The Catcher in the Rye

[pink_beliefs]

Classic.... has anyone here read it? I myself finished it up just before my vacation, so I was wondering if anyone else has read it and their thoughts on it.

[Lil Bit]

Amazingly I have not read this book. I have thoght about reading it, but just never have time. I start a book and I really get involved with it. It's like I ignore everything around me just to be with a book. God I must sound seriously pathetic. But the good thing is I speed read so it doesn't take too long.

[Rascal]

they made us read this book in grade 11. they said, "here, this book is a classic. read it and we will study it." i read 2/3 of it and then wrote a book report on it. i remember nothing except that i couldn't finish it. i don't even remember why lol. does anything spoil a book more than studying every single sentance and looking for the "deeper meaning" of it all? stupid english class...

[Lil Bit]

Yeah well now you could read it just to read it and you don't have tolook for the meanings and all that extra stuff.

[pink_beliefs]

It was a little bit frustrating for me. Because I was reading it just to read it, but at the same time I knew that it was referred to as such as classic, and that there should be some great meaning, and I couldn't really grasp it.

[Damm]

I love The Catcher in the Rye. Sucks that you had to study it Rascal, many a good book has ruined by english classes.

I've actually read it in both English and translated to German. It was good practice to improve my German since the vocabulary is so simple. I don't know what hidden meaning is anywhere, I just like it for the story itself and the look into a world that most people don't often get a chance to see.

[Rascal]

get the coles notes lol. those are awesome for finding "deeper meaning". that's why i read fantasy/sci-fi mostly. there is no deeper meaning. people fight orcs, people kill orcs, people rule happily, some magic happens, more orcs come. wash, rinse, repeat.

[Damm]

Haha. Truth is, I don't give a BLEEP about hidden meaning. I think that literature, like music, should be subjective and should be allowed to be interpreted differently depending on the individual. For the most part, I don't like hearing what the author's intent was, because it might be contrary to what I liked about the book.

Readings shouldn't be about discovering the hidden message or meaning, it should be about whether the book strikes a cord with you, or whether the storyline and characters intrigue you, or whether you are able to learn more about something you aren't familiar with or be able to emphathize with characters you normally despise.

So, the reason *I* like Catcher in the Rye, could be entirely different than the reason Rascal's english teacher told him people like it, and entirely different than the way Pink reacted to it.

Whether I'm reading a classic or a brand new book I always start reading with complete disregard to what anyone in the past or future might think of the book. I don't bother to look for hidden meaning, I just enjoy the read, and if I come away with an idea of what it all might mean then good, but I don't care if it's the meaning everyone else agrees on or not.

[pink_beliefs]

Now, I may sound like an utter geek, but my favorite part of the book was the way the author wrote it. It was just so... refreshing. And Holden was definately a real character to remember. The style was just really cool.

On a side note... I'm really starting to like you Damm, you've always got one heck of a good opinion. :)

[ANGLOIRISH]

I read the book in high school. We had to because our English teacher assigned it as mandatory reading. I remember having to hide it under my rug because my Mother laid down the law and said that I was not allowed to read it. (I guess it was a Catholic thing or something, apparently has some colorful language) Stupid, hiding it under the rug, man I was so dumb thinking she wouldn't find it there. Not very clever! Not only that, I just realised how idiotic that was! ! Took me thirty years to come up with the answer of how my mother would have found the book so quickly. The old lump under the rug trick!

Any how, Catcher In the Rye was the book that John Hinkley was carrying when he attempted to assasinate Regan. Hinkley was obssessed with the book and Jodie Foster. He actually tried to blame the contents of the novel for his behavior!

[Damm]

I agree!

There is something very refreshing about having such an easy read for such a serious character and topic.

EDIT: Hey! You people are fast...

Thanks for the compliment :) As Snoopy said "It warms the cookies of my heart"

Anglo: My mum tried to read the book when she was younger and couldn't because of the "horrible language!" haha...I guess things really do change overtime.

I often wondered why Catcher in the Rye was always associated with murderers...thanks for the little bit of trivia! I guess it's a similar thing to that Helter Skelter song by the Beatles.

[ANGLOIRISH]

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Beatles White Album) was about LSD! Lots of meaning behind many of their songs. Great music!

[pink_beliefs]

My friend read it in High School and told me that a signifigant number of Serial Killers have either read that book or were forced to in school... I don't know if its true, but its an interesting idea. I can't imagine why though, I personally didn't find it apt to cause murder. Holden sure said goddam a lot though.

[Lil Bit]

I was just sifting through some lyrics and almost posted one from the beatles. I chose one of my other favorite groups though.

[Mark Anderson]

OMG! Catcher in the Rye is my favorite fiction book of all time. It's just awesome. I don't believe I've ever finished a book so quickly.

[GoingNova]

I enjoyed reading "The Catcher in the Rye". There really was only one book I refused to read in high school: "The Painted Bird". I told my teacher, straight out, "I am not reading a book that depicts brutal rapes".

What brought that to mind, I will never know. A bit off topic there. :eusa_ange

[stupideverything!]

Interesting about the serial killers bit. I had to read it in english too except i didn't find it so bad with the hidden meanings thing...now art is a subject that's overinterpreted. My friend had a teacher that told her the reason for the use of 3 colours in an abstract work related to the three wise men and that ten lines represented the ten apostles...my friend said there wasn't ten apostles you dumb old man and got a detention.

[Damm]

lmao!

[Angry White Man]

Great book! A classic! Glad to see so many others have read it.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Uhm, did no one pick up on the rather strong homoerotic undertones? And they made some of you read it in 11th grade?

Or maybe that's why they make you read it in 11th grade. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/chika/chirolp_gurug.gif

[Damm]

Uh, no. But I'm a firm believer that there are less homoerotic undertones in the world than some people would have you believe. Not that I have a problem with homoerotic undertones, because they can indeed be much fun.

The only scene in CitR that I can think of that would qualify is when he wakes up with the teacher petting his hair...which, just explains why he feels he has to leave again.

[Sailor Kenshin]

I remember that scene---but I was thinking more specifically of the scene early in the book, before he leaves school, when he seems awfully interested in a particular classmate. I always thought that was the reason he was so unsettled---that he could not admit this on a conscious level yet knew it was wrong and it upset him greatly.

And it was written with a great deal of subtlety.

[Lil Bit]

I guess I need to read this book. Maybe it will help me understand what y'all are tlaking about in the book.

[Damm]

I never thought that was the reason he was "unsettled." He went to an all-boy school, of course all his relationships good or bad are going to be with other boys...it doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality. The "unstettled" factor was even at the beginning of the book, just a factor of his own personality and the memory of his brother's death...at least the way I read it. Like I said before, I fully believe that books shouldn't have just ONE interpretation.

On a seperate note, do you ever feel like today there is too much emphasis put on homosexual subtext in EVERYTHING? Personally, I think somewhere along the way in society, we lost the ability to recognise strong platonic bonds between people...every strong friendship these days, whether it's male/male or male/female or sometimes even female/female (though less so) has to now have some romantic aspect to it. You can't watch a TV show with a strong friendship without the writers of that show eventually adding romance, or the fans of the show debating romantic subtext. X-Files is a good example of this, even though I never watched it. Mulder and Scully were co-workers and friends, and always constantly there was this debate about romance.

It's just something I've noticed about popular culture. There is such a strong emphasis on romantic relationships, that I think people are beginning to lose the concept of how strong the bongs of just friendship can be. It's something I run into often, trying to explain that my bestfriend and I have no romantic interest in each other, and trying to explain that one can have a deep and meaningful relationship with someone without having a sexual or romantic aspect to it.

Anyway...that's just a tangent of mine, not really related to CitR. I always like hearing different interpretations of books, so please don't feel that I'm dismissing your opinion at all. I think that if a book is written well, there can be many valid interpretations.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Then I guess I'd better not tell you what I think of The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone! :)

[Damm]

Haha..I've never read that one anyway ;) But feel free to start another book thread! Other than CitR, most of my reading has been Canadian fiction, with occasional European historical fiction. Though, I did read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, which I loved...and I'm pretty sure contains no homosexual subtext...:p

[GoingNova]

On a seperate note, do you ever feel like today there is too much emphasis put on homosexual subtext in EVERYTHING?

Should be it's own thread! Good observation Damm! I agree. I am not sure as to what the reason is, but I agree, people do seem to focus in on this too frequently now a days.

I have always professed that a man secure in his heterosexuality has nothing to fear from homosexuals. I actually laugh sometimes at guys I know who get all uncomfortable with "gay" behavior. What do you think, a gay guy is going to grab you, kiss you, and you are going to fall in love with him, run away, and become gay? :laughing3

I like to think of myself as a "man's man", and I do the following:

Hug and kiss all of my very close male friends hello and goodbye
Shed a tear at sad parts in movies (ok, I admit, I was almost balling in the final scene of "Saving Private Ryan" when he asks his wife to "Tell me I lead a good life")
Consider myself to be "sensitive" Not entirely certain this is on the same track as what you said... but hey, I agree with you: too much emphasis on sex IN GENERAL today.

[Damm]

Thanks GoingNova! I'm glad you see my point!

I'm more likely to believe that a guy is heterosexual, if he isn't constantly "overcompensating" by being a macho jerk. Hugging and kissing your friend (in a non-sexual manner) just shows them how much you care for them. Crying in movies shows that you have a heart, and being "sensitive" just means that you have a good capacity for empathy and sympathy and emotion. There's nothing "gay" about any of those qualities.

Actually while we are the topic, the only "gay" quality I can think of is "a desire to have sexual relations with the same sex." Gay guys can also be macho jerks, they aren't always the makeover specialists you see on TV!

But yeah...my main point is, that there is just way to much emphasis on sex these days. You should be allowed to show affection for friends without starting rumours or worrying about people "getting the wrong idea." ...and just to tie this in with the book theme: Not every book containing a deep bond between two guys has to have homosexual subtext. SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR.