher just after college, and wasn't floored (though I did enjoy it) but I'm not sure I'd have been floored at 16 either. Books and characters either grab you or they don't. I wonder how old Hinckley and Mark David Chapman were when they first read the novel; are either members of this forum?

[miercuri]

I read only once when I was 12 (or 13?) and I can only remember I found it very sad (melancholy rather), which was fine with me back then since I was going through a "depressed teen" phase. But it never made the list of the top influential books of my teenage years.
I read Franny and Zoey three years ago and liked it a lot better.

[Bookmaniac]

I dispise this book. It simply portrays a boy, not quite a man, who because he hates himself and has no redeeming qualities gets himself kicked out of various schools and then ends up in an insane assylum. he is pathetic. He has no drive or redeeming actions. He is an all talk yellow person. To use his own terms. Holden Caufeild nauseates me. I forced myself to finish this book simply because it was on one of my self prescirbed summer reading lists. Despite this books other properties it is well writen and does protray a certain time in America. But I will never sympathise with the protagonist.

[Galatea92]

Originally Posted by Bookmaniac

I dispise this book. It simply portrays a boy, not quite a man, who because he hates himself and has no redeeming qualities gets himself kicked out of various schools and then ends up in an insane assylum. he is pathetic. He has no drive or redeeming actions. He is an all talk yellow person. To use his own terms. Holden Caufeild nauseates me. I forced myself to finish this book simply because it was on one of my self prescirbed summer reading lists. Despite this books other properties it is well writen and does protray a certain time in America. But I will never sympathise with the protagonist.

Are you the same Bookmaniac who included the following entry in your list of 30 favourite books (at the 50 favourite books thread here)?:

Originally Posted by Bookmaniac

THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger

Or was that an alter ego .

[Miriam]

Originally Posted by Marie Grantaire

I read Catcher in the Rye at around age 16, and, to be honest, I despised it. Well, not the novel. I just thought that Holden Caulfield was a useless moron who was throwing away everything good in his life and had a crazy fascination with his younger sister.

I just remember my own thoughts... During the whole reading I had a feeling, that something is not as common, as it seems from the first sight. Then, afret a long time, when I finished my reading, I realized, that Holden is a character... Firstly, it's necessary to explain another thing. As you know, Salinger was buddnist, and in Buddhism there if a kind of wisdom, that says: "When you see peoples EGO, there inner world, you'll understand that they are too different and you won't want to speak with them and even to know them"
So, Holden sees this inner world: he is very sceptical, he speaks like a person, who is not intrested in something, cuz he already KNOWS everything (at least he knows people as well, that he knows everything about them). So, such thought appeared...

[Lordis]

Originally Posted by Bookmaniac

I dispise this book. It simply portrays a boy, not quite a man, who because he hates himself and has no redeeming qualities gets himself kicked out of various schools and then ends up in an insane assylum. he is pathetic. He has no drive or redeeming actions. He is an all talk yellow person. To use his own terms. Holden Caufeild nauseates me. I forced myself to finish this book simply because it was on one of my self prescirbed summer reading lists. Despite this books other properties it is well writen and does protray a certain time in America. But I will never sympathise with the protagonist.

I think you completely have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. From my point of view, Holden Caulfield is a teenager struggling with emotional problems as a result of his brothers premature death. The reason as to why he hates, is because he loves too much (and partially because he is afraid of conflict/change). Furthermore, he is obsessed with the purity of childhood and despises whatever might, in his opinion, ruin said beauty.

Now, I might of course be overanalyzing, but I think The Catcher in the Rye is interesting, not only for the amazing narrating, but also owing to its vivid portrayal of a psychologically challenged teenager.