Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

my "The Catcher in the Rye" reviewFollow

#1 Jun 24 2004 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
It sucked a$$.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Jun 24 2004 at 12:18 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You didn't get it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Jun 24 2004 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
good


i think if I did I would have shot myself.

(or does that mean that I DID get it?)

Edited, Thu Jun 24 13:33:15 2004 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Jun 24 2004 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Actually, weren't there a few famous assasins that were found with this book on their person when they did the assasination? The name John Wilks Booth springs to mind.

Twiztid
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Jun 24 2004 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
TwiztidSamurai the Malevolent wrote:
Actually, weren't there a few famous assasins that were found with this book on their person when they did the assasination? The name John Wilks Booth springs to mind.

John Wilkes Booth, died 1865, read a book written in 1951?



Actually, the myth is that if you like the book, you're a serial killer, since a few were known to like it. But seeing as how it was polled by readers as the 19th best novel of the 20th century, I'm sure there are quite a few normal people out there who like it too.
#6 Jun 24 2004 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Waht do people think is so good about this book?

It's a boring pointless story about a boring pointless person. I can see maybe it makes people feel better about themselves or somthing... but all in all it was a waste of time.. except to say that I read it.


^^side note: my B-day is the same as Lee-Harvey Oswalds ^^

Edited, Thu Jun 24 13:55:55 2004 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#7 Jun 24 2004 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Let me say again, you didn't get it.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Jun 24 2004 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
I liked Franny and Zoe better.

Eb

Finnegan's Wake is also a better book than Ulysses, stupid Random House board!
#9 Jun 24 2004 at 1:05 PM Rating: Decent
Kelvyquayo the Furtive wrote:
Waht do people think is so good about this book?

It's a boring pointless story about a boring pointless person.


Can't that be said about most books they make you read in high school?
#10 Jun 24 2004 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

/shrug

If you didn't like it, you didn't like it.


It also seems to me like a book that would appeal to young people more. I read it for the first time at age 20, and was glad I did so while I could still identify with the main character.
#11 Jun 24 2004 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
I read it a couple months back, still stewing over what i think about it, i wanna read it again before i pass any judgement.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#12 Jun 24 2004 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
312 posts
I read it in seventh grade.. I guess I didn't get it either because it seemed pointless as hell to me too.

Then again, I don't really remember much about it.. the only thing I recall is the main guy b[b][/b]itching about some other guy clipping his nails in his dorm room.
#13 Jun 24 2004 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I was forced to read "Lord of the Flies" in high school.. I loved it so much I read the entire novel the first night and didn't even make it to school the next day.

otherwise I'd go with the hating wahtever I'm forced to read.

I read "Catcher" wehn I was about 20. It seemed like somthing a Goth would like. MAybe too mundane for me. Guess I went in reading it... thinking that somthing would actually happen. Very Anti-climactic to me.

The whole time I was waiting for him to whip out a gun and murder everyone... or at least himself.. nothing.

I understand that people probably like it because it's "well written" and it's a "classic". But I don't buy into that. I could recognize that it was written well. It was just the content that got me. A few years ago I decided to stop thinking things were cool just because they're old and "classic".

It's like my movie fanatic best friend. He'll go see a movie that he has ZERO interest in... yet like it because of the great camera angles and direction.
ME: "but it's about a fu[b][/b]cking SPELLING BEE!!.. why do you give a ****!!?"
HIM: "It was well made, with a promising diector"
ME: "SPELLING BEE!! are you gay?!"
HIM: "OTST"


I got it(i'm pretty sure).. I still didn't like it as an entertaining book though. and please don't say i didn't "get it" just because I didn't like it.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Jun 24 2004 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Ok. Maybe you got it and just didn't like it. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily a bad book. All of those things, being well written, well thought out and the like, are things that many books are lacking these days. Don't dismiss those things as trivial, but I agree that they aren't the core of what makes a book "good".

Regardless, I liked it, and I'd probably read it again if I could find my copy.

Twiztid
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#15 Jun 24 2004 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,980 posts
Quote:
Actually, the myth is that if you like the book, you're a serial killer, since a few were known to like it.


Close Tricky, but not quite. Many serial killers have been found to have multiple copies of the novel in their possesion. It is not a matter of enjoying the novel, it is a matter of enjoying it enough to buy 15 copies of it.
#16 Jun 24 2004 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
I got it. It did suck ***.

I had to write a paper on it way back when. Rather then do what every other ******* out there does and basically rewrite the Cliff notes for it, I wrote a scathing indictment of it. I remember getting an A+ on the paper, and remember that my professor did not entirely agree with my points, but found them interesting and valid.

I don't know if others have the same problem, but I find it difficult to really enjoy a book if I don't like the main character. And I tend not to like whiney rich kids with few problems and lots of complaints.
#17 Jun 24 2004 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
And I tend not to like whiney rich kids with few problems and lots of complaints.

He didn't have monetary problems, but he had mental problems, or at the very least some sort of social disorder. He had his favorite little brother die, too.


I didn't see him as whiny, but rather disaffected.




Edited, Thu Jun 24 17:13:02 2004 by trickybeck
#18 Jun 24 2004 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I didn't see him as whiny, but rather disaffected.


I suppose the difference between those 2 is Empathy.

Eb
#19 Jun 24 2004 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,980 posts
Quote:
I suppose the difference between those 2 is Empathy.


And the key to a good story is to evoke empathy for the main character. I see The Catcher in the Rye as a hit-or-miss. Its a great story if you can empathize with the main character, but if you cant you are left wondering how so many people can justify the story as a great piece of American literature.
#20 Jun 24 2004 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
i have empathy for the poor *******, I just didn't find it entertaining or enlightening.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#21 Jun 24 2004 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,980 posts
I found it tediously redundant and unrelatable to our time, but I can see how older generations would enjoy it.

Perhaps you should check out the novel "The Perks of Being a Wallflower". It follows the same plot lines but it is easier for younger generations to relate to.
#22 Jun 25 2004 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
*
63 posts
Just looking on the list of 100 best books of the twentieth century that was posted here. Is anyone else a little freaked out the 7 of the top 10 books voted by the readers (who are not professionals and I assume are supposed to represent normal folks, though I doubt it) were books by either Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard? Eh? I have a hard time dealing with the fact that this shows that supposedly normal people consider these two writers to be far and away the two best of the twentieth century. And there are exactly ZERO Rand and Hubbard books in the top 100 voted by the Modern Library Board. I don't want to delve into what this means, but it just kinda freaks me out.
#23 Jun 25 2004 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I don't want to delve into what this means, but it just kinda freaks me out.


It means the orginistations that represent Scientology and Objectivism voted more than the orginizations that represent Joyce.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Jun 25 2004 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
It means the orginistations that represent Scientology and Objectivism voted more than the orginizations that represent Joyce.


Probably too drunk to vote! The curse of the Celt. ;)

Eb
#25 Jun 25 2004 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
I was glad to see Brave New World so high on both lists, as it is one of the best books that I read in high school. 1984 was also very good, and along the same lines.

But Starwrangler is right, some of the books on the list (or not on the list) picked by the "Lay man" made me wince.

Twiztid
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#26 Jun 25 2004 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
I gotta say that I really liked Soltan Gris in Mission Earth.

Great series.

Eb
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 123 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (123)