It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Catcher in the Rye. BAD!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

sorry but if the OP mentioned the assasination or the list then fine, but he came here to moan about a perfect decent book. Not my favourite book by a long shot, but its wasn't as bad as some here make it out to be. I would liked to slap Holden if he were real, but i did like some of the humour in the book, and i did actually think he might lose the plot in the end and kill someone or something, but he never. I suppose its each to his own i guess, you either like it or not.

Tbh, i am quite interested in this list, going to look it up now as i had never heard of it

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:52 PM
I have it here and am about to read it soon.

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:14 PM
I love the protagonist. He's real. As in "not phony." I do not like phony. Anyone else not like?
He is not perfect. Neither are my friends at church, my neighbors, my friends, my relatives, actually, I know no perfect people. This kills me.
I accept human nature for what it is, and still love humans.
Live life!

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by CestLaVie
I love the protagonist. He's real. As in "not phony." I do not like phony. Anyone else not like?
He is not perfect. Neither are my friends at church, my neighbors, my friends, my relatives, actually, I know no perfect people. This kills me.

Hahaha, this might as well be right out of the book.

I think this book is actually kind of responsible for depressive behavior in modern-day youth. If anyone here is my age, they certainly know what an "emo" is. Things an "emo" may say are very similar to the way the protagonist is portrayed in the book, very negative and quick to judge. I also had to read this in my eleventh grade English class, and it was really barely readable, not fully because of the protagonist's pessimism for me, but because the story line is very dry and doesn't really go far. There really isn't very much structure to it, and it was a very repetitive read, using the exact same adjectives and adverbs over and over again.

Conclusively, I don't think this book promotes constructive behavior, and it is not even a good representation of literature so I really don't see why it is a part of most secondary education curriculum.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by p51mustang
Its the favorite book of lone gunmen-
both hinkley jr and mark david chapman were big fans.
hinkey sr. was head of world vision ministries in texas
and was a bush sr associate.
chapman worked for world vision in ark.

Didn't chapman think Lennon was a loser? like in the book! PS i havent read it...

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by Byrd

Hi, Byrd. You're a writer, I believe, and a successful one. I'm a writer too, though my own success is modest.

However, I'm also a lover of literature and I'm aware of the historical and social context in which The Catcher in the Rye appeared. Despite that, I agree with a lot of what the OP says. When I read the book--I was in my early twenties, possibly already too old--my primary emotional response was an overpowering urge to kick Holden Caulfield, or--perhaps more practicably--J.D. Salinger.

A lot of those groundbreaking censorship-challenging books were, let's face it, pretty bloody awful. I faithfully read many of them when I was young and earnest about literature: Lady Chatterly's Lover, Tropic of Cancer, Notre-dame des fleurs. What a load of tripe they were.

Contrast that garbage with anything by Joyce, another censor-dodger, and the difference is plain. Except for Finnegan's Wake, perhaps, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Gosh, talking about real literature on ATS. Who'd've thought?

Still, I suppose someone had to do it. Props to the ones who did, but that doesn't mean we have to revere them.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by Brood

I think Freddy Krueger and Jason surely outstrip Salinger in the "influencing the youth" area?
I find Caulfield quite realistic, and much nicer than today's brainless and loyalty-less youth.
Sure he is selfish and headstrong. But headstrong is nice comparatively, when one considers
modern youth who kill someone for not offering a cigarette, or simply for driving by?
I find the lesson in the book is that he will grow up, mature, and become a better person, more than likely. But he is what he is, an impetuous youth, and the book ends without an ending, in a way, we never know if he does progress, but we think he intends to progress.
IDK, I just see so many bad examples around lately, perhaps I have lost perspective about what a loser he truly is?
I call conditioning.
I personally would throw the bum out, while telling him to take care of his Sister Phoebe and let me know if they need help. That is how we roll when we are Mom.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:04 AM
I have a severe OCD, to the point that whenever I walk past a book store I am compelled to buy this book. I don't know why, I must have over a thousand copies.

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:35 PM
As long as we're talking about bad books on a 3 year old thread, there's another one that I've read that was pretty bad. Unfortunately, it's written by one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein. The book was called Friday.

You know when a rock band gets a second three album contract, but by that time they're all burnt out from the drugs and alcohol and they hate each other? I think this is the last book on one of his contracts. He was probably much more interested in hanging out in Bermuda and reading a book on the beach than meeting deadlines at that time. Sad, but the book was just bland and a little touchy-feely, and almost a rehash of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, as far as the story board was concerned.

Anyway, bump.

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:10 PM
I thought the book was one of the funniest things I've ever read. Apparently most don't see it as humorous at all and when I told the guy who lent me the book that I laughed the whole way through he not only disagreed with me, but got pretty mad as well.

I guess I just read it with a different frame of mind then most people, and my reaction probably wasn't the emo reaction the author intended either, but I couldn't help it. It was like reading about Elmer Fudd or Daffy Duck. I mean nothing goes right for this guy and he has just such a pathetic attitude it cracked me up right and left.

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:59 PM
I read it once, but never bothered buying it.
He has a term in there for a homosexual, I think Holden calls it a "flit".
He says something ridiculous, like a "flit" will leave the door open when he's on the can.
Now perhaps that's just the narrator's growing sense of paranoid psychosis, or it's representative of Cold War era homophobia.
As a gay reader I just kept wondering - why would they leave the toilet door open?
I'd have died of shame if it opened, and I always thought that's what the really straight guys did.
But now I've read in Kinsey of how widespread toilet cruising was amongst men in the butch 1950s.
And then we have all these scandals of right-wing politicians being busted by the vice squad for "wide stances" and other "water-closet" sagas.
Well, Mr. Salinger was sure well informed for his age, so to speak.

I recall being very touched by the kid sister however.
I always imagined she grew up to be a gentle flower-child in the 1960s.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in