Crab Paste! said:First read it when I was 16 and loved it. Re-read it at 31 and it thought it was nowt special. I think that's down to my changing tastes though, and not necessarily a slight on the book.
Another plus one. I somehow persevered and the final fifth of the book is just about worth reading but how it's rated as an all-time classic, fuck knows.Mad Eyed Screamer said:mackenzie said:nijinsky's fetlocks said:Incredibly overrated and poorly written novel hyped beyond belief, for reasons I have never really understood.
Holden Caulfield is one of the most irritating characters I have come across, and I wanted him to die by page 17.
It's teenage angst for bedwetting Yanks with rich parents, who's idea of rebellion is playing Slipknot too loud and not tidying their bedroom.
However, it has no curry recipes, which should please the OP.
Pretty much sums up how I felt about it too. Maybe it was the hype but I found it underwhelming and yes Caulfield made me want to scream.
Agree - I read it in my 40's after being told repeatedly to read it.... kept waiting for something to happen and nowt did.......
If I want angst ridden teenage ramblings I will continue to listen to Morrissey ;)
hackneyslim said:If you are serious about reading literature, especially 20th century American, you need to read it. If you are not so keen, and you don't see it in context, you're not going to get much out of it, so that's fair enough, but not really sufficient reason to declare it over-rated or rubbish, is it? Age also modifies your perceptions of things. For example, I liked 'Two Little Boys' and 'Where Eagles Dare' about 40 yeqrs ago.
Salinger did write other stuff - notably his short story 'Bananafish' is superb - and it adds another layer to see the characters in Rye reappear in other works, rather like the Batemans in Ellis' stuff.
Perhaps the subject matter affects it? TKAMB deals with racism, an issue which hasn't gone away, and in some sense the rite of passage/loss of innocence ideas were already familiar. It's a great work with familiar tropes. But CITR, in introducing the teen/family theme, has been overtaken by other works which developed the theme as society changed?mackenzie said:hackneyslim said:If you are serious about reading literature, especially 20th century American, you need to read it. If you are not so keen, and you don't see it in context, you're not going to get much out of it, so that's fair enough, but not really sufficient reason to declare it over-rated or rubbish, is it? Age also modifies your perceptions of things. For example, I liked 'Two Little Boys' and 'Where Eagles Dare' about 40 yeqrs ago.
Salinger did write other stuff - notably his short story 'Bananafish' is superb - and it adds another layer to see the characters in Rye reappear in other works, rather like the Batemans in Ellis' stuff.
Although I do agree about the context and age aspect, I still don't really see it as the masterpiece that some claim. It isn't rubbish but it's certainly isn't great.
I think the best thing I can say of it is that it was probably ground breaking of its time. However, To Kill A Mocking Bird is so much better and has stood the test of time where Catcher in the Rye hasn't.
hackneyslim said:Perhaps the subject matter affects it? TKAMB deals with racism, an issue which hasn't gone away, and in some sense the rite of passage/loss of innocence ideas were already familiar. It's a great work with familiar tropes. But CITR, in introducing the teen/family theme, has been overtaken by other works which developed the theme as society changed?mackenzie said:hackneyslim said:If you are serious about reading literature, especially 20th century American, you need to read it. If you are not so keen, and you don't see it in context, you're not going to get much out of it, so that's fair enough, but not really sufficient reason to declare it over-rated or rubbish, is it? Age also modifies your perceptions of things. For example, I liked 'Two Little Boys' and 'Where Eagles Dare' about 40 yeqrs ago.
Salinger did write other stuff - notably his short story 'Bananafish' is superb - and it adds another layer to see the characters in Rye reappear in other works, rather like the Batemans in Ellis' stuff.
Although I do agree about the context and age aspect, I still don't really see it as the masterpiece that some claim. It isn't rubbish but it's certainly isn't great.
I think the best thing I can say of it is that it was probably ground breaking of its time. However, To Kill A Mocking Bird is so much better and has stood the test of time where Catcher in the Rye hasn't.
Example in music, say, might be New York, New York which remains a classic and is still performed, and Rock around the Clock, which is regarded with affection but is no longer played so much.