i think kafka was better when it came to the theme of alienation, tbh.
Different kind of alienation. Modernity, anonymity, lack of national or ethnic identity, being victimized by terrible and inscrutable authorities. Kafka is alienation for furriners.
20th century middle-class American alienation is mostly about noticing hypocrisy, trying and failing to invent yourself, being trapped by society. Better problems to have, imo.
Sensitive people get paralyzed and resentful when they see ugliness around them, and though they're not wrong, they're also not doing themselves or other people any good by trying to give up on life. A lot of the Salinger stories seem to be about that. They take seriously why you would want to give up -- why you would want to kill yourself, or retreat to childhood, or whatever -- and sometimes the characters find a reason to keep living and trying after all, and sometimes they don't. I think he wanted it to be an open question.
And this should really end the goddamn discussion.
but every author does this
every author tells this exact same story
especially if they have a youth character
Every author may do it
Salinger did it first
I mean, I can see the point that the plethora of coming-of-age novels has probably diluted the impact of "Catcher;" I have the same problem with "The Sting." I can see why it's a great movie, but before I saw "The Sting" I'd seen the plot imitated by so many other movies that were made after that it didn't have the impact it probably should've.
But that doesn't change the fact that "The Sting" did it first and is significant for that reason alone. Same with "Catcher in the Rye."
e: "the you just didn't get it" argument isn't very compelling
Maybe, but I can't otherwise understand how someone would think it was a terrible piece of literature.
Maybe I didn't get it? I mean: Holden is a manchild. He's stuck at an age where he wants to do great things, but can't put up with the more mundane and humbling experiences of what it means to actually be an adult. So instead he's just forever stuck the way he is, drifting and seeing the cold realities of living as an adult as an affront to his personal sense of right and wrong. It is pretty much the same innocence to experience story that every other author writes about youth, but in this the novel never gets to the 'experience' side, Holden never develops past his weak-willed douchebag stage. I'm guessing Salinger wants to highlight this as being some-sort of tragedy, and leaves the question up to the reader whether holden will ever actually grow up or not.
So I read it, rolled my eyes a few times at the main character being a flake, and then asked 'so what?' there are lots of whiny teenagers out there, most grow out of it.
It was written in 1951, for starters.
Not sure what that has to do with my post.
In the sense of fairness, I'll expand on this a bit.
I was mostly responding to your last sentence. You are looking at the novel in a modern context based on your limited experience on this planet. To properly appreciate its importance, you need to consider it in the historical context of when it was written.
Slack-jawed, complaining teens are considered commonplace especially in the modern, urbanized, instant-gratification world we're in now. People get shit whenever they want and fill their lives with an endless stream of information and distraction. You can't look for the relevance of the book in that context. I think a good place to start would be to look at the things that Catcher inspired, especially in the cultural revolution of the 60s. Take a look at the Graduate, for example. The story of a guy going through a phase in his life and wondering if there are other options besides what everyone has always done before and what everyone expects from him. That kind of narrative is ingrained in the culture today because of Catcher and the things it inspired.
That's a really loose explanation, but I guess it works. I think the better question is whether the book is still relevant today. I suppose it is more so if people haven't been exposed to a lot of the derivative stories and concepts.
Also, Field of Dreams, man.
I guess the angsty, slacker bits are different, in that they're the focus of Catcher. I read David Copperfield right before I read catcher, and it seems like the two characters go through the same journey (and really, there are few authors that write about innocent characters who stay innocent). Copperfield also goes through the same disillusioned state, but grows out of it pretty quickly. Dickens made his characters a little more stoic, so they never stayed conflicted for long. Where David Copperfield gets a chapter of feeling like his innocent world has been stolen from him, Holden spends his entire book in that state.
e: "the you just didn't get it" argument isn't very compelling
Maybe, but I can't otherwise understand how someone would think it was a terrible piece of literature.
Maybe I didn't get it? I mean: Holden is a manchild. He's stuck at an age where he wants to do great things, but can't put up with the more mundane and humbling experiences of what it means to actually be an adult. So instead he's just forever stuck the way he is, drifting and seeing the cold realities of living as an adult as an affront to his personal sense of right and wrong. It is pretty much the same innocence to experience story that every other author writes about youth, but in this the novel never gets to the 'experience' side, Holden never develops past his weak-willed douchebag stage. I'm guessing Salinger wants to highlight this as being some-sort of tragedy, and leaves the question up to the reader whether holden will ever actually grow up or not.
So I read it, rolled my eyes a few times at the main character being a flake, and then asked 'so what?' there are lots of whiny teenagers out there, most grow out of it.
It was written in 1951, for starters.
Not sure what that has to do with my post.
In the sense of fairness, I'll expand on this a bit.
I was mostly responding to your last sentence. You are looking at the novel in a modern context based on your limited experience on this planet. To properly appreciate its importance, you need to consider it in the historical context of when it was written.
Slack-jawed, complaining teens are considered commonplace especially in the modern, urbanized, instant-gratification world we're in now. People get shit whenever they want and fill their lives with an endless stream of information and distraction. You can't look for the relevance of the book in that context. I think a good place to start would be to look at the things that Catcher inspired, especially in the cultural revolution of the 60s. Take a look at the Graduate, for example. The story of a guy going through a phase in his life and wondering if there are other options besides what everyone has always done before and what everyone expects from him. That kind of narrative is ingrained in the culture today because of Catcher and the things it inspired.
That's a really loose explanation, but I guess it works. I think the better question is whether the book is still relevant today. I suppose it is more so if people haven't been exposed to a lot of the derivative stories and concepts.
Also, Field of Dreams, man.
I guess the angsty, slacker bits are different, in that they're the focus of Catcher. I read David Copperfield right before I read catcher, and it seems like the two characters go through the same journey (and really, there are few authors that write about innocent characters who stay innocent). Copperfield also goes through the same disillusioned state, but grows out of it pretty quickly. Dickens made his characters a little more stoic, so they never stayed conflicted for long. Where David Copperfield gets a chapter of feeling like his innocent world has been stolen from him, Holden spends his entire book in that state.
That was kind of the point. Copperfield is over a much longer span of life, and follows him as he becomes an adult. Copperfield eventually just gets over it and goes on with life as an adult. Catcher captures a guy over a couple of days and embodies entirely a phase that most people in that age goes through, and doesn't end with him falling back in line and doing what is expected of him.
e: "the you just didn't get it" argument isn't very compelling
Maybe, but I can't otherwise understand how someone would think it was a terrible piece of literature.
Maybe I didn't get it? I mean: Holden is a manchild. He's stuck at an age where he wants to do great things, but can't put up with the more mundane and humbling experiences of what it means to actually be an adult. So instead he's just forever stuck the way he is, drifting and seeing the cold realities of living as an adult as an affront to his personal sense of right and wrong. It is pretty much the same innocence to experience story that every other author writes about youth, but in this the novel never gets to the 'experience' side, Holden never develops past his weak-willed douchebag stage. I'm guessing Salinger wants to highlight this as being some-sort of tragedy, and leaves the question up to the reader whether holden will ever actually grow up or not.
So I read it, rolled my eyes a few times at the main character being a flake, and then asked 'so what?' there are lots of whiny teenagers out there, most grow out of it.
It was written in 1951, for starters.
Not sure what that has to do with my post.
In the sense of fairness, I'll expand on this a bit.
I was mostly responding to your last sentence. You are looking at the novel in a modern context based on your limited experience on this planet. To properly appreciate its importance, you need to consider it in the historical context of when it was written.
Slack-jawed, complaining teens are considered commonplace especially in the modern, urbanized, instant-gratification world we're in now. People get shit whenever they want and fill their lives with an endless stream of information and distraction. You can't look for the relevance of the book in that context. I think a good place to start would be to look at the things that Catcher inspired, especially in the cultural revolution of the 60s. Take a look at the Graduate, for example. The story of a guy going through a phase in his life and wondering if there are other options besides what everyone has always done before and what everyone expects from him. That kind of narrative is ingrained in the culture today because of Catcher and the things it inspired.
That's a really loose explanation, but I guess it works. I think the better question is whether the book is still relevant today. I suppose it is more so if people haven't been exposed to a lot of the derivative stories and concepts.
Also, Field of Dreams, man.
I guess the angsty, slacker bits are different, in that they're the focus of Catcher. I read David Copperfield right before I read catcher, and it seems like the two characters go through the same journey (and really, there are few authors that write about innocent characters who stay innocent). Copperfield also goes through the same disillusioned state, but grows out of it pretty quickly. Dickens made his characters a little more stoic, so they never stayed conflicted for long. Where David Copperfield gets a chapter of feeling like his innocent world has been stolen from him, Holden spends his entire book in that state.
That was kind of the point. Copperfield is over a much longer span of life, and follows him as he becomes an adult. Copperfield eventually just gets over it and goes on with life as an adult. Catcher captures a guy over a couple of days and embodies entirely a phase that most people in that age goes through, and doesn't end with him falling back in line and doing what is expected of him.
Also, Holden was 16. You aren't a fully developed thinker and you have such a limited experience at this age. If you can't put yourself into the stunted frontal lobe of a 16 year old then you probably won't get the reason for the angst.
I remember what I was like when I was 16. Holden would have found me annoying. I think maudlin would be the proper term.
Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Knows_Best
and
Kafka isn't bad, but Meyer is clearly the best at expressing alienation as it pertains to youth.
exactly
Different kind of alienation. Modernity, anonymity, lack of national or ethnic identity, being victimized by terrible and inscrutable authorities. Kafka is alienation for furriners.
20th century middle-class American alienation is mostly about noticing hypocrisy, trying and failing to invent yourself, being trapped by society. Better problems to have, imo.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
This infuriates me since it is the best book ever written. Ok maybe its not the best but its my favorite.
Every author may do it
Salinger did it first
I mean, I can see the point that the plethora of coming-of-age novels has probably diluted the impact of "Catcher;" I have the same problem with "The Sting." I can see why it's a great movie, but before I saw "The Sting" I'd seen the plot imitated by so many other movies that were made after that it didn't have the impact it probably should've.
But that doesn't change the fact that "The Sting" did it first and is significant for that reason alone. Same with "Catcher in the Rye."
Without having read the work in question or even knowing what "it" is, I will bet this is wrong.
sorry bub.
my high school principal died today as well. he was a pretty cool dude.
I guess the angsty, slacker bits are different, in that they're the focus of Catcher. I read David Copperfield right before I read catcher, and it seems like the two characters go through the same journey (and really, there are few authors that write about innocent characters who stay innocent). Copperfield also goes through the same disillusioned state, but grows out of it pretty quickly. Dickens made his characters a little more stoic, so they never stayed conflicted for long. Where David Copperfield gets a chapter of feeling like his innocent world has been stolen from him, Holden spends his entire book in that state.
That was kind of the point. Copperfield is over a much longer span of life, and follows him as he becomes an adult. Copperfield eventually just gets over it and goes on with life as an adult. Catcher captures a guy over a couple of days and embodies entirely a phase that most people in that age goes through, and doesn't end with him falling back in line and doing what is expected of him.
i want them all
Also, Holden was 16. You aren't a fully developed thinker and you have such a limited experience at this age. If you can't put yourself into the stunted frontal lobe of a 16 year old then you probably won't get the reason for the angst.
I remember what I was like when I was 16. Holden would have found me annoying. I think maudlin would be the proper term.
blog facebook steam twitter