4 ms·

There are a few books whose everlasting fame eludes me. "On the Road" and "The Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye" all provided mystifying reads...because t

There are a few books whose everlasting fame eludes me. "On the Road" and "The Great Gatsby" and "Catcher in the Rye" all provided mystifying reads...because they are supposed to be great and manifestly are not.

alanthonyc 17y ago
Same here about "Catcher in the Rye" (although I only read it once). I've heard that it's a generational thing. Times were supposedly different when it was first written. As for me, I didn't get it. I liked "The Great Gatsby" though.
- zmonteca 17y ago
  I thought all three were excellent. Of the three Great Gatsby was by far my favorite. How can you not love the typically millionaire who has it all and suddenly kills himself. He should have realized he could have just bought a russian bride.
- alex_c 17y ago
  That's amusing - I didn't get "The Great Gatsby" at all, but liked "Catcher in the Rye". I doubt I can articulate why I liked it, though - neither the plot nor the characters were about "likability", and I can't say I walked away with any profound life lessons. It was unique among books I've read in that I put it down at the end and thought "Wow, that was something... but I'm not sure what."
ojbyrne 17y ago
If by "manifestly" you mean "in your opinion, and despite a lot of critical acclaim."
- w00pla 17y ago
  Many of those famous books are famous only because people read them and feel cultured and sophisticated (IMHO).
- mynameishere 17y ago
  I mean, "as they actually evidenced themselves as I read them", rather than "by way of conventional view". Obviously I'm talking about my own opinion. I suspect a book like catcher in the rye would have a hard time getting published and selling today. Without being preceded by its acclaim, most readers would think it ho-hum. This is true of a lot of things, though. Take Shakespeare's comedies. They aren't funny. A modern Shakespeare audience laughs at the jokes even though they already see them coming (having read the play multiple times already). This is the opposite of normal experience. I won't laugh much at a genuinely funny comedy if I've already seen it 10 times, so why would I laugh at 500-year-old puns that I've heard before...when even the best puns rarely cause laughter the first time?
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    I don't think that's really an apt comparison. Shakespeare's comedies haven't really aged well (it's a bit like watching comedy from the 1970s - you miss all the context). The tragedies age much better. And concerning "getting published and selling today" - Sarah Palin gets published. That doesn't mean that what she writes is anything other than trash.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "I won't laugh much at a genuinely funny comedy if I've already seen it 10 times, so why would I laugh at 500-year-old puns that I've heard before...when even the best puns rarely cause laughter the first time?" I've seen the film Animal House[0] about 20 times and still think it's funny. Part of the humor is the set-up and delivery. Yes, I know John Belushi is going to force potatoes out of his mouth, but when it happens it's still funny because of all the little details. Same for A Night at the Opera. Dated in some ways, but hysterical in others. Grouch Marx is just funny, even when you know the jokes. Now, my wife wonders how I can watch the same movie twice, since I what happens and how it ends. My brother, though, compares this to listening to music; you know the words and how the melody goes, but you still like listening to a familiar song. Some people are that way with books and plays and movies, too. [0] Yes, I am that old.
qeorge 17y ago
They just speak to people in different ways. Personally, I got a lot out of "Catcher In The Rye" and "On The Road", but the themes of those books resonated heavily with me at the time. I enjoyed "The Great Gatsby" as a story, but it didn't connect with me in the way it seems to connect with others. However, I suspect that read in a different moment of my life its impact could be profoundly different.
rwmj 17y ago
I didn't like Catcher in the Rye, but I did enjoy On the Road a great deal.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
jonjacky 17y ago
Those books were startling when they came out, both in content and style. They were so influential they have been imitated thousands of times; their themes and styles have permeated popular culture until now they have become cliches. It is no longer possible for a contemporary reader to experience them as the original readers did.
- bmelton 17y ago
  I agree with the premise, but would also caveat that Catcher was a much better read for me when I was about the same age as Holden was. I could identify then with his feelings, with his inability to succinctly sum up his thoughts, with his need to accentuate things that really didn't need accentuating, etc. The style worked for me (even though I'm decidedly not from the era of its original readers) because even though the vernacular is dated, it was still relevant to the mannerisms I spoke with in my teens and (maybe) early twenties. Reading it again now, in my thirties, it is dramatically different. Not because I've read other books that imitated the style, or because it has become cliche, but because I am very far removed, mentally, from how I was when I first read it.

alanthonyc 17y ago

Same here about "Catcher in the Rye" (although I only read it once). I've heard that it's a generational thing. Times were supposedly different when it was first written. As for me, I didn't get it. I liked "The Great Gatsby" though.

zmonteca 17y ago
I thought all three were excellent. Of the three Great Gatsby was by far my favorite. How can you not love the typically millionaire who has it all and suddenly kills himself. He should have realized he could have just bought a russian bride.
alex_c 17y ago
That's amusing - I didn't get "The Great Gatsby" at all, but liked "Catcher in the Rye". I doubt I can articulate why I liked it, though - neither the plot nor the characters were about "likability", and I can't say I walked away with any profound life lessons. It was unique among books I've read in that I put it down at the end and thought "Wow, that was something... but I'm not sure what."

ojbyrne 17y ago

If by "manifestly" you mean "in your opinion, and despite a lot of critical acclaim."

w00pla 17y ago
Many of those famous books are famous only because people read them and feel cultured and sophisticated (IMHO).
mynameishere 17y ago
I mean, "as they actually evidenced themselves as I read them", rather than "by way of conventional view". Obviously I'm talking about my own opinion. I suspect a book like catcher in the rye would have a hard time getting published and selling today. Without being preceded by its acclaim, most readers would think it ho-hum. This is true of a lot of things, though. Take Shakespeare's comedies. They aren't funny. A modern Shakespeare audience laughs at the jokes even though they already see them coming (having read the play multiple times already). This is the opposite of normal experience. I won't laugh much at a genuinely funny comedy if I've already seen it 10 times, so why would I laugh at 500-year-old puns that I've heard before...when even the best puns rarely cause laughter the first time?
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  I don't think that's really an apt comparison. Shakespeare's comedies haven't really aged well (it's a bit like watching comedy from the 1970s - you miss all the context). The tragedies age much better. And concerning "getting published and selling today" - Sarah Palin gets published. That doesn't mean that what she writes is anything other than trash.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "I won't laugh much at a genuinely funny comedy if I've already seen it 10 times, so why would I laugh at 500-year-old puns that I've heard before...when even the best puns rarely cause laughter the first time?" I've seen the film Animal House[0] about 20 times and still think it's funny. Part of the humor is the set-up and delivery. Yes, I know John Belushi is going to force potatoes out of his mouth, but when it happens it's still funny because of all the little details. Same for A Night at the Opera. Dated in some ways, but hysterical in others. Grouch Marx is just funny, even when you know the jokes. Now, my wife wonders how I can watch the same movie twice, since I what happens and how it ends. My brother, though, compares this to listening to music; you know the words and how the melody goes, but you still like listening to a familiar song. Some people are that way with books and plays and movies, too. [0] Yes, I am that old.

qeorge 17y ago

They just speak to people in different ways. Personally, I got a lot out of "Catcher In The Rye" and "On The Road", but the themes of those books resonated heavily with me at the time. I enjoyed "The Great Gatsby" as a story, but it didn't connect with me in the way it seems to connect with others. However, I suspect that read in a different moment of my life its impact could be profoundly different.

rwmj 17y ago

I didn't like Catcher in the Rye, but I did enjoy On the Road a great deal.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

jonjacky 17y ago

Those books were startling when they came out, both in content and style. They were so influential they have been imitated thousands of times; their themes and styles have permeated popular culture until now they have become cliches. It is no longer possible for a contemporary reader to experience them as the original readers did.

bmelton 17y ago
I agree with the premise, but would also caveat that Catcher was a much better read for me when I was about the same age as Holden was. I could identify then with his feelings, with his inability to succinctly sum up his thoughts, with his need to accentuate things that really didn't need accentuating, etc. The style worked for me (even though I'm decidedly not from the era of its original readers) because even though the vernacular is dated, it was still relevant to the mannerisms I spoke with in my teens and (maybe) early twenties. Reading it again now, in my thirties, it is dramatically different. Not because I've read other books that imitated the style, or because it has become cliche, but because I am very far removed, mentally, from how I was when I first read it.