6 ms·

> I will probably burn all my virtual karma, but I just need to say this: I hated Catcher in the Rye with a passion. I used to do a lot of reading, still do my

> I will probably burn all my virtual karma, but I just need to say this: I hated Catcher in the Rye with a passion. I used to do a lot of reading, still do my fair share, but just could not stand that book. There's a very short window in which one can read Catcher for the first time and still enjoy it. It's that 3 year window between 13ish and 16 where you've just begun having all these angsty thoughts about the world, yet have no context or understanding for them. Outside of that, it just comes off as a whiny entitled kid doing nothing. But within that context, it's a seminal coming of age story. I can distinctly remember the ending being the first work of art to move me to tears.

wolco 8y ago
I read at 19 loved the book but loved franny and zooey more. Something may have been lost by that age.
scottlocklin 8y ago
I read it in that era of my life, and I still disliked it more or less because it was a whiny entitled kid doing nothing! It really seemed like a canned Madison Avenue product designed to appeal to teenagers. Come to think if it, the only things I remembered enjoying in my forced high school reading was Macbeth and Tale of Two Cities. One thing I did really like from that era which I suspect wouldn't age well if I tried it now for the first time was Dune.
- ci5er 8y ago
  Try it. It ages better than Ender's Game.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >it was a whiny entitled kid doing nothing! The "doing nothing" part can be found in tons of great literature and movies. Most of us, throughout most of our lives and days, "do nothing" as well... Not everything has to have a trite Pixar/Heroes Journey like arc.
darkerside 8y ago
Seems like it would still be enjoyable to someone with empathy enough to identify with a human being in that situation. Characters don't have to be good people to be likable. And for that matter, characters don't necessarily need to be likable to make a book enjoyable or interesting. It's been a while, but I remember Holden as a flawed and frustrating individual with a good heart, who's in the process of learning that's not sufficient to carry him through life.
- ci5er 8y ago
  You raise an interesting point. Do you think that the story must be "mythic"? When I was young, I kind of got where "Peter" of "Ender's Game" was coming from. And I kind of felt that Darth Vader in "The Empire Strikes Back" was having some sort of conflicted issue. But I never felt that from the bullies in the books like "Little House on the Prairie". Maybe I'm a SciFi geek (and that may well be the answer), or maybe we only feel empathy for bad people when the play is writ large? What say you?
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Hmm, that's an interesting point. I wasn't thinking of Holden as a classic villain per se. I don't know about LHOP, but could be they were just flat and poorly written characters? (Not to offend any fans, not every character must be fully developed!). I guess that's all it is. Holden was not a great guy, but he was developed and at least somewhat complex (although I've seen a fair amount of reduction in this thread). That goes a long way to making a character relatable. Yes, Peter's an absolute dick, but he has reasons for being one that make sense to him, if not everybody else. FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR.
    - ci5er 8y ago
      > FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR. Fair enough. I also found Frodo to be (largely) insufferable, and I also enjoyed LOTR. I just never "got" Catcher in the Rye, the way I expected that I was expected to. EDIT: And maybe this is a sign of my immaturity ... that I expect myself to "get" novels that resonate with other people with different life experiences and different brains. I have a similar (personal internal) response when I share a novel that resonates with me with a super smart friend, and they shrug and say, "and"? ... Maybe I'm just not built to understand novels in the same way what most people are (and that's ok...)
ci5er 8y ago
Thank God. I'm am a few (couple? few?) decades past the target audience, but I have re-read the book from the age of 13, for about every 3 years[0], and I keep wondering what is wrong with me that I don't get why this is a great book? I have never gotten it, and I have continued to think that I am defective in not understanding a "Great American Novel" [0] Yes - over 10 times now...
- coldtea 8y ago
  If you can't see any value in the book, try to read critiques of the book, and see what other people see in it.
chongli 8y ago
that 3 year window between 13ish and 16 That's when I read it! I guess I got lucky. I have no real inclination to read it again.
coldtea 8y ago
>There's a very short window in which one can read Catcher for the first time and still enjoy it. It's that 3 year window between 13ish and 16 where you've just begun having all these angsty thoughts about the world, yet have no context or understanding for them. This window (up to the 60s-70s) has probably opened to ages 13-35 today (considering how many 30+ people watch the tritest superheroes movies with even less substance than the Catcher and then discuss them as serious works...).

wolco 8y ago

I read at 19 loved the book but loved franny and zooey more. Something may have been lost by that age.

scottlocklin 8y ago

I read it in that era of my life, and I still disliked it more or less because it was a whiny entitled kid doing nothing! It really seemed like a canned Madison Avenue product designed to appeal to teenagers. Come to think if it, the only things I remembered enjoying in my forced high school reading was Macbeth and Tale of Two Cities. One thing I did really like from that era which I suspect wouldn't age well if I tried it now for the first time was Dune.

ci5er 8y ago
Try it. It ages better than Ender's Game.
coldtea 8y ago
>it was a whiny entitled kid doing nothing! The "doing nothing" part can be found in tons of great literature and movies. Most of us, throughout most of our lives and days, "do nothing" as well... Not everything has to have a trite Pixar/Heroes Journey like arc.

darkerside 8y ago

Seems like it would still be enjoyable to someone with empathy enough to identify with a human being in that situation. Characters don't have to be good people to be likable. And for that matter, characters don't necessarily need to be likable to make a book enjoyable or interesting. It's been a while, but I remember Holden as a flawed and frustrating individual with a good heart, who's in the process of learning that's not sufficient to carry him through life.

ci5er 8y ago
You raise an interesting point. Do you think that the story must be "mythic"? When I was young, I kind of got where "Peter" of "Ender's Game" was coming from. And I kind of felt that Darth Vader in "The Empire Strikes Back" was having some sort of conflicted issue. But I never felt that from the bullies in the books like "Little House on the Prairie". Maybe I'm a SciFi geek (and that may well be the answer), or maybe we only feel empathy for bad people when the play is writ large? What say you?
- darkerside 8y ago
  Hmm, that's an interesting point. I wasn't thinking of Holden as a classic villain per se. I don't know about LHOP, but could be they were just flat and poorly written characters? (Not to offend any fans, not every character must be fully developed!). I guess that's all it is. Holden was not a great guy, but he was developed and at least somewhat complex (although I've seen a fair amount of reduction in this thread). That goes a long way to making a character relatable. Yes, Peter's an absolute dick, but he has reasons for being one that make sense to him, if not everybody else. FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR.
  - ci5er 8y ago
    > FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR. Fair enough. I also found Frodo to be (largely) insufferable, and I also enjoyed LOTR. I just never "got" Catcher in the Rye, the way I expected that I was expected to. EDIT: And maybe this is a sign of my immaturity ... that I expect myself to "get" novels that resonate with other people with different life experiences and different brains. I have a similar (personal internal) response when I share a novel that resonates with me with a super smart friend, and they shrug and say, "and"? ... Maybe I'm just not built to understand novels in the same way what most people are (and that's ok...)

ci5er 8y ago

Thank God. I'm am a few (couple? few?) decades past the target audience, but I have re-read the book from the age of 13, for about every 3 years[0], and I keep wondering what is wrong with me that I don't get why this is a great book? I have never gotten it, and I have continued to think that I am defective in not understanding a "Great American Novel" [0] Yes - over 10 times now...

coldtea 8y ago
If you can't see any value in the book, try to read critiques of the book, and see what other people see in it.

chongli 8y ago

that 3 year window between 13ish and 16 That's when I read it! I guess I got lucky. I have no real inclination to read it again.

coldtea 8y ago

>There's a very short window in which one can read Catcher for the first time and still enjoy it. It's that 3 year window between 13ish and 16 where you've just begun having all these angsty thoughts about the world, yet have no context or understanding for them. This window (up to the 60s-70s) has probably opened to ages 13-35 today (considering how many 30+ people watch the tritest superheroes movies with even less substance than the Catcher and then discuss them as serious works...).