In the thread "Site talk: Inane reviews", Esta1923 responded to the conversation exploring the idea of a talk thread to discuss each work with "Somebody pick a book, please. Try for one that has been widely reviewed. Announce the title and say "OPEN FOR DISCUSSION" and stand back. . . Perhaps say "Discuss this BOOK, NOT its reviews!!" and see what happens." I picked Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye because it is #25 in the list of Most Reviewed books.

It is my opinion that the classic adolescent exploration of coming of age is best read when one is aged about 14. People coming to it later seem to find it immature. This may be a consequence of its huge reputation setting unrealistic expectations. What do you think?

I read it when I was 17 and liked it. Looking back, Holden Caulfield is basically Stephen Dedalus (of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man), only much, much stupider. The two are equally angsty. And I don't mean to disparage Caulfield with the comparison--because I think Caulfield is much more likeable than Dedalus.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Ago 14, 2009, 3:28pm.

I admit I haven't read it, partly because of all the things I've heard about it. That is probably a prejudice on my part. Do you agree with that statement i.e. is it a book that I would be disappointed with because it is immature or is it a book that you consider worth anybody's time. I'm at least partly on LT to expand my reading, I've spent the last few years reading 90% genre (fantasy or historical fiction) and am looking for recommendations outside my comfort zone.

By the way I am one of those who would like to find an easier way of discussing books, generally. My post on the topic follows yours in the Inane reviews thread.

I read it when I was 17 and liked it. Looking back, Holden Caulfield is basically Stephen Dedalus (of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man), only much, much stupider. The two are equally angsty. And I don't mean to disparage Caulfield with the comparison--because I think Caulfield is much more likeable than Dedalus.

Funny, though, when one looks at Holden and judges him for his arrogance, stupidity and basic "phoniness," one starts to sound a heck of a lot like Holden himself.

What Calm said. Should I bother given that 14, or for that matter 17, is fading into the sands of time.
Also what's the deal with all the conspiracy theorists? As in why is the book linked to them in so many movies etc. Not as in, "Are they all nut jobs?".

Funny, though, when one looks at Holden and judges him for his arrogance, stupidity and basic "phoniness," one starts to sound a heck of a lot like Holden himself.

I agree. In high school, my most curmudgeonly friend, the one who was objectively the most like Holden Caulfield, was the one who most vociferously hated him and The Catcher in the Rye.

Calm and Sodapop,

I think Catcher in the Rye is best appreciated if originally read as a teenager. I have friends whose tastes are similar to mine that love it, but I read it much later than they did and really didn't see the appeal, in fact was mildly annoyed by the whole thing. It seems that it is so formative to people who read it at the correct time that they will always be able to appreciate it, but those who miss the window will have a much more difficult time.

I think most people go through three phases with the book (if they follow it that long)...

1) Holden kicks ass! Speaking power to the Man!

2) Holden is an ass! What an obnoxious, self-absorbed, egotistical judgmental piece of shit.

3) Hmmm. I better not start judging Holden so harshly. I sound a heck of a lot like Holden when I do so. If I judge him, then I implicitly judge myself.

Though if they read it for the first time at a later age, I've found that some people will skip step 1.

HA HA HA! I'm loving this discussion!

Then again, quite a few people never seem to make it to step 3 either.

Forget I said anything. The book sucks.

So it seems to me that the consensus is that it is not worth reading if you aren't 14 or at least young enough to be impressionable. Is that correct?

And can anybody answer sodapop's question about conspiracy theorists?

No, it's an excellent book.

I think it is more that one's experience of the book changes markedly with age of first encounter. As a thirteen-year-old I did not really get it. At fifteen I rather admired Holden. At thirty (or thereabouts) I enjoyed the writing technique but I preferred Franny & Zooey.

I do not know about conspiracists but John Lennon's killer and the failed Reagan assassin both had links to Catcher. The former is more overt: Chapman was reading the book as he awaited arrest at the scene of the crime. The Reagan assassin merely had a copy on the table at his home. I think that the huge circulation of the book and its acknowledged appeal to the alienated are enough to explain its association with these men.

And can anybody answer sodapop's question about conspiracy theorists?
I'll take a crack at it. My theory is that these "nut jobs" identify easily with Holden Caulfield because he is depressed* and anxious. He is mentally ill. "Normal" angsty teenagers do not end up in mental hospitals. (Doesn't mean that one can't find many aspects of the "normal" teen in Caulfield, but there's an extra layer going on here.) He's suffering from the loss of his younger brother and from other factors as well.

Many of the reader reactions I see are the same judgments that people often make about individuals who are depressed: Caulfield is unlikeable. Why's he so full of anger, when he has plenty of money and privilege? What an unpleasant person--he seems to hate everyone and everything, he's always ranting about this and that. Why doesn't he just pull himself together, the little twerp?

In this other Catcher in the Rye thread, LolaWalser made a great post:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/66460#...

I'll just emphasize one point from her post, which is: whether the character is likeable or not is not the mark of whether it's good literature (though it may be the mark of whether you find it "worth reading" or not). What matters more is whether the book presents a compelling portrait of a character, whether that character lives and breathes or not. Caulfield does.

*Some symptoms of depression taken from the web (sound like Caulfield? yep):
--Persistent sad, anxious or "empty" feelings
--Feelings of hopelessness and/or pessimism
--Feelings of guilt, worthlessness and/or helplessness
--Irritability, restlessness
--Loss of interest in activities or hobbies once pleasurable, including sex
--Fatigue and decreased energy
--Difficulty concentrating, remembering details and making decisions

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Ago 15, 2009, 12:04pm.

Medellia, Thankyou. That was a great answer and I'll definitely consider reading it now.
If you haven't already, it would be great if you take a look at the post that Theo links to in his opening post. After the first 150 or so posts full of bickering and contention some interesting suggestions start to crop up, that might interest you.

#16: I've been following the thread, where you and some others have been contributing so helpfully. I thought about ducking my head in, but I'd only be chiming in on "review comments bad, talk thread mechanism good." I've never been too useful on these site improvement threads, and there are so many others who are so good at it!

Medellia, Thankyou that is the sort of thing I have been wanting to find out.

I have never heard of the book described as a study of depression. I've heard it said years ago, probably about the time of Chapman , that it is about a sulky teenager. For some reason I left it at that and didn't explore it further and hadn't considered reading it myself. So I am guilty of judging a book without reading it.

I'll also think of reading it. So many books, so little time!

Just finished rereading "Catcher in the Rye." I was a grown-up when it was written. I had always read books that might have been considered "too old for me" I now (age 86) understand why some teenagers did not like the book. Its vocabulary is off-putting. Its story-line a downward spiral. Yes it is about a peer, but NOT (probably) someone of their peer-group. If you were not rich/in private schools/ egotistical etc etc Holden seems/is an unattractive, whining oddball. The loving moment when he explains his ambition to become the catcher in the rye is beautiful. . . but it is a long time coming. Is his disdain for his schoolmates counterbalanced by his love for his sister/her love for him? I had my college freshmen class read Russell Hoban's "The Mouse and His Child." Much to my surprise a young man who sat in the back row (and seldom contributed to class discussions) summarized the book as an example of "being redeemed by love." I did not have "Catcher in the Rye" on the list I gave them. I wonder what response the Oklahoma young people would have had!

Is his disdain for his schoolmates counterbalanced by his love for his sister/her love for him?

Doesn't the book end with Holden cautioning the reader (and this is pulled from memory, as I haven't read the book in about five years) that it's never a good idea to talk to people, because you'll end up missing everyone? Even the classmates he's supposedly disdained, he ends up missing, no? And how do we relate this to his literally "missing" (not there) brothers. One dead. One gone to prostitute himself in Hollywood.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Ago 15, 2009, 6:07pm.

I love the baseball glove. It's an image that's stuck with me. It kills me every time.

Its story-line a downward spiral.

Doesn't the story start with the indication that Holden is institutionalised?

I think it would probably be a mistake to read the book at age 14. Although it is about a teenager, that doesn't necessarily mean it is for teenagers. They would have to be fairly mature to understand what's going on.

I think that's just about the right age, myself.

Though I think mayhap 16-17 would be better. It would depend on the child.

>8, 9, 11

Experience #4: Man, this book is boring.

Years later, the only line that sticks with me is (from memory):

There was this arrogant guy named George who kept talking about how he went to Andover.

Snerk. I'm not a Bush-hater; the line only stuck with me because Bush pere was VP when I read it.

Although it is about a teenager, that doesn't necessarily mean it is for teenagers.

Indeed.

I bought a copy today, I might even read it soon!

Did you read the book, calm? I see that it is still unrated in Your Library.

Hi TheoClarke not yet, it is on my TBR pile! still planning to read it (soonish) and I have pencilled it in for one of my categories in next years 1010 challenge.