The Catcher In The Rye

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Ok...I just read the book over the weekend...it's a good story, not heartwarming or anything...but an enjoyable read.

 

But why do psychopaths idolize the book? I can understand relating with the guy's antisocial behavior and relating to how he feels about phoneys...

 

But the guy that shot Regan was a spaz about the book...the guy that killed John Lennon admired the book...as well as many crazies on top of that.

 

So what's up with this book?

[Guest TheDames7]

Its probably because the main character (who's name eludes me right now) was so full of spite & rage,yet indifferent about everythingand they were able to relate.  

 

Dames

[Guest Shaved Bear]

the main characters name was Holden Caufield

[Guest treble charged]

When I read the book about a year and a half ago, I kept waiting for something to happen, until I realized with about 50 pages left that nothing would.  Despite all that, I really enjoyed the book, and I, like you, haven't killed anyone either... yet.

[Guest]

I guess now would be a bad time to say that I indentify with young Holden Kauffield a LOT. The only difference is that I intend on telling my story BEFORE I'm stuck in an asylum.

[Guest]

I don't see a connection but I read the book in 7th grade and now I have 5 violent misdemeanor convictions and am on probation for a 5 year sentence(truth)

[Guest treble charged]

If anyone has ever seen Conspiracy Theory, then Mel Gibson's character says that psychopaths buy the book to make themselves feel normal.  I don't know if there's any truth to this statement, but, there you go.

[Guest DragonflyKid]

After neglecting to read the book during high school when I was supposed to, I finally read it about two months ago. I liked the book although not as much as To Kill a Mockingbird which I read right after TCITR. It dealt with the lead character going through what many including myself have gone through, he felt great apathy and was highly cynical which led to a nervous breakdown. The pychopaths who appreciate TCITR do it because maybe they can identify with what Holden goes through and can validate their feelings and the actions arising from those feelings of apathy and cynicism. The book is rather innocuos, it doesn't support murder it has just been associated with some pychotic individuals who had it.

[Guest One Bad Apple]

Despite all that, I really enjoyed the book, and I, like you, haven't killed anyone either... yet.

If you need a book to make you start killing people, you can throw any hopes of ever becoming a man right out the goddamn window.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

I haven't read the book, and I haven't killed anybody. But, the stench around here is a stench of dead bodies. No clue about that... I do black out alot though...

 

{justkidding}

[Guest Choken One]

Catcher in the Rye is, the greatest novel in American History. Holden Caulfield is perhaps the greatest character ever created. The fact that infamous Pyschopaths are linked to this brilliant piece of work has really tarnished it, as Schools are relucant to allow this book to be read.

 

I first read CITR at 12 years old in the Sixth grade...the other kids were reading stuff like Judy Blume (nothing against her but most of her stuff is pretty childish)...I read it again in Seventh grade and so on. By Sophmore year when we read it for class(along with Frankenstein and Othello)I had read CITR 11 times. Alot of years have passed and although The Chuck Palahiuak series has taken alot of my time...Catcher in the Rye has remained the best novel I've ever read.

 

Am I a lunatic? No. I just enjoy a incredible piece of work...I own 15 copies of CITR (including my first edition I read in 6th grade).

 

As a matter fact...Let me go to my den and get the book out again...

 

Ah here we are "If you really wanna know the truth...

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Choken One is due to whack someone...soon.

 

I enjoyed it, but I thought it was highly overrated..."A Stone For Danny Fisher" is a WAY better story, this smark's opinion anyway.

[Guest muzanisa]

I read it the first time after I'd heard about the psycho connection and was looking for the reason. The second and last time I read it I enjoyed it a lot more because I knew that there was nothing in there that would set people off. If there is anything in there I suppose it's how Holden sees grown ups as phoneys and wants to stop the kids growing up.

It's a good book not the best, Gatsby, Moby Dick and Gravity's Rainbow are better off the top of my head but still well worth reading, just don't expect to go on a killing spree afterwards.

[Guest red_file]

I agree that it's the "Holden sees grown ups as phoneys and wants to stop the kids growing up" bit muzanisa mentions that the psychos most closely identify with. Mark David Chapman had said that one of his reasons for killing John Lennon was that he didn't view Lennon as a person; his vision of Lennon was of a celebrity who was fake and who was saying things that he ought not to be saying. Chapman, like Holden, wished he intervene.

 

John Hinckley seems to just be a random kook with an obsession.

 

Catcher In the Rye always struck me as one of those books where the author intended to do something which would make people think but didn't really realize how people would latch on to it (kinda like Burgess' A Clockwork Orange). What's especially interesting is that after the success of Catcher he could've made a fortune publishing a bunch of books but instead went into seclusion after only writing a few short stories and publishing them in bookform. He's supposed to publish his latest work, Hapworth 16, 1924, sometime this year. I'm sure it'll be a best seller.

 

It's a decent book, but I don't think it truly deserves the praise or attention that it gets. Certainly it's no better than "A Perfect Day for Banafish."

[Guest treble charged]

It's a decent book, but I don't think it truly deserves the praise or attention that it gets. Certainly it's no better than "A Perfect Day for Banafish."

I remember that. We had to read that in class one time. Weird.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's a very good book, but it's by no means the best book in history or anything...

 

I remember being able to identify with Caulfield a bit in the book, but I also remember thinking that this kind brought his insanity upon himself. Eh... I don't feel like getting into it right now, but I believe that everyone that identifies with Houlden is giving themselves an excuse for their misery when it can be fixed by simple means.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

For the record, in Conspiracy Theory Mel Gibson's character doesn't actually say that psychopaths buy the book to make themselves feel better.

 

His character (and presumably others) were conditioned to feel uneasy if they didn't have a copy of the book nearby or onhand. When they went to buy a copy, it sent a signal to an agency that tracked them, making it easier for the government to keep tabs on whoever.

 

You see this in the scene when Mel goes into a bookstore to buy a copy because he doesn't have his on him and the feds see this on their computers and determine his location.

[Guest BorneAgain]

...the guy that killed John Lennon admired the book...as well as many crazies on top of that.

 

So what's up with this book?

Trust me Mark David Chapman (the guy who killed Lennon) was fucked up way before he read the book

[Guest treble charged]

For the record, in Conspiracy Theory Mel Gibson's character doesn't actually say that psychopaths buy the book to make themselves feel better.

 

His character (and presumably others) were conditioned to feel uneasy if they didn't have a copy of the book nearby or onhand. When they went to buy a copy, it sent a signal to an agency that tracked them, making it easier for the government to keep tabs on whoever.

 

You see this in the scene when Mel goes into a bookstore to buy a copy because he doesn't have his on him and the feds see this on their computers and determine his location.

I just remember the scene where Julia Roberts went up to his apartment for the first time, and saw all the copies of the book. I thought he said something along the lines of how he bought them to make himself feel normal.

 

Then again, I've only seen parts of the movie, and I have never seen the scene that you are mentioning, so you are probably more in the right than I am.

[Guest JAxlMorrison]

I guess I was let down because I read it expecting some kind of life altering revealation to be in there somewhere, and all I really got was a borderline boring story. I don't see what the fuss is at all, and although i am the kind of person who will read a book more then once if he enjoys it, I would never willingly read this again.

[Guest MaskedDanger]

Catcher in the Rye was excellent. At it's best, it was amazing; at worst it was a solid, enjoyable read. The parts where Holden talked about Jane Gallagher...blew me away.

 

Even better than Catcher that was Nine Stories, the book of short stories where "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" appeared. That's the best short story collection ever written, easily right up there with Dubliners or The Snows of Kilimanjaro. Truly amazing stuff.

[Guest Rock Candy]

Catcher in the Rye is a great book. We had to read it senior year in a class, and I was like one of four people who really liked it. The rest of the class, all popular kids without a care in the world, said the book was "messed up", and they couldn't possibly relate to it.

 

As long as Hollywood never gets ahold of this one, we should be okay. (Just thinking of the goddamn Hollywood happy ending tacked onto any cinematic version of Catcher in the Rye makes my stomach turn.)

 

-Ben

[Guest red_file]

As long as Hollywood never gets ahold of this one, we should be okay. (Just thinking of the goddamn Hollywood happy ending tacked onto any cinematic version of Catcher in the Rye makes my stomach turn.)

There was an author, whose name I cannot remember, who had had several of his books really good books turned into really crappy movies who liked to say, when asked if he was bitter about Hollywood ruining his books, "They didn't ruin my book; why, they're right there on the bookshelf. Same as always." Much like that author (whose name I really which I could remember), I really don't see the problem when a good book gets turned into a bad movie. If I don't like the movie, I still have the book.