OKAY! I read "Catcher in the Rye". Now tell me this!

[freethought]

Am I supposed to appalled or what?

"Catcher" seems to come up again and again in stirring controversy. Here in Maine, some woman tried to ban the book from school reading lists entirely(she probably has a copy of "Fear of Flying" hidden away in her house). I never read "Catcher" so out of curiosity I bought a copy and read it through. I believe I chose some other book when it came up on school reading lists.

What a let down! BOOOORRRINNNGG! Hello! My name is Holden Caulfield and I have a rotten attitude about everything! Everyone is phony and I have no friends. Yeah, yeah there were references to sex, drinking underage, smoking, and homosexuality but they were pretty tame compared to what I know is out there. And then there were these sentences that Salinger put all over the place in the book. Sentences like "They really do.""They really are." "He really does.""She really is.". I found this irritating.

Am I missing something here? I there some sort of hidden meaning to all this? Maybe I should have bought the Cliff Notes too. I understand this book came out in the 60's when the decorum of society was different. Still, what's the big deal?

[IrateCitizen]

1. It's an honest look at adolescence, from an adolescent's perspective

That's the reason that Holden Caufield has such a rotten attitude about everything. The world surrounding him is in flux, and he has absolutely no idea as to where he fits in with it. Therefore, his response is to simply reject the world and everything, only he discovers at the end that this isn't really at all possible.

[trof]

4. And the fact that it's written by a man 4 or 5 (?) times his subject's age

makes it a classic and a tour de force.

[Left Is Write]

23. Salinger was twice Holden's age when the book was published.

[freethought]

22. That's an excellent explanation! However,

not every adolescent has his attitude. I would describe it as an honest look at alienated adolescence not at adolescence as a whole.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Alienation is a primary part of adolescence

You're speaking of the time in which people are crossing the bridge from childhood to adulthood. Even for the most well-adjusted teenagers, it's a time for turmoil.

Do you forget what your own adolescence was like? Can you honestly say it was free of turmoil? I certainly cannot.

[freethought]

34. My adolescence was as full of turmoil as anyones'.

It was especially hard for me since I was on the recieving end of a tanker load of teenage cruelty. I had more reason to hate others than most. What I did not have was a negative attitude toward every thing or everybody, I was able to find things that I liked and made at least a few friends on the way. Holden Caulfield seems to have a rotten attitude toward EVERYTHING! Except his little sister, of course, he seemed to find some happiness in her.

[XNASA]

2. I 'll take a crack at it. I really will.

I think it's just a matter of portraying an adolescent as being introspective and as someone who questions authority and the status quo.

It's enough to make some people quake in their boots.

It really is.

There's nothing mind-blowing in the book that's for sure.

[freethought]

24. Maybe I is was expecting too much. I really was!

I figure that a book causes controversy, like this one, there must be some sort of real mind blowing ideas behind it. Oh well, lesson learned.

[XNASA]

31. The most controversial thing about that book is that.......

Mark Chapman was carrying a copy of it when he shot John Lennon.

[freethought]

37. Now that is just scary! n/t

[Lavender Brown]

3. No idea

It's on the American libraries most-banned books list, but its content is nowhere near as provocative as what is in most of the YA novels being published these days. It's frequently added to required reading lists, so I guess that's where idiot parents freak out and ask that it be removed from school libraries. :eyes:

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I guess I ought to pay more attention to local news... I didn't

hear about this.

-------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

[ALago1]

6. It's just a great book, imo...

I can't think of a work before "Catcher" that tried to encapsulate the angst and uneasiness of the economically comfortable adolescent. Sure, the whole theme is done to death now but that book was one of the first and best portraits of that type of character.

Plus, there was a lot of great social commentary filtered through the mind of a teenager. Made for interested reading.

You're right, it is pretty tame by today's standards but the fundies are whacked out enough to care about it still.

[freethought]

30. Well, considering it came out in the 50's

I think I can better understand why controversy followed, rather follows, the book. An economically comfortable teenager who does not like his life and sees the fakeness around him. I suppose that would be more interesting than reasing about a economically comfortable spoiled brat.

[WMliberal]

50. only Vidal's City and the Pillar comes to mind.

He wrote that in the early 50's as well. It was vilified even mroe by the right because of its content, since the exploration of sexuality is homosexual.

[aden_nak]

7. Holden is a broken human being but a complete character.

That's what I always liked about Catcher. Holden is so flawed in this vaguely familiar way. Yet he's as fully fleshed out a character as I've read in a story, especially one so short. Sometimes I see more than a little of Holden Caulfield in Napoleon Dynamite. :P

[11 Bravo]

8. Holden says "fuck".

That was a big deal in 1951, and some tight-asses still get their undies in a wad today.

[Left Is Write]

25. Holden swears almost continually, and I would guess that's what

has the book-banners up in arms.

[Droopy]

9. It was published in 1951

Think about how controversial that book would have been then.

It's been a long time since I read that book. I think the theme of the book is that we lose something when we become adults. We lose our wonder and authenticity. You know how Holden is always talking about how phony most adults seem to be. It was probably a criticism of the times in which the author was living.

[freethought]

27. Good point. The era of "Keeping up with the Joneses" N/T

[BurtWorm]

10. It actually came out in the late forties or early fifties.

It was one of those turning-point, post-war books. Why it still shocks is a mystery to me.

[noonwitch]

11. I still haven't figured out why "Huckleberry Finn" is on their list, or ..

"The Diary of Anne Frank".

"Huckleberry Finn" does contain racist language by racist characters, but is not racist in nature. Mark Twain was not a racist, he was accurately portraying the south as he saw it in his times. Preventing kids from reading it and discussing it in class is denying a part of our country's history, a really bad part of it that needs to be discussed as much as Germany needs to discuss the Holocaust. Which leads me to...

Why do people want to ban "The Diary of Anne Frank"? I read it when I was 8 years old. Her perspective on the events of WWII in Europe is amazing. She was just a kid, and she died in a concentration camp. There is nothing in her diary that is offensive in any way. Again, it strikes me that those who want to censor it are wanting to deny a negative part of history.

[AllegroRondo]

12. People who ban books dont usually bother to read deeply

Huck Finn was banned because of numerous uses of the "N" word. The people who call for banning dont bother to look any further than that.

[deutsey]

16. The irony with Huck Finn is that it was originally banned

because it was too "low class". It's only been within the past couple decades that it was banned for racist language.

In either case, if people actually read the book as Twain intended it to be read, they would see that Huck learns a great deal in his journey about what it is to be a decent human being.

Especially in terms of race, what many critics fail to see is that Huck comes to see Jim's humanity and even decides to go to hell rather than betray his friend.

That's a big deal, especially since Huck's church and culture in the South taught him that aiding runaway slaves was against God's will. For a child like Huck to decide to reject what he thought God wanted him to do, which he believes means eternal damnation in hell, is a huge moral statement about individual conscience versus religious orthodoxy and racism.

[crispini]

33. Funny, that's why I always thought Huckleberry Finn WAS banned.

That one line: "Alright, then, I'll GO to hell." Best. Moment. Evah. That's where he asserts his individuality despite the norms of society around him and decides to think for himself no matter what the consequences. Quite revolutionary. A clear call to think for yourself despite the way you may have been raised. I just figured THAT was why it was controversional. :shrug:

[deutsey]

48. That probably factors into some of the thinking behind banning it

But, historically, the two main reasons behind wanting to ban Huck Finn are its "low" class views and vernacular language (this was in the 1880s after it was first published); and its racist language (I believe this controversy began in the 1950s, but it may have been later).

I suppose some object to the violence in the book as well, but that may fall under the "low class" objection.

By the way, here's something I wrote about Huck and his decision to go to hell. It's a summary of a thesis I did in college...the article is published here: http://www.meadville.edu/eutsey_1_2.HTM

The passage in Huckleberry Finn which best illustrates this point is the crucial moment when Huck debates whether to turn his friend Jim in as a runaway slave (an act, incidentally, that Theodore Parker equated with Judas betraying Jesus). Huck is unable to betray Jim because, reminiscent of Bushnell’s theology of mutuality, he has been profoundly transformed by Jim’s nurturing friendship (De Voto 450). Huck’s Sunday-school upbringing has conditioned him to believe that a supernatural God wills this loving human being remain enslaved simply because of his skin color; nonetheless, Huck chooses the self-sacrifice of going to hell rather than betray his friend. In refusing to do the religious thing, Huck unwittingly does the most Christlike thing. Huck’s decision illustrates the triumph of the “spiritualized self,” as Twain called it, over the societally conditioned conscience.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Anne Frank is banned because she writes about puberty

and first love, something that no modern teenager knows anything about. :eyes:

Heavens, she even mentions menstruation and breasts! There's also a passage in which she and Peter disgree about whether the cat who lives in their attic is male or female.

[freethought]

38. ARE YOU SERIOUS! THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK!

You have just ruined what was left of my faith in humanity! Good Lord, where do you live? STOP WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. It wasn't banned where I live

It was mentioned in a post above as one of the most banned books.

[donsu]

13. agree boring - I read it decades ago and wondered what all the

hoopla was about.

[deutsey]

14. One take on this book is that it shows how badly American society

fails to socialize its young in meaningful, substantial ways.

That's how it was presented in an American Studies class I took on growing up American.

Holden feels alienated from all aspects of American life and feels that he's being forced into the phony adult world while he clings to a more authentic childlike way of being.

American society in the '50s failed to properly initiate its young into adulthood. I think it stills fails in this.

I doubt that's why it gets banned, but I think it's why so many young people have been drawn to the book since it was originally published.

[bif]

15. I Love that book

It's one of my favorite books of all time.

[HEyHEY]

20. It's actually funny...I've been readin it the last couple of nights

I like it much better the second type. Holden is a well developed character

[smirkymonkey]

26. I do too!

Maybe I have a warped sense of humour, but I found it hysterical!

Also, my attitude toward life is pretty Holden Caulfield all the way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. By now, objecting to Catcher in the Rye is a tradition

passed down from one generation of Puritans to another.

[HEyHEY]

19. I thought it came out in the 40s

ANyway looks like another gen-xer only stuck in 1947

[apple_ridge]

21. You pretty much summed it up. It could be the most overrated

book in history.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

28. American Library Assocation "Most-Banned Books"

Doing my best David Letterman Impersonation, here is the Top Ten Most-Banned Books, according to the ALA:

10. "Alice" (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
9. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson
8. "Forever" by Judy Blume
7. "Harry Potter" (Series) by J.K. Rowling
6. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck
5. "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain
4. "The Chocolate Ware" by Robert Cormier
3. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou
2. "Daddy's Roommate" by Michael Willhoite

and the Number One most banned book is...

"Scary Stories" (Series) by Alvin Schwartz

"Catcher in the Rye" is Number 13.

A Couple of "WTF!? Entries" on the list are "Where's Waldo?" (Number 88 -- must be the all-nude version) and "To Kill A Mockingbird (Number 41 -- apparently not sympathetic enough to the KKK point of view).

[freethought]

32. One thing I notice about these banned books.

John Steinbeck, Maya Angelou, J.K. Rowling. John Steinbeck surprises me, "Of Mice and Men" was a great novel. Funny though, I don't see any Erica Jong books on this list. "Fear of Flying" was sexually explicit even by today's standards, you don't see that book on the list. I see Judy Blume on this list, she wrote a book years ago called "Wifey" about a woman carrying on a hot affairs behind her husband's back. One my sisters was caught with the book hidden under her bed!

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

36. I thought the same thing...

That maybe these are books banned only at school libraries. But Madonna's "Sex" picture book is on the list, and I can't imagine a school library that would purchase it. So I don't know.

Given what you see on movies and television these days, I find it hard to believe the Steinbeck and Twain are still on the list.

[crispini]

35. All pretty mild stuff IMO

compared to what you CAN get out there-- but perhaps that's an apples to oranges comparison. I'm thinking that this list means banned specifically in the context of not having the books available in the library or taught in school classrooms.

Jeez, just don't let your kids go in any BOOKSTORES, there's WAY more controversial stuff out there on pretty much any subject.

One wonders why fundie kids aren't just kept illiterate, just to be sure there is no pollution of their "beautiful minds." :puke:

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

41. One of the most banned books of 2003

"Armed America" a book about the history of U.S. gun culture, it was controversial because some of the author's research (about two - three pages in a 400-page book) appear to have been fabricated. The NRA had multiple hissy-fits over it, and apparently started letter-writing campaigns to have the book pulled.

This is regardless of the fact the pro-gun author John Lott has been accused of the same thing -- and pretty much found guilty. Lott was posting on newsgroups discussing his book under the name of Mary Rosh and claiming to be a former student. Lott's books are still on the shelves.

[freethought]

44. 'Appear to have been fabricated'?

Was it ever determined if the two to three pages ever were fabricated? I have heard about this book. I am not now particularly interested in reading it but that could change. Do you know exactly what information was 'fabricated'.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

49. Historical data on gun ownership

Belisles' thesis in the book was that American wasn't an armed nation until gun manufacturer's began "commercializing" gun ownership in the late 19th century. To prove this thesis, Belisles documented what he claimed were probate records from the pre-Civil War ear that showed very few guns as part of the decedents' estate. Belisles was apparently unable to reproduce this particular evidence when challenged -- he claimed that it had been destroyed when his office at Emory University was flooded by a burst water main.

All hell broke loose. Belisles resigned from Emory University and the presigious Bancroft Prize that he had received for "Arming America" was withdrawn. My understanding is that a new publisher is issues a soft cover revised version where Belisles removes the probate records in question. I have not read the book personally, but my understanding is that that probate records were only a small part of the historical evidence and that the book doesn't particularly suffer from its recission.

[Debi]

39. Hey>...

9. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson
8. "Forever" by Judy Blume
7. "Harry Potter" (Series) by J.K. Rowling
6. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck
5. "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain
3. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou

"Catcher in the Rye" is Number 13.

"To Kill A Mockingbird (Number 41

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All read in my son's Jr. High School/High School as either class assignments or suggested reading!! We are progressive!!

[Debi]

40. I read it 20 years ago when I was 16

and remember 'connecting' to Holden (I was quite a trouble maker and felt alienated from society)

[mark414]

me too

only i was 16 four years ago...

i also had a good friend who read the book and told me that the entire time she was thinking of me...

[Debi]

55. My son just turned 16

and I can't wait to have him read it to see if the 'feelings' in the book continue throughout the generations (although your post seems to show they do).

[freethought]

42. Well now I am reading a book that I already enjoy.

And I am only 50 pages in. "The DaVinci Code".

[Heddi]

43. Thank You!!! I thought the SAME THING

I was able to get Catcher at a library book sale a few years ago for like $1.00 or something.

I thought OH GOD I HAVE TO HAVE THIS BOOK---I mean, it's been banned from here to Kingdom Come, it's inspired mass murderers....so I'm ready for a brain-whallop of a book.

So I start reading, anxiously turning every page in hopes of reading THE THING that would create such a furor.

I thought it was gonna happen with his roommate---he's gonna KILL the guy, right?

no.

Oh! I know...he's gonna RAPE his girlfriend...

uh...no

OH! Oh! I know! He really *IS* homosexual

nope.

Got to the end of the book and I just sat there stunned. NOTHING 'mindblowing'. Nothing AT ALL that even made me say "yeah, I can see why this book would be banned" or "HOOO-WEE! THat book makes me want to go out and kill a Beatle"

Nothing.

Such a letdown. I really don't understand it. I thought it was perhaps THE most boring book I have ever read. And I have a home library of over 2500 books, all of which I've read, and to say that "Catcher" is THE most boring book is REALLY saying something about the way I felt about that book.

I felt like I wasted a perfectly good dollar AND a perfectly good 2 days reading that tripe.

You're not alone. I don't see the big deal.

My husband read it and felt the same way. Actually, he only got like 1/2 way through when he started begging me if we could use it for a fire-starter since we didn't have any kindling for our fireplace. No no, I said...it's a sin to burn a book. He grumbled about what a waste of paper it was, and we both agreed that JD Salinger probably paid alot of people alot of money to make a big deal about the book because otherwise, no one would be inspired to do anything by it except use it as toilet paper in an emergency situation.

:)

[freethought]

46. You forgot the part where

Holden invites a hooker to his hotel room but dosen't do anything with her. I also believe he recieved a bloody nose not long after.

[Heddi]

51. Oh yah. I forgot about that part

so many boring, tedious, meaningless parts of the book, so little time to remember all of them.

I think by the time I got to that part of the book, I was loading up the rifle and trying to position my toe on the trigger so that I could have an easy way out of that wretched peice of literature.

I found it hillarious that he called everyone else 'bores' and 'boring' yet Holden was THE MOST BORING, UNSYMPATHETIC, UNENIGMATIC main character of a book I've ever come across. I mean, Valley of the Dolls was more compelling than THIS piece of tripe.

For real.

In fact right now, I'm looking at my bookcase and I can see the book and I'm glaring at it. Just sneering. I hate it. I wishing that book gets gonorrhea.

[yellowdogintexas]

57. Great. Big. Letdown.

when I read "Catcher" I kept saying to my self:'
"What is the big deal with this book?"
"Why am I reading this book?"
booorrrinnng!!!

Anne Frank on the other hand was marvelous.

[last1standing]

45. I never quite "got it" either.

I read it about the same time as "Lord of the Flies" and thought that was a much stronger novel.

"Catcher", to me, was probably revolutionary for it's time, but rather tame by today's standards.

But maybe I missed it's real meaning. I just don't know.

[Magrittes Pipe]

47. One needs to BE an adolescent when one reads it for the first time.

If I read it for the first time now, nearing 30, I'm sure I'd hate it.

I read it at 16, and I loved it. Most adults can't connect with Caulfield, but many teens can. There's the rub.

[deutsey]

53. I agree

S.E. Hinton's books are the same way...when I was 14 and 15, "The Outsiders" and "That Was Then, This Is Now" spoke to me very powerfully. I don't think I could read them today at 40 and have them affect me the same way.

[theboss]

52. It's a really overrated book, isn't it?

I mean, it's probably required reading when you are 15, but I read it again a few years ago and just wanted to punch Holden.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

54. Agreed

Couldn't stand that whiny self-absorbed dipshit.

[Kat45]

58. I always thought it was banned because of the swearing.

"Obscene" language that "children" in high school should not see. (/sarcasm)

We read that book for class when I was in junior high (age 13-14), but I had already read it on my own before that. I liked that book a lot; it was actually the only book we had to read that I liked.