do people really like it? Seems kind of like a bohemian hipster cliche, like an accesory to angst...
2006-08-05 10:00:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Remember that this was a novel of the 1950s, often called the "placid" decade, a time when suburbs and drive-ins and hot rods swept the country. Teenagers were stereotyped in the mass culture (radio, movies, tv) as "cute cheerleaders" and "dumb jocks" or "nifty quarterbacks." This was at least a decade before rock 'n roll, before the drug culture (a little beer in the back seat maybe), before the civil rights movement and the anti-war protests and the emergence of the so-called "generation gap."
Most adolescents didn't really fit into that neat picture; hence, we often felt like outsiders, alienated from the adult culture, not living up to what we thought were the ideals of our peers. So here, in Catcher in the Rye, was a serious piece of literature, devoted to one such "outsider," who sees how "phoney" this world is.
By the way, I still think Salinger's Nine Stories represent better literature than Catcher. But the novel captures the decade for adolescents the way the Beat Generation began to do for adults. Holden is kind of a teenage Allen Ginsberg or Gregory Corso.
An interesting project: interview your parents and/or grandparents, or others of their generations. Ask them what they thought of Holden, how they first heard of him, whether they and their friends talked about him.
You might also want to check out an old b&w movie, Rebel without a Cause. Here's a Hollywood response to Holden, not quite a decade later.
At the time, Holden was NO cliche. His character did become the basis for hundreds of cliches thereafter.
I wonder whether you think there are books that have filled this niche for later generations. If so, I'd be curious to know what you think they are.
2006-08-05 14:13:05 · answer #1 · answered by bfrank 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a VERY good book...if you have the insight to read "into it" a little bit. Otherwise you will just think it is a mentally unstable kid with no logic and should be hospitalized. Holden was an outsider and felt like he couldn't relate to societal norms...which is where you may get the "bohemian hipster cliche" from. An "accessory to angst" probably not. I was not an angst-filled teenager and I was able to identify with the confusion and hypocrisy of the world as he did. It is basically just looking at the world from a different perspective...you don't have to be angst ridden to do that. It can be read at any point in your life and at any date in time and be applicable...it isn't a "generation" book. Hence, why it is still taught in most schools.
As much as I love this book...there are two ways of looking at it either it instantly strikes something inside of you or else you just don't get it and probably never will. But that is what makes us all individuals! To each his (or her) own.
2006-08-05 19:20:38 · answer #2 · answered by Jenny Girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was an overwrought piece of trash written by a very troubled individual, J.D. Salinger. The guy is just plain weird in my opinion, and so was the main character in the book Holden Caulfield. Holden didn't know his rear end from third base and was so screwed up he was scary. Again, the book was junk.
2006-08-05 10:11:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i loved the book, but i agree with the "bohemian hipster cliche" part..
but the thing is, this is the book that started all of that.
kerouac and ginsberg and norse all took inspiration from it, and so it was practically the beginning of the beat revolution.
2006-08-05 14:08:52 · answer #4 · answered by right. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a book when you read it again when you are older you understand it more. I read some books over twice and sometimes more then that. I have done the same thing with 1984 and every time it seems more relevant with age.
2006-08-05 15:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was a 'light' book as i call it, 5 hours and done, forgotten the next day. Nothing bad, but also nothing very special. Maybe a bit too old fashioned for todays teens.
2006-08-05 10:11:04 · answer #6 · answered by Solveiga 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was wonderful. I saw nothing superficial in it because there was a point in my life when I felt the same way. Its a kid analysisng his feelings at an age where he feels confused and lost and alone. It captures the essence of adolescence with innocence, warmth and astute humour. If you pay attention to what he's saying.
2006-08-05 11:01:45 · answer #7 · answered by Foxy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was okay. Not sure what the hype was all about, except that there was a spinoff of people who could justify calling each other "prince".
2006-08-05 10:08:26 · answer #8 · answered by Surfwax 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋