Does anybody else hate The Catcher in the Rye?

[Guimus12]

My grandma told me she had read it three times and she didn't understand why people liked it. So she asked me to read it to see if I could understand why. I forced myself through it and honestly is just so bad. It dosen't happen anything in this book. Why Jhon Lennon had to die because of this book? If I had to kill someone for reading this book it would be myself out of pure boredom.

View attachment safdf0wxpa771.webp

 

[赤い男]

Wasn't that the book you had to return to the library in postal 2?

 

[Hypatia]

Holden's thought process reminds me so much of my own thought processes. I hate how I think, so I hate the book.

He has one line about how when he walked along a curve on the sidewalk, and it slowly goes down, it feels like he is falling into an abyss. Bro, get the fuck out of my head shut up, Shut Up, SHUT UP!

 

[Guimus12]

Wasn't that the book you had to return to the library in postal 2?
View attachment 112718

No way you actually played that game. That just goes to show how bad Catcher in the Rye is.

 

[赤い男]

No way you actually played that game. That just goes to show how bad Catcher in the Rye is.

What are you talking about? The game is kino. (Catch her in the rye, not at all)

 

[The Chibi One]

You're supposed to kinda be annoyed at him because he is a teenager and therefore cringe but on a deeper level realise his erratic thought processes and gloominess are all predicated on outside factors.

He also called out normies before the Internet was a thing.

 

[Guimus12]

What are you talking about? The game is kino. (Catch her in the rye, not at all)

Kind of yes, but deep down, this is basically the equivalent of Rick and Morty for edgy teens on the 2000's.

 

[Guimus12]

You're supposed to kinda be annoyed at him because he is a teenager and therefore cringe but on a deeper level realise his erratic thought processes and gloominess are all predicated on outside factors.

He also called out normies before the Internet was a thing.

Well I'm annoyed by him. That's why I'm doing this thread on the first place.

 

[赤い男]

Kind of yes, but deep down, this is basically the equivalent of Rick and Morty for edgy teens on the 2000's.
View attachment 112722View attachment 112723

Not even close, man. That's like comparing apples to potatoes. Postal 2 was never meant to be pretentious it's just an edgy (though not nearly as edgy once you actually play it) but fun game designed purely for enjoyment. (Ironically, that makes it more of a true video game than many other productions I've seen, even back then)

You definetly need to play the game dude.

 

[Guimus12]

Not even close, man. That's like comparing apples to potatoes. Postal 2 was never meant to be pretentious it's just an edgy (though not nearly as edgy once you actually play it) but fun game designed purely for enjoyment. (Ironically, that makes it more of a true video game than many other productions I've seen, even back then)

You definetly need to play the game dude.
View attachment 112726

Apples aren't that far of potatoes. You could have said so many things and you decided to go for two things that are round, yummy and healty. Besides, is Postal 2 really worth it?

 

[赤い男]

Postal 2 really worth it?

Apples and Potatoes are not related at all, they are not closely related biologically. Apples are fruits from the rosacea family (which has more in common with strawberries), while potatoes are tubers from the solanaceae (the nightshade) family which has more in common with tomatoes or eggplants. They come from completely different plant families and have different uses in cooking and nutrition. I think your notion cames from some lingustic oddities europeans share, like "aardappels en appels" (aardappel literally meaning earth/dirt apple) beyond that, they have nothing in common.

And to answer the last question, hell yeah, every single damn second (and cent)

 

[Guimus12]

Apples and Potatoes are not related at all, they are not closely related biologically. Apples are fruits from the rosacea family (which has more in common with strawberries), while potatoes are tubers from the solanaceae (the nightshade) family which has more in common with tomatoes or eggplants. They come from completely different plant families and have different uses in cooking and nutrition. I think your notion cames from some lingustic oddities europeans share, like "aardappels en appels" (aardappel literally meaning earth/dirt apple) beyond that, they have nothing in common.

And to answer the last question, hell yeah, every single damn second (and cent)

Yeah, but if you count the amount of things in the universe. Most of them aren't edible, nor round, nor yummy. So there are a lot of things you could have chosen that are further from an apple or a potato. You could have literally said a bicycle (not round, edible nor yummmy).

 

[赤い男]

Yeah, but if you count the amount of things in the universe. Most of them aren't edible, nor round, nor yummy. So there are a lot of things you could have chosen that are further from an apple or a potato. You could have literally said a bicycle (not round, edible nor yummmy).

And they say gen alpha is brainroted.

 

[Guimus12]

And they say gen alpha is brainroted.
View attachment 112737

What makes you think that I'm not gen alpha? Perphaps, you shouldn't assume people's age, not very sigma of your part.

 

[Math Equal Angelic Mantra]

Why Jhon Lennon had to die because of this book? If I had to kill someone for reading this book it would be myself out of pure boredom.

MKULTRA trigger.

 

[turntableToothache]

Assuming this is an actual question and not a shitpost, I'll try my best to answer why people like this book. I'll take a guess and assume your grandma didn't like it for two reasons: 1. She was forced to read it in high school, since it's considered a must read across the US, despite most teachers not really understanding why in the first place (this is the most common reason for why people may hate this book) 2. She's a woman and old, and thus may have a harder time relating to Holden's outlook on the world around him and his overall attitude, both of which are proper of a young coming of age boy dealing with common issues most men face around their teenage years, all the way through their transition into adulthood. The ideal target audience for this book is a 16-18 year old boy, since they're the most likely to relate to Holden's actions and opinions, and may have an easier time reflecting on themselves and their attitudes through him, with Holden holding up a mirror to themselves.
Nothing much happening in the book is sort of the point, Holden is aimless in life, he has no goals, no idea for what to do in his future, he sees everyone around him as a bunch of "phoneys," fake people who put on masks, he sees himself as cool and an exception to the rule. He clings on to the past and things he's familiar with since childhood, pays unusual attention to small unimportant details around the world others don't care much for (like the ducks and the frozen pond), because he isn't interested in, or is afraid of, growing up and having to leave behind all the things from his childhood years, from when he was happier. He pretends to be cool by smoking, drinking beer, going out with hookers and women much older than him, wearing the deerstalker hat because he sees "everyone else around as prey," and overall tries way too hard to lash out and rebel against a world he doesn't really understand and is afraid of, without much purpose beyond lashing out for the sake of it.
Ironically, he's the biggest phony of them all by putting on a dishonest "I don't care about anything or anyone else in life," when the truth is that he does care, that's what he gets at with the final words of the book "don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody," in spite of everything, he still cares about and misses all the people he's met through the book. His antisocial demeanor is a mask meant to help him cope with this.
Tl;dr: The book is relatable to young male teens and men who can still relate to once being a cringy antisocial teenager themselves.
This is my personal interpretation of the book, if anyone here disagrees or wants to add anything, I'm open to replies.

Why Jhon Lennon had to die because of this book?

He didn't, the guy who killed him did it for attention. His excuse that Catcher in the Rye had secret subliminal messages telling him to kill John Lennon (nevermind the book was made before the Beatles even came about) was nothing more than an attempt to create a sensasionalistic news story that would be guaranteed to get lots of media coverage because of how utterly bizarre and ridiculous it was.

 

[alCannium27]

I read it back-to-back-to-back in uni. It spoke to me. Teens get it, that's why some people hate it, because adulthood hath retarded their senses of torment.
Humanity needs to return to a place.of eternal pain, to be able to survive the real world

 

[Guimus12]

Assuming this is an actual question and not a shitpost, I'll try my best to answer why people like this book. I'll take a guess and assume your grandma didn't like it for two reasons: 1. She was forced to read it in high school, since it's considered a must read across the US, despite most teachers not really understanding why in the first place (this is the most common reason for why people may hate this book) 2. She's a woman and old, and thus may have a harder time relating to Holden's outlook on the world around him and his overall attitude, both of which are proper of a young coming of age boy dealing with common issues most men face around their teenage years, all the way through their transition into adulthood. The ideal target audience for this book is a 16-18 year old boy, since they're the most likely to relate to Holden's actions and opinions, and may have an easier time reflecting on themselves and their attitudes through him, with Holden holding up a mirror to themselves.
Nothing much happening in the book is sort of the point, Holden is aimless in life, he has no goals, no idea for what to do in his future, he sees everyone around him as a bunch of "phoneys," fake people who put on masks, he sees himself as cool and an exception to the rule. He clings on to the past and things he's familiar with since childhood, pays unusual attention to small unimportant details around the world others don't care much for (like the ducks and the frozen pond), because he isn't interested in, or is afraid of, growing up and having to leave behind all the things from his childhood years, from when he was happier. He pretends to be cool by smoking, drinking beer, going out with hookers and women much older than him, wearing the deerstalker hat because he sees "everyone else around as prey," and overall tries way too hard to lash out and rebel against a world he doesn't really understand and is afraid of, without much purpose beyond lashing out for the sake of it.
Ironically, he's the biggest phony of them all by putting on a dishonest "I don't care about anything or anyone else in life," when the truth is that he does care, that's what he gets at with the final words of the book "don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody," in spite of everything, he still cares about and misses all the people he's met through the book. His antisocial demeanor is a mask meant to help him cope with this.
Tl;dr: The book is relatable to young male teens and men who can still relate to once being a cringy antisocial teenager themselves.
This is my personal interpretation of the book, if anyone here disagrees or wants to add anything, I'm open to replies.

He didn't, the guy who killed him did it for attention. His excuse that Catcher in the Rye had secret subliminal messages telling him to kill John Lennon (nevermind the book was made before the Beatles even came about) was nothing more than an attempt to create a sensasionalistic news story that would be guaranteed to get lots of media coverage because of how utterly bizarre and ridiculous it was.

Well, I accept both serious reply as well as shitpost. Glad that someone take the time to give a long answer.
I'll start off by telling you right away that neither my grandma or I are from the U.S. We both readed it voluntarily. I also did read it as a teenager. And still, I didn't like him. After all the online reading about it I now understand that he was meant to be an awfull charachter in purpose, but that still dosen't make it less boring or non-sensical of a reading. Like, okay, I get it supossed to be edgy, but it is bad. I didn't quite relate to him, even being an edgy teen, I thought he was overly pretensious and disgusting, always talking badly about others. So I guess it just didn't resonate with me. What kinda annoys me is that people talk about it like it's the best american novel ever, when it only resonates with a specific age gap. And specially when it so boring and there are many other greater american books out there. I read Of Mice and Men and it just amazed me how great that book was, I liked it so much, just to rembember many people still consider The Catcher in the Rye to be the best american novel. And many of that critics that praise it so much, I'm 100% that novel is mocking them, but still.

I get that not all art needs to be entretaining, but it's still a terrible book to me.

And the Jhon Lennon part was just a joke. I know that asshole who killed him just wanted attention.

Thanks for the response.

"I did not like the Catcher in the Rye"

 

[turntableToothache]

Well, I accept both serious reply as well as shitpost. Glad that someone take the time to give a long answer.
I'll start off by telling you right away that neither my grandma or I are from the U.S. We both readed it voluntarily. I also did read it as a teenager. And still, I didn't like him. After all the online reading about it I now understand that he was meant to be an awfull charachter in purpose, but that still dosen't make it less boring or non-sensical of a reading. Like, okay, I get it supossed to be edgy, but it is bad. I didn't quite relate to him, even being an edgy teen, I thought he was overly pretensious and disgusting, always talking badly about others. So I guess it just didn't resonate with me. What kinda annoys me is that people talk about it like it's the best american novel ever, when it only resonates with a specific age gap. And specially when it so boring and there are many other greater american books out there. I read Of Mice and Men and it just amazed me how great that book was, I liked it so much, just to rembember many people still consider The Catcher in the Rye to be the best american novel. And many of that critics that praise it so much, I'm 100% that novel is mocking them, but still.

You can blame its illogical popularity on it being made into a high-school must-read, it made sense back in the day as the novel was still contemporary to its readers. But nowadays it's still a must-read in US schools, despite it being written nearly a century ago and a lot of the stuff in it being wildly outdated. Like I've said, most teachers don't seem to understand why the book was made a must-read 50 years ago and think "it's a book about teenage angst" is all they need to get students/young men hooked, hence its enduring popularity. I don't blame you for not liking it, especially given you've said you're not American, the book is exceptionally American, of the 1940s/50s kind at that, and it's not timeless like other classic cultural books like Don Quixote.

I get that not all art needs to be entretaining, but it's still a terrible book to me.

And the Jhon Lennon part was just a joke. I know that asshole who killed him just wanted attention.

Thanks for the response.

You're welcome, thanks for the reply as well.

 

[Ardea]

Never read it. I'm trying to get back into reading books. I'll give it a read and report back.