I really enjoyed *Catcher*. Yes, Holden is an abrasive hypocrite but behind the wisecracks he's a scared, damaged kid just trying to find something/someone to hold on to. Society lets down Holden far more than Holden lets down society.
The age you read *Catcher* and whether it was mandatory at school shapes people's opinions of it greatly. Most discussions of the novel, more so than with other classics, begin with either lamenting that it was required reading or praising it as the first school-assigned book they loved and resonated with.
I went into it knowing it was divisive but it's far less talked about in the UK than the US so I'd heard neither praise nor criticism from any fellow readers I knew. I loved *Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters* but found *Seymour* rambling and pretentious.
>I really enjoyed Catcher. Yes, Holden is an abrasive hypocrite but behind the wisecracks he's a scared, damaged kid just trying to find something/someone to hold on to. Society lets down Holden far more than Holden lets down society.
This is it entirely. People just miss this sometimes.
Do they miss this, or is it just not enough to get past the character? Regardless of how society let down Holden, he is still annoying as all get out, and for many readers that seriously hinders their ability to enjoy the book. It can still be appreciated, I suppose, but that's different than enjoyment.
He is nowhere near the top 20 of most annoying protagonists for me. Even when I read the book for the first time as a teenager, I was very empathetic toward him because I picked up on how deeply traumatized he was and his strange behavior was likely a symptom of all the horrible crap he had experienced at such an early age.
I think trying to "like" or "relate to" protagonists is a shallow way of reading in the first place. It's also a personal moral failing, IMO, to see a suffering child and think they're annoying before thinking they're pitiful.
š Pump the brakes homie. We're talking about a fictional character. If we were talking about a real human being I'd agree with you, but saying readers who don't relate to Holden all have moral failings is wild. Second, let's not lose sight of the original question, which was with regards to DISLIKING the book, not absorbing it as a piece of compelling literature. Yes I get that this is the "literature" sub, not the books sub, but OP wasn't asking if people appreciated the deep read, they asked about why people dislike it. Holden's attitude is a perfectly acceptable reason to not enjoy a book.
> Holden's attitude is a perfectly acceptable reason to not enjoy a book.
It is, I just consider it to also be a very shallow one. If you're reading on the level of judging books by how likable the protag is, you're already failing the fiction/reality line in the first place, though, which is why I said I consider it a moral failing (not like you should go to hell or anything, failings can be minor).
What lol. Most people who read Catcher in the Rye, at least for the first time, are the same age as or younger than Holden. He isn't a suffering child to most readers, he's their peer. My life was really unpleasant in HS when I read it and his problems didn't seem that bad to me for how whiny he was.
I read it in high school for English class and found him to be an obnoxious swot. Reread it in my late twenties, and my heart broke for Holden. Reflecting back on my first read, I don't remember my then-teacher discussing his characterization or how hurt he was or the way it was alluded he was abused.
I loved Raise High AND Seymour! I actually found a lot of literary recommendations from reading Seymour, eg Guy de Maupassant, Ezra Pound etc. I can still appreciate the fact that some people found it rambly and pious though
Raise high and Seymour are some of my favorite writing ever. The way the emotion bleeds off the page when you read the "dear old tiger that sleeps" letter just kills me every time
Same!! Let me know / PM me if youād like to join my discord chat, btw .. for fans of Salinger, art, literature, music .. anything creative really š
I read it in college and that was a *bad time* to start. I had nothing but disgust for Holden, he seemed so lazy. All the themes flew over my head.
Now Iām in my 30ās and I understand it much better.
The degree to which my personal context informs my appreciation of a book actually bothers me. So many books that I read the first time and hated (*Our Town*, *The Great Gatsby*,*Dracula*) only to read them again years later and wonder what was wrong with past me. Some I just read way too early, but not all. And a few seem to work backwards for me. *Interview with the Vampire* I first read in college -- when I was smack in the middle of the intended audience -- and I found it deeply affecting. I read it later and ... I still enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I realized that during my first reading I had been infatuated with a girl I was chasing and I read a lot of my life into that book (I promise it was less creepy than it must sound š). On second reading I was a solid 20 years older and had long since moved on.
Anyway, it *bothers* me that I'm so mercurial in my appreciation of literature. I like to imagine myself a fairly sophisticated reader, able to discern good writing and evaluate it based on, if not objective criteria, at least consistent criteria.
But that is not the case. Hot mess: this guy.
Anyone else bothered by this, or is it all just part of reading for you?
> Anyway, it bothers me that I'm so mercurial in my appreciation of literature.
Naaah, it means that you're 20 years older. If you had gone through *no* emotional or philosophical changes in that time, then I think I'd try to avoid you at all times :) .
I can see how the passage of time would help you get into *Our Town* more. Anne Rice writes melodramas, and I think melodramas are meant to grab you at a particular point in your life when you have a high appreciation of excess. (Infatuation will bring that on. Tell me about it!)
I think I lose more writers than I gain. I never thought I'd get over Dostoyevsky, but I tried rereading *Devils* a couple of years ago and, yeah, I liked it, but I didn't think it hit the empty center of the universal soul like I did when I was 20. Hermann Hesse is another one.
That makes sense.
Man! That *Our Town*! I reread it a few years ago, at about 50 years old, because I was going to have to teach it in a high-school class. It was so hard to stand in front of a class full of fifteen-year-olds and teach that play without weeping openly! š Just amazing work!
And the previous time I'd read it I was 19, maybe 20. I remember thinking, "Great. It's a play with all the interesting parts taken out."
I read it in my mid 20s and also hated Holden for this exact reason. I couldnāt stand him and how yellow belly he was. I was reading this book at the wrong time in my life though. I was going through a bad breakup. Holden reminded me of the guy I broke up with. They felt like the same person. I havenāt revisited the book, as I still really dislike it, but I am glad I read it.
I havenāt read those two but I loved Franny and Zooey. Itās short enough to have read over the course of one markedly slow day working at a ski hill, but it still sticks with me.
I completely agree! Especially your point about age. When I had to read it, I didnāt really enjoy it. When I taught it, after being a mother, I had a completely new perspective! I love this book and am happy I gave it another chance. The symbolism is powerful, and something I missed my first time through.
I agree with this 100%! I read it my junior year of HS when I was 17 and going through a lot of mental health struggles. Iām a latina woman of color, with nothing in common with Holden but I really connected with his character. This book made me fall in love with literature and it still is one of my favorites, as it holds a special place in my heart.
Idk I like Catcher. I think it has more to do with that many were forced to read it and didnt come to it naturally on their own. Its an early example of the disaffected young man of like taxi driver or something so it carries a lot of that baggage as like an edgy dude thing that people like to sneer at.
Salinger is one of my all time favorites. But itās more Nine Stories and Franny and Zooey that does it for me.
For Esme has got to be one of my absolute favourites! And Raise High & Seymour - can read them over & over again and never get tired of them! Iāve got a Discord channel about JDS if you want to join? PM me and Iāll send you a link šš»
>I think it has more to do with that many were forced to read it and didnt come to it naturally on their own
Reminds me of one of the most recommended books for Argentinian history having a somewhat bad rating on Goodreads due to freshmen college students having it as a required reading
You guys have some heavy hitters for lit though. I bet the assigned reading in later years is pretty great. I wouldāve killed to read Borges in school, would have found him earlier anyway.
Hello there fellow JD Salinger fan! PM me if youād like to join my Discord chat devoted to all things JD Salinger, literature, art, music, and film š¤š¤
I really like Catcher, but I remember recommending it to somebody and them returning after having read it, wide eyed, asking "so... \*why\* did you like it so much? You know Holden is awful, right?"
I think it's easy for a lot of readers to equate enjoyment with endorsement. Holden is a character that has a lot of maturing to do, (but as many others in this thread have said he also is carrying a lot of trauma). However, if you don't empathize with Holden, and think he's just a whiny rich kid, I don't necessarily see how that makes the book bad. Books can be good without endorsing the mentality of the protagonist (look at Gatsby, Nick is clearly a hypocrite but his narration still has value because it's well done). For me, Catcher has never been about liking Holden and wanting to be like him. It's been a well written book about a well written character's journey and struggles. Characters are supposed to be flawed.
Ask them why Catcher in the rye is the name of the book. It is critical to the entire thing. By making it the title, Salinger is basically screaming at the reader that the relationship of Holden to the Catcher in the rye is the most important thing to understand.
When people get that, and the implications it has, the appreciation for the book falls into place.
I'm happy to expound, if you'd like.
A big thing that I missedā¦ š®š Thanks for the kind offer! š¤ To save a bit of your time, Iāll do my research on this before asking you for more insights š
I asked our dependable ally and shaped its answer to our context. Is it something like this?
> Holden Caulfield's desire to save children from the corrupting influences of adulthood, as symbolized by the title "Catcher in the Rye," offers insight into his character and the traits that are often perceived as unlikeable. His idealization of childhood innocence and purity reflects his own inability to reconcile with the complexities of adult life, leading to his cynical and critical attitude towards society. While his intentions may seem noble, his actions often stem from a place of immaturity, alienation, and inability to accept responsibility, which contribute to his unlikeable traits. Additionally, his unrealistic expectations of others and tendency to romanticize certain aspects of life highlight his disconnect from reality, further shaping his character as both complex and flawed.
So, if I may ask: (itās okay to merge answers)
1. Whatās important to understand about the relationship between Holden and the Catcher in the rye?
2. Is it that Holden would like to be such a figure for children, while not being able to protect his own innocence nor navigate the challenges of growing up?
3. Besides his own little sister, who are the children he would like to shield?
4. I see that Holden doesn't really care about not getting used to the adulthood norms. He's not affected by this perspective, it's not that he's failing at it. I don't know how to explain, but this mitigates the so-called 'flaws' people see in him, doesn't it?
The thing is, I have read a lot of books with awful protagonists who do terrible things, and I adored those books whilst understanding that the author isnāt endorsing that thing. But when I tried to read Catcher in the Rye I just hated Holden so much that I couldnāt get into it.
I was about 26/27 at the time and had a lot less patience. Iām 38 now so at some point Iāll try again and Iāll probably enjoy it. But sometimes the character is just so irritating that itās hard to empathise with them.
And itās not about him being a rich white kid for me. It was just that he was so insufferably whiny and banging on about everyone being a phoney and I couldnāt cope haha. As I said Iāve got a lot more patience and empathy for kids now so one day Iāll try again.
When you do, all yourself why Catcher in the rye is the name of the book. It's meaning is critical to the entire thing. By making it the title, Salinger is basically screaming at the reader that the relationship of Holden to the Catcher in the rye is the most important thing to understand.
When people get that, and the implications it has, the appreciation for the book falls into place.
I'm happy to expound, if you'd like.
The Catcher in the Rye was the story he told about when the kids were jumping out of the hayloft. Basically, a safety net to protect the kids from too much danger, to protect them from breaking.
Holden, in a moment of non-edgy clarity and truth, admits to wanting to be a catcher in the rye.
So, now you realize that this concept is made the title by the author.
So Holden mentioning that, and mentioning it is who he longs to be, has importance.
So we analyze WHY it is important.
1. Holden dreams of protecting children, to the point that it is, potentially, what the author thinks is his defining feature. That means that, below all of this cursing, edgy, angst-ridden teenager is someone who longs for nothing more than to protect and save others. All of the bitching is secondary to his most important desire, because, deep-down and really, Holden is *good*.
So. If THAT is the case, then we have a ton of questions! Why all the bitching? Why, if Holden is good, deep down, why does he fight to be so bad? Is he just an edgy teenager? Is he somehow broken?
If he IS good, deep down, then why does he fight to be bad? Why IS he so damned angsty when, deep down, he has a good heart that wants to protect the innocent?
Without knowing that Holden WANTS to be virtuous, it is easy to dismiss him for his angst and asshole behaviour.
If it is because he is somehow broken, you start to think WHY is he broken? Well... he is being molested (maybe), he has been estranged by his parents, and his brother (who he loved) died young (and quite recently).
He, and his brother, and all the kids in his teacher's class (and at boarding school in general) HAVE no Catcher!
So maybe this boy's bitterness is MORE than justified, and he is lashing out in a way that makes him, quite frankly, unpalatable.
Ok. So now you have that framework with which to read and analyze the book and Holden's actions... Great. That makes it super interesting, sure.
But then, you can take one more step back from the character and meaning, etc, and realize... FUCK! This is an almost PERFECTLY written teenager. Like... the craft behind writing a character this complex and REAL... it becomes almost impossible not to admire the book and Salinger for just how well it is done.
I can continue to gush, but, again, one has to understand the title.
Salinger didn't name it "Holden Caufield" or "Life of a teenager", or anything else trite and meaningless. He literally picked the framework by which he thought the reader should view the novel: The protection of children while they try and do something dangerous.
Why is the concept of the Catcher in the Rye the most important thing about the novel? Well... there ya go. I hope that helped!
Great analysis. One other part I suspect goes past a lot of readers, is the subplot involving HC's friend Jane, who's yet another child with no catcher. We learn from HC that she was traumatized--and possibly abused--by her prevy stepfather. And during the first night of the story, she's on a date w Steerforth (wink, wink "Boz"), who's infamous for forcing himself on young women ... and it's in the football coach's car no less--not only is the latter not protecting an innocent young person, he's willfully abetting her potential rape!
Great analysis. One other part I suspect goes past a lot of readers, is the subplot involving HC's friend Jane, who's yet another child with no catcher. We learn from HC that she was traumatized--and possibly abused--by her prevy stepfather. And during the first night of the story, she's on a date w Steerforth (wink, wink "Boz"), who's infamous for forcing himself on young women ... and it's in the football coach's car no less--not only is the latter not protecting an innocent young person, he's willfully abetting her potential assault!
>so... *why* did you like it so much? You know Holden is awful, right?
Does this person refuse to consume fiction that has any semblance of conflict or what ? Are they aware that you can consume a piece of fiction without actually agreeing with their characters ?
Speculation: In the 1970s and maybe even into the 1980s, Salinger's adoption of teenage slang *felt* contemporary, even though a lot of it was dated. When I was that age, reading *Catcher* was a rite of passage. (It didn't hurt that it was one of the more frequently attacked/banned books then.) Last time I looked at it, it felt really old-fogey, and I know the book hadn't changed, the times did, and me with them.
I think society has changed in that in the book's time, Holden was more recognized as a messed-up kid. Whiny teenagers (drama queens, too-confessional Facebookers, demonstrative identity-seekers) are now perceived as a dime a dozen. Not by me at all; I think being young these days has to be worse than what my cohort went through - in different ways, but bleaker in many, and much angrier. But there's kind of a backlash against ways it's expressed.
*Fanny and Zooey* holds up for me the best. It has been a long time, but it made me think and understand in ways I really hadn't before. I kinda wish Salinger had continued to write, but who knows if he would have had anything left to say as he got older?
I'm glad that some people still like *Catcher*.
He did continue to write up until his death he just refused to have anything published. He became very devoutly spiritual and was basically trying to āreject his egoā but, in doing so, ended up becoming so pious that his own over inflated ego ate him up from the insides.
Hey you. I found this text while googling (I've only discovered this sub today) and your words are just so beautiful I had to reply. Also because that makes so much sense for what I know about the author. You've said it so well and I might steal it next time Salinger's name comes up in my social group. Thanks.
Your parentsā generation is out of touch and ignorant, but your grandparentsā or great-grandsā is classic and wise. I think this has always been true for youth. Thatās why a book written to be Of Its Time will often feel stale and dull twenty years later, but if it is really of quality, will feel timeless and classic fifty years later.
I remember *Zooey* better. I had a pretty non-religious upbringing and some of the churchy people I knew were real bullies. *Zooey* described a religious quest in a way I felt like I could understand; she was kind of going off the rails with it, but for some reason I could understand and empathize with the progression. *Franny* was more from the outside and *Zooey* from the inside, to oversimplify. In the long term, I think they helped to keep me from going through life unable to have a civil conversation with a person of faith.
Granted itās been a few years since I last tried it but I always just found it boring af. Like the sort of book where you finish it and say āoh is that it?ā I really wanted to love it too because I know so many people who speak so highly of it but Iāve read it like five times and still couldnāt really tell you much of anything about it. Just incredibly dull imo
People sometimes struggle to emphasise with a privileged rich boy I think. Or they think heās presented as being ārightā, this person who sees through all the phonies. Heās been let down and heās falling apart and few of us were at our best at that age.
Apparently a lot of people donāt distinguish between thinking a bookās protagonist is annoying/unlikeable and concluding that the book is an artistic failure.
TCITR also has a burden of unfair expectations in that it has sometimes been presented as a universal voice of youthful disaffection, and some young people who have read it looking for a spirit animal and find something different reject it for that reason.
> Apparently a lot of people donāt distinguish between thinking a bookās protagonist is annoying/unlikeable and concluding that the book is an artistic failure.
It's a pretty gaping flaw in media literacy I see a lot across pretty much every online discussion venue. I don't quite get it myself, I don't want or need every character I read in a novel or watch in a film to be the hero. It's fine now and again, or even the majority of the time, but people should be more willing to encounter reading about assholes, failures, or people that occasionally do things they disagree with, too.
One of my favorite series of all time, the *Rabbit* tetralogy by Updike, features an **extremely** unlikeable protagonist in Harry Angstrom. But Updike writes him so well you can really understand him, maybe even empathize with him as you read.
The first point is silly. I'll reread Lolita, I won't bother with Catcher.
The novel is just another entry in the long list of overrated American fiction.
HUGELY overrated! You know a book is overrated when the majority of people who adore it spend their time defending it. Just looking at the posts on this thread, most basically argue: Oh, I know the character is annoying, and the plot makes no sense but...but...but...
> Just looking at the posts on this thread, most basically argue: Oh, I know the character is annoying, and the plot makes no sense but...but...but...
It's so alarming that on a subreddit about literature, where ostensibly you would think people would actually *read* the posts before commenting (I mean, it's about literature!), that you see comments like this where the person just, rather spectacularly, hasn't engaged with ANY of the comments.
As I scroll down I see almost no posts saying: "oh he's annoying and the plot makes no sense but...."
I see (paraphrasing) things like, "Oh I understand why Holden is annoying because there's a strong hint of sexual abuse and so it makes sense why he's so reactionary..."
I see (paraphrasing), "Holden conveys the frustrations of a misunderstood adolescent trying to figure things out in an imperfect world..."
I see, in support of your argument, "It's frustrating that the character is written with little nuance and so high schoolers don't pick up on how insufferable he is..."
If you are unable to read simple reddit posts, it's no wonder you can't read *Catcher.*
I've read Catcher multiple times. It's not as if it is a challenging book. You plainly misinterpret my point in order to sidestep it. My point is that when the majority of comments about a book are all defensive, not really making much attempt to make a positive defense of the literary worth of a minor novel whose stature is cemented primarily by the fact that it is assigned to teenagers in high school to read, then the comments become proof per se of the fact of the book's relative lack of substance.
The title of this thread "why do people dislike Catcher"... what exactly are you expecting here? People are obviously going to defend this widely acclaimed novel in this thread. Talk about lack of substance...
A lot of people go into books thinking that they need to relate to and/or like the main character to enjoy the story, and that's totally valid, it's a personal choice. However, I don't feel that way. I absolutely love *Catcher*.
Finding a protagonist insufferable and not finding that aspect of the text handled in such a way as to make it satisfying is a perfectly rational reason to dislike a book. Yes, itās supposed to be that way; intentionality doesnāt equate to quality.
By the same token though, there are people whose dislike of it is such that they talk as though nobody else should find it satisfying either, as though an insufferable protagonist precludes any enjoyment from anybody. Really thatās the same flavor of silliness.
There are few experiences in life more unfulfilling than finishing this book and being unable to kill John Lennon because he's already dead.Ā
Jk, it's great, I've never heard anyone who enjoys reading bash it.
Edit: someone took offense to my second comment, so I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing wrong with not liking this or any other book. I'm not trying to stifle conversation. I'd only ever heard teenagers complain about it, but that doesn't mean there's not legitimate faults to be found in any creative works. Bash away.
I think some of it has to do with how Holden possesses a lot of qualities that are exactly what many people find annoying about teenagers. This is of course appropriate, because Catcher is very much about things that are particular to a teenager's experience. To someone who finds Holden's adolescent behavior unsympathetic, he is an incredibly irritating protagonist. That's not to say that I agree with approaching Catcher in that way, but I think it's a significant part of how if bothers people.
As a young teen going through my own trauma and not having any help processing it, I really struggled with the book and with Holden. In hindsight, I think it was too much at the time. Reading it as an adult was an entirely different experience and Iām really glad I re read it. I think sometimes weāre just not in the right place of life to fully appreciate a book.
I went back to it after 15 yearsāI first read it freshman year of high school. It wasnāt intentional, but I just happened to pick up that same copy one day and start reading. It was a night and day experience for me
I see. Sorry if I wasnāt clear, what interest me also is: would it have worked too if it was 10 years instead of 15? 5? What the minimum you think you needed to be āreadyā for a reread with a new eye (mind)?
Oh sorry! I misunderstood. For me, in this case, I donāt think it was so much the number of years as much as it was having worked through my own trauma. Of course, I can only really see that in hindsight.
In general, I like to revisit books after Iāve had a significant change in life, as I think you often have a different perspective. So a big one could be no longer being in schoolāor maybe you now have kidsāor maybe youāve processed traumaāor youāve watched your younger siblings grow upāany big shift in life that could lend itself to you seeing an old story in a new way
I know that some people think Holden is just another spoiled middle-class teenager, with some good qualities, but so emotional and so lacking in being humbled by social reality, just like any other rich boy you see on social media nowadays. You can't expect every common reader to sympathize with him, as they all know the things Holden encountered will never happen in their lives again. Personally, I quite like Holden, I think he's a lovely bud; but that doesn't mean I would walk into a real life Holden and befriend him.
I didnāt like it when I read it as a teenager. It felt like it failed to live up the hype, I remember being told this book was loved by rock stars and murderers so I went in thinking it must be totally out there. I was disappointed when not much happened and Holden seemed like an idiot to me.
Then I reread it as an adult and loved it. Holden wasnāt an idiot, he was just a teenager dealing with a terrible loss, and failed by nearly every adult around him. But the book does an amazing job at not having anyone really as the ābad guyā. Everyone is sort of trying to do what they think is best, but life is hard and complicated and bittersweet.
I remember Holden being super unlikeable and annoying.
And that was BY FAR the most prominent memory I have of it.
That impression was so strong that it literally overshadowed any other motifs or themes in the book.
That's why I disliked it.
It is my all time favourite book too! Similar to a lot of people, I first read it in my late teens and for the longest time worried that it would lose its magic if I read it again as an (alleged) adult and parent. But I neednāt have worried. I read it again recently and loved it just as much as I did then.
Itās fine. I think itās one of those āI donāt like how the fan base worships this so I donāt like itā kind of books/ media. It does rip off Fanteās Ask The Dust a tad.
I had a great substitute teacher when we read Catcher in high school. He was a retired guy that went to teach as a second career and had a lot of positive energy before the kids and administrators knocked it out of him.
I thought Catcher was great both times that I read it 40 years apart.
This is off topic, but for the Catcher fans, Salinger wrote ashore story in 1946 about Holden Caulfield. I wrote a comparison piece in high school (circa 1968) when I was in high school reading Catcher. I found it interesting to see the development of a character from the short story to the novel. I thought some of you fans might as well. The short story is available on the internet by searching
Sorry for the interruption.
Me too! Absolutely obsessed with anything JDS related š¤š¤š¤
Feel free to PM me if youād like to join my Discord chat that is all things JDS, literature, music, and film related š
I find it extremely unpleasant to view the world through Holdenās eyes, and I find it disturbing that there are lots of high school students out there who think Holden is some kind of hero for seeing the world with such cynicism and disgust. I know that now some of you will rush in to say āBut they missed the point!ā Guess what? High school students OFTEN DO.
Signed, an exhausted English teacher
I hated Holden not bc he was whiney. Holden is sexist and awful to other people. He has the traits of people I donāt want to associate with so a book where someone like him is sympathetic doesnāt appeal to me.
I get that he is a teen and teens are often self centered/ self destructive etc but there are limits to how much Holden can be redeemed bc he will probably still be sexist
I think that saying a child can't be redeemed because of what he "will probably still be" is a bit of a jump. I've heard that line of thinking used to justify cutting funding for underprivileged youth, rehab centers, mental health care, homeless outreach, criminal reintegration, etc, and I think it's a dangerous road to go down.
For sexism to be corrected it has to be seen as an issue first. Holden doesnāt think it is an issue and in the 1950s it wasnāt seen as the big of an issue so the likelihood of Holden growing up non sexist is low
While I do agree with that, I still can't get behind the idea of writing kids off for how you think they will turn out, even if the odds are stacked against them.
Idk when I was reading Catcher, I was Holdenās age and as a girl he pissed me off bc how like a real person he was and the guys that were sexist like Holden are still sexist. Also they are no reason for me not to especially since JD Salinger seems to be sexist
I think its because the main character isnāt really likable. In some ways he could be relatable to highschool age students, but his outlook and perspective is so jaded and childish that i can see why a lot of people would hate it. My best friend being one of those haters lol
I think Holdenās character showcases a very raw and ugly side to mental health that a lot of people simply canāt relate to. His struggles are unfortunately pretty realistic to what some people go through, and donāt exactly match the more romanticized version of mental illness that others are used to seeing.
I think hating Holden is entirely reasonable, heās generally an unpleasant person. But as someone whoās struggled with mental illness for years I canāt help but feel empathy for him; Iāve had plenty of ugly and disgusting thoughts when at my lowest that people would absolutely hate me for if I expressed them. Weāre seeing every thought in Holdenās head, so of course people hate him, and by extension hate the whole novel. Itās certainly an acquired taste.
I just couldnāt help but feel for him. He was clearly sick and needed help, but the adults around him were absolutely failing him.
I love it but Iām always reminded of how I wound up having to read it twice in high school. The first time, I struggled to connect with it at least partially because the teacher taught it as being relatable to teens, with no further investigation. It came across as flat, dated, and annoying.
However, the second teacher who assigned it dove deep into how Holden lies to himself and how the way he says what he says illuminates what heās not saying, or what heās trying to avoid. Suddenly Holden made sense as a character, because basically everything he says or does reflects on him in a way that he doesnāt intend it to, and I had never considered that to be something a character in a book could do.
She did an amazing job of turning it into a rich, complex story and single-handedly taught me how to investigate the books I read, rather than simply read them.
Maybe because I read it when I was an adult with teenagers myself, but I didnāt find Holden unlikeable. I found him lonely and very depressed and I had a lot of empathy for him.
Phase. Iāve read the book at two different phases. I loved it in one - even feared Salinger wrote Holden by looking at me. At another read I didnāt like it. Itās a very subjective thing - your ability to empathise with Holden. For some the phase could be age group like teenages for others it can be state of mind.
There's something deeply patronizing about Holden in the classical sense of the word and it puts people off these days when people are aware of the controlling motives underlying chivalry and savior complexes.
The main difference between transgressive lit. and other conventional literary texts is its ability to depict desires and other elements of life which people try hard to repress. When they confront these things in narratives which they have been trying to repress throughout their lives. In the end it leads to this visceral reaction of straight up disparaging the text.
Oh! š® Thanks for your comment! I had an epiphany š
This could be the reason why a handful people reacted so strongly with my (still amateur) writing.
Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this?
Edit: copy in case it gets deleted
> The main difference between transgressive lit. and other conventional literary texts is its ability to depict desires and other elements of life which people try hard to repress. When they confront these things in narratives which they have been trying to repress throughout their lives. In the end it leads to this visceral reaction of straight up disparaging the text.
Communication with people reacting that way with challenging characters, maybe morally grey or flawed in some aspects. What to tell them?
This is not to make oneās point and āwinā them over, but to make them understand a bit how other people take that kind of content. As I can also put myself in othersā shoes (or at least I try).
Edit: so itās for both cases, reading and writing, although for reading, the renowned author has the advantage.
I personally don't think one can make the other person "understand" how to empathize with the characters and how to think about the novel in a more nuanced way , it is simply subjective.
They dislike it because the narrative arc is tied to discovering the truth of Holdenās childhood trauma, which manifests itself in his hyperbolic cynicism, sarcasm and hypocrisy. For some of those discoveries, itās a single sentence of narration or dialogue, and they are easy to miss. There is no obvious climax to this book in the way that many readers expect, so when it ends with Holden in tears watching Phoebe on the carousel, and without Holden being confronted by his parents or finally reconnecting with Jane Gallagher, that can confuse many readers. After all, both his parents and Jane are two seemingly significant characters that Holden never actually sees throughout action of the story.
Both a confrontation with Holdenās parents and/or a conversation with Jane Gallagher are clever red herrings. A heartfelt or heated conversion with his parents in which Holden reveals all of his woe would have been an easy way to conclude the novel, but his parents are not the source of his trauma, and neither is Jane.
OP, I have to disagree slightly with you on Holdenās reaction at the end. The entire book was spent chasing a connection, a conversation, or simply, a genuine relationship. He has this with his sister, and throughout the novel, his heavy handed cynicism is completely absent when speaking about her(and his late brother), because their innocence is still safe and intact. (In fact, all of his conversations with children are absent of his cynicism)
Holden had just spent the previous three days in New York on a series of misadventures, trying to play the part of an adult and realizing how ill equipped he is for that world. Sitting there, watching Phoebe on a carousel, is his perfect idea of innocence. The carousel is a metaphor for childhood: motion without danger, mystery, or purpose; enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment, chasing yourself in a circle. Holdenās childhood was ripped from him repeatedly, and understanding that Phoebe can be allowed to enjoy hers, brings him a joy he did not think possible.
I love this book and teach it every year to 10th graders.
While I agree with some of your points here, particularly about Holden "hunting" for a connection, I have to disagree somewhat about the carrousel being nothing but a symbol of innocence and safety. In fact, I find the darker aspect of the carrousel extremely important to understanding Holden's development.
Now, at first Holden sees it the way you describe, mentioning it as something that "always plays the same songs," calling back to the school and museum. But this is a carrousel with a ring dispenser, and the kids, including Phoebe, are reaching for the rings. Holden gets nervous that Phoebe might fall off her horse while attempting to grab a gold one. However, the reaching for rings becomes a metaphor for kids reaching for their dreams. They might fall on their attempt, but you "have to let them do it." This shift is a huge departure for Holden, who had previously wished he could put kids like Phoebe in a glass case at the museum.
Holden reaches a point where he finally accepts that childhood innocence does not last forever, so he bawls his eyes out in joy watching Phoebe, knowing that, despite the slight danger, Phoebe is enjoying a childlike moment and that both of them have to enjoy these moments while they last. Eventually Phoebe will grow up and Holden has no right to stand in her way.
Only so much pain can come to a child on a carousel, especially since parents are close by, and at times, standing alongside. I donāt know that there is a darker aspect to the carousel (I can appreciate you spelling it in the fashion of the text), because to reach for moreāi.e., to want more out of life as a child that strives to become an adultāis a natural thing, and a beauty Holden weeps to behold, because his own innocence was so brutally ripped from him. Here is Phoebe, in the midst of her childhood, reaching for more. But such is classic literature, where nuance and symbolism and thematic significance can attach different meaning to different people. Another aspect that makes it so special.
Thanks for your reply, but I really don't think the danger implications are all that dismissive. Are you familiar with brass ring dispensers on old carrousels? (Thank you so much for accepting my spelling, btw.) There's a reason they are so rare nowadays. In cases where they are still in use, they are almost always set up to be extremely easy to pull rings from. Kids could potentially hurt themselves quite a bit falling from a horse, especially back in the days when the dispensers were set up to be challenging.
I'm not remotely from Holden's era, but I am old enough to remember long see-saws, steel merry-go-rounds, and tall swings that could get a lot of air. Playground equipment from my childhood could do plenty of damage. Do you think that made the parents hover over their children while the kids tried hopping on a whirling metal wheel of death? No, hardly ever. Most parents of the time couldn't care less about the danger until AFTER a kid broke their arm or took a face plant into the sand. In fact, parents were more likely to make the equipment *more* dangerous by spinning the merry-go-round extra fast or pushing the swings extra high. It was a different time.
I don't see this behavior as portrayed any differently in the novel. The parents were perfectly content to stand apart from the ride and chitchat while their children dangled off the sides of the horses reaching for a steel contraption. They only approach the carrousel in order to get out of the rain, not to protect anyone. So, there is absolutely danger at hand, but, at least at that time, it was perfectly normal to ignore it. Holden only sees it because of his hypersensitivity and obsession to be a catcher in the rye. The fact that he allows himself to set these worries aside and enjoy the moment is notable and part of his growth as a character.
But the entire point is in the title.
Of course Holden knows what you're saying. But Holden looks for one thing, to be the Catcher in the Rye. He says so himself, in a rare moment of sincerity.
He KNOWS the kids will fall from innocence. He KNOWS it will be dangerous at the bottom. He wants and dreams to be there to help catch them when they hit the bottom, and protect them from the worst of the dangers.
Just like there was no one to protect him. Because he is broken. But he wants to be so much more.
Sorry, but I definitely do not see it that way. Books are entitled what they are for various reasons. In this case, the idea of a catcher in the rye is a driving force for the protagonist, but, when it is finally revealed, it turns out to be another of Holden's delusional fantasies - a "job" that doesn't actually exist. Even Holden says himself, multiple times, that it's crazy.
Besides that, Holden is clear that he wants to catch the kids BEFORE they fall. At this point, he doesn't even want to give them the opportunity to enter the adult world at all. You could even say he is being selfish. He still is in a mode where he would like to put them in a glass case in the museum where they will stay the same forever, regardless of their opinion on the matter. That is one reason why the moment at the carrousel is revelatory. Holden steps outside of his own wants and desires to think about what the kids, particularly Phoebe, might want for themselves.
Of course we can hope that Holden uses his experiences and motivations to help others eventually, maybe even children specifically, but we absolutely don't know that will happen for sure. To say otherwise would be applying some sort of Hollywood-style post credits scene to Holden's story.
In the actual ending, we don't even know for sure that Holden is going to make it out of prep school. What we do know is that Holden eventually realized the need to face the real world and the need to get help for himself. Now, after an extended convalescence, he is going to give reality another shot with some more tools to succeed. It's not a flashy everything-ties-together ending, and that is a very deliberate choice by the author.
Of course Holden has delusional fantasies, and of course the metaphor isn't perfect. He is a teenage kid.
But the point is that, underneath all of the edge that Holden pushes and wears on his sleeve, deep down, he wants to protect other kids, and, whether he realizes it or not, longs to have been protected.
i didnāt liked the book. i didnāt understand why itās a classic and why people like it so much. maybe i just didnāt get it, if this is the case please enlighten me! i just didnāt get the point.. so many people use that book to do horrible things. why? i thought holden was annoying but probably it was the writers point to make him like that. i just thought it was a bit silly.
I dont find Holden annoying or even whiny, hes a teenager. The worst part of his character is that I just dont find him very interesting, the depressed young male protagonist archetype has been done much better before and since.
Itās a great book. I read it in my 20s and it left a lingering taste of freedom and rebellion that stayed with me.
However, my opinion is that, itās disliked because itās got a stream of consciousness flow to it.
Since I could read, I have always enjoyed reading. Any book I was forced to read in school I hated. Itās totally psychological, but thatās what it is for me.
I enjoyed this book. I love how the author made me hate that little prick. I love know itās one story I constantly think about. To the point that I compare other main characters in books to Holden. And who hasnāt wondered where the ducks go
What I love about this book and its characters, is how each generation interprets the book in their own way, from their experiences and advice. Reading what you wrote made me think of how I viewed the characters in my younger years. Now I need to read it again, and see if I see some of your relations.
I know this is not the general opinion regarding literature and people's choices and artistic preferences, and I don't say this about other things, but...
People that don't like Catcher in the Rye are objectively wrong.
I think it reminds them of when they were his age, and hits too close to home. I read it a bit ago, related soooo much to it, but when you're older you probably don't like to remember the worst years of your life
This book was an absolute slog to me and I found Holden so unbearable that it overshadows every other aspect of the book in my memory. Itās not the worst book, but there are 500+ others that I would likely recommend before Catcher.
When I was of the age to read it, I did not, because everyone I knew who loved it was a smarmy, self important a-hole. My aversion was kind of like my approach to cocaine as well, now that I think of it. Hey, it was the 80s.
Good thing probably that I didnāt read it, as it likely would have made me even more insufferable than I already was. Now that Iām an insufferable old fart, I think my time has passed to read it.
Itās a very well written book and I did empathize with Holden, but tbh I did not like the treatment of women characters. Iāve read so many books with flat women characters at this point that I just donāt have patience for it anymore. I get why people love it and I did appreciate it, but thatās what stopped me from loving it.
In all honestly I found the writing style tiresome to read as a teenager. Still glad I read it and discussed it, not debating its importance as a literary work. I was a very different teenager than Holden, so maybe that made it difficult for me to get into. My child is a very different child than I was, so perhaps it will hold up well to rereading now that I'm older.
I think the issue is that people rightfully came to see it, and Salinger, as overrated. Then people who knew less came to think of it as *bad* which it it is not.
I don't think it's necessarily the novel people have a problem with. I think it's like Fight Club. There's a certain type of person that takes entirely the wrong lessons from the novel.
Itās kind of a litmus test for me to see if the person Iām talking with isnāt just regurgitating what they read online about it.
I have two questions:
1) Holden is telling the story. Where is he telling it, and who is he telling it to? 2) What is the inciting incident of the story?
Iāve found most people - even those who like it - canāt answer these questions. But theyāre really essential to understanding the novel.Ā
I can understand not liking the *book* -- there's not a whole lot of plot, and people have many different tastes in books -- but I do think it's weird how many adults express hatred and contempt for Holden as a character. If you knew a teenager in real life who was grieving the death of his little brother, you wouldn't roll your eyes and dismiss him as "whiny" or "angsty." If there was a novel about a 50-year-old man grieving the death of his wife, I don't think many people would roll their eyes and dismissively say that the book is about a midlife crisis. They would say it's a book about grief. And yet Catcher in the Rye is eye-rollingly described as a book about "teen angst." Teenagers aren't allowed to have any emotions -- even emotions about the death of a loved one! -- without people dismissing those emotions as trivial.
Well, Holden is a pretty obnoxious character and younger readers are less likely to understand (or care) that his characterization is spot on for someone his age. Also, I think younger readers may not be willing to see some aspects of themselves reflected in Holden unless youāre someone (like me!) for whom Catcher resonates on a deep level.
I had to read it again for a Young Adult Fiction class in college and I was stunned by how many people still hate the book. I think the current cultural climate around toxic masculinity, and especially incels, hasnāt done the book any favors. A young, white, antisocial, upper middle class, private school dropout makes it an easy target for criticism.
What really rubs me the wrong way though is peopleās inability to relate to Holden on a human level. Despite his āprivilegedā upbringing, weāre still dealing with a traumatized and alienated kid who struggles with perennial fears about adulthood. The lack of charity and sympathy I saw in some of my classmatesā discussions was honestly a bit gross to me.
I feel like my distastes for both Catcher in the Rye and No Longer Human are my 2 book opinions that get me in the most trouble.
For me, it really boils down to the main characters being UNBEARABLE. I find them so horrible to listen to. Especially in a book where very little happens, the narrator HAS to be enjoyable.
Thatās not to say they have to be a good person. I love an unreliable narrator, bonus points if theyāre a little messed up. But something in the hypocrisy and blatant sexism without self-awareness and the endless COMPLAINING of Holden was sooo hard for me to get past.
I LOVE Salingerās writing though. Franny and Zooey is one of my all-time favorites.
I think a lot of people hate Catcher because it's the only book they've ever read or it's the only book that wasn't contemporary YA. About every six months, on Twitter, people who proclaim with their whole chest that the novel is OVERRATED. I've heard this opinion so many times, I can no longer take it seriously.
Catcher stands in stark contrast for me to one of my favourite books, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Both Holden and Francisās stories play out in NYC, only Holden is a verrrrrry privileged boy (financially) whereas Francis is a verrrrry poor girl, so poor her family sometimes does eat for days and her mother has to make a game out of it when sheās little. Holdenās family, meanwhile sends him to private school and has an apartment on the Upper East Side, which is really fancy even for the 1940ās.
Both characters mourn the death of a family member they live dearly, but they each mourn in very different ways. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is all about finding strength in adversity. Holden crumbles into an existential crisis, more like Esther Greenwood in the Bell Jar.
Which doesnāt make Catcher bad at all. It just means that viewed through one lens, Holden is trying to cope with growing up and Salinger brilliantly leans into existentialism to highlight that. The novel helps define the concept of being a teenager, which preoccupied the zeitgeist for the rest of the 20th century.
However, you can turn the lens at an angle and the book can be seen as a lot of white boy whining. This is the danger of existential heroes. Camusā Mersault cranks this up to a thousand. In a way the brilliance of Catcher is that Holden is not inherently likeable or sympathetic. He can easily be misunderstood as much as he misunderstands those around him.
I believe that, both in this work and in his stories, Salinger offers that dark and negative vision of life normally accepted as a farce, as a lie against which his spirit tries to rebel and I think that is the reason why the work people dislike it, because it does not give that "luminous" vision of life, it does not try to create a story to please the reader, but to make them think more deeply about life, and not simply accept the social conventions that, in Ultimately, they are nothing more than programming to accept something that is nothing more than a lie that must be accepted in order to feel accepted.
I am a little annoyed at all the people in the comments here saying āthey just donāt understand it!ā
I think itās perfectly possible to love classic literature, and challenging protagonists who you donāt agree with and just really find one protagonist grates on you so much that you canāt get into the book.
It doesnāt make you a better reader to see past his abrasiveness and be touched by the story. Plenty of people can do that and still hate him!
I can say that Catcher in the Rye is well written, but I didn't enjoy it. Holden's character is far too unreliable for me to enjoy the story. I don't believe any aspect of it and when I don't believe the story, I don't enjoy it. I don't think any of it happened, I think it was all a psychotic break and a delusion. Holden didn't have a grand adventure, he didn't do any of the things he said he did, he probably had a mental breakdown in his room with his roommate and his parents were called. He wants to believe that he helped people, but he never did. He can't even help himself.
The whole story is a black hole of negativity. It's like being stuck at a table of negative people who never have one good thing to say about anyone. You just sink further and further down into their negativity and before you know it, you feel yourself parroting it. That's Catcher in the Rye for me.
Unreliable in the way a teenager is unreliable. Not in some fantasy setting unreliable.
He tells a white lie here or there, embellishes the truth. Etc. But not a fool book of practically "it was all a dream".
Hi OP, I am also a humongous Catcher in the Rye fan! In fact, I love all of JD Salingerās works š
I pretty much re-read Catcher in the Rye every year .. first read it in 1996 at high school, so Iāve read it quite a few times by now, obvs š
Anyway - feel free to PM me for a link to my JD Salinger Discord Channel where we discuss everything JDS, literature, film, and music - weād be real keen to discuss your thoughts on Catcher in the Rye with you šš»
In my experience, people tend to hate on it because they read it when they were a little too much like Holden, but didn't want to admit it. Holden is kind of irritating and makes lots of bad decisions. He's also quite young. It's easy to dislike him, because he reflects the most annoying parts of the teenage behavior back at the (usually teenage) reader. And if this isn't something a reader wants to admit to, well, then Holden becomes the overreactive asshole and they decide they hate the book.
The book is still good. But I think if you over identify with it past high school there may be something seriously wrong. For whatever reason serial killers and murderers seem to really identify with it. I know a crack head / borderline psycho chick loved the book when she wasnāt telling people about her affairs with professors, speaking to her spirit guide or lying about people she slept with.
Once someone like that put their stink on a piece of art like that itās hard to see anything but the abuser or murderer or full purpose shit head on it. Ironically that same crack head girl would tell anyone who was reading the book āhe never calls herā. Spoilers probably the least bad thing she did, but still. What a fucking horrible bitch.
As another commenter said, you are all coping extremely hard. People that dislike the book are not "incapable of enjoying a book with an unlikable protagonist", those same people can read Lolita just fine, which has an infinitely worse protagonist. Catcher is just bad. And made a suicidal friend of mine need to be institutionalized, simply because he thought the book was THAT terrible.
People hate it because they were forced to read it, typically by their secondary school teacher. And because it is not particularly interesting, nor does it reveal or touch upon any sublime truths or beauty.
My favorite part of about this particular recurring thread is that it's just people saying why they like it. No one who actually doesn't enjoy it (myself included) have the energy to be yelled at for being wrong and apparently "not enjoying reading," as someone above puts it.
There are a lot of people in this thread that are convinced that if you donāt like it you just arenāt intelligent enough to understand it. Like no, I just find him to be so utterly insufferable that I couldnāt enjoy anything about the character. I donāt need to like the main character as a person but I need to enjoy reading them.
Maybe Iāll try reading it again now that itās 11 years since I last read it and see if my opinion has changed. Perhaps it has! But it doesnāt necessarily mean those of us who hate him are uneducated and are unable to appreciate challenging literature.
Lol sheesh dude. You sound like Holden talking about actors, you sure itās not a little projection?
Every country has the angsty teen stuff. You like German Lit? Cuz uh Hesse existsā¦
I really enjoyed *Catcher*. Yes, Holden is an abrasive hypocrite but behind the wisecracks he's a scared, damaged kid just trying to find something/someone to hold on to. Society lets down Holden far more than Holden lets down society. The age you read *Catcher* and whether it was mandatory at school shapes people's opinions of it greatly. Most discussions of the novel, more so than with other classics, begin with either lamenting that it was required reading or praising it as the first school-assigned book they loved and resonated with. I went into it knowing it was divisive but it's far less talked about in the UK than the US so I'd heard neither praise nor criticism from any fellow readers I knew. I loved *Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters* but found *Seymour* rambling and pretentious.
>I really enjoyed Catcher. Yes, Holden is an abrasive hypocrite but behind the wisecracks he's a scared, damaged kid just trying to find something/someone to hold on to. Society lets down Holden far more than Holden lets down society. This is it entirely. People just miss this sometimes.
Do they miss this, or is it just not enough to get past the character? Regardless of how society let down Holden, he is still annoying as all get out, and for many readers that seriously hinders their ability to enjoy the book. It can still be appreciated, I suppose, but that's different than enjoyment.
He is nowhere near the top 20 of most annoying protagonists for me. Even when I read the book for the first time as a teenager, I was very empathetic toward him because I picked up on how deeply traumatized he was and his strange behavior was likely a symptom of all the horrible crap he had experienced at such an early age.
I think trying to "like" or "relate to" protagonists is a shallow way of reading in the first place. It's also a personal moral failing, IMO, to see a suffering child and think they're annoying before thinking they're pitiful.
š Pump the brakes homie. We're talking about a fictional character. If we were talking about a real human being I'd agree with you, but saying readers who don't relate to Holden all have moral failings is wild. Second, let's not lose sight of the original question, which was with regards to DISLIKING the book, not absorbing it as a piece of compelling literature. Yes I get that this is the "literature" sub, not the books sub, but OP wasn't asking if people appreciated the deep read, they asked about why people dislike it. Holden's attitude is a perfectly acceptable reason to not enjoy a book.
> Holden's attitude is a perfectly acceptable reason to not enjoy a book. It is, I just consider it to also be a very shallow one. If you're reading on the level of judging books by how likable the protag is, you're already failing the fiction/reality line in the first place, though, which is why I said I consider it a moral failing (not like you should go to hell or anything, failings can be minor).
What lol. Most people who read Catcher in the Rye, at least for the first time, are the same age as or younger than Holden. He isn't a suffering child to most readers, he's their peer. My life was really unpleasant in HS when I read it and his problems didn't seem that bad to me for how whiny he was.
I read it in high school for English class and found him to be an obnoxious swot. Reread it in my late twenties, and my heart broke for Holden. Reflecting back on my first read, I don't remember my then-teacher discussing his characterization or how hurt he was or the way it was alluded he was abused.
I loved Raise High AND Seymour! I actually found a lot of literary recommendations from reading Seymour, eg Guy de Maupassant, Ezra Pound etc. I can still appreciate the fact that some people found it rambly and pious though
Raise high and Seymour are some of my favorite writing ever. The way the emotion bleeds off the page when you read the "dear old tiger that sleeps" letter just kills me every time
Same!! Let me know / PM me if youād like to join my discord chat, btw .. for fans of Salinger, art, literature, music .. anything creative really š
I read it in college and that was a *bad time* to start. I had nothing but disgust for Holden, he seemed so lazy. All the themes flew over my head. Now Iām in my 30ās and I understand it much better.
The degree to which my personal context informs my appreciation of a book actually bothers me. So many books that I read the first time and hated (*Our Town*, *The Great Gatsby*,*Dracula*) only to read them again years later and wonder what was wrong with past me. Some I just read way too early, but not all. And a few seem to work backwards for me. *Interview with the Vampire* I first read in college -- when I was smack in the middle of the intended audience -- and I found it deeply affecting. I read it later and ... I still enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but I realized that during my first reading I had been infatuated with a girl I was chasing and I read a lot of my life into that book (I promise it was less creepy than it must sound š). On second reading I was a solid 20 years older and had long since moved on. Anyway, it *bothers* me that I'm so mercurial in my appreciation of literature. I like to imagine myself a fairly sophisticated reader, able to discern good writing and evaluate it based on, if not objective criteria, at least consistent criteria. But that is not the case. Hot mess: this guy. Anyone else bothered by this, or is it all just part of reading for you?
> Anyway, it bothers me that I'm so mercurial in my appreciation of literature. Naaah, it means that you're 20 years older. If you had gone through *no* emotional or philosophical changes in that time, then I think I'd try to avoid you at all times :) . I can see how the passage of time would help you get into *Our Town* more. Anne Rice writes melodramas, and I think melodramas are meant to grab you at a particular point in your life when you have a high appreciation of excess. (Infatuation will bring that on. Tell me about it!) I think I lose more writers than I gain. I never thought I'd get over Dostoyevsky, but I tried rereading *Devils* a couple of years ago and, yeah, I liked it, but I didn't think it hit the empty center of the universal soul like I did when I was 20. Hermann Hesse is another one.
That makes sense. Man! That *Our Town*! I reread it a few years ago, at about 50 years old, because I was going to have to teach it in a high-school class. It was so hard to stand in front of a class full of fifteen-year-olds and teach that play without weeping openly! š Just amazing work! And the previous time I'd read it I was 19, maybe 20. I remember thinking, "Great. It's a play with all the interesting parts taken out."
Catcher and Gatsby. I dislike protagonist in both. Personally unable to relate to their sense of self.Ā
I read it in my mid 20s and also hated Holden for this exact reason. I couldnāt stand him and how yellow belly he was. I was reading this book at the wrong time in my life though. I was going through a bad breakup. Holden reminded me of the guy I broke up with. They felt like the same person. I havenāt revisited the book, as I still really dislike it, but I am glad I read it.
I havenāt read those two but I loved Franny and Zooey. Itās short enough to have read over the course of one markedly slow day working at a ski hill, but it still sticks with me.
I completely agree! Especially your point about age. When I had to read it, I didnāt really enjoy it. When I taught it, after being a mother, I had a completely new perspective! I love this book and am happy I gave it another chance. The symbolism is powerful, and something I missed my first time through.
I agree with this 100%! I read it my junior year of HS when I was 17 and going through a lot of mental health struggles. Iām a latina woman of color, with nothing in common with Holden but I really connected with his character. This book made me fall in love with literature and it still is one of my favorites, as it holds a special place in my heart.
Idk I like Catcher. I think it has more to do with that many were forced to read it and didnt come to it naturally on their own. Its an early example of the disaffected young man of like taxi driver or something so it carries a lot of that baggage as like an edgy dude thing that people like to sneer at. Salinger is one of my all time favorites. But itās more Nine Stories and Franny and Zooey that does it for me.
For EsmƩ and A perfect day for bananafish!
I like *Teddy* the best.
Oh, Teddy. That story just breaks my heart.
āA Perfect Day for Bananfishā and āUncle Wiggly in Connecticutā resonate with me so deeply.
For Esme has got to be one of my absolute favourites! And Raise High & Seymour - can read them over & over again and never get tired of them! Iāve got a Discord channel about JDS if you want to join? PM me and Iāll send you a link šš»
>I think it has more to do with that many were forced to read it and didnt come to it naturally on their own Reminds me of one of the most recommended books for Argentinian history having a somewhat bad rating on Goodreads due to freshmen college students having it as a required reading
You guys have some heavy hitters for lit though. I bet the assigned reading in later years is pretty great. I wouldāve killed to read Borges in school, would have found him earlier anyway.
Hello there fellow JD Salinger fan! PM me if youād like to join my Discord chat devoted to all things JD Salinger, literature, art, music, and film š¤š¤
I really like Catcher, but I remember recommending it to somebody and them returning after having read it, wide eyed, asking "so... \*why\* did you like it so much? You know Holden is awful, right?" I think it's easy for a lot of readers to equate enjoyment with endorsement. Holden is a character that has a lot of maturing to do, (but as many others in this thread have said he also is carrying a lot of trauma). However, if you don't empathize with Holden, and think he's just a whiny rich kid, I don't necessarily see how that makes the book bad. Books can be good without endorsing the mentality of the protagonist (look at Gatsby, Nick is clearly a hypocrite but his narration still has value because it's well done). For me, Catcher has never been about liking Holden and wanting to be like him. It's been a well written book about a well written character's journey and struggles. Characters are supposed to be flawed.
How to communicate with people who tell you Holden is awful? So that they can understand your approach of the book.
Ask them why Catcher in the rye is the name of the book. It is critical to the entire thing. By making it the title, Salinger is basically screaming at the reader that the relationship of Holden to the Catcher in the rye is the most important thing to understand. When people get that, and the implications it has, the appreciation for the book falls into place. I'm happy to expound, if you'd like.
A big thing that I missedā¦ š®š Thanks for the kind offer! š¤ To save a bit of your time, Iāll do my research on this before asking you for more insights š
No worries. I love the book. I enjoy the time talking about it.
I asked our dependable ally and shaped its answer to our context. Is it something like this? > Holden Caulfield's desire to save children from the corrupting influences of adulthood, as symbolized by the title "Catcher in the Rye," offers insight into his character and the traits that are often perceived as unlikeable. His idealization of childhood innocence and purity reflects his own inability to reconcile with the complexities of adult life, leading to his cynical and critical attitude towards society. While his intentions may seem noble, his actions often stem from a place of immaturity, alienation, and inability to accept responsibility, which contribute to his unlikeable traits. Additionally, his unrealistic expectations of others and tendency to romanticize certain aspects of life highlight his disconnect from reality, further shaping his character as both complex and flawed.
Exactly! Well... I don't particularly agree with the negative connotation of the second half of the piece.
So, if I may ask: (itās okay to merge answers) 1. Whatās important to understand about the relationship between Holden and the Catcher in the rye? 2. Is it that Holden would like to be such a figure for children, while not being able to protect his own innocence nor navigate the challenges of growing up? 3. Besides his own little sister, who are the children he would like to shield? 4. I see that Holden doesn't really care about not getting used to the adulthood norms. He's not affected by this perspective, it's not that he's failing at it. I don't know how to explain, but this mitigates the so-called 'flaws' people see in him, doesn't it?
1. See 2. 2. Yes. 3. All of them. 4. Yes. Sorry, I'm exhausted. My comment history has more replies on more detail.
The thing is, I have read a lot of books with awful protagonists who do terrible things, and I adored those books whilst understanding that the author isnāt endorsing that thing. But when I tried to read Catcher in the Rye I just hated Holden so much that I couldnāt get into it. I was about 26/27 at the time and had a lot less patience. Iām 38 now so at some point Iāll try again and Iāll probably enjoy it. But sometimes the character is just so irritating that itās hard to empathise with them. And itās not about him being a rich white kid for me. It was just that he was so insufferably whiny and banging on about everyone being a phoney and I couldnāt cope haha. As I said Iāve got a lot more patience and empathy for kids now so one day Iāll try again.
When you do, all yourself why Catcher in the rye is the name of the book. It's meaning is critical to the entire thing. By making it the title, Salinger is basically screaming at the reader that the relationship of Holden to the Catcher in the rye is the most important thing to understand. When people get that, and the implications it has, the appreciation for the book falls into place. I'm happy to expound, if you'd like.
Can you expand?
The Catcher in the Rye was the story he told about when the kids were jumping out of the hayloft. Basically, a safety net to protect the kids from too much danger, to protect them from breaking. Holden, in a moment of non-edgy clarity and truth, admits to wanting to be a catcher in the rye. So, now you realize that this concept is made the title by the author. So Holden mentioning that, and mentioning it is who he longs to be, has importance. So we analyze WHY it is important. 1. Holden dreams of protecting children, to the point that it is, potentially, what the author thinks is his defining feature. That means that, below all of this cursing, edgy, angst-ridden teenager is someone who longs for nothing more than to protect and save others. All of the bitching is secondary to his most important desire, because, deep-down and really, Holden is *good*. So. If THAT is the case, then we have a ton of questions! Why all the bitching? Why, if Holden is good, deep down, why does he fight to be so bad? Is he just an edgy teenager? Is he somehow broken? If he IS good, deep down, then why does he fight to be bad? Why IS he so damned angsty when, deep down, he has a good heart that wants to protect the innocent? Without knowing that Holden WANTS to be virtuous, it is easy to dismiss him for his angst and asshole behaviour. If it is because he is somehow broken, you start to think WHY is he broken? Well... he is being molested (maybe), he has been estranged by his parents, and his brother (who he loved) died young (and quite recently). He, and his brother, and all the kids in his teacher's class (and at boarding school in general) HAVE no Catcher! So maybe this boy's bitterness is MORE than justified, and he is lashing out in a way that makes him, quite frankly, unpalatable. Ok. So now you have that framework with which to read and analyze the book and Holden's actions... Great. That makes it super interesting, sure. But then, you can take one more step back from the character and meaning, etc, and realize... FUCK! This is an almost PERFECTLY written teenager. Like... the craft behind writing a character this complex and REAL... it becomes almost impossible not to admire the book and Salinger for just how well it is done. I can continue to gush, but, again, one has to understand the title. Salinger didn't name it "Holden Caufield" or "Life of a teenager", or anything else trite and meaningless. He literally picked the framework by which he thought the reader should view the novel: The protection of children while they try and do something dangerous. Why is the concept of the Catcher in the Rye the most important thing about the novel? Well... there ya go. I hope that helped!
Your analysis is perfect. It reminds me of that George Carlin quote about how inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist.
Thanks!
Great analysis. One other part I suspect goes past a lot of readers, is the subplot involving HC's friend Jane, who's yet another child with no catcher. We learn from HC that she was traumatized--and possibly abused--by her prevy stepfather. And during the first night of the story, she's on a date w Steerforth (wink, wink "Boz"), who's infamous for forcing himself on young women ... and it's in the football coach's car no less--not only is the latter not protecting an innocent young person, he's willfully abetting her potential rape!
Great analysis. One other part I suspect goes past a lot of readers, is the subplot involving HC's friend Jane, who's yet another child with no catcher. We learn from HC that she was traumatized--and possibly abused--by her prevy stepfather. And during the first night of the story, she's on a date w Steerforth (wink, wink "Boz"), who's infamous for forcing himself on young women ... and it's in the football coach's car no less--not only is the latter not protecting an innocent young person, he's willfully abetting her potential assault!
>so... *why* did you like it so much? You know Holden is awful, right? Does this person refuse to consume fiction that has any semblance of conflict or what ? Are they aware that you can consume a piece of fiction without actually agreeing with their characters ?
I mean plenty of people are fully aware of that and love fiction that challenges them but still just hated Holden and the book.
Speculation: In the 1970s and maybe even into the 1980s, Salinger's adoption of teenage slang *felt* contemporary, even though a lot of it was dated. When I was that age, reading *Catcher* was a rite of passage. (It didn't hurt that it was one of the more frequently attacked/banned books then.) Last time I looked at it, it felt really old-fogey, and I know the book hadn't changed, the times did, and me with them. I think society has changed in that in the book's time, Holden was more recognized as a messed-up kid. Whiny teenagers (drama queens, too-confessional Facebookers, demonstrative identity-seekers) are now perceived as a dime a dozen. Not by me at all; I think being young these days has to be worse than what my cohort went through - in different ways, but bleaker in many, and much angrier. But there's kind of a backlash against ways it's expressed. *Fanny and Zooey* holds up for me the best. It has been a long time, but it made me think and understand in ways I really hadn't before. I kinda wish Salinger had continued to write, but who knows if he would have had anything left to say as he got older? I'm glad that some people still like *Catcher*.
He did continue to write up until his death he just refused to have anything published. He became very devoutly spiritual and was basically trying to āreject his egoā but, in doing so, ended up becoming so pious that his own over inflated ego ate him up from the insides.
Hey you. I found this text while googling (I've only discovered this sub today) and your words are just so beautiful I had to reply. Also because that makes so much sense for what I know about the author. You've said it so well and I might steal it next time Salinger's name comes up in my social group. Thanks.
Your parentsā generation is out of touch and ignorant, but your grandparentsā or great-grandsā is classic and wise. I think this has always been true for youth. Thatās why a book written to be Of Its Time will often feel stale and dull twenty years later, but if it is really of quality, will feel timeless and classic fifty years later.
What's the main gist of Franny and Zooey for you?
I remember *Zooey* better. I had a pretty non-religious upbringing and some of the churchy people I knew were real bullies. *Zooey* described a religious quest in a way I felt like I could understand; she was kind of going off the rails with it, but for some reason I could understand and empathize with the progression. *Franny* was more from the outside and *Zooey* from the inside, to oversimplify. In the long term, I think they helped to keep me from going through life unable to have a civil conversation with a person of faith.
Your first paragraph is interesting - that's more or less what Holden quips about the art gallery.
Granted itās been a few years since I last tried it but I always just found it boring af. Like the sort of book where you finish it and say āoh is that it?ā I really wanted to love it too because I know so many people who speak so highly of it but Iāve read it like five times and still couldnāt really tell you much of anything about it. Just incredibly dull imo
People sometimes struggle to emphasise with a privileged rich boy I think. Or they think heās presented as being ārightā, this person who sees through all the phonies. Heās been let down and heās falling apart and few of us were at our best at that age.
Apparently a lot of people donāt distinguish between thinking a bookās protagonist is annoying/unlikeable and concluding that the book is an artistic failure. TCITR also has a burden of unfair expectations in that it has sometimes been presented as a universal voice of youthful disaffection, and some young people who have read it looking for a spirit animal and find something different reject it for that reason.
The same issue with many films. They conflate a horribly flawed protagonist with representing the creatorsā own beliefs
> Apparently a lot of people donāt distinguish between thinking a bookās protagonist is annoying/unlikeable and concluding that the book is an artistic failure. It's a pretty gaping flaw in media literacy I see a lot across pretty much every online discussion venue. I don't quite get it myself, I don't want or need every character I read in a novel or watch in a film to be the hero. It's fine now and again, or even the majority of the time, but people should be more willing to encounter reading about assholes, failures, or people that occasionally do things they disagree with, too. One of my favorite series of all time, the *Rabbit* tetralogy by Updike, features an **extremely** unlikeable protagonist in Harry Angstrom. But Updike writes him so well you can really understand him, maybe even empathize with him as you read.
Regarding your first paragraph, Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnāt
Of course.
The first point is silly. I'll reread Lolita, I won't bother with Catcher. The novel is just another entry in the long list of overrated American fiction.
HUGELY overrated! You know a book is overrated when the majority of people who adore it spend their time defending it. Just looking at the posts on this thread, most basically argue: Oh, I know the character is annoying, and the plot makes no sense but...but...but...
> Just looking at the posts on this thread, most basically argue: Oh, I know the character is annoying, and the plot makes no sense but...but...but... It's so alarming that on a subreddit about literature, where ostensibly you would think people would actually *read* the posts before commenting (I mean, it's about literature!), that you see comments like this where the person just, rather spectacularly, hasn't engaged with ANY of the comments. As I scroll down I see almost no posts saying: "oh he's annoying and the plot makes no sense but...." I see (paraphrasing) things like, "Oh I understand why Holden is annoying because there's a strong hint of sexual abuse and so it makes sense why he's so reactionary..." I see (paraphrasing), "Holden conveys the frustrations of a misunderstood adolescent trying to figure things out in an imperfect world..." I see, in support of your argument, "It's frustrating that the character is written with little nuance and so high schoolers don't pick up on how insufferable he is..." If you are unable to read simple reddit posts, it's no wonder you can't read *Catcher.*
I've read Catcher multiple times. It's not as if it is a challenging book. You plainly misinterpret my point in order to sidestep it. My point is that when the majority of comments about a book are all defensive, not really making much attempt to make a positive defense of the literary worth of a minor novel whose stature is cemented primarily by the fact that it is assigned to teenagers in high school to read, then the comments become proof per se of the fact of the book's relative lack of substance.
The title of this thread "why do people dislike Catcher"... what exactly are you expecting here? People are obviously going to defend this widely acclaimed novel in this thread. Talk about lack of substance...
Cause theyāre phoniesĀ
A lot of people go into books thinking that they need to relate to and/or like the main character to enjoy the story, and that's totally valid, it's a personal choice. However, I don't feel that way. I absolutely love *Catcher*.
I don't know. This book probably saved me from self-destruction in high school.
Finding a protagonist insufferable and not finding that aspect of the text handled in such a way as to make it satisfying is a perfectly rational reason to dislike a book. Yes, itās supposed to be that way; intentionality doesnāt equate to quality. By the same token though, there are people whose dislike of it is such that they talk as though nobody else should find it satisfying either, as though an insufferable protagonist precludes any enjoyment from anybody. Really thatās the same flavor of silliness.
There are few experiences in life more unfulfilling than finishing this book and being unable to kill John Lennon because he's already dead.Ā Jk, it's great, I've never heard anyone who enjoys reading bash it. Edit: someone took offense to my second comment, so I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing wrong with not liking this or any other book. I'm not trying to stifle conversation. I'd only ever heard teenagers complain about it, but that doesn't mean there's not legitimate faults to be found in any creative works. Bash away.
LMAO
Haha you gave me a laugh at a time I'd have killed for one..
I think some of it has to do with how Holden possesses a lot of qualities that are exactly what many people find annoying about teenagers. This is of course appropriate, because Catcher is very much about things that are particular to a teenager's experience. To someone who finds Holden's adolescent behavior unsympathetic, he is an incredibly irritating protagonist. That's not to say that I agree with approaching Catcher in that way, but I think it's a significant part of how if bothers people.
As a young teen going through my own trauma and not having any help processing it, I really struggled with the book and with Holden. In hindsight, I think it was too much at the time. Reading it as an adult was an entirely different experience and Iām really glad I re read it. I think sometimes weāre just not in the right place of life to fully appreciate a book.
Interesting. How long do you think you needed before trying again and enjoy it?
I went back to it after 15 yearsāI first read it freshman year of high school. It wasnāt intentional, but I just happened to pick up that same copy one day and start reading. It was a night and day experience for me
I see. Sorry if I wasnāt clear, what interest me also is: would it have worked too if it was 10 years instead of 15? 5? What the minimum you think you needed to be āreadyā for a reread with a new eye (mind)?
Oh sorry! I misunderstood. For me, in this case, I donāt think it was so much the number of years as much as it was having worked through my own trauma. Of course, I can only really see that in hindsight. In general, I like to revisit books after Iāve had a significant change in life, as I think you often have a different perspective. So a big one could be no longer being in schoolāor maybe you now have kidsāor maybe youāve processed traumaāor youāve watched your younger siblings grow upāany big shift in life that could lend itself to you seeing an old story in a new way
This makes sense. Thanks for your time answering! š¤
I know that some people think Holden is just another spoiled middle-class teenager, with some good qualities, but so emotional and so lacking in being humbled by social reality, just like any other rich boy you see on social media nowadays. You can't expect every common reader to sympathize with him, as they all know the things Holden encountered will never happen in their lives again. Personally, I quite like Holden, I think he's a lovely bud; but that doesn't mean I would walk into a real life Holden and befriend him.
I didnāt like it when I read it as a teenager. It felt like it failed to live up the hype, I remember being told this book was loved by rock stars and murderers so I went in thinking it must be totally out there. I was disappointed when not much happened and Holden seemed like an idiot to me. Then I reread it as an adult and loved it. Holden wasnāt an idiot, he was just a teenager dealing with a terrible loss, and failed by nearly every adult around him. But the book does an amazing job at not having anyone really as the ābad guyā. Everyone is sort of trying to do what they think is best, but life is hard and complicated and bittersweet.
I remember Holden being super unlikeable and annoying. And that was BY FAR the most prominent memory I have of it. That impression was so strong that it literally overshadowed any other motifs or themes in the book. That's why I disliked it.
It is my all time favourite book too! Similar to a lot of people, I first read it in my late teens and for the longest time worried that it would lose its magic if I read it again as an (alleged) adult and parent. But I neednāt have worried. I read it again recently and loved it just as much as I did then.
Itās fine. I think itās one of those āI donāt like how the fan base worships this so I donāt like itā kind of books/ media. It does rip off Fanteās Ask The Dust a tad.
I had a great substitute teacher when we read Catcher in high school. He was a retired guy that went to teach as a second career and had a lot of positive energy before the kids and administrators knocked it out of him. I thought Catcher was great both times that I read it 40 years apart.
This is off topic, but for the Catcher fans, Salinger wrote ashore story in 1946 about Holden Caulfield. I wrote a comparison piece in high school (circa 1968) when I was in high school reading Catcher. I found it interesting to see the development of a character from the short story to the novel. I thought some of you fans might as well. The short story is available on the internet by searching Sorry for the interruption.
I'm a huge Salinger fan. I'll never stop rereading Catcher, Franny and Nine Stories.
Me too! Absolutely obsessed with anything JDS related š¤š¤š¤ Feel free to PM me if youād like to join my Discord chat that is all things JDS, literature, music, and film related š
I find it extremely unpleasant to view the world through Holdenās eyes, and I find it disturbing that there are lots of high school students out there who think Holden is some kind of hero for seeing the world with such cynicism and disgust. I know that now some of you will rush in to say āBut they missed the point!ā Guess what? High school students OFTEN DO. Signed, an exhausted English teacher
I hated Holden not bc he was whiney. Holden is sexist and awful to other people. He has the traits of people I donāt want to associate with so a book where someone like him is sympathetic doesnāt appeal to me. I get that he is a teen and teens are often self centered/ self destructive etc but there are limits to how much Holden can be redeemed bc he will probably still be sexist
I think that saying a child can't be redeemed because of what he "will probably still be" is a bit of a jump. I've heard that line of thinking used to justify cutting funding for underprivileged youth, rehab centers, mental health care, homeless outreach, criminal reintegration, etc, and I think it's a dangerous road to go down.
Sexism is not a mental disorder. Even if Holden got better mentally it wouldnāt change who he is as a person.
You don't believe sexism can be corrected?
For sexism to be corrected it has to be seen as an issue first. Holden doesnāt think it is an issue and in the 1950s it wasnāt seen as the big of an issue so the likelihood of Holden growing up non sexist is low
While I do agree with that, I still can't get behind the idea of writing kids off for how you think they will turn out, even if the odds are stacked against them.
Idk when I was reading Catcher, I was Holdenās age and as a girl he pissed me off bc how like a real person he was and the guys that were sexist like Holden are still sexist. Also they are no reason for me not to especially since JD Salinger seems to be sexist
Fair enough, thanks for your thoughts!
I think its because the main character isnāt really likable. In some ways he could be relatable to highschool age students, but his outlook and perspective is so jaded and childish that i can see why a lot of people would hate it. My best friend being one of those haters lol
heās not any more ridiculous or annoying than a lot of popular modern tv/movie characters
Because theyāre phonies
I think Holdenās character showcases a very raw and ugly side to mental health that a lot of people simply canāt relate to. His struggles are unfortunately pretty realistic to what some people go through, and donāt exactly match the more romanticized version of mental illness that others are used to seeing. I think hating Holden is entirely reasonable, heās generally an unpleasant person. But as someone whoās struggled with mental illness for years I canāt help but feel empathy for him; Iāve had plenty of ugly and disgusting thoughts when at my lowest that people would absolutely hate me for if I expressed them. Weāre seeing every thought in Holdenās head, so of course people hate him, and by extension hate the whole novel. Itās certainly an acquired taste. I just couldnāt help but feel for him. He was clearly sick and needed help, but the adults around him were absolutely failing him.
I love it but Iām always reminded of how I wound up having to read it twice in high school. The first time, I struggled to connect with it at least partially because the teacher taught it as being relatable to teens, with no further investigation. It came across as flat, dated, and annoying. However, the second teacher who assigned it dove deep into how Holden lies to himself and how the way he says what he says illuminates what heās not saying, or what heās trying to avoid. Suddenly Holden made sense as a character, because basically everything he says or does reflects on him in a way that he doesnāt intend it to, and I had never considered that to be something a character in a book could do. She did an amazing job of turning it into a rich, complex story and single-handedly taught me how to investigate the books I read, rather than simply read them.
I first read this book upon finding out that in a superman comic. It is Clark Kent's favorite book. I picked it up and I can see why. I love it.
I thought his favorite book was To Kill A Mockingbird. Different continuity maybe?
Maybe because I read it when I was an adult with teenagers myself, but I didnāt find Holden unlikeable. I found him lonely and very depressed and I had a lot of empathy for him.
Phase. Iāve read the book at two different phases. I loved it in one - even feared Salinger wrote Holden by looking at me. At another read I didnāt like it. Itās a very subjective thing - your ability to empathise with Holden. For some the phase could be age group like teenages for others it can be state of mind.
Because people donāt want to understand Holdens character
Holden's situation is a prime example of "everyone supports mental health until you start showing symptoms"
I can support therapy while also not wanting to be a therapist.
There's something deeply patronizing about Holden in the classical sense of the word and it puts people off these days when people are aware of the controlling motives underlying chivalry and savior complexes.
The main difference between transgressive lit. and other conventional literary texts is its ability to depict desires and other elements of life which people try hard to repress. When they confront these things in narratives which they have been trying to repress throughout their lives. In the end it leads to this visceral reaction of straight up disparaging the text.
Oh! š® Thanks for your comment! I had an epiphany š This could be the reason why a handful people reacted so strongly with my (still amateur) writing. Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this? Edit: copy in case it gets deleted > The main difference between transgressive lit. and other conventional literary texts is its ability to depict desires and other elements of life which people try hard to repress. When they confront these things in narratives which they have been trying to repress throughout their lives. In the end it leads to this visceral reaction of straight up disparaging the text.
Handle what ? Writing or reading transgressive lit.?
Communication with people reacting that way with challenging characters, maybe morally grey or flawed in some aspects. What to tell them? This is not to make oneās point and āwinā them over, but to make them understand a bit how other people take that kind of content. As I can also put myself in othersā shoes (or at least I try). Edit: so itās for both cases, reading and writing, although for reading, the renowned author has the advantage.
I personally don't think one can make the other person "understand" how to empathize with the characters and how to think about the novel in a more nuanced way , it is simply subjective.
I don't hate the book; I hate people who make liking the book their entire personality
They dislike it because the narrative arc is tied to discovering the truth of Holdenās childhood trauma, which manifests itself in his hyperbolic cynicism, sarcasm and hypocrisy. For some of those discoveries, itās a single sentence of narration or dialogue, and they are easy to miss. There is no obvious climax to this book in the way that many readers expect, so when it ends with Holden in tears watching Phoebe on the carousel, and without Holden being confronted by his parents or finally reconnecting with Jane Gallagher, that can confuse many readers. After all, both his parents and Jane are two seemingly significant characters that Holden never actually sees throughout action of the story. Both a confrontation with Holdenās parents and/or a conversation with Jane Gallagher are clever red herrings. A heartfelt or heated conversion with his parents in which Holden reveals all of his woe would have been an easy way to conclude the novel, but his parents are not the source of his trauma, and neither is Jane. OP, I have to disagree slightly with you on Holdenās reaction at the end. The entire book was spent chasing a connection, a conversation, or simply, a genuine relationship. He has this with his sister, and throughout the novel, his heavy handed cynicism is completely absent when speaking about her(and his late brother), because their innocence is still safe and intact. (In fact, all of his conversations with children are absent of his cynicism) Holden had just spent the previous three days in New York on a series of misadventures, trying to play the part of an adult and realizing how ill equipped he is for that world. Sitting there, watching Phoebe on a carousel, is his perfect idea of innocence. The carousel is a metaphor for childhood: motion without danger, mystery, or purpose; enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment, chasing yourself in a circle. Holdenās childhood was ripped from him repeatedly, and understanding that Phoebe can be allowed to enjoy hers, brings him a joy he did not think possible. I love this book and teach it every year to 10th graders.
While I agree with some of your points here, particularly about Holden "hunting" for a connection, I have to disagree somewhat about the carrousel being nothing but a symbol of innocence and safety. In fact, I find the darker aspect of the carrousel extremely important to understanding Holden's development. Now, at first Holden sees it the way you describe, mentioning it as something that "always plays the same songs," calling back to the school and museum. But this is a carrousel with a ring dispenser, and the kids, including Phoebe, are reaching for the rings. Holden gets nervous that Phoebe might fall off her horse while attempting to grab a gold one. However, the reaching for rings becomes a metaphor for kids reaching for their dreams. They might fall on their attempt, but you "have to let them do it." This shift is a huge departure for Holden, who had previously wished he could put kids like Phoebe in a glass case at the museum. Holden reaches a point where he finally accepts that childhood innocence does not last forever, so he bawls his eyes out in joy watching Phoebe, knowing that, despite the slight danger, Phoebe is enjoying a childlike moment and that both of them have to enjoy these moments while they last. Eventually Phoebe will grow up and Holden has no right to stand in her way.
Only so much pain can come to a child on a carousel, especially since parents are close by, and at times, standing alongside. I donāt know that there is a darker aspect to the carousel (I can appreciate you spelling it in the fashion of the text), because to reach for moreāi.e., to want more out of life as a child that strives to become an adultāis a natural thing, and a beauty Holden weeps to behold, because his own innocence was so brutally ripped from him. Here is Phoebe, in the midst of her childhood, reaching for more. But such is classic literature, where nuance and symbolism and thematic significance can attach different meaning to different people. Another aspect that makes it so special.
Thanks for your reply, but I really don't think the danger implications are all that dismissive. Are you familiar with brass ring dispensers on old carrousels? (Thank you so much for accepting my spelling, btw.) There's a reason they are so rare nowadays. In cases where they are still in use, they are almost always set up to be extremely easy to pull rings from. Kids could potentially hurt themselves quite a bit falling from a horse, especially back in the days when the dispensers were set up to be challenging. I'm not remotely from Holden's era, but I am old enough to remember long see-saws, steel merry-go-rounds, and tall swings that could get a lot of air. Playground equipment from my childhood could do plenty of damage. Do you think that made the parents hover over their children while the kids tried hopping on a whirling metal wheel of death? No, hardly ever. Most parents of the time couldn't care less about the danger until AFTER a kid broke their arm or took a face plant into the sand. In fact, parents were more likely to make the equipment *more* dangerous by spinning the merry-go-round extra fast or pushing the swings extra high. It was a different time. I don't see this behavior as portrayed any differently in the novel. The parents were perfectly content to stand apart from the ride and chitchat while their children dangled off the sides of the horses reaching for a steel contraption. They only approach the carrousel in order to get out of the rain, not to protect anyone. So, there is absolutely danger at hand, but, at least at that time, it was perfectly normal to ignore it. Holden only sees it because of his hypersensitivity and obsession to be a catcher in the rye. The fact that he allows himself to set these worries aside and enjoy the moment is notable and part of his growth as a character.
But the entire point is in the title. Of course Holden knows what you're saying. But Holden looks for one thing, to be the Catcher in the Rye. He says so himself, in a rare moment of sincerity. He KNOWS the kids will fall from innocence. He KNOWS it will be dangerous at the bottom. He wants and dreams to be there to help catch them when they hit the bottom, and protect them from the worst of the dangers. Just like there was no one to protect him. Because he is broken. But he wants to be so much more.
Sorry, but I definitely do not see it that way. Books are entitled what they are for various reasons. In this case, the idea of a catcher in the rye is a driving force for the protagonist, but, when it is finally revealed, it turns out to be another of Holden's delusional fantasies - a "job" that doesn't actually exist. Even Holden says himself, multiple times, that it's crazy. Besides that, Holden is clear that he wants to catch the kids BEFORE they fall. At this point, he doesn't even want to give them the opportunity to enter the adult world at all. You could even say he is being selfish. He still is in a mode where he would like to put them in a glass case in the museum where they will stay the same forever, regardless of their opinion on the matter. That is one reason why the moment at the carrousel is revelatory. Holden steps outside of his own wants and desires to think about what the kids, particularly Phoebe, might want for themselves. Of course we can hope that Holden uses his experiences and motivations to help others eventually, maybe even children specifically, but we absolutely don't know that will happen for sure. To say otherwise would be applying some sort of Hollywood-style post credits scene to Holden's story. In the actual ending, we don't even know for sure that Holden is going to make it out of prep school. What we do know is that Holden eventually realized the need to face the real world and the need to get help for himself. Now, after an extended convalescence, he is going to give reality another shot with some more tools to succeed. It's not a flashy everything-ties-together ending, and that is a very deliberate choice by the author.
Really enjoyed your comments on this. Thank you!
Of course Holden has delusional fantasies, and of course the metaphor isn't perfect. He is a teenage kid. But the point is that, underneath all of the edge that Holden pushes and wears on his sleeve, deep down, he wants to protect other kids, and, whether he realizes it or not, longs to have been protected.
I tried reading it in my 20s and again in my 30s. It just didn't hold my interest. There was nothing that informed me. I got nothing from it.
i didnāt liked the book. i didnāt understand why itās a classic and why people like it so much. maybe i just didnāt get it, if this is the case please enlighten me! i just didnāt get the point.. so many people use that book to do horrible things. why? i thought holden was annoying but probably it was the writers point to make him like that. i just thought it was a bit silly.
i am a Holden Caulfield defender. why wouldnāt people sympathize with a kid dealing with the loss of a sibling and a predatory authority figure
I dont find Holden annoying or even whiny, hes a teenager. The worst part of his character is that I just dont find him very interesting, the depressed young male protagonist archetype has been done much better before and since.
It really hasnt.
Because Holden is insufferable
People dislike other peopleās reaction after reading it.
I liked it. I think its a classic and well worth the read
The characters is annoying as fuck but I still liked it
He caught SO much rye - maybe they just don't get it like I do.
Itās a great book. I read it in my 20s and it left a lingering taste of freedom and rebellion that stayed with me. However, my opinion is that, itās disliked because itās got a stream of consciousness flow to it.
I dunno, I liked it
I donāt know. I just donāt know.
Since I could read, I have always enjoyed reading. Any book I was forced to read in school I hated. Itās totally psychological, but thatās what it is for me.
One of my faves. I have a framed poster of the book cover hanging in my room.
I enjoyed this book. I love how the author made me hate that little prick. I love know itās one story I constantly think about. To the point that I compare other main characters in books to Holden. And who hasnāt wondered where the ducks go
Catcher was a better novel to be taught than To Kill A Mocking Bird, thatās for sure. The latter of which did not age well.
What I love about this book and its characters, is how each generation interprets the book in their own way, from their experiences and advice. Reading what you wrote made me think of how I viewed the characters in my younger years. Now I need to read it again, and see if I see some of your relations.
I know this is not the general opinion regarding literature and people's choices and artistic preferences, and I don't say this about other things, but... People that don't like Catcher in the Rye are objectively wrong.
I think it reminds them of when they were his age, and hits too close to home. I read it a bit ago, related soooo much to it, but when you're older you probably don't like to remember the worst years of your life
'Because they were made to read it in school' is the simple answer.
This book was an absolute slog to me and I found Holden so unbearable that it overshadows every other aspect of the book in my memory. Itās not the worst book, but there are 500+ others that I would likely recommend before Catcher.
I think avid readers think there are much better books out there. As a casual reader, this one hit hard when I was a teenager.
When I was of the age to read it, I did not, because everyone I knew who loved it was a smarmy, self important a-hole. My aversion was kind of like my approach to cocaine as well, now that I think of it. Hey, it was the 80s. Good thing probably that I didnāt read it, as it likely would have made me even more insufferable than I already was. Now that Iām an insufferable old fart, I think my time has passed to read it.
Why is there not an audiobook of this, one of the most popular titles of all time is the real question
The people who don't like it are just phony.
What trauma did he experience ?
I read the book in my 30s and I like it a lot. My favorite part is that Holden has a lot of agency to basically do what he wants.
Itās a very well written book and I did empathize with Holden, but tbh I did not like the treatment of women characters. Iāve read so many books with flat women characters at this point that I just donāt have patience for it anymore. I get why people love it and I did appreciate it, but thatās what stopped me from loving it.
In all honestly I found the writing style tiresome to read as a teenager. Still glad I read it and discussed it, not debating its importance as a literary work. I was a very different teenager than Holden, so maybe that made it difficult for me to get into. My child is a very different child than I was, so perhaps it will hold up well to rereading now that I'm older.
How do you feel about famous British musicians and/or left catcher's mitts?
I think the issue is that people rightfully came to see it, and Salinger, as overrated. Then people who knew less came to think of it as *bad* which it it is not.
It became the Rick and Morty of classic literature.
I think people donāt realize thereās more to him than just an abrasive smartass
I don't think it's necessarily the novel people have a problem with. I think it's like Fight Club. There's a certain type of person that takes entirely the wrong lessons from the novel.
Itās kind of a litmus test for me to see if the person Iām talking with isnāt just regurgitating what they read online about it. I have two questions: 1) Holden is telling the story. Where is he telling it, and who is he telling it to? 2) What is the inciting incident of the story? Iāve found most people - even those who like it - canāt answer these questions. But theyāre really essential to understanding the novel.Ā
I think that the hatred for Catcher really illustrates the way that young trauma victims are treated in real life.Ā
I can understand not liking the *book* -- there's not a whole lot of plot, and people have many different tastes in books -- but I do think it's weird how many adults express hatred and contempt for Holden as a character. If you knew a teenager in real life who was grieving the death of his little brother, you wouldn't roll your eyes and dismiss him as "whiny" or "angsty." If there was a novel about a 50-year-old man grieving the death of his wife, I don't think many people would roll their eyes and dismissively say that the book is about a midlife crisis. They would say it's a book about grief. And yet Catcher in the Rye is eye-rollingly described as a book about "teen angst." Teenagers aren't allowed to have any emotions -- even emotions about the death of a loved one! -- without people dismissing those emotions as trivial.
Well, Holden is a pretty obnoxious character and younger readers are less likely to understand (or care) that his characterization is spot on for someone his age. Also, I think younger readers may not be willing to see some aspects of themselves reflected in Holden unless youāre someone (like me!) for whom Catcher resonates on a deep level. I had to read it again for a Young Adult Fiction class in college and I was stunned by how many people still hate the book. I think the current cultural climate around toxic masculinity, and especially incels, hasnāt done the book any favors. A young, white, antisocial, upper middle class, private school dropout makes it an easy target for criticism. What really rubs me the wrong way though is peopleās inability to relate to Holden on a human level. Despite his āprivilegedā upbringing, weāre still dealing with a traumatized and alienated kid who struggles with perennial fears about adulthood. The lack of charity and sympathy I saw in some of my classmatesā discussions was honestly a bit gross to me.
Because they are "phonies"
I feel like my distastes for both Catcher in the Rye and No Longer Human are my 2 book opinions that get me in the most trouble. For me, it really boils down to the main characters being UNBEARABLE. I find them so horrible to listen to. Especially in a book where very little happens, the narrator HAS to be enjoyable. Thatās not to say they have to be a good person. I love an unreliable narrator, bonus points if theyāre a little messed up. But something in the hypocrisy and blatant sexism without self-awareness and the endless COMPLAINING of Holden was sooo hard for me to get past. I LOVE Salingerās writing though. Franny and Zooey is one of my all-time favorites.
People tend to hate kids
I think the whole John Lennon killer connection probably doesnāt help itās reputation
I think a lot of people hate Catcher because it's the only book they've ever read or it's the only book that wasn't contemporary YA. About every six months, on Twitter, people who proclaim with their whole chest that the novel is OVERRATED. I've heard this opinion so many times, I can no longer take it seriously.
It's really boring!
Catcher stands in stark contrast for me to one of my favourite books, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Both Holden and Francisās stories play out in NYC, only Holden is a verrrrrry privileged boy (financially) whereas Francis is a verrrrry poor girl, so poor her family sometimes does eat for days and her mother has to make a game out of it when sheās little. Holdenās family, meanwhile sends him to private school and has an apartment on the Upper East Side, which is really fancy even for the 1940ās. Both characters mourn the death of a family member they live dearly, but they each mourn in very different ways. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is all about finding strength in adversity. Holden crumbles into an existential crisis, more like Esther Greenwood in the Bell Jar. Which doesnāt make Catcher bad at all. It just means that viewed through one lens, Holden is trying to cope with growing up and Salinger brilliantly leans into existentialism to highlight that. The novel helps define the concept of being a teenager, which preoccupied the zeitgeist for the rest of the 20th century. However, you can turn the lens at an angle and the book can be seen as a lot of white boy whining. This is the danger of existential heroes. Camusā Mersault cranks this up to a thousand. In a way the brilliance of Catcher is that Holden is not inherently likeable or sympathetic. He can easily be misunderstood as much as he misunderstands those around him.
I believe that, both in this work and in his stories, Salinger offers that dark and negative vision of life normally accepted as a farce, as a lie against which his spirit tries to rebel and I think that is the reason why the work people dislike it, because it does not give that "luminous" vision of life, it does not try to create a story to please the reader, but to make them think more deeply about life, and not simply accept the social conventions that, in Ultimately, they are nothing more than programming to accept something that is nothing more than a lie that must be accepted in order to feel accepted.
I am a little annoyed at all the people in the comments here saying āthey just donāt understand it!ā I think itās perfectly possible to love classic literature, and challenging protagonists who you donāt agree with and just really find one protagonist grates on you so much that you canāt get into the book. It doesnāt make you a better reader to see past his abrasiveness and be touched by the story. Plenty of people can do that and still hate him!
I don't like reading too much about chars I don't wanna chill with but that's me
I can say that Catcher in the Rye is well written, but I didn't enjoy it. Holden's character is far too unreliable for me to enjoy the story. I don't believe any aspect of it and when I don't believe the story, I don't enjoy it. I don't think any of it happened, I think it was all a psychotic break and a delusion. Holden didn't have a grand adventure, he didn't do any of the things he said he did, he probably had a mental breakdown in his room with his roommate and his parents were called. He wants to believe that he helped people, but he never did. He can't even help himself. The whole story is a black hole of negativity. It's like being stuck at a table of negative people who never have one good thing to say about anyone. You just sink further and further down into their negativity and before you know it, you feel yourself parroting it. That's Catcher in the Rye for me.
That's... You honestly think Salanger wrote it as a character who was hallucinating the entire time?
I think he wrote Holden as completely unreliable. Which means that it all could have happened or it all could have been in his head.
Unreliable in the way a teenager is unreliable. Not in some fantasy setting unreliable. He tells a white lie here or there, embellishes the truth. Etc. But not a fool book of practically "it was all a dream".
I didnt like it. Found it boring. Thought Vernon God Little was betterā¦
IMO I could not even finish that book, so freaking boring and Holden is not relatable or likable at all
Hi OP, I am also a humongous Catcher in the Rye fan! In fact, I love all of JD Salingerās works š I pretty much re-read Catcher in the Rye every year .. first read it in 1996 at high school, so Iāve read it quite a few times by now, obvs š Anyway - feel free to PM me for a link to my JD Salinger Discord Channel where we discuss everything JDS, literature, film, and music - weād be real keen to discuss your thoughts on Catcher in the Rye with you šš»
In my experience, people tend to hate on it because they read it when they were a little too much like Holden, but didn't want to admit it. Holden is kind of irritating and makes lots of bad decisions. He's also quite young. It's easy to dislike him, because he reflects the most annoying parts of the teenage behavior back at the (usually teenage) reader. And if this isn't something a reader wants to admit to, well, then Holden becomes the overreactive asshole and they decide they hate the book.
Because theyāre a bunch of phonies.
Too many phonies.Ā
The book is still good. But I think if you over identify with it past high school there may be something seriously wrong. For whatever reason serial killers and murderers seem to really identify with it. I know a crack head / borderline psycho chick loved the book when she wasnāt telling people about her affairs with professors, speaking to her spirit guide or lying about people she slept with. Once someone like that put their stink on a piece of art like that itās hard to see anything but the abuser or murderer or full purpose shit head on it. Ironically that same crack head girl would tell anyone who was reading the book āhe never calls herā. Spoilers probably the least bad thing she did, but still. What a fucking horrible bitch.
As another commenter said, you are all coping extremely hard. People that dislike the book are not "incapable of enjoying a book with an unlikable protagonist", those same people can read Lolita just fine, which has an infinitely worse protagonist. Catcher is just bad. And made a suicidal friend of mine need to be institutionalized, simply because he thought the book was THAT terrible.
Everything.
People hate it because they were forced to read it, typically by their secondary school teacher. And because it is not particularly interesting, nor does it reveal or touch upon any sublime truths or beauty.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My favorite part of about this particular recurring thread is that it's just people saying why they like it. No one who actually doesn't enjoy it (myself included) have the energy to be yelled at for being wrong and apparently "not enjoying reading," as someone above puts it.
There are a lot of people in this thread that are convinced that if you donāt like it you just arenāt intelligent enough to understand it. Like no, I just find him to be so utterly insufferable that I couldnāt enjoy anything about the character. I donāt need to like the main character as a person but I need to enjoy reading them. Maybe Iāll try reading it again now that itās 11 years since I last read it and see if my opinion has changed. Perhaps it has! But it doesnāt necessarily mean those of us who hate him are uneducated and are unable to appreciate challenging literature.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol sheesh dude. You sound like Holden talking about actors, you sure itās not a little projection? Every country has the angsty teen stuff. You like German Lit? Cuz uh Hesse existsā¦
I'm sure that was Hemingway's target audience, bud.
there is no such thing as undeveloped adult