We had to read The Catcher in the Rye for school. It’s a novel, though just barely. At first, I was surprised by the informal way the narrator, Holden Caulfield, speaks through the pages. I didn’t really enjoy the way the book was written, even though its considered a “classic” by many. It wasn’t a real book, if there is such a thing. A “Real” book is one with a plot. A story. Some substance. The Catcher in the Rye was nothing but Caulfield’s musings. His thoughts about everything he did, everything he saw, and everything that ever happened to him while he was in New York. I thought that there would be some progression…that we might find out what happens when he gets home and experiences the wrath of his parents when they discovered that he’d been kicked out of yet another school, but no. Nothing ever happened! It was very frustrating.
I'd like to know what you thought about the book...what's your definition of a "real book"? Does The Catcher in the Rye fit into that description??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed your honesty in this blog.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoyed your honesty in this blog, Danielle. Have you considered that one of Salinger's goals for this work may have been to question the boundaries of the novel, as a form? I don't know that I have a definition of a real book, other than that it is something published in a written form. (Even the physical form of a book is challenged by electronic methods of publication.) I think a larger question that you seem to pose is one of genre. Is this a novel? Is it a fictive memoir? (Does it contain aspects of Salinger's own life interspersed with the fiction protagonist, Holden Caulfield?) Is it something completely different?
ReplyDelete