The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger

[Scheherazade]

The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger

Story of Holden's four-day-stay in New York city as he postpones going home and telling his parents that (yet once again) he has failed at school. He talks to his friends and strangers but is unable to establish a real connection with either. He blames this on their 'phoney' attitude; however, he slowly realises that there might be more behind his problems.

I have read this book after hearing about it and being recommended so many times. I really enjoyed reading it though I could not 'connect' with Holden because I found him rather 'phoney'. Wondering how I would have reacted if I had read it as a teen.

7/10 KitKats!


Discussion thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13133)

Quiz on Salinger (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/quiz.php?quizid=28)

Quiz on Catcher (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/quiz.php?quizid=30)

[AuntShecky]

The book has been either canonized or vilified ever since its appearance in the early 1950s. Some schools ban it, though I never could see why-- we're supposed to get kids
to start reading, not stop! The book was used as an excuse
by the person who assassinated John Lennon; also cited as
the favorite book by the character played by Mel Gibson in the movie, "The Conspiracy Theory."
What I loved most about the book was its spot-on depiction of New York in the Fifties, a time when the Big Apple was at its best. It was never better before the late 40s, early 50s, nor up to now.
What was revolutionary about the novel was its form.
Some top shelf critic once said, "All American literature starts with Huckleberry Finn," and Catcher in the Rye continues in that tradition. It is no accident that among the works of American literature that are considered "great" all run on the engine of a strong, first-person narration. Just off the top of my head, think of Moby Dick, Gatsby, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita. . .
Holden, with all his judgemental rejection of all that is "phony," personifies modern alienation -- not merely through the events which he witnesses or brushes up against, but in the words themselves. Through an artistic achievement Salinger created and by doing so influenced
the thinking of generations of American youth. For this reason, The Catcher in the Rye is a monumental work of the mid Twentieth Century.

[Lote-Tree]

This is one of the boring-est book I ever read!

[Demian]

Did you know that The Catcher in the Rye was a favorite of Winona Ryder? Jane Paulie called the book "such a comfort" and carries a copy wherever she goes. I sometimes wonder what two so-called successes in life are doing here. Why do they still read the book--even though their teens are long gone? When I read this book, I compare it to a work like Steppenwolf or Ecclesiastes. The Catcher in the Rye is about having your own voice in a world that does not want to listen. On a more basic level I think of it as a warning to all those 'thinking' people out there. I believe Holden was saying that if you want to make it in this world you have 2 choices: either extinguish thought completely or conform them to the image of this present world. 9/10

[AuntShecky]

I see where you got your screen name, Demian. If you like Hermann Hesse, you should try reading some other
modern German novelists (I only could read them in
English). Thomas Mann (I like his short stories) and
Gunther Grass. (What is it with these German authors and their alliterative names?) The Tin Drum was one of the best artistic responses to WWII.
I don't think Salinger was that cut-and-dried. Humans have many options, not just the two damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't choices that you offered. I think that
strong voice of Holden's stemmed from a deep psychological need -- not so much to fit in or conform, nor
to have society fit his ideal, but to express the pandemic pain of alienation in post-war America.

[River]

I wanted to like this book SO badly. It's obviously a legendary work of fiction, and the first page definitely had my attention. By the second page I was bored. The abusive repetition of particular words, especially 'goddamn' and 'phony', really started getting to me. Many authors are able to write an entire novel in which very little actually happens but they completely capture the feeling and you become a part of the novel. JD Salinger is not one of those authors. I didn't feel a thing, to be honest I just wanted to get to the end in the hopes that there was some sort of point buried somewhere in it.

In summary: Put the goddamn book back on the goddamn shelf, it's as phony as the goddamn phonies who say they've read it.

[Big Al]

J.R.R. Tolkien once called The Catcher in the Rye "complete bunk," and I'm inclined to agree. Why is this heralded as a literary masterwork?

[Psycheinaboat]

I thought it was "grand." ;)

[aabbcc]

I really disliked the book, but... in the passive sense.
If I say I disliked it, it assumes at least negative, but still some emotional relation to the book - which I did not experience any of the times I have read it (not that there were many of those, but the book happened to be my compulsory reading at school a couple of years after I read it on my own). Except for the occassional irritation, the book made me feel indifferent, and in no way connected to it whatsoever. I was an early teen, some would say a perfect age to read this book, but I still found it to be just... dull.

I failed to recognise any greatness in the book, and to the present day I fail to see what separates this work from a myriad of similar teen angsty novels I have been encountering. In fact, I failed to even recognise it as a piece of literature - to me it was just another schund teens tend to read in those particular angsty years.

Perhaps it was due to cultural differences. I am not from America, I certainly cannot approach the work the same way somebody from America could, and who probably still feels the effects of the particular zeitgeist a book describes. Still, I found it so damn... vague.

So, 2/10 on my scale (readable, but sucks).

[JBI]

This is a book some relate to, whereas some are insulted. Perhaps the people Salinger was writing this book against won't be inclined to like it?

[lordifan112]

J.R.R. Tolkien once called The Catcher in the Rye "complete bunk," and I'm inclined to agree. Why is this heralded as a literary masterwork?

Maybe he was one of the most tastless people in the world.;) I was speechless when I heard that Holden was in an asylum.

[B-Mental]

Did you know that The Catcher in the Rye was a favorite of Winona Ryder? Jane Paulie called the book "such a comfort" and carries a copy wherever she goes. I sometimes wonder what two so-called successes in life are doing here. Why do they still read the book--even though their teens are long gone?

Ok, about the Wynona Ryder and Jane Paulie comments....WHO CARES! These people are marginal celebrities, and they say that their favorite books, are ones that every 7th/8th grader is required to read. Really, what a comfort that is...to quote Jane Paulie....but I suspect they were asked the question on the spot, and replied the way they did to sound intellectual. I wouldn't actually call nona a success either...



The Catcher in the Rye is about having your own voice in a world that does not want to listen. On a more basic level I think of it as a warning to all those 'thinking' people out there. I believe Holden was saying that if you want to make it in this world you have 2 choices: either extinguish thought completely or conform them to the image of this present world. 9/10
What about going your own way, striking forth on a path that doesn't rely on others....Actually the book is about confusion and angst of teen years, and fear of what is to come. I don't think this book is all that impressive. There is a reason why it is forced upon teens in school, so they realise that their are others that feel the way they do...confused, scared, angry.

[Virgil]

It's not a great book, but I enjoyed it. If you're a teenager growing up in New York City as I was when I first read the book it hits home. Not a great work, but I have a soft spot for it. :) 6/10

[Walter]

I've read it twice, once earlier in life with reactions similar to most here. And once much more recently and been quite impressed by it, seeing a redemption theme not often remarked upon.

[ampoule]

I've tried to like this book twice. ;) Actually, I liked it more as a teenager as someone wondered above. The second time was for our book club selection and after having three sons. Even after saying this, I'm glad I read it. It just wasn't one of my favorites.

[downing]

Just like Ampoule, I read this book twice: first, when I was 10 and second, now, when I am 14. I really enjoyed it this time. The first time I loathed it. So,it is important to read it when you're close to Holden's age. It makes you understand it better.

[Starving Buddha]

I read it because it was the inspiration to kill John Lennon. So I expected something very provocative and controversial. I was disappointed. However, as a psychological study of a disenfranchised youth having to face his imminent future as an adult, it is quite striking. His sojourn home is like a rite of passage, that reaches its climax when Holden is watching his sister on the carousel. He realizes in that moment, that all the phoniness of the world is nullified in sublime moments of transcendence. The wheel will continue to turn (the carousel going round and round), but in moments of bliss (his happiness, his sisters' happiness) the suffering becomes meaningful and necessary.

[caffeinecups]

I love the book.

I think the use of the words "goddamn" and "phony" was necessary in establishing the main character, who is a 17-year old boy. It is surprising to a point that the boy has a wide vocabulary at his age, but granting that Salinger wanted to create a smart but young guy, he would definitely blend the use of wit and sarcasm with recurring words as "goddamn" and "phony" for Caulfield.

I read the book on my own many years after my own teenage years, so I'm only guessing why it is included in the curriculum in schools. I think teenagers will relate to this work because it is about a teenager, but the idea that must get across is the free prose that Salinger used to convey his message. This is, after all, creative writing.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I love the book.

I think the use of the words "goddamn" and "phony" was necessary in establishing the main character, who is a 17-year old boy. It is surprising to a point that the boy has a wide vocabulary at his age, but granting that Salinger wanted to create a smart but young guy, he would definitely blend the use of wit and sarcasm with recurring words as "goddamn" and "phony" for Caulfield.

I read the book on my own many years after my own teenage years, so I'm only guessing why it is included in the curriculum in schools. I think teenagers will relate to this work because it is about a teenager, but the idea that must get across is the free prose that Salinger used to convey his message. This is, after all, creative writing.

That's exactly what I was about to post haha. Well said, Caffeine!

[Joreads]

I read the book a few weeks ago and I loved it. I was actually a little sorry when it ended. For me it is the kind of book that you can take as much or as little away from it as you want.

[Annamariah]

I read this one or two years ago, and it was a disappointment. After all I'd heard people say about it I was excpecting at least something that would keep me interested enough to want to read the whole thing, but this time finishing it seemed to take forever (ok, I read it in one night, but it seemed to take much longer than that)

[motherhubbard]

Ok, about the Wynona Ryder and Jane Paulie comments....WHO CARES!

Actually the book is about confusion and angst of teen years, and fear of what is to come. I don't think this book is all that impressive. There is a reason why it is forced upon teens in school, so they realise that their are others that feel the way they do...confused, scared, angry.

I liked the book when I was a teen. I was able to identify with Holden as are most teens. I agree with everything B wrote about the book. I read it several times in my younger days and I think kids should read it. I suppose it’s a great book if all you have read is Goosebumps or something along that line. Now the only thing I still ever think about is the “phony” friend with the dirty shaving kit. I know people like that- perfect on the outside and a mess on the inside, but content because they like the packaging. 5.5/10.

[DickZ]

I read this one or two years ago, and it was a disappointment. After all I'd heard people say about it I was excpecting at least something that would keep me interested enough to want to read the whole thing, but this time finishing it seemed to take forever (ok, I read it in one night, but it seemed to take much longer than that)
No book is going to appeal to everyone - but this one appeals to a large number of people. I think the reason for its popularity, as others have already pointed out, is that it conveys so very well the feelings we all had as youngsters - regardless of our age now. I was a teenager long before they had cellphones and text messaging (and I'm glad of it), but I am sure I went through a lot of the same agony that teenagers today are going through. Holden Caulfield went through the same things when he was a teenager, which was even before I was a teenager.

It's part of what we call growing up. It's something that everybody has to do, and the book's appeal relates to the fact that certain aspects of life never change over time.


I love the book.

I think the use of the words "goddamn" and "phony" was necessary in establishing the main character, who is a 17-year old boy. It is surprising to a point that the boy has a wide vocabulary at his age, but granting that Salinger wanted to create a smart but young guy, he would definitely blend the use of wit and sarcasm with recurring words as "goddamn" and "phony" for Caulfield.

I read the book on my own many years after my own teenage years, so I'm only guessing why it is included in the curriculum in schools. I think teenagers will relate to this work because it is about a teenager, but the idea that must get across is the free prose that Salinger used to convey his message. This is, after all, creative writing.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the language and the choice of words. Very few teenage readers know enough about life in general to appreciate what this book says - they should read it when they get a little older. One of the teenagers who commented earlier on this book took exception to the fact that "goddamn" and "phony" made their way into the dialogue so frequently.

If someone were to write the story today, it would include "that's awesome, dude", and "like, you know ... " instead of "goddamn" and "phony", and those words would be repeated over and over and over again. The point isn't which particular words get over-used - it's the idea that every generation has its own unique set of over-used words.

[Erichtho]

This book is so unbelievably banal, I can't understand why it is so widely read. What a waste of time. :rolleyes:

[DeathAngel]

It's amusing and depressing,
the ending was too short, too basic too simple, but good all in all,
it speaks with a certain voice that I enjoyed listening to,

[Annamariah]

No book is going to appeal to everyone - but this one appeals to a large number of people. I think the reason for its popularity, as others have already pointed out, is that it conveys so very well the feelings we all had as youngsters - regardless of our age now. I was a teenager long before they had cellphones and text messaging (and I'm glad of it), but I am sure I went through a lot of the same agony that teenagers today are going through. Holden Caulfield went through the same things when he was a teenager, which was even before I was a teenager.

It's part of what we call growing up. It's something that everybody has to do, and the book's appeal relates to the fact that certain aspects of life never change over time.

I guess I wasn't a typical teenager enough to find Holden's thoughts something I could relate to, though I've had my share of teenage agony as well as everyone else :lol:

[Etienne]

I gave my vote from the reading of it some years ago as a teenager.

[kandaurov]

I found it a great read. I must admit that maybe I wouldn't have liked it as much if I didn't relate so much to the character. That versatile and paradoxical concept of "phoney" was starting to get to me too, but I was very amused at the use of "goddam", sometimes it got me laughing on the subway. What I liked the most, though, was this mixture of philosophical innocence (a lot like in 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'The Little Prince') and heavy, 'rated-r' topics and situations. He actually makes it work.

...but of course I understand the importance of relating to Holden in order to read this, that's the thing about first person narrations. I have undergone sheer torture while trying to get through so-called "classics" because I had no sympathy for the character at all, the only consolation being that he might die in the end :) Not the case this time, though. I too dream about building a cabin and chopping my own wood in the winter.

[B-Mental]

While the book isn't high on my reading list. Its still written with such force that I understand why people like it. Unfortunately, those books which are my favorite are similar, but written by adults for adults. War & Peace...Tolstoy's classic! A bastard son is granted acceptance as the son of a man of position. The dillema he has is that he is now accepted in social circles where people try to scheme. He becomes disillusioned and watches as Russia is being attacked by the French under Napoleon. It catalogs the lives of the ones he loves, and how he inspires love in others. Its Holden as Pierre.

[mortalterror]

I read this book when I was 16 and it changed my life. I used to carry a copy with me in my pocket everywhere I'd go, and I read it at least 16 times. I'm ten years older and I still strongly identify with this character. I bought extra loner copies just so I wouldn't have to loan my copy with all of the dirty words underlined and risk losing it. I've never seen a character come alive with such convincing and insightful psychology as this instance. I've read Hemingway, Dante, Cervantes, Tolstoy. It's still my favorite book.

[kelby_lake]

i liked it, not as much as i hoped to, but i still did. holden could be annoying at times, but come on he's a teenager! ;)

[Mockingbird_z]

I loved this book!
I think its the kind of book which gives you more to think of as you grow older.
i read it only a few weeks ago and though i am not a teenager i could understand his feelings.
and I liked his idea of working as "catcher in the rye".
its a great book!

[Morten]

His stories are better, much better. But a good novel.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

The great masterpiece of 20th century American literature. Salinger's prose is dry and funny, his observations are brilliant and immature, Caulfield is in many ways the 20th century incarnation of Arthur Rimbaud-the precocious teenager who doesn't fit in, doesn't have a set path in life, and notices the fakeness of other people and institutions. Caulfield however, is a lot less neurotic than Rimbaud, and lacks his literary genius. As far as 'themes' go, Salinger is also perceptive as (say) Faulkner, though far less boring, and certainly as original.

[moose gurl]

I found it cold and unmoving, but I'm not a fan of Salinger's writing at all. Not even his short stories. I think it's just a personal preference.

I love this, Antiquarian, because I loved The Catcher in the Rye. I'll admit that I haven't read any other Saligner works, but I thought this one was phenomenal. I can understand you not liking it, though, because at first I felt the exact same way about it being "cold and unmoving." I HATED Holden when I was actually reading the book--I thought he was really annoying and I despised how he "broke the fourth wall" and addressed the reader directly. It wasn't until much later after I finished the book that I really came to love it. Even my favorite part--the part where Mr. Antolini reveals the point of the whole novel--I thought was incredibly outdone and he kind of hit you over the head with it. But after about a month (and it really took that long) I began to just love the message there, and I started rereading bits and pieces and I really really liked it. It took me a long time to warm up at first...it's pretty difficult to get to know Holden, and I think that's the point: since he's so alienated, he becomes alienating.
But I totally understand where you're coming from.

[xXxSair01xXx]

I wanted to like this book SO badly. It's obviously a legendary work of fiction, and the first page definitely had my attention. By the second page I was bored. The abusive repetition of particular words, especially 'goddamn' and 'phony', really started getting to me. Many authors are able to write an entire novel in which very little actually happens but they completely capture the feeling and you become a part of the novel. JD Salinger is not one of those authors. I didn't feel a thing, to be honest I just wanted to get to the end in the hopes that there was some sort of point buried somewhere in it.

In summary: Put the goddamn book back on the goddamn shelf, it's as phony as the goddamn phonies who say they've read it.


thats exactly how i felt, i also felt that way about jack kerouac's 'on the road' and i really wanted to like these books and be blown away by them like everyone else seems to be but i was underwhelmed.

[RG57]

I read it because i heard that itt was a book worth reading, a sort of 'read before you die' listed. I found it slow going and never could really get into it. I still have it on my shelf and maybe one day I will give it another read.

[Dr. Hill]

I did not dislike this book intensely, but I found it rather lacking and the fact that no minor characters, save Phoebe, made any effect on the novel disappointed me, regardless of whether it was intended by Salinger.

[John Gargo]

I know this novel is pretty much required reading these days for high school students, but for some reason I was never assigned it (I think it was because I placed in the honor's class or something... I know I remember seeing some of my friends with copies way back then).

Anyway, I finally got around to reading it and I loved it. Holden is a superbly realized character. As for the repetative language, well the book is written in the first person, and the narrator is emotionally troubled/immature, and thus I think Salinger was very effective in giving Holden a voice.

I am very interested in reading more of Salinger's works... I've just ordered Nine Stories, Franny and Zooey and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction, which I understand represents the rest of his output. It's a shame he hasn't written more.

By the way, why no J.D. Salinger author section?

[Quilp]

It was from 'and all that David Copperfield Kind of crap' where I became disinterested; and it was all downhill from there

David Copperfield is a true masterpiece unlike this horrid pretender.

[Mopey Droney]

While I won't say my reading of the book is the only valid one, I still feel the point of the novel is missed by those who love it as well as those who don't. People talk about Salinger writing "against" phonies, people talk about all the "chrissakes" and "goddams", and talk about Holden's very vitriolic, very adolescent temperament and whether or not they can relate to it. You see, I suspect many young readers simply relate (or don't relate) to Holden and his angst, and therefore assume that they share Salinger's temperament and attitude, without considering Holden as a literary creation separate from Salinger. Salinger didn't want us to simply relate to and idolize Holden as some do. He wanted us to see that he complains about the people who get in his reading light, but that he's also very inconsiderate about getting into other people's shaving light! He wanted us to see Holden not as ourselves but as a flawed human being, who loved his little brother dearly, and when that brother died, went out and cut his hand by punching all the windows in the garage. I'm getting carried away here. I just wish more people would talk about those sort of moments, the really meaningful moments in the novel, and not just the funny, surfacey stuff that will either endear you or alienate you.

[Caspa]

I read this book a few years ago, and to be honest I can hardly even remember the narrative. Though I really didn't find it that striking. As the original poster said, Holden's narrative voice does indeed come across as very 'phoney'.

I think I might like to re-read this book though, as it is one considered by many as a 'classic', I might just not have got it on my first read.

[Alexei]

I didn't really liked it, for me it was a rather average book. When I shared my opinion in another forum I was scolded and sent to reread it when I grow up :p This left me a bitter memory :lol: in addition to the disappointment from the unsatisfying reading.

A few months later I started reading a short story from Salinger and surprisingly the story turned out to be a wonderful read. I continued reading his short stories and I realised I actually like Salinger's works. So, if you want to read Salinger I will rather recommend his short stories, in my opinion they are much better.

[Caspa]

Thanks for that recommendation Alexei. I haven't heard anything about his short stories before, so I'll have to check them out.

I also heard that 'Franny & Zooey' is a decent read, however I've not read it myself.

[Alexei]

Thanks for that recommendation Alexei. I haven't heard anything about his short stories before, so I'll have to check them out.

I also heard that 'Franny & Zooey' is a decent read, however I've not read it myself.

You are welcome :):):)
I think so too. Well, actually I have read only the first part of it ("Franny"), but it was really good. I am not sure how to define what exactly makes it such a good reading. It's a bit odd for a short story, but it's short so you can give it a try anyway. I suppose the second one is also very good.

[Mopey Droney]

Holden's narrative voice does indeed come across as very 'phoney'. Well, his "voice" has been confirmed as very authentic for New England adolescents of the time. But Holden being a phony is one of Salinger's points.

[CaptainHatteras]

I believe that The Catcher in the Rye is a masterpiece, but it is only so for a readership of a specific age range between 13 and 16. It catches all those confusing feelings that most of us experience, but largely irrelevant to adults.

[pclover16]

I love it. I am captured by the last scene in the book when Holden's younger sister tried her best to run away from home with him, and after that they played in the park together.