/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2275735]

So it's that time of year again and I am going to re-read Catcher in the Rye for the 3rd time. Are you mad phonies?

In all seriousness I am looking forward to how my perspective on it changes, if at all. I first read it when I was 16 in high school and deeply related to the main character. Read it again last winter at 18 and I more so enjoyed revisiting the story and how funny parts were.

So now I am going to read it tonight all in one sitting. Quite fitting before we go visit all our families full of adults and children. After reading Crime and Punishment I now view CITTR as a sort of Crime and Punishment-lite but I expect to enjoy it.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9.23Wow. No.2275741]

>REGARDING A NOVEL DERIVATIVELY.

[Anonymous No.2275755]

>>2275741

can you explain yourself without using greentext? I'm not sure I understand.

[Anonymous No.2275758]

I read High Fidelity three years in a row -not exactly high literature but then that was just the thing. I didn't take it seriously. I had to read it twice to realize Rob was essentially a terrible person and a third time just for the hell of it (with that new perspective). Still funny though.

[Anonymous No.2275771]

I've read "Catcher" just about every year since I was 16 or so.

It still makes me laugh out loud.

[Anonymous No.2275778]

I've read it 6 times.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9.23Wow. No.2275788]

>>2275771

>IMPLYING THAT "THE CATCHER IN THE RYE" IS "COMEDIC".

THAT IS WHAT PRETENTIOUS AND VAIN PLEBEIANS SAY, WRITE AND/OR TYPE WHEN THEY READ SOMETHING THAT THEY DO NOT COMPREHEND BUT THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT IS "COOL" TO LIKE.

[Anonymous No.2275795]

I recently had a discussion about it with some acquaintances. I asked them what they thought of the book: all three of them echoed the sentiment:

"It was alright, if you're a serial killer"

I could tell they were kind of joking, but ironically, that is pretty much spot on.

I fully understand why people would despise this book. As for me I love it. It resonates with me.

[Anonymous No.2275796]

>>2275788
Stop posting here.

[Anonymous No.2275804]

>>2275788

I'm not saying it is comedic in that sense. It is "funny" in the sad sort of way. It is "funny" rereading all of Holden's sayings that you can relate to like take this for example:

"That's what I mean. You take somebody old as hell, like old Spencer, and they get a big bang out of buying a blanket"

Stuff like that I get a chuckle out of. You've misinterpreted me.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9.23Wow. No.2275813]

>>2275804

IT WAS YOUR FAULT FOR USING AN INADEQUATE TERM.

[Anonymous No.2275815]

>>2275813

your posting is a study in inadequacy

[Anonymous No.2276080]

Am I the only one who hates this novel with a passion? The whole thing just seems to me like Salinger trying to show everyone how huge his cock is. Like, I get the thing with the phonies that every teenager sees, but everyone knows that shit and Holden just whines about it more than everyone else. And also he smokes in his little sister's room. Dick move.

Point is, even though I've read it three times the book just seems to have no good messege and unlikable characters. Also I hate Salinger, Franny can suck my fat nuts.

[Anonymous No.2276170]

>>2276080

I don't know why everyone who hates it gets caught up in the whole phonies thing. That is not one of the themes I majorly take from reading the book.

- The dangers of smoking/2nd hand smoke weren't as highlighted in the early 1900's.

- no likable characters is a valid gripe if you don't like Holden because there is not much else to go on.

- As for the message part, a book does not need a 'good message' for it to be good. Regardless, I find Catcher to have some good messages in there.

[david foster wallace !!nJpql+IIWAS No.2276206]

>>2276080
confirmed for phony

[Anonymous No.2276228]

>>2276080

>implying you have "fat nuts" and are not a castrato