Which Of The Great Authors Can't You Read? - Page 2

And, please, pay attention to the passage from which the book's title was taken. It's key.

I used the word "attack" because it's in the definition. It's more of a character study with some (not-so-obvious, apparently) pokes at said character.

I don't think I missed the point of the book. I think to take Holden completely seriously is a mistake, actually.

Now I'll admit to being somewhat of a Salinger novice, but what I've read of the Glass family stuff shows Salinger can do characters with amazing subtlety. If this is so, why the heck would he choose to write Holden's narration the way he did, with the repetition, the painfully obvious statements about mankind, "phoniness," etc.? I think it's because it's coming from a foolish, obnoxious child.

Just wondering: do you find Holden entirely sympathetic?

I've got no problem with stories with unsympathetic main characters, but I guess this really comes down to whether you think Salinger intended him to be sympathetic and to what degree.

I see him as being drawn with some affection, but overall he comes across as a wrongheaded kid, who is, as Alice sort of said, not the kind of guy I'd really want to hang with for any extended period of time. And THAT, not a fundamental misunderstanding of the book, is why it didn't make for the most pleasant reading for me.

I guess flawed is a better word than ridiculous. Plus, I wrote somewhat ridiculous.

Blofeld makes an excellent point. If you looked at what that means, you might see Holden differently. To not take him seriously, that's the mistake.

Holden is scraped open, honest, scared, and totally vulnerable to the world---of course I find him sympathetic. The question is, why don't you?

And it's not a character study. Salinger created a voice (and it is a total creation; obviously the introverted J.D. is nothing like Mr. Caufield) that would allow him to get at emotions and feelings that he wanted to get at. Think about why he chose a teenager. Well, that's an uncomfortable, scary time in one's life, a time when one begins to enter the world of adults, a world Salinger obviously feels is phony and messed up and wrong. You have to face all this new sociability, you look at your parents differently, you'll probably experience death for the first time, you're supposed to begin deciding who you are and what you're going to be, you get charged up about sex---and Salinger uses all this, uses this sharp, funny, and confused kid to look at the world and comment on it and explore all of the fucked up feelings that he as a writer has about it all.

I'll turn the tables on your "people liked it cause they read it when they were younger" thing. You've probably heard this voice a lot since you've been born. It's been copied more than Ridley Scott's Alien technique. But this is the original, the real mccoy; at the time it was written, it was a reinvention of the first person persona.

It's pure and utter genius.

Flawed and ridiculous. Ballpark, not in same.

I think Holden is an incredibly sympathetic character, and "Catcher in the Rye" remains one of my favorite books. However, I can see where reading the at the right time - in your teen years - would make the book and its central character resonate more (or, in Dave's case, at all).

How can you say that Salinger is nothing like Holden?

Do they share some of the same pains and emotions? Of course. But is Salinger a chatty, charming teenager? Of course not.

He was never like that. That's the genius of the book: the distance he gets because it is such an imaginative invention.

Yeah, that I could buy, as well.

And I can see how Salinger is getting at the phoniness of society through Holden to an extent. But I think the ultimate joke is that Holden, himself, is somewhat phony, despite the death of his brother and the breakdown at the end (which seems to be the result of his own hypocrisy, to an extent).

Like I mentioned up above, my ultimate problem with this book may be more with how it's been interpreted. I didn't go in with a clean slate, so maybe my negative attitude toward the character has something to do with the way Holden has been characterized by some as a voice of a generation or heroic figure or something.

I agree with your assessment that he's a "sharp, funny, and confused" kid, but I think he's far less sharp and funny than he thinks he is, and a lot more confused, thus my trouble sympathizing.

I suppose if I got this much out of the book, maybe it got its hooks in me more than I thought...

Albeit in a somewhat different way.

I don't think Holden is trying to be anything, he's too true for that sort of game; he has one way to deal with the world and that's how he deals with it.

I never considered him a hero. I was just grateful for him saying the things he said, for his vulnerability. To see someone not empathizing with that level of rawness, that open wound, that sort of shocks me. If I didn't feel that, when I went back and read that book, I would ask myself why.

I think that you guys are sort of missing the ERA this book comes from. Holden Caulfield is basically the genesis of the modern teen. The fact that his voice is one that you see on the internet and in the world is the TRIUMPH of the book.

Also, I think that a character can be familiar and sympathetic without being likable, per se. If at 25 you identify with Holden, get thee to a therapist. BUT if you can remember that 16 year old inside you and get in touch with him/her, the book will resonate deeply. Of course, you may not like that inner teen, but isn't that sort of the point? Isn't that what is happening to Holden in the pages of the book - growing and changing in totally painful and unpredictable ways.

I think it's a terrific book and I think it's exactly CORRECTLY rated - one of the defining works of modern American literature.

... and he's not exactly a trustworthy narrator ... or, at least, you've got to keep in mind the maturity level from which his observations are made.

Of course he's not trustworthy, he lies about 400 times in the book.

Andrews is a GREAT author?

I'd definitely call Holden an unreliable narrator, in that he's telling you things, how the world is, what's up with him, but the narrative reveals to the reader aspects of the world and himself that Holden does not see. Calling him untrustworthy has a connotation that he's trying to lie and that's certainly not true. He may be lying to people within the book Tony, but he's not lying to his audience.

Absolutely agree. See previous comments about Mr. Humbert above. I don't have a problem with the concept, it's just that the execution in this case left me cold.

Remember, this thread is about admittedly great authors who we just can't get into. I don't deny that Catcher may have had a tremendous impact. It just didn't connect with me the way it seems it has with many of you.

I also have no problem identifiying with conflicted literary teens, generally, even at 28. But this one didn't ring quite true for me, probably because at that age I think many of us are growing aware of our own flaws, while Holden seems content to blame many of his problems on society's "phoniness." I guess one could say this is his fundamental problem, but this seemed very clear to me right off the bat and most of the book seemed to be going in circles until he finally bottoms out.

But this is a personal reaction, not really a judgment call on the book. Just because I didn't connect with it doesn't mean it's bad. And it certainly did connect with me a lot more than, say, Hemingway (with a couple exceptions) or Conrad have, and I won't dispute those guys' reputations. Sort of how I appreciate Robert Johnson, but would rather listen to Radiohead.

I'll probably re-read it sometime, since I'm loving Salinger's later stuff.

You're right, he never lies to the reader. My bad.

Just think of it as you as the reader being his confidant. He's not gonna act the same with you as he does to the world at large.

Gotta back DaveB up and say "Catcher in the Rye" is lost on me as well.

Edith Wharton - BORING

Kurt Vonnegut - maybe I just don't get it.