[x y z]

I haven't read it, but my uncle has, and he said it was the most boring, pointless book he's ever read.

[Dionysus]

Having read it at the age of about 15, I think it's probably the greatest book ever written, or at least in my top 3. It's an observation of the human condition, and like all books on the human condition, 90% of people don't get it.

[Jelkin]

I love it! Read it when I was twelve (my dad recommended it ... I think maybe he didn't remember it properly), and several times since then. Every time I find something new to love about it, and every time I laugh out loud at the bit about Spencer handling his exam paper like it's a turd.

[gethsemane342]

I can't say it's the most amazing book ever but it's certainly enjoyable. That being said i doubt i understood it

[toothwort white]

I absolutely loved it the first time I read it when I was around 14, and I still like it after having reread it a few times since then. However, (at age 18) I do find the protagonist (can't remember his name all of a sudden) to be a bit whiny, though I guess you can call it a truthful portrayal of teenagers in general. *shrugs*

[.pushing.charlotte.]

I loved it!

When i first read it last year, i actually had a crush on Holden.

[SylverStrike]

I studied it, but despite analysing it to death, I still love it. There's just something so great about characters like Holden, even though consciously I know I find him irritating, and if I met him in real life, I'd have a real urge to punch him or something. But he's still great in Catcher in the Rye.

[ukebert]

Hated it at GCSE, never wish to read it again Took great pleasure in putting it the the recycling. I found that a lot of the time I knew what Holden was talking about, yet the book itself I thought was dreadful.

[Epitomessence]

S'alright.

[Reblet]

(Original post by Dionysus)
It's an observation of the human condition, and like all books on the human condition, 90% of people don't get it.

Haha! Rubbish. It's given far too much credit. It doesn't take much "getting", it's pretty self evident. If you can relate to a whiny, pathetic, has-it-all-but-still-feels-empty, depressive, confused, teenage, angsty, arrogant boy then you might adore it. If you find excessive angst irritating - steer well clear!!!

[harr]

(Original post by Reblet)
Utter tripe, faux-philosophical, pretentious rubbish.

Although I can see where you're coming from with the "relat[ing] to a whiny, pathetic, has-it-all-but-still-feels-empty, depressive, confused, teenage, angsty, arrogant boy" thing (that's probably a large part of why I enjoyed it so much), I don't see what's so faux-philosophical or pretentious about it. Perhaps it's just that I never got the hang of studying English, but I just found it enjoyable to read -- I competely failed to notice any attempts at philosophizing or being deep.

[Reblet]

All his wandering off the topic and discussing human nature, even the title referring to his (quite bloody spooky!) desire to catch children in a rye field is supposed to evoke all sorts of deep thoughts blah blah. You just have to have a look at some American journal-type articles to see how people read far too much into a fairly average, annoying vocabulary-ridden novel.

Also it probably is so popular because of its cult status due to the (mass-)murderer fans. No skin off my nose if people like it. But I wouldn't waste valuable time on CitR when there is so much excellent, distinguished literature out there!

[harr]

(Original post by Reblet)
All his wandering off the topic and discussing human nature, even the title referring to his (quite bloody spooky!) desire to catch children in a rye field is supposed to evoke all sorts of deep thoughts blah blah.

That's pretty much what it's about though. An unwillingness to grow up hardly seems to be a pretentious subject to me. If he'd tried to hide the meaning a bit more I might see where you're coming from, but I never got the impression that the book was meant to be any deeper than it appears on the surface.

[Reblet]

I'm afraid I will forever see it as pretentious as it is hailed as such a "great work of literature". Can't blame Salinger for that I suppose, it's the worrying trend for it to be on SO many syllabuses worldwide that means it gets far too much acclaim. People who've never read any really superb literature who are exposed to CitR probably do think it's amazing. But read that next to A Clockwork Orange and the halo around CitR falls right off.

[missygeorgia]

Incidently, I preferred Catcher to A Clockwork Orange.

[Cocaine Socialist]

All these people talking about it being "whiny, pathetic, boring" etc just bring to mind the last lines of the book: don't ever tell anyone anything, you'll only end up regretting it.

I think the strength of Catcher is its honesty. Part of its impact may have been simply Salinger was lucky to get there first and be one of the first people to write like this and about this stuff, but I do think its well crafted in its own right (potent metaphors blah blah). This book I think basically validates a certain mindset; it doesn't excuse it, Holden is still a self-righteous hypocrite, but he's also incredibly human. One of the most believable characters I've come across certainly.

[Reblet]

For me if you got rid of the terrible Americanisms littering the prose then it would be more sufferable. I just find his writing style terribly dull and infuriating and I don't consider he can be seen as "one of the first people to write like this". He just typifies that awful introspective drivel that I can't stand.

Thank God I have never met anybody like Holden in my life. The only character I actually liked was Phoebe.

[harr]

(Original post by Reblet)
But read that next to A Clockwork Orange and the halo around CitR falls right off.

I need to reread Clockwork Orange. Horrorshow novel.

[Reblet]

Mmm Clockwork Orangeness. I spoke nadsat for quite a long time after that. One of the reasons I heart Russell Brand is his love of A Clockwork Orange. Viddy? haha.

[Liberties]

(Original post by Greatleysteg)
Really? I disagree, I think the highly individualised narrative makes his quite inextraordinary character much more believable.

I did like the uniqueness of the writing style, actually. It's fun, in that it can be imitated and easily recognised. But it was still very irritating. The English was bad; Salinger did things like inserting grammatical mistakes to make it more realistic, and the style itself wasn't actually interesting.

(Original post by Greatleysteg)
Also shows how even his very own character is still a work in progress - Salinger didn't have fully formed motives in his head when he wrote it, it just developed as it went on, wasn't painfully crafted or written as a contemporary novel.
Also, don't forget, the novel is masquerading - its form is a 'commissioned text' by the psychological recuperation centre where Holden is staying... so the character himself isn't exactly writing a bestseller.

This is no excuse for bad art! If what you're saying is true, I'd have been inclined to sacrifice some 'realism' to make the whole thing more interesting and less like the inane ramblings of an inarticulate teenager.

(Original post by ukebert)
I found that a lot of the time I knew what Holden was talking about, yet the book itself I thought was dreadful.

Yeah, that's exactly how I felt.