Rating: 
Summary: The first book I ever loved!
Review: I had to read this book when I was a freshman in h.s....I was like 14 and the last thing I wanted to do was read.....but almost 8 years later I still totally love this book....I read it in less than 2 days so it's an easy read....I recommend it to everyone!
Rating: 
Summary: Beating my head with a rock would have been more fun
Review: I had to read this for english. I'm a cynical 16 year. If any thing this shows your the complete illogic in cynicism. This is the only book that ever frustrated me to the point of throwing it across my room. If you like a pointless story about some hipocrit who does nothing but complain then read it. If you prefer something atleast mildly entertaining that isnt page upon page of literary B*TCHING then go read a real book.
Rating: 
Summary: 2 stars for entertainment value, none for actual substance
Review: I had to write a book report for school on this book, so that follows, but lemme first say something. Books are a form of entertainment, just as TV and movies are. There have been a lot of movies that were very entertaining, yet extremely stupid. Most books, however, tend to be more focused on story and plot than on entertainment. However, anything without sufficient plot to go along with it's entertainment value, whether it be movies or books, is gonna suck. This book fits into that category. Forget the critics who blow smoke and say The Catcher in the Rye is wonderful just because they dont wanna feel stupid or be the black sheep who says it's awful, in a crowd of folks saying it's terrific - American Beauty movie critics were the same way - this book has little substance, and is just a lot of fluff. American Beauty was entertaining and "different" and new and uncliched - but really, it was about stupid people doing stupid things. The author tried to pass it off as something "deep" and that we should be in awe of, but it wasnt and it stunk, much like this book. Here's my high-school book review:"If you really want to hear about it...what my lousy childhood was like...and all that David Copperfield kind of crap...I don't feel like getting into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me." J.D. Salinger sets the tone of this story right from the get-go. Salinger captures the life of a 1940's teenager, using brutal irreverence and raw emotions in an attempt to bring a sense of realism to an otherwise worthless story. I must admit, Salinger almost pulls it off. The story, essentially, is about three days in the life of a teenager who habitually screws up and get kicks kicked out of private school. I'm sorry if I'm not not enthusiastic, but (at the beginning) the storyline sounded lame and boring. But that's what is so odd about The Catcher in the Rye. It actually IS interesting. Holden Caulfield, our afore mentioned subject, is a jerk. He's self-centered, smart-mouthed, and completely dreadful to read about. But for some reason, I found myself liking him and almost rooting for him. He comes from a middle classed, joe-average family. He's confused, frustrated, and seemingly annoyed by every little thing in life. He hates "phonies" and he hates people who play mind games. He finds both the arrogant and the painfully insecure to be irritating. He mouths off to people he should respect, and he hurts people who don't let him have his way. Sadly, I can relate to him. I found myself thinking a lot of the same things Caulfield did. I even found myself nodding in agreement when he ranted about certain topics. I could even relate to Caulfield putting his foot in his mouth when he was with Sally. I think we're all a bit like Holden Caulfield in one way or another. I believe that simple fact is why this book has gotten such high acclaim. Caulfield is an average person with many faults and failures. He's not the super-strong hero or the smooth talking ulra-suave gentleman we see in the movies and read about in other books. There's no sappy romances or thrilling action scenes. There's not even an "underdog surprises everyone and saves the day" ending, either. Bottom line, there are relatively few cliches in this book, which is awesome and great, but still not enough to cover the fact that Salinger has no story here. Salinger provides us with a nice change of pace, but little else. Although this story was entertaining and very interesting, I was still unsatisfied. For starters, the amount of four-letter words used throughout this story annoyed me. It just seems so uncharacteristic for a person in the 1940s to be using that kind of language that often. And the idea of a sixteen year old getting a hooker also is a bit odd. But I think the thing that most annoyed me about The Catcher in the Rye is that it lacked any real substance. Overall, a story about a day in the life of an ungrateful, snot nosed teenager just does not cut it. I need more than that. Sure I can relate to Holden Caulfield as Salinger intends...but the question that BEGS to be answered is this: why should I care? Why should I care or root for someone who aspires to be a rebelling loser all his life?
Rating:
Summary: you can't read it enough
Review: I hadn't read Catcher since high school until I read it again the summer before teaching it to my 9th grade honors English class. I remember loving it as a kid, but as an adult, it blew me away. As a kid, I picked up the humor, but I don't think I picked up the poignancy -- I found myself crying in many scenes: at the museum with Phoebe, when Holden dances with Phoebe while hiding in his parents' apartment, when he finds out his teacher is a pervert -- what seemed funny then is emotionally gut renching now. Suddenly it seems more obvious why Holden is depressed and how he perceives his world. He refuses to see the world through rose colored glasses; rather, he sees right down to every last fault and phony utterance. I can't believe how much better this book got over the years. If you have never read it or haven't read it recently, you owe it to yourself. I love books about schools, and this is probably the best (A Separate Peace is quite good too). For those who love New York, there is a lot of local flavor here too. If you want to know what it feels like to feel alienated as a teenager, this book is a must. Not that it's all depressing: you'll laugh out loud at some of the early scenes dealing with his roommates at prep school.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant in it's simplicity
Review: I hate poetry because it doesn't get to the point like communication should. When I was assigned this book at school I spent time looking for some hidden meaning. I came to the conclusion that salinger was almost retarded when compared to vonnegut or C.S. lewis's complicated writings. After thinking about the book during the summer, I realized that this book wasn't trying to prove anything (even Salinger says that himself) it was just a simple book about life. I knew what Salinger wanted and why he wrote it that way.
Rating:
Summary: like this phoney reviewing system means anything..
Review: I hate this kind of thing, I really do. I mean, trying to review this thing when 1249 other people who are smarter than me are phoney and arrogant enough to write some corny review, like it means anything anyway. and all these people identifying with Holden. It kills me. It really does. I mean, who cares? They flash this book title up and tell you there is going to be a catcher...but there isn't a baseball mitt in sight, just some corny story about some illiterate kid with problems. and so what? Don't you hate when someone writes a novel that is timeless, that strikes a chord in the world still in fifty years. it's so corny you could cry, you really could. I think I"m going to give a copy of it to my sister, because you'd like her. and you'll like this book, you really will. even though this review will make no sense if you haven't read the book, you'll probably say it was useful to you. That's the kind of phoney you are
Rating:
Summary: A classic (and I love it), but why?
Review: I hated J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" when I had to read it in high school. I thought main character Holden Caulfield could have been killed off in the first chapter, and it would have made for a better story. The book takes place over a weekend in the life of Holden, a perennial dropout in virtually anything he does. He gets kicked out of the latest in a string of colleges in the beginning, so he heads home, for New York City. Once in the Big Apple, Holden looks up old girlfriends, visits a prostitute (and winds up haggling over the price), is reunited with his beloved sister Phoebe and does a host of other stuff one typically does over a weekend or when one has been thrown out of college and doesn't want one's parents to know. The entire story is told from Holden's point of view, and in a stream of consciousness that bounces from one subject to another at random. The character ruminates on where the ducks in Central Park go in the winter, his roommate's clipping of toenails and sex. He also has developed the incredibly annoying habit of saying something, then reiterating it as if his audience does not believe him. He really does, I swear to God. After a while, classic or not, defining character trait or not, you want to smack him. You really do. But that was really the only left-over hostility I felt for what many consider to be the Great American Novel. Maybe it's because Holden is now a fellow college student, and I can commiserate with him when people drop into his room unannounced or are obnoxious. Maybe it's because I have grown into a very random thought pattern myself, so I no longer find the subject jumps to be quite so annoying. It could be because young Master Caulfield is a cynic, and I am an individual who celebrates cynicism and sarcasm, as these are characteristics which seem to be even more the rage today than they were in the '50s. Or could it be because there's still such a fervor over "Catcher," even though it was originally published in 1951. And while we're at it, exactly WHY is there such a fervor over the book? Is it because Salinger, after completion and publication, slipped away from the American public and became a recluse, writing (or so we think) in the comfort of his own home behind a great wall of silence? Would we still like the story if J.D. Salinger were the century's Stephen King, pumping out novel after novel after novel, and "The Catcher in the Rye" was just the book between "Franny and Zooey" and "Hapworth 16, 1924"? Would we still applaud if Holden Caulfield were the adolescent cynic created by a one-time author named Milton Nosepicker? Or does the story transcend its author, his seclusion or the fervor around it? The answer is up to you. I'm stumped.
Rating:
Summary: Annoying book then, annoying book now
Review: I hated this book in high school and I hate it now. The author uses the words "anyhow" and "old" and "to tell you the truth" so many times on a page that it makes my head throb. Reading the book is like reading one continuous run-on sentence.
Rating: 
Summary: An Okay Pot Boiler
Review: I have always been amused when some one claims that CATCHER IN THE RYE "changed my life!" It's rather like hearing some one state that PEYTON PLACE saved their soul and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS restored their eyesight, for CATCHER IN THE RYE is essentially a pot-boiler, albeit one expertly done. Generally speaking, CATCHER is the saga of a teenage wannabe who is filled with typical angst at the thought of fast approaching responsibility. During the course of the novel he copes with the necessity of maturity much like waves on the beach, rushing forward toward it and then running away from it, repeating the cycle over and over again. Portions of the novel strike me as a bit uneven, but not so much so that one would consider it uneven in a broad sense. The characters are well drawn, and the episodic story reasonably entertaining. It is most likely to appeal to teenagers, young adults, and mature adults capable of laughing at their own past teenage hysteria. Well done for what it is, and you'll probably enjoy it, but hardly in the same class with the great novels of 20th century American literature.
Rating:
Summary: This Is The Best Book Ever!!
Review: I have always hated books all my life. I think they're pretty boring and takes too long to read. But then, I have to read Catcher in the Rye for my English class and I end up liking this book. I would say this book is the best book I've ever read. The main character, Holden Caulfield, is so realistic and that we all somehowl could associate with him. I would definitely recomend this book to anyone.
|
