I sort of hated this - I really did!
July 16, 2018 1:20 PM   Subscribe

The 100 Best One-Star Reviews of The Catcher in the Rye

On the 67th anniversary of the book's publication, from LitHub.
Also:
The First Reviews of The Catcher in the Rye
and
The Vision of the Innocent, The New Yorker Review
posted by chavenet (78 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
can't believe this is the voice of that generation

I can.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:43 PM on July 16, 2018 [19 favorites]


I had no interest in ever reading this book... until now.
posted by greermahoney at 1:50 PM on July 16, 2018 [3 favorites]




"if I had written this book I would have gone into hiding too" is a little too inside baseball and perfect to be a review written by an internet rando.

but these reviews are all phonies just like Stradlater and Murrow.
posted by GuyZero at 1:56 PM on July 16, 2018 [9 favorites]


From the You Can’t Please Everyone link:
I then embarked on four hours of my life spent reading this complete testacle sack of a book; four hours I will never get back, I might add.
Here’s a little thing to keep in mind: you don’t get any of them back.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:02 PM on July 16, 2018 [27 favorites]


I really like Catcher in the Rye. I'll see myself out.
posted by zardoz at 2:05 PM on July 16, 2018 [14 favorites]


I suspect that this is a classic example of a book that needs to be read at a certain point in one's life. I came to it late and found it unreadable. The Haynes manual for the Triumph Stag on the other hand ... Well it too was unreadable but did at least have pictures
posted by fallingbadgers at 2:18 PM on July 16, 2018 [13 favorites]


Was that an actual lapel pin from back in the day? Insuff.

I liked the book well enough when I was young and believed myself to be surrounded by idiots. I had read it before it was assigned to me, so I got to spend a week not doing my reading for English class, which I always appreciated. I didn't come to understand how sinister it was until I connected the dots between murderous loners who happened to be fans of the book. This was, of course, never Salinger's fault. But the older I got, the more quickly I lost interest in the sulks of teenage boys.

There are a number of books that I think need to be retired from the "canon" because, although they were innovative in their time, their accomplishments have been superseded by later authors working in the same vein. I believe Catcher in the Rye is one of them.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:21 PM on July 16, 2018 [23 favorites]


(oh my, two of the reviews have replies by this legendary author explaining why his book is better)
posted by Countess Elena at 2:31 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


My favorite review:

https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-12-at-4.36.16-PM.png

Should be a 3 star review but I guess 1 star is more fun.
posted by subdee at 2:32 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I suspect that this is a classic example of a book that needs to be read at a certain point in one's life.

Truth. I missed the boat on this particular book and while I appreciate it's lasting power and influence in society/culture, it's just not something I think I could pick up right now. There are just too many other books out there that need reading.

This post did make me chuckle, so thanks for that.
posted by Fizz at 2:35 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I suspect that this is a classic example of a book that needs to be read at a certain point in one's life. I came to it late and found it unreadable.

I dunno, I came to it as a teenager who read voraciously and had that overwhelming teenage hatred of the hypocrisy and "phoniness" of adults and...despite all that I'm hard-pressed to think of a book I've ever disliked more. I'm not sure there is necessarily a right moment in a person's life so much as maybe there was a right moment in culture/society/history and that moment has now long-since passed by.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:38 PM on July 16, 2018 [6 favorites]


Don't the reviewers know that everything is 4 or 5 stars unless it is terrible, in which case it is 3 stars?

Two stars is for a product that breaks and one star is for a product that never arrives or is not as advertised when it arrives...

*Moment of realization*
posted by subdee at 2:39 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


came to it late and found it unreadable.

Oh thank goodness, I missed out in my youth and really couldn't/shouldn't be reading downers just now. Thanks for the advice.
posted by sammyo at 2:42 PM on July 16, 2018


For me Catcher in the Rye will always be defined by the monologue from Six Degrees of Separation.

Metafilter: written by a reject from the Archie comics
posted by Nelson at 2:47 PM on July 16, 2018 [6 favorites]


Holden despaired over Jane's "falsies" that pointed "all over the damn place." Can anyone tell me if these were false eyelashes, or false bosoms?

(I read Catcher in the Rye when I was ten or eleven.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on July 16, 2018 [3 favorites]


I understood that they were breast pads, of the old-fashioned pointy kind. "Falsies" still was a word in the '80s where I was from, but I don't hear much about it now. Come to think of it, it was supposed to be a cardinal sin of womanhood, and now no one seems to care very much except the worst kind of dudes.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:08 PM on July 16, 2018 [4 favorites]


It's been years since I read Catcher in the Rye, but whenever it comes up I'm surprised at how dismissive people are of Holden's problems. Yeah, he's rich, but it's not like life has been a bed of roses for him. He's dealing with pretty severe PTSD from his brother's death and from his classmate James Castle's death. Castle was driven to jump out of a window by bullies who were doing stuff to Castle Holden says is too repulsive to repeat, and Holden was close enough to hear the impact when he hit. There's also a very strong suggestion that Holden has been molested, repeatedly, as he bounced from prep school to prep school. When he goes to his old teacher Mr. Antolini for help, Antolini reveals himself to be a straight up predator. (Antolini lets him stay the night, but "forgets" to give Holden any pajamas. While Holden sleeps in his underwear, Antolili pets Holden and, when caught, says he was just admiring him.) Holden's not a reliable narrator, but when he says that "pervy stuff" like that has happened to him a bunch of times, I think we're supposed to believe him. If anything, he is unreliable in the way he downplays its significance.
posted by This time is different. at 3:10 PM on July 16, 2018 [43 favorites]


Here’s a little thing to keep in mind: you don’t get any of them back.

“vulnerant omnes, ultima necat,” as the kids used to say.

Somehow, however, the testicle sack keeps returning.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:10 PM on July 16, 2018


I know I've read the book. I know because it was assigned to me for English class. Yet I have absolutely no real recollection of what it was about, and therefore have no strong opinion about it.

Now that same English class also had me read books I definitely remember and most certainly enjoyed, like The Lord of the Flies, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Boys from Brazil, and King Lear. I don't think I ever came out of it hating any books, but I imagine a writer would rather that you hated their book than having forgotten it beyond knowing you've read it.

So in that sense, I give it 0 stars.
posted by linux at 3:16 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I read it as a tween and really liked it, but yeah, anybody who reads it after say 20 years of age and purports to enjoy it is a phony.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:17 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I read it in my impressionable teen years and reread it in my 20s. I haven't reread it in my 30s yet. I don't recall ever admiring Caufield as much as I felt a deep sadness and pity for him. Like most (all?) of Salinger's subjects, he hates himself as much as many readers hate him. I think he must have been my first foray into unreliable narrators which is a genre that I greatly enjoy. However I think it must be difficult to teach Salinger nowadays because it is presented as like the ultimate teen angst novel and thus readers judge it only on that criteria.

I do like the review that calls it more of a character study than a novel. It's a good reminder that we all read for different reasons.
posted by muddgirl at 3:37 PM on July 16, 2018 [3 favorites]


I read TCITR as a class assignment in high school. I didn’t particularly care for it, but Holden seemed pretty real to me. I didn’t pick up on the molestatation and PTSD angles until just now thanks to the comment by This time is different. I suspect I did not have the sophistication needed, or was too sheltered, to appreciate the book, just as I didn’t get what was the big deal about the diary of that girl killed in WWII, Anne Frank. Perhaps liking the book isn’t what one is supposed to do. I should reread.
posted by haiku warrior at 3:55 PM on July 16, 2018 [6 favorites]


I really like Catcher in the Rye. I'll see myself out.

I guess I sort of missed the hate. I was no longer a kid when I first read it, and found it at least interesting. Is it because it became assigned reading at some point? Because it somehow inspired a crazy person to murder John Lennon? Because it does too good a job at capturing the whiny, self-pitying tone of a morose teenager? Because the culture is so sick to death of the baby boomers and their shit that anything that defines them must be negated?

There just seem to be way worse books out there.
posted by philip-random at 3:58 PM on July 16, 2018 [8 favorites]


He's dealing with pretty severe PTSD from his brother's death

I'm not sure there really was a brother
posted by thelonius at 4:03 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


Well yeah, it's fiction.

(I will also see myself out.)

Count me as another person who read this way too late and mostly just found it annoying.
posted by ODiV at 4:08 PM on July 16, 2018


Oh wait probably it's the movie producer brother who is imaginary......seems to be something a little summer Canadian girlfriend like about that guy
posted by thelonius at 4:09 PM on July 16, 2018


Perhaps liking the book isn’t what one is supposed to do.

This. A good book should affect you in a way so that "like" doesn't enter into it. The books that mean the most to me, from "Pale Fire" to "Lady in the Lake", shiver my timbers, but they aren't necessarily likable.

"Catcher in the Rye" is one of those cultural products that is overrated by a particular generation, and forced upon subsequent generations, who are then puzzled over what the fuss is about. Examples from different generations include Joyce's "Ulysses", the movies "The Graduate" and "2001", Gertrude Stein, and possibly the Rolling Stones.
posted by Modest House at 4:10 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


I suspect that this is a classic example of a book that needs to be read at a certain point in one's life.

I've only read it once for 11th grade English and hated it at the time. Growing up poor in suburban NJ, I'd had more than enough of smug little prep-school assholes already.
posted by octothorpe at 4:12 PM on July 16, 2018 [3 favorites]


It would probably be a much better movie than book. Or maybe an episode of a TV show. Bunch of phonies.
posted by dubwisened at 4:15 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


Examples from different generations include Joyce's "Ulysses", the movies "The Graduate" and "2001", Gertrude Stein, and possibly the Rolling Stones.

sub Dorothy Parker for 2001 and I'll consider subscribing to your newsletter
posted by thelonius at 4:15 PM on July 16, 2018


I dunno, I came to it as a teenager who read voraciously and had that overwhelming teenage hatred of the hypocrisy and "phoniness" of adults and...despite all that I'm hard-pressed to think of a book I've ever disliked more.

For some reason people have the idea that you are supposed to read this book as a teenager and (because) you are supposed to identify closely with the protagonist. I suppose that's inherited from people who did read it as a teenager, perhaps not in the most sophisticated way - and I'm not at all sure it's the best way to read it.
posted by atoxyl at 4:35 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


my experience with the book is basically the same as linux's, I don't remember a damn thing about it and reading all this talk about it doesn't even trigger any memories. I do recall feeling bored because it was mostly unrelatable to me; my teenage angst mostly involved trying to do well enough in school to please my mom. Not sure if I realized that at the time, but I figure, now, that's why I felt that way then.
posted by numaner at 4:39 PM on July 16, 2018


100 best embedded images of unsearchable/inaccessible text, because fuck you.
posted by seraphine at 4:40 PM on July 16, 2018 [9 favorites]


I don't read books without sword fights or monsters or space ships or usable computer code, with the exception being "A Confederacy of Dunces" because Ignatius J. Reilly made me feel better about being fundamentally about "not getting it" and constitutionally unequipped to ever "get it" while being loud.

Which makes me feel better about not reading books without sword fights or monsters or space ships or usable computer code or Ignatius J. Reilly.

Catcher In The Rye was short and forgettable, which made it better than most assigned reading, likewise Rumblefish. I hated Mark Twain and his cringeworthy dialect that required constant deciphering, until I read Life On The Mississippi, long past school, and there was no dialect and man, could he ever write.

I also like books with unreliable narrators.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:43 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


I think Catcher in The Rye would be far more well-received if it were discovered by young readers instead of required. True of many books, but especially CITR.

It's comedy gold, and I am especially appreciative, as today's events in Helsinki have unnerved me. thanks for posting.
posted by theora55 at 4:50 PM on July 16, 2018 [11 favorites]


OK so basically, as far as I'm concerned, everybody hating on The Catcher in the Rye can go fuck themselves.

It's not that I love this book so much. I read it in (German) high school; I kind of appreciate the fact that my teacher got in trouble because we were actually supposed to read some Hemingway or something. It kind of made an impression, but really I was basically a Good Kid, so I didn't identify that much.

But for one thing, come on: clearly it's a powerful narrative; it's a timeless story; and it's a book that's been influential for good reason. Just how much it's been banned in the past speaks for it. It's also still pretty readable, minus some weird language obviously... And yeah, if you haven't read it by the time you're 17, don't bother.

But these reviews just remind me of the comedian (can't remember) who published a brutal take-down of his daughter's elementary school play, written like a broadway review. Except not funny.
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 5:00 PM on July 16, 2018 [9 favorites]


Being an old, I had the classic experience with Catcher - no teacher of my generation would've ever assigned this book, rather, one 14-year-old told another, who told another, etc. I just remember enjoying New York City through the book. I was kind of whiny and self-absorbed, but Holden made me feel macho.

p.s. "Ulysses" and "2001" might not be everybody's cup o' tea, but I think that they are far from over-rated, and I, even in my superannuated decrepitude, will take up cudgels and hurt you over this.
posted by Chitownfats at 5:00 PM on July 16, 2018 [6 favorites]


Is that the one we're someone found rye in the pocket of a dead man?
posted by clavdivs at 5:01 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I read this in high school because my girlfriend at the time read it and loved it. I loathed it and was mad at her for making me read it. Holden came off as a whiny, entitled rich kid, the kind of person who corners you at a party and talks your ear off about how hard it is that their parents have money. I tend to think the book is well-known only because it was banned and honestly don't get what people like about it.

The reviews are great.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:17 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


Ah I love that book. The way he just [clenches fist] catches all that frickin rye.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:18 PM on July 16, 2018 [26 favorites]


But these reviews just remind me of the comedian (can't remember) who published a brutal take-down of his daughter's elementary school play, written like a broadway review.

Are you thinking of David Sedaris' "Front Row Center With Thaddeus Bristol" ("A high-powered theater critic applies his critical skills to the Christmas pageants at local elementary schools")?

But yeah, I came to Catcher in the Rye around...I dunno, 16 or so as a hand-off from a friend who picked it up at a used bookstore. For months we were saying goddamn-this and goddamn-that and we thought it was funny.

And yeah, if you haven't read it by the time you're 17, don't bother.

I recall enjoying it, but this sounds about right.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:08 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I stole a copy of Catcher from my high school and kept it prominently displayed for a good number of years. When folks would ask about it, I told them that a lot of serial killers had it - and just in case I decided to go that route, I wanted to be consistent...
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:19 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


sub Dorothy Parker for 2001 and I'll consider subscribing to your newsletter

C'mon! I read Dorothy Parker's stories over and over in the same high school year that I was assigned The Great Gatsby, which was so tedious to me that I felt like I was reading the book's own Cliff Notes. If I had felt qualified to suggest a swapping out of definitive '20s literature, I would have, but Gatsby seemed inevitable. Parker's wisecracks may not all have aged that well, but her stories are still exquisite portraits of the little miseries of women's lives.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:26 PM on July 16, 2018 [10 favorites]


The first time I read this was also the old-fashioned way: snuck it off my parent's bookshelf and read it because of the swearwords. I strongly identified with Holden and rooted for him against the Phonies, and somehow thought he would prevail. Then in my 20s I read it again, and realized Holden was a kid with emotional problems that were overwhelming him, and saw that he was unlikely to prevail. I'll probably leave it there and not try a third time. Yes, Salinger was over-rated back then and we need a corrective, but he was also an amazing writer. If you don't want to read CITR again, read "Seymour: an Introduction" and marvel at how Salinger manages to write a short story by breaking every rule of narrative. [warning: yes, it's a Glass family story. Savor the words of John Updike, speaking about the Glass family: "Sentimentality is a writer's loving his characters more than God loves them."]
posted by acrasis at 6:27 PM on July 16, 2018 [7 favorites]


Here’s a little thing to keep in mind: you don’t get any of them back.

on the other hand, people say "time is money", but it is actually free. Just keeps coming.
posted by thelonius at 6:43 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


Parker's wisecracks may not all have aged that well, but her stories are still exquisite portraits of the little miseries of women's lives.

I have to cop to not having read them - it's the wisecrack fandom that has put me off my feed, tbh.
posted by thelonius at 6:46 PM on July 16, 2018


I hated The Catcher in the Rye when I was in high school, partly because the teacher did not really get the book and there was a weird expectation that we were supposed to relate to the characters.

( I still don't fully understand what people mean when they talk about relating to a character--it's possible the only character I relate to is Casaubon in Middlemarch.)

As an adult, I reread it and saw that it is a book about a kid who has been deeply traumatised and is not going to be all right. I don't think it's a good fit for high school reading lists, but could sit comfortably on the Miserable Book Shelf next to No Longer Human and the Patrick Melrose novels.
posted by betweenthebars at 6:49 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


But these reviews just remind me of the comedian (can't remember) who published a brutal take-down of his daughter's elementary school play, written like a broadway review. Except not funny.

Except that the point of Sedaris' piece was that the reviewer was picking on kids. Salinger was an adult when he wrote and published the novel (not his first published work).

As for the book itself, my reaction is much the same as betweenthebars above; although I didn't get into the book itself, I was more annoyed at teachers' prescriptivity regarding the book, as if I couldn't not get into the book, being a teenage boy. (There was probably a bit of pushback against lack of appreciation on the part of English teachers for genre fiction in favor of highbrow stuff such as A Separate Peace, another high school bête noire of mine, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World being the only exceptions.) I suspect that I'd likewise be more sympathetic to Holden on a re-read, if I ever get around to it.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:07 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I certainly don't expect everybody to love all the same things I love, but I do find that people who declare their hate for certain things I love (like Catcher, the Beatles, Monty Python, pre-Abrams Star Trek and cats) save me a lot of time by marking themselves as people I will never, ever get along with. You don't have to love these things, but if you really despise them I know I need to do whatever is necessary to avoid your company.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:33 PM on July 16, 2018 [7 favorites]


I read it during the summer before 8th grade, it was on the assigned list. So I was 12 or 13, on the cusp of understanding puberty. So I came to it way too fucking early. It left me with similar, although not nearly as gross, feelings as reading Piers Anthony as a kid. Maybe I would have appreciated it as a 14 or 15 year old. I certainly went to an upper class school and I know that I had a thing against broken promises and hypocrisy by the time I was 17. At that point in time, however, TCITR was just another boring book I'd read for 8th grade and not even something that I knew contained more but I was just not getting- like Siddhartha (which my 8th grade social studies teacher had us read).

I do, however, shudder to think what reading that book was like for the girls in my class. To have to deal with the completely unfiltered self-centered bullshit of a teenage boy before they'd had a chance to develop the coping skills necessary to wall parts of themselves off. To have to deal with some of the boys in my class going on and on about how they would have had sex with the prostitute (which I couldn't figure out why he'd asked for if he didn't want, I knew if I was in his position I just never would have said yes).

Even if we had been the correct age, that ineffable point as a teenager where we felt that we had the self awareness to spot the "phonies" but didn't have the actual self-awareness to recognize what the broken psyche of a poor little rich boy meant for all the rich kids (and us who were treated the same in class, even if we weren't taking vacations to Europe every summer and winter) in the class, I think that this is a book best read by boys and shredded by girls. It's pure self-indulgence, something that I know I inflicted on enough of the people I dated in high school that I hate to think of them having to put up with more.

I don't know how it would have been if I'd just read it on my own. I suspect I may have liked it more if I'd approached it on my own, although there's a fair chance I would never have finished it- it would have joined The Mists of Avalon on the "too pretentious, but decent writing" pile. I know that the reason why I love Moby Dick is because I read it myself over a summer, taking breaks from a lab. I think I'd have hated it if I'd read it in a class.
posted by Hactar at 8:21 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


I feel like I've been defending the book on the Internet since the Internet existed, but the short version: it's a deeply flawed book that is very much not for everyone. It is, for those that need it, very specifically early teenage boys who are utterly adrift and lacking any framework of dealing with the world around them and it's sudden and insistent imposition of the terror of adult life on them. For kids like that, it's a moment, quite possibly their first, of realizing that not only are they not alone, but that others are hurt, confused, and battling every day just to hold themselves together. It gives them, like it very much gave me, the hope that maybe someday they'll actually get through all of this, and for that, it's a godsend.

It is, however, a novel entirely wrapped up in the solipsism of a young teenage boy's mind. It does not age well, and it can be painful going back and reading it past the time in ones life where it was necessary, realizing how ugly and selfish you were at that time that you identified with this kid. And I do believe that it's a warning sign when a man in his twenties or thirties still idolizes Caufield. It tells me they are still wrapped up in their fantasy of being alone and misunderstood, and have never really taken the book as temporary aid it was meant to be, and instead, have relied on it too long, like using crutches past the point where you need them, it stunts your recovery.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:41 PM on July 16, 2018 [13 favorites]


For me Catcher in the Rye will always be defined by the monologue from Six Degrees of Separation yt .

I don’t think I have seen the movie more than once since its initial release in 1993 and definitely not since 2001. I am sure I would have noted that Paul (Will Smith) delivers the line about how “imaginative” Lord of the Rings to Geoffrey (Ian McKellen). More recently, I might have taken note that the same monologue also references Star Wars and Star Trek, in a movie also with a small role for unremarked-upon twentysomething actor J. J. Abrams.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:55 PM on July 16, 2018 [2 favorites]


I just remember how girl-hating it was, something I noticed at the time, as I was one (15 year-old). But it was yet another reminder to me that the male perspective was the normative one, as every assigned reading in school I was.
posted by honey badger at 9:02 PM on July 16, 2018 [5 favorites]


And I do believe that it's a warning sign when a man in his twenties or thirties still idolizes Caufield. It tells me they are still wrapped up in their fantasy of being alone and misunderstood, and have never really taken the book as temporary aid it was meant to be, and instead, have relied on it too long, like using crutches past the point where you need them, it stunts your recovery.

This is pretty much Mark David Chapman. One of the dumber one-star reviews said that it made him kill Lennon, but Chapman's problems were varied and of long standing. Bowie was also a potential target, and Chapman had a front-row seat to see him in The Elephant Man the following night... as did John and Yoko.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:20 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


I always thought it was teenagers who tended not to like Catcher in the Rye, because they're the ones who struggle with characters they don't like or relate to, even when that's not the point. Adults are supposed to be able to see past Holden's bullshit to the fact that he's a grieving, overwhelmed child. Not that anyone has to like the book for what it is, but what it isn't is a book about a cool youngster with an awesome gift for seeing through the phonies.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:23 PM on July 16, 2018 [11 favorites]


I remember having to read Catcher in the Rye as a teenager in high school. I think I found it interesting because it was at a time where I was excited to be realizing that not all stories had to have three act structure story arcs and not all point of view characters had to be sympathetic.

I also remember binge reading a bunch of Tamora Pierce novels at the same time to wash the dark, brooding, masculine angst out of my mind. My best friend's girlfriend - now wife - made fun of me for it.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:03 PM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]


"Catcher in the Rye" is one of those cultural products that is overrated by a particular generation, and forced upon subsequent generations, who are then puzzled over what the fuss is about.

Simply because Catcher, The Graduate, and 2001 don't resonate with subsequent generations doesn't mean they were overrated when released. Taken at face value, 2001 may be no big deal to modern audiences, but was groundbreaking in 1968. Similarly, Catcher and The Graduate were very much of their times, i.e., understanding the context helps explain the fuss.
posted by she's not there at 11:44 PM on July 16, 2018 [4 favorites]


Con't from above

As for whether or not the Stones are overrated, I'll leave it to someone else to make a case for the band post Some Girls.
posted by she's not there at 11:49 PM on July 16, 2018


I read this book when I was going through a banned books phase at 12 or 13. I don't remember much but I finished it so I must have liked it at the time.
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:34 AM on July 17, 2018


I read it when I was about 19 and trying to catch up on the American canon that my HS American lit teacher decided to skip. I liked it -- not because I identified with Holden, but because I simultaneously pitied him and recognized how well Salinger had recorded the voice of the loner kid.

Having a likeable, audience-identified protagonist is not the only way a novel can be successful. Just look at Lolita.
posted by basalganglia at 2:04 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


My prediction for next backlash against the high school literary canon: To Kill A Mockinbird. I think post-Millenials (or whatever we are supposed to call the current high school cohort) are going to find it patronizing and contaminated with White Saviorism.
posted by thelonius at 3:34 AM on July 17, 2018 [3 favorites]


and possibly the Rolling Stones.

I will fite you IRL.

I do think it's hard for people to appreciate the impact/import of certain texts once a few more waves of cultural innovation have passed over them. I must have told the story here of sharing Neuromancer with my thoroughly nonplussed, younger girlfriend in '97, '98, no? She just didn't get what I thought was so earth-shatteringly epochal about it, which I thought then (and still believe) is because she only came to the work after having encountered its many descendants, imitators, pastiches and knock-offs.

Much the same seems to go for TCITR. If you didn't meet it fresh — in real time, as it were — you're most likely seeing it through layers and layers of work it had some role in shaping (much of it admittedly better and more interesting). And under such circumstances, yeah, it's genuinely difficult to retrieve what actually felt vital or honest or perceptive in a work. And that's even before considering all the ways in which we now, properly, read Holden as privileged and problematic and so on.

I almost feel sorry for Salinger and for the book, though for my money by far the greater work in the subgenre will always be A Confederacy of Dunces.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:05 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


Ghidorah: And I do believe that it's a warning sign when a man in his twenties or thirties still idolizes Caufield. It tells me they are still wrapped up in their fantasy of being alone and misunderstood, and have never really taken the book as temporary aid it was meant to be...

Oh, I like this reading a lot!

Catcher in the Rye made me roll my eyes when I was the same age as the protagonist. Like, is this kid just now figuring out that most people suck? Catch up, man!

Now I have teen-age kids of my own -- both boys and girls -- and I am watching this same mental growth take place before my eyes instead of in my own head...And it's remarkable! I want to tell them to skip past the whiny, injured stage and move on to being interesting, complete adults -- but you can't really do the latter without at least some time as the former., alas
posted by wenestvedt at 5:34 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


Any discussion of literary classics just makes it absolutely clear to me that we need to find some alternate method of teaching lit appreciation in schools that doesn't involve force-feeding kids an arbitrary cannon of classics.

I love TCITR, I love how Holden was a clear-eyed bad-ass truth-teller when I first read it at 11 or 12. I love how the empathy I felt for Holden having to deal with the unbearable weight of the world of phonies when I read it at 14. I love the reminder of how painful and isolating teenage life could be when I read it again as an adult. I love how subtle and devastating the language is, how Holden unconsciously imitates Luce's speech patterns in the scenes after he meets with him because he thought Luce was so smart ("something something he really did have the best vocabulary in the school. They gave us a test." <-- that is fucking comedy gold). It's really filled with sad little comedic gems like that all the way through. Overall, I love Holden and want to give him the series of warn unconditional-love hugs that this damaged little boy needs.

But requiring high school kids to read about this whiny upper-middle class white kid from New York just sounds like a bad idea.
posted by skewed at 7:09 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


I suspect that this is a classic example of a book that needs to be read at a certain point in one's life. I came to it late and found it unreadable.

I've read it twice; once as a teenager when it was assigned to me, and then again more than ten years later to see if my opinion of it had changed. I've done this a few times with classic books I didn't connect with to see if I just wasn't ready for the book or something like that, and I've actually had some good experiences that way.

But nope: still just the inner life of a whiny rich kid told in what might be the least charismatic American prose style ever.

I love how Holden was a clear-eyed bad-ass truth-teller

See, this is the thing for me: he's not a clear-eyed truth teller. Most of the time he doesn't have a clue about what's really going on around him, he only thinks he does, and it's not clear to me that he can be relied upon to tell the truth about much of anything. I'm okay with unreliable narrators, but I was 100% done giving a shit about rich kids' pain by the time I was 16 and this book was dumped on me, regardless of the causes of that pain.
posted by Fish Sauce at 7:23 AM on July 17, 2018 [1 favorite]


I recently re-read Ender's Game for a friend's podcast. I had loved it and re-read it obsessively as a kid, he was reading it for the first time as an adult. I am now firmly convinced that Ender’s Game is the Catcher in the Rye of science fiction, in the sense that you really need to read it as a lonely, angry, semi-pubescent kid to really get into it.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:28 AM on July 17, 2018 [5 favorites]


See, this is the thing for me: he's not a clear-eyed truth teller.

Just to be clear, this was the impression that I had when I read it at age 11 or so. He's definitely not that at all. And the burden of living in a world of phonies is not so titanic either, but it seemed that way and to Holden and 14-year old me as well. I definitely agree with you that he is not really clear about what is actually going on with just about anyone. And I also think it's totally valid that you don't want to hear someone like Holden whine about his life. That's adequate grounds for not liking the book. But it's not all that's there.
posted by skewed at 7:32 AM on July 17, 2018 [4 favorites]


showbiz_liz: ...Ender’s Game is the Catcher in the Rye of science fiction, in the sense that you really need to read it as a lonely, angry, semi-pubescent kid to really get into it.

Really, you should add "who was in a gifted & talented program" in there for maximum sting.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:36 AM on July 17, 2018 [3 favorites]


that we need to find some alternate method of teaching lit appreciation in schools that doesn't involve force-feeding kids an arbitrary cannon of classics.

my middle and high school years coincided with a time when teachers were encouraged to be inventive. I recall in grade eight or nine having an English teacher who said to us, "You are now going to read and study a novel seriously. I encourage you to find one and bring it to me and tell me why it should be taken seriously. If you can't find something yourself, I'll assign you something boring out of the old curriculum." It amazed me how many kids opted for the boring option.
posted by philip-random at 9:22 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


an arbitrary cannon of classics.

that you yourself did not pick it does not make it "arbitrary"
posted by thelonius at 9:44 AM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


...we need to find some alternate method of teaching lit appreciation in schools...

I was listening to podcast about Shakespeare last night while I washed dishes, and my soon-to-be-9th-grader was drying them and listening, too. He said that he hadn't read any Shakespeare yet, and I promised him that when he got there, I would make sure that he didn't hate it. Not guaranteeing that he would love it, just that he wouldn't hate it.

He paused and looked at me, and I think he believes me. THIS JUST MIGHT WORK!

(My plan is to floridly recite four lines from memory, then stop, tell him I was just kidding, and put on the Kenneth Branagh version of whatever he was assigned. Once we're done looking at Pretty People In Pretty Places, I will show him all the rudest bits of dialogue and explain them.)
posted by wenestvedt at 9:59 AM on July 17, 2018 [3 favorites]


(My plan is to ... put on the Kenneth Branagh version of whatever he was assigned. Once we're done looking at Pretty People In Pretty Places, I will show him all the rudest bits of dialogue and explain them.)

This sounds great and reminds me of the shitty eat-your-veggies mentality of teaching Shakespeare at my high school, which was just assigning the text to read by yourself, and not even a good annotated version with any explanations. They wouldn't even show us a video of a production until after any tests or essays were due.
posted by skewed at 12:02 PM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


Also play the first season of Slings and Arrows for him if it seem like it will still hold up.
posted by Pembquist at 12:32 PM on July 17, 2018 [3 favorites]


thelonius: that you yourself did not pick it does not make it "arbitrary"

Ever since I learned that most mid-tier university professors are Ivy League graduates, and how many of those went to prep schools, I've been assuming that what gets set and spread as canon is what appeals to people who went to prep school.

Hence the canonization of books like Catcher in the Rye and A Separate Peace.

As for me, I didn't recognize myself in any books until I read Education and the Working Class. I didn't know that you could have that pulse-quickening shock of, "This is me! In a book!" until I read that one.

I expect that prep school->Ivy League->English professors got that shock of recognition when they read Catcher in the Rye and A Separate Peace, and that's why those books got canonized.
posted by clawsoon at 3:53 PM on July 17, 2018 [2 favorites]


It's funny, the vehemence with which you've hated something fades with distance. I'd already read some Faulkner and found Salinger a bit of a one-trick pony - I just didn't think Salinger was pulling off what he was trying to do very well. But at the time I hated it. Now I just don't really care and feel it might be more taste than anything. When I read "A Confederacy of Dunces" a few years later I mostly just found it annoying.

There just seem to be way worse books out there. Damning with faint praise, indeed.

Examples from different generations include Joyce's "Ulysses", the movies "The Graduate" and "2001", Gertrude Stein, and possibly the Rolling Stones.
I can't help but suspect you're trolling, but if not you may be somewhat misinformed about the cultural impact of certain things.
posted by aspersioncast at 6:37 PM on July 17, 2018 [1 favorite]


possibly the Rolling Stones

Here's the deal, here's the deal, here's the deal.

They are not the Beatles. They are too cynical to ever be the Beatles, and their production quality was always crap. They are not Led Zepplin, because they have a charismatic front-man and a guitarist who's good at finding a hook and a lot of adequate. They are not Pink Floyd because they are not screaming into the void and expecting a reply while floating on muscian's whimsy.

Pick one perfect song from The Beatles, Led Zep, Floyd... one perfect song to encapsulate their career, the arc of their music and theme and who they are existentially. Pretty hard, huh?

The Rolling Stones have Heartbreaker.

The suave coolness, the harpsichord-guitar intensity of the intro, the rolling, strolling consistent, driving beat, Mick being cool and aloof and sad and then getting intense and THEN GETTING INTENSE and THEN GETTING INTENSE.

And a few years later, when you're interesting in reading the lyrics... holy fuck. And then you realize they have a vast catalog of stuff you can go through, from the early '60s where they were mocking the Brit-Pop wave making them rich and famous until... hell-fire they were still charting in 2012!
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:24 PM on July 18, 2018


as soon as I heard "Under My Thumb," I was done with the Stones, and I was like 12 at the time

not long afterwards I heard "Brown Sugar" and I could not believe that everyone else was not completely done with the Stones. I think that's one of the times my dad said I was "too strict"; if so, it would certainly not be the last
posted by Countess Elena at 5:30 PM on July 18, 2018 [1 favorite]


« Older Happy-ever-after is a fairy-tale notion, not...   |   "All of Harry Potter, but keep Alan Rickman" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments