The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
There's an article on the BBC website at the moment about The Catcher in the Rye, and that's what's sparked this entire reading idea of mine. It's a really famous book, one that a lot of people talk about, and one that I've never read. So, today, I read it. Just a few thoughts (there's enough reviews and essays on this subject already!)
So, the Catcher in the Rye. Don't know what I was expecting from this book, but it was certainly nothing like I thought. It's been a classic for a while now, yet it reads very much like a modern book. I can definitely see why it was banned so much, and even more see why it's a standard set text these days. It's massively open to interpretation, could be said to have simultaneously no plot, and a huge plot, and somehow feels unfinished. It's almost as if Salinger got bored of the story - though I presume it's the whole point, and if I were studying this at school, I'd be writing reams on that point.
Holden Caulfield, the main character, is one of the most irritating leads in any book I've ever read. Again, I think that's meant to be the point. But I've got to say, I really hate it when authors put obscure symbolism in the names of their characters - it reeks of intellectual snobbery, and I really don't like that. Either give characters normal names, or make the symbolism overt, that's what I've always thought (eg, Remus Lupin, as an example of a well-done symbolic name). Anyway, I found it very hard to feel any sympathy towards him, which made it difficult for me to get into the story. The language also annoyed me, even though I know that, once again, it's the whole point, the repetitive language and reliance on a small number of stock phrases isn't really my thing.
Just so you don't think my impressions are all negative, although the language and structure irritated me, it was very good at evoking images. I could definitely imagine the people and locations, but it never felt like physical descriptions were being rammed down my throat, which was good. I also enjoyed the portrayal of the little sister at the end of the book - she felt very much like a real person (which was sometimes missing from some of the other characters.
I'm glad I can now say that I've read it, but don't think it's one I'll be rushing to re-read. Out of 10, I'd probably give it a 5.
On with the next book! I'm moving to the top of the list now, and have just started Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Another book I should probably have read, but haven't.
So, the Catcher in the Rye. Don't know what I was expecting from this book, but it was certainly nothing like I thought. It's been a classic for a while now, yet it reads very much like a modern book. I can definitely see why it was banned so much, and even more see why it's a standard set text these days. It's massively open to interpretation, could be said to have simultaneously no plot, and a huge plot, and somehow feels unfinished. It's almost as if Salinger got bored of the story - though I presume it's the whole point, and if I were studying this at school, I'd be writing reams on that point.
Holden Caulfield, the main character, is one of the most irritating leads in any book I've ever read. Again, I think that's meant to be the point. But I've got to say, I really hate it when authors put obscure symbolism in the names of their characters - it reeks of intellectual snobbery, and I really don't like that. Either give characters normal names, or make the symbolism overt, that's what I've always thought (eg, Remus Lupin, as an example of a well-done symbolic name). Anyway, I found it very hard to feel any sympathy towards him, which made it difficult for me to get into the story. The language also annoyed me, even though I know that, once again, it's the whole point, the repetitive language and reliance on a small number of stock phrases isn't really my thing.
Just so you don't think my impressions are all negative, although the language and structure irritated me, it was very good at evoking images. I could definitely imagine the people and locations, but it never felt like physical descriptions were being rammed down my throat, which was good. I also enjoyed the portrayal of the little sister at the end of the book - she felt very much like a real person (which was sometimes missing from some of the other characters.
I'm glad I can now say that I've read it, but don't think it's one I'll be rushing to re-read. Out of 10, I'd probably give it a 5.
On with the next book! I'm moving to the top of the list now, and have just started Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Another book I should probably have read, but haven't.