/lit/ - Literature

catcher in the rye is one of the biggest pseud books of all time

>>15783753
Its actually follows the uncanny midwit valley in terms of value.

>>15783704
you spelled V. wrong

I think the jezebel posting is a psyop and should be investigated by jannies, preferably dealt with

>>15783704
I can see that she really enjoys big books. She seems much enthralled.

>>15783704
Pedophilia

It really isn’t.
It’s a juvenile novel. List it with your favorite kids lit maybe. Phony post.

>>15783862
thats a man

>>15783793
It’s a reaction to the christfags and their nofap campaigns. Pogrom yourself

>>15783704
War

>>15783793
i prefer jezebel posting than nofap posting

>>15783877
>I wonder who started this thread

>>15783877
I don't care about nofap. I just think concerted efforts at posting porn should be dealt with. there are red boards on this site for that stuff

>>15783923
Those fellatrix blemishes upon the knees and those hypodermic heroin shots upon the ankles!
Verily indeed, that is a big No!

>>15783945
Wasn’t me.

>>15783961
Sure. Women are beautiful though. As long as it’s artistic, I like it. This for instance. If it’s fine for paint, it ought to be fine for the real thing

>>15783979
Mosquitos are a big no with me too, but whaddaya gonna do?

>>15783704
it isnt
also, there was this black dude in one of my lit classes for my undergrad that never shut the fuck up about this book. every time he spoke he referenced this shit. it was like that greentext about the infinite jest guy.

>>15783993
>Women are beautiful though
that's not what we're arguing about. there are spaces in real life where nudity isn't allowed so why would it be allowed on a blue board when there are literally red boards all around? I don't care about that particular painting but it's about minimizing effortless libido posting

>>15783847
Elaborate
>>>15783762
>>15783753
This is mean. What do you mean?

is coffee good for you?

>>15784523
contains more antioxidants than i think any alternative. shown to lower blood pressure and its regular consumption is correlated positively with several other health indicators.

>>15783704

I'd like to catcher in HER rye if you get what I mean

>>15784507
Holden rapes Phoebe. That's it. The whole book is predicated on a metaphor between the alienation of adolescent angst and the experience of pedophilia in modern society, perhaps tangentially related to the psychopathic horrors of the war on American innocence (don't forget, we never really had the clean break Europe did with WWI) and most certainly aimed at the overpathologizing of the elite in the aftermath. If you're interested, look at literally any scene where Holden interacts with Phoebe and you're bound to find sexual innuendo nearby. If that's not convincing enough, look at the Gatsby reference and look at Salinger's own bio, and, most obviously, the blatant text of Bananafish. Or, you can just search the archives for an argument I've made several times before.

>>15784569
Literally the upshot of >>15784598. Another blaring gesture toward this reading is the way Holden recites the poem incorrectly versus the original text. He's full of Freudian slips--he's a kid, after all.

>>15783704
It’s a good book, it’s far from the greatest ever though, it’s not even the best novel of the 1950s

>>15784064
>there are spaces in real life where nudity isn't allowed
Travesty I tell ya. You can walk the streets of New York topless. Blue boards should allow that much.

Catcher?
In MY rye?

>>15784569
CatcHER in the rye would have been better baka

>>15784598
>Holden rapes Phoebe.
But he doesn't though?

>>15783923
this nasty bitch is a nofap post

>>15785289
You can read critically or you can read like a pleb. You chose the latter.

>>15783877
You're moodier than you usually are, as of late.

>>15785408
I went through a phase where I did that but I realized that it's gay and literally just baseless projection onto a text where you assert something is actually an allegory for Freudian sex dynamics ie the whole thing is just Shinji (wait I mean Holden) trying to return to mommy's womb.
Except it's not and that's stupid

>>15784848
NYC also reeks of piss and garbage where gay men fellate each other next to open air drug markets

>>15786122
>it's gay and literally just baseless
>what is subtext
Any writer worth their salt is constantly trying to pack as much meaning into the language as possible, and respond to potential meanings in turn, which forms the possibility of such interpretive claims. Sounds like you just don’t know how to read and that’s okay. I would just recommend not frequenting a literature board. Especially when you can’t even pick up on basic popular subtext when the author is basically holding your hand the whole time. I mean, fuck, what do you think ellipses are for, Old Sport? For your fucking eyes to gloss over as you plot read for some sort of signaling?

> trying to return to mommy's womb
Speak for yourself. As for Holden, the text suggests he just wants to fuck his sister unfettered. You didn’t pick up on that because you’re a bad reader. Just admit it.

>>15783753
There’s a difference between a pseud book and a book that just isn’t good. Catcher is read by most 9th graders in the states. By no means a bad book, and liking it doesn’t make you a pseud, it’s just for adolescents. Hemingway is a pseud writer, held in such high esteem but ultimately just a high school tier writer like Salinger.