/lit/ - Literature

I like it a lot.

pretentious garbage

I didn't like it.

I learned all that I know about it from ghost in the shell

>>3287888

So do I.

>>3287888
>>3287912
>>3287916
th-thanks /lit/...
im like 1/3 through and so far it seems like 'mundane white teenager's problems - the book'. anything revolutionary about it or is the entire novel like this?

>>3287944

That's what you're gonna get for the entire novel. Supposedly it's amazing if you can relate to the character, otherwise it's bad.

If i were you i'd drop the book and get The Perks of Being a Wallflower instead (inb4 e/lit/ists hate on it just because it recenetly got popular again), it's the superior book imo. With an actual plot.

>>3287980
thanks, i will.

>>3287944
If you don't see anything fantastic in Holden's honesty still, you'll be dissapointed. There are some great moments later on though.

>>3287980
The matter is not about relating to the character.

>superior book
>with an actual plot
pff

>>3287944
salinger is a god at writing. go read nine stories. this is 50s angst encapsulated.

Where's that picture of Faulkner and a couple others praising Catcher in the Rye and then at the bottom is Harold Bloom calling it a period piece?

>>3287944
>being this much of a philistine

Once you understand he's writing from a sanatorium and obsessed with the death of his older brother, it's a little more palatable. I preferred Franny & Zooey.

>>3288056

>he's writing from a sanatorium

But you don't until the end of the book.
Fuck you for spoiling that.

Most of my personal friends who dislike Catcher do so because the book reminds them of their own angsty selves.

I like it though. It's a good book.

>>3288026

I made that image, but it's on my other computer.

Catcher is one of my all-time favorite novels. Holden is easily one of the most important and intriguing characters in Western lit of the past 100 years. Every time I go back to it I get more and more out of the book, it's a beautiful, tragic story.

>>3288068
It's obvious from the beginning, fuckwit.

>>3288133
I second what you say.

One of the few books I like to revisit every once in a while.

>>3288133
In the time you get your computer, can you upload the image, please?

only a phony would like it

>>3288513

I found it in the archive

>>3288056

I'm halfway trough with it and you spoilered the end, thank you a lot..

>>3287980
This is one of the worst opinions I've seen all day. And I can tell you're not trolling.

The only reason you like that laundry list of the author's favorite albums is because you read it at a young age with a very limited outlook on literature. The plot is terrible, and the protagonist being able to kick the shit out of three jocks is not only unrealistic escapism for the scrawny nerd demographic it appeals to, but the mark of a truly terrible writer. Nothing about the book was tragic except perhaps its rampant popularity, it was an overwrought teenage melodrama written in amateur prose.

Give it a few years and people all over the world will still be reading and studying Catcher in the Rye, and Perks of Being a Wallflower will have fallen into the Dustbin of Things That Are No Longer Relevant, alongside Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.

>>3288590

Thank you/

>>3287980
>Wallflower

Come on. Saying this has an actual plot is like saying the Earth has air. No fuck. It has the simplest plot man can possibly fathom. It offers a completely false reality of high school/teenage life.

The problem is how white/suburban it is. If the fucking kid just rrealized that he had to play the hand he was dealt he wouldn't be such a whiny bitch. That's how life works. Two "quirky and unique" characters aren't going to swoop down and offer a pathetic attempt at a dynamic role.

>>3287980
Please stop posting. You've made this recommendation before and I know it's you because no other person on /lit/ has the necessary chemical imbalance to think this is good advice.

>>3288056
Now I'm actually going to need to read the book. Dammit. Now this book seems so much cooler.

I'm obsessed with insanity/mental illnesses

>>3287980
I doubt you read the book. You probably just saw the movie.

>>3287980

>>3288056
I always forget about that angle when I think of this book. I think ppl who hate on this book are usually just ashamed that they liked it when they were young readers. Don't be ashamed, it's a good book.

>>3288625
I'm reading The Noonday Demon, prole study on depression but it's not bad if you're obsessed.

>>3288590

Give it a rest, Catcher came out in the right time and it's one of the reasons it got so big, because of how it expressed the beliefs and angst of teenagers in that time period. That's why it'll be remembered more than Perks, a book that came out in the 90's.
Honestly, to me, i think they're very similiar to each other, the only difference is that one was original, and the other was not. I think of Perks as an "upgraded" version of Catcher. Kinda like how Tolkien invented the fantasy genre and how other, better fantasy writers came after him. (I'm not saying Salinger invented a genre).

>because you read it at a young age with a very limited outlook on literature

Oh wow, isn't that the exact same thing with the Catcher in the Rye? The typical book for 16 year old kids to cherish? Stop being a hypochrite, you're entire post makes you seem like one.
Cbhoskys prose was written that way with intention, i don't suppose i have to point out the obvious similarity there, do i?

You're probably right that Catcher will be more memorable than Perks, but i still enjoyed the latter book more because of its substance and story. I actually cared for the characters in the book, which was nice because there were several, not just one unlikable protagonist. Before you go there i'll say that i did "get" what Salinger was trying to say, i just didn't care for it.

I know we're not talking about the movies here. But i'm very sure that if they had made a movie about Holden instead of Charlie, one thing would lead to another and then finally, several people on this board would praise Perks more than Catcher. That's fucking ironic, isn't it?

It's like the old-school version of Gossip Girl.

Anyone that can't relate to Holden in even the slighest is a true proletariat and haven't gone through the angst required in every intellectual's teenage life. The entire book is about a boy's struggle against maturation and the seeming moral decadence that he perceives.

Also, those that think that he is in a sanatorium or is autistic are just deluded and have to call Holden crazy or mentally retarded because they can't fully appreciate the genius of the novel.

Franny and Zooey is a good novel as well, I reccomend it.

kill John Lennon
KILL JOHN LENNON!

>>3290325
Butters! If I hear that one more time, you are GROUNDED, mister!

>>3288773
>But i'm very sure that if they had made a movie about Holden instead of Charlie, one thing would lead to another and then finally, several people on this board would praise Perks more than Catcher.

Confirmed for not understanding Catcher in the Rye whatsoever.

>>3287980

phoney

>>3288773
>That's fucking ironic, isn't it?
Nope. Confirmed for complete dipshit.

but seriously it's a good book

>>3288590
>Harry Potter
>No longer relevant

I have to disagree there. Anyone wanting to read it for any literary merit is deluded yes, but to honestly believe that it will go the way of the Hunger Games or Twilight is also delusional. Harry Potter is a series of books that influenced millions of kids to start reading and will continue to do so for decades to come. It has it's own fucking theme park. If for no other reason, it is a proven cash cow and people will continue to market the hell out of it. Those who grew up on those books will inevitably read them to their own children and so on. Sorry, but Harry Potter is here to stay.

>>3294598
See, that's where you're wrong.

>>3294615
I've now seen the error of my ways

>>3294598
Harry Potter is a fad book.

Read it when I was a teen (16). I don't live in the USA, so nobody forced me to do so.
Back then, I really liked it because I thought it was a fun read. Different from the usual classical stuff. I wasn't a big reader back then, unlike today (I am now 21).

Today, I just felt kind of sad when I read it again. I mean back then, I was under AD and stuff, but I thought it was normal, I didn't know that I was self-destructive. I really didn't know. My shrink just gave me so AD without saying anything. Today, I realized that I used to be depressed but I wasn't that sad. Today, I feel like shit but I'm no longer on medication, because I have the feeling that I screwed up somewhere. It's a hard feeling to describe and I am shit at describing feelings. Back then, I felt kind of related to him. Now I just realize that he's perfectly normal, but in his own way, not generally accepted, but kind of normal, and I did somehow screw up somewhere when reached independence. Anyway, it's one of the reasons why I preciously keep this book.

>>3294615
>See, now that's where you're wrong.
Can I get your contact information by any chance? I'm looking for a good lawyer.

>>3295087
Sorry, I fucking laughed.

>>3294598
I agree with you. Harry Potter may not contain particular merit outside of entertainment value, but it has, indisputably, influenced many young individuals to read. I, myself, came to know the joys of reading due to these books. I remember when I was in the fourth grade during an after school program. I was bored out of mind and, on a whim, I picked up Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - just for the hell of it - and began reading. Lo and behold I ended up becoming incredibly engrossed in the book and, subsequently, the series overall. I never finished the final book - only got about halfway through - but it got me to enjoy reading and, for that reason, it's a book that will be around for a while and, indeed, it's a book that holds intrinsic value simply due to the 'gateway' value, so to speak.

>>3288056
He was being treated for tuberculosis

>>3295084
I swear to fucking God, I am

>>3295101
Arent we all

>>3295124
This quote killed me.

I'm about 50 pages in.
Why is this book so famous and popular?

I think I was too old when I first read it. So I really wasn't impressed. Maybe if I was in my teens and in a "fuck the world" stage, I might have appreciated it more.

>>3295471

I read it in my twenties the first time and loved it.

It's not about identifying with Holden's angst. If you can't see the tragic character behind that facade, I'd argue you need to read the book a little closer. There's this great story there about alienation and its impetus in the inabiility to face the loss of love in death.

The book is plays into a profound realism of emotional depth. I get more and more out of it every time I go back to it.

That Holden's seen from so many disparate points of view shows the credence of his status as a major archetype, imo. The influence of the book was enormous, and can be appreciated on that level, if nothing else.

It's one of the finest novels of the last century, with one of the most brilliantly written characters of all time.

One of the first serious books I read at 17 (when I got into reading).

I didn't really like it. Didn't hate it either. I just felt like something would actually happen and it never really did. Holden has become somewhat of an icon of rebellion and so on but honestly, he doesn't do all that much. He doesn't even fuck that hooker but like a beta he just sits there.

I think if something similar were written today it would have been a lot better.

I think it is very deep book. LIke Odyssey. It reveals a state of disturbed mind and treats it.

>>3295495

>he doesn't do all that much. He doesn't even fuck that hooker but like a beta he just sits there

1/10

Way too obvious.

>>3295503

Damn it.