Jump to content

Talk:The Catcher in the Rye/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Question About Summary

The summary is exactly the same as the sparknotes one. Isn't that plagiarism?

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.78.164 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Catcher Reference

Okay, at the end of the article, the title "catcher" is linked with baseball. Sorry to insult whoever wrote this, but what the hell? Did you bother to read the book? The "catcher" refers to a wish that Holden expressed to prevent children playing in rye fields from falling off of a cliff, which demonstrates that Holden admires the innocence in children, and wants to protect them (same reason why he wiped off the "F--- you" in the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.212.201 (talk) 23:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these sentenes due to the fact that they are just plain wrong. The "catcher" in the book has nothing to do with baseball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.149.78 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My copy says that it was published in 1945

Does anybody know why it would say this if the book was first published in 1951?

  • Because JD Salinger had actually published parts of the book as short stories in the New Yorker before the actual book was published. --Jerry 10, January 2007 (UTC)
  • The book was published in serial form in the USA in 1945-46, but not published in book form until 1951. According to my copy of the book, published by Penguin Books. -- Empex 6, May 2007
  • So what's up with the mentioned old version that supposedly on the last page says ""Sometimes. I think it's better to just leave." It's mentioned on this Wiki but not referenced. A quick Google search finds no further information on this. I think someone made this up.

I was thinking of updating the synopsis, and that's when I discovered that nearly every other noun was linked to another wikipedia article. For example, when it says "Holden went ice skating," does it really need to be linked to Wikipedia's ice skating article? Same thing goes with the words: train, zoo, women, childhood, et cetera. I think all these linked articles take away from the main focus. For example, say someone wanted to know about the plot, do you think they'd want to be sucked into an article about the zoo or ice skating? Anyone else agree with me on this? Regardless, I'm getting rid of these useless links.

Psychiatrist?

"He is in a mental hospital in California near Hollywood and is explaining to a psychiatrist about what had happened after he left Pencey". Is this accurate? I interpreted it as Holden talking to the reader. Not a psychiatrist. Crimson Shadow 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt he would be telling all these things to a psychiatrist. I also interpreted it as being to the reader. --V2Blast 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the sentence. It now reads "He narrates the book from a mental hospital in California near Hollywood, where he is explaining to the reader what had happened after he left Pencey."

Is that true though? I don't remember anything in the book to support that... IMHO that statement is just too concretely certain of something that can only be called a subjective interpretation. Does anyone have more information on this?

The mental hospital part is true and the psychiatrist part is not, as can be seen from this sentence in the last chapter: "A lot of people, especially this one psychoanalyst guy they have here, keeps asking me if I'm going to apply myself when I get back to school next September."--Ohnodoctor 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be possible that Holden writes his whole story down, as Mr Antolini recommends him to help other young people, who have similar issues like him?Oncecreative 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective It's not really clear either way, you may just want to put "narrating the book" to make it simpler. --RuediiX 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than one referance to a psychoanalyst in the final chapter there is no referance to Holden being in a mental institution. Read the first chapter and the impression is that he's recovering from tubercolosis: At the beginning of the first chapter the text reads: “I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around Christmass just before I got pretty run down and had to comeout here and take it easy.”, then later in the same chapter: "I'm quite a heavy smoker, for one thing - that is, I used to be. They made me cut it out... That's also how I practically got t.b. and came out here for all these goddam checkups and stuff” --82.12.148.217 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Holden is portrayed as a pedophile

In this book Holden has a strange fascination with young children.Trd89 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What strange fascination? Holden has a fear of the adult world, in his opinion being full of phonies and fake people. He sees children as innocent and free. I can't really see anything pedophile in his character. --Soetermans 08:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Holden absolutely does not have a fascination with young children. He likes small children because they are uncorrupted by society and not "phonies". To even think Holden is a pedophile shows a deep misunderstanding of the novel and the society we live in today. --Sunjay Dhama 08:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an unfortunate view of the modern world. People are convinced the most likely pedophiles are strangers that hang around children, when it's actually more likely to be family members. This prejudice is largely due to a newer example of the same phoniness the book talks about. Parents are always quick to blame a stranger, but will cover up something that is a member of the family or a friend. --RuediiX 02:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason Holden always hangs around kids is that he is trying to protect them and preserve their innocence, he's also trying to get back some of the childhood he lost due to the trauma he experienced after Allie's death. -- minerva's-kid. 8.03, 30 April 2007

I dont know where the current obsession came from--this idea that a man who loves children has got to be a sex obsessive up to no good. Holden never, but never, exhibits any sexual interest in kids. He loves kids, but any fool should be able to see that's not the same thing. Tom129.93.17.135 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Taking God's Name in Vain"

The "Sarcasm" section stated that the men unloading the Christmas tree took God's name in vain. Contrary to popular belief, taking God's name in vain does NOT mean swearing. For more info on this see http://www.amen.org.uk/studies/rhj/3rdcomm.htm. I changed it to simply "swearing." Also, the "Style" section in general is sparse. More detail should be added, or the section should be taken out all together.

u can do it though

Swearing oaths to God is not the same thing as taking his name in vain. They're separate, but related things; simply calling it swearing is not adequate. --Kraftlos 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the common term is "profanity" which is a larger class including all forms of "foul language" excluding most forms of "foul humor" --RuediiX 02:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cover

Regarding the current Catcher in the Rye cover (white face with colored stripes in upper left hand corner). This cover I have seen since my high school days back in the 60s and my son is now reading it with the same cover. Does anyone know anything about this cover?

I'm a high school student now too and we had to buy the version you are talking about. It's preferred by schools because it is more compact. I was sorta mad, because the version that I had gotten for Christmas a couple years ago (I love the book) was the hardback orange version, and the school wouldn't let me use it. Peaceman 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Actually, J.D. Salinger doesn't want the cover to give away anything about the book, and wanted readers to actually read the book. When he let his son have control over the printing of the book for a short period of time he had one other version (the orange one you are talking about). Salinger changed this, and it is now white with the stripes again. You can thank my LIterature teacher for that.

I'd actually prefer it without the stripes. Maybe just a white cover with embossed lettering. Yeah. It worked for The BEATLES. --Matharvest 10:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, on that note, do you want to change the opening image to the white cover? --10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have both covers. I certainly think it's worth mentioning that Salinger prefers the white cover. Does the article mention that now? I remember learning that when I read Catcher for school. Theshibboleth 23:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There has only been one cover that actually had a picture on the cover, and that was the first one. Salinger then went to the courts to ensure that no publishers would be able to publish his book with a picture on the cover. -- Minerva's-kid. 8.08, 30 April 2007

For high school, I also bought the white book with the colored stripes. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the order of the colors has any importance or back-story behind it? It looks a bit like the "colors of the rainbow", but not exactly. Moogleluvr (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Movie reference

{{spoiler}} what? no reference the mel gibson movie conspiracy theory?

for anyone who wants to really mention it: Mel Gibson stars in Conspiracy Theory (1997) as a NY cab driver who comes up with random conspiracy theories. One of his suspicions is that CitR is a brainwashing book or something that forces people to be assassins, since both John Hinckley, Jr. (Reagan's would-be assassin) and Mark David Chapman (Lennon's assassin) both had purchased the book/were carrying it/whatever. In the movie, this theory is right, and Gibson's character is persecuted for realizing the truth. Stating that the CitR theory is the correct one would be a major spoiler for the movie, so I'm not sure how best to approach this. --Geoffrey 01:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, this is wrong. The book has nothing to do with brainwashing in the film, the fact that he collects it is just an extension of his obsessive personality - at least I've never seen any information otherwise.

The way I recall it, Gibson repeatedly buys Catcher because he was brainwashed to. Purchases of Catcher are reported automatically so the government heavies can track such people. This suggests (within the universe of the film) that Chapman and Hinckley were tools of the same government agency. --Tysto 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I think a reference to the movie needs to be made in the article. And maybe a References in popular media section? There are a lot of movies that have small references to the catcher in the rye, the reason i bought the book was because i saw it referenced so often. I guess it might be one of the most referenced books of all time ?. One recent reference that ive seen was in the movie Pleasantville_(film), and also i think i might have seen it in the manga 20th_Century_Boys, but im not to sure about that Captain duck 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the Taxi Driver ever directly reference Catcher or do they just have similar themes? I remember thinkinh of the book while watching the film. Theshibboleth 20:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There should be a movie of the book - which would be kinda ironic seeing as Holden hates movies, but there should be one all the same. Who agrees? 19 Febuary 2006

I disagree - most of the interesting parts of the book come from Holden's thoughts, which could not be expressed in the movie without long and awkward sequences of a voice actor speaking Holden's thoughts.

The books cover is actually plain white, with the stripes i was told because it leaves you not knowing. It also has no summery on the back or on a page in the book. Nor does it have anyhting about the author. J.D Purposly did this because he wanted it to seem innocent, plain and white like Holden wishes the world was like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.5 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't work

Critical Analysis

This article is an oversimplification on this work and is of no kind of NPoV. It spends significant length detailing some of the incidents and refferences to this work without mentioning or alluding to its significance.

For example, it is listed as number two under Radcliffe Publishing Best Novels of the 20th Century.

The analysis in this article is misleading as well.

Someone should clean it up.

May the wind be always at your back, -Empyrealmortal

It is working as of now (11:08, IST)

It is very difficult to make NPoV on such an article. The book in question is about general timeless philosophies about human nature, and means different things to different people. The parts about independent thought and such are particularly strong to many people, but people can't agree on what independent thought means, and to agree on it would be an oxymoron.
However, an honest effort to maintain as much neutrality as possible would be nice to see across Wikipedia. --RuediiX 02:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Antolini

About Mr. Antolini...it says Holden fears his homosexual advances, but I do believe Holden misreads Mr. Antolini's nuturing, fatherly advances as homosexual. Even in the book Holden states (I can find out where if you like) that he is always afraid of turning into a homosexual...I think it is when he is in the bar...and he talks about homosexuals a bit. I think it is pretty widely accepted that Mr. Antolini's advances were not homosexual - a bit strange perhaps - but misread by Holden.

Also, should mention be made that Holden is relating his tale from some sort of psychiatric hospital - this is evident from the first and last chapter - it adds an interesting aspect to the book.

Also, should the theme section be lengthed and more comprehensive? --Nadsat 23:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

There was something strange about Mr. Antolini actions but I don’t remember Holden saying anything which would suggest he was gay. Though he suggests he was sexually abused because after the event with Mr. Antolini he rants about perverts being everywhere and having it happen to him 20 or so times before (he gives an approximation rather then definite number). Before he starts to doubt wether it was Mr Antolini or his own tendency to over evaluate the sexual nature of people’s actions. like people who can’t help but be suspicious of men with young children, as if there radar picked up everything as hyper-sexual because they suffered sexual abuse. I think that’s a definite theme within catcher in the rye. But I agree the themes should be expanded. --Monty Cantsin 03:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But what about the chapter with Carl Luce? According to him, some "flits" "were even married". Carl himself used to go around "goosing" everyone. Could Mr. Antolini's marriage be one of convenience? His wife is described as older and wealthy.

The reader is not actually supposed to know whether Mr. Antolini was making homosexual advances or not. It is not "widely accepted" that Mr. Antolini is heterosexual. Some people think he IS a homosexual pedophile. Others think of your conclusion, Nadsat. Some people just think that Mr. Antolini was incredibly drunk from the several Highballs that he had drank just a couple hours earlier and didn't know what he was doing. These theories all can effectively explain Antolini's behavior, and there is several more out there.

The reader is just as confused about the situation as Holden is. There never is a conclusive answer as to what Mr. Antolini's intentions really were. Absolutely far from "widely accepted".

--S.M. 04:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One small clarification: Antolini may or may not have been homosexual or bisexual, but if he were a "pedophile", Holden, at 16, would've been way too old for his taste. St. Jimmy 17:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That depends entirely on what Mr. Antolini's "tastes" were. 16 is still young enough to be considered "under age" and there are people that make good money at finding child-like adults and posing them as children to remain just this side of legal. Without a description of Mr. Antolini's tastes or even a consensus regarding his intention it is really quite impossible to determine what label to apply.Padillah 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When reading this scene it is important to keep in mind Mr. Antolini’s observation of Holden, and more importantly the quote he shares with him. “The mark of an immature man…………” Emotionally immature and deeply depressed people often show signs of being confused, angry, and untrusting. It is easy to see how a young man of Holden’s age and mental state could have easily confused a genuine act of kindness and concern as something with devious intent.

-1opinion

I believe that Holden A) Misread the 'advances', and B) we are shown that Mr. Antolini is not only an old english teacher but a family friend, Holden's father and Mr.Antolini seem to meet quite often...I think he may have considered Holden as a sort of nephew-like figure and was only caressing him in a loving and respectful way. I also think that the alcohol could have done harm as well yes.

Does anyone else agree with this theory?

--Hal (Guest) Sun Oct 16 2005 11:34 PM

My English teacher does. And further, she suggested that Holden himself might not be entirely secure in his sexual orientation; that perhaps he has latent homosexual desires that he tries to repress. Thus Holden sees Antolini's behavior as a sexual advance because he in fact might be sexually interested in Antolini, but this weirds him out so he leaves. This may also be why he calls someone flitty (sorry for the obscurity, I haven't read the book for a while). His statement that his roomate (again the name escapes me) isn't that bad looking might be seen as revealing homosexual desire. My teacher also stated that because homosexuality was seen as a mental illness at that time, a young man at a mental institution might be seen as homosexual by others. Theshibboleth 21:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to discuss the meaning or value of the work except in the context of what material should go into the article. --Tysto 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To whom is this addressed? Me? Any discussion of the meaning or the value of the work is in the context of improving the article, whether or not it is explicitly stated. That's how peer review works. You introduce a concept and see if it holds weight. If it does not, then it shouldn't be included. If it does then it should be.

Antolini is a molestor - stroking your ex pupils head in the middle of the night is not the result of simply being drunk

Ah, but is he? He merely stroked the boys head. Holden is clearly going through a depression, and the book hints of the possibility that he is insane. Antolini is clearly a man wants to help Holden, and as stated, he's quite drunk. Maybe it was a fatherly gesture? On that note, it is very vague. But you cannot simply dismiss him immediatly as a 'molestor'. 24.218.131.28 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the scene with Mr. Antolini doesn't reveal the teacher's character, but reflects more on Holden's cynical, judging world view. He believes Antolini to be a sick, perverted homosexual, but in reality he is trying to be kind and is more than a little bit drunk. Holden, however, immeadiately jumps to the worst conclusion possible. This reinforces Holden's personality, one that criticizes those who judge and only care about themselves, but is actually one of phonies he hates. Caesar 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Holden does fear Mr. Antonlini. That is why he leaves his house in such a hurry. --Sunjay Dhama 08:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say he may very well have been a homosexual, but he didn't necessarily want to try anything funny. I may be misreading him, but he did call Holden “handsome” and explained that he was merely “admiring” (though he was cut short, so he didn't say what exactly he was admiring) when asked what he was doing. If he was homosexual, then that was merely the alcohol messing with him and a far call from anything remotely resembling molestation (after all, he didn't do anything else — and patting someone's head is not exactly a sexual assault, even if it may be considered creepy given the circumstances). I wouldn't be too sure Holden was actually repulsed by it nor that he considered it a sexual assault, as he clearly stated that he may very well have overreacted. I second the assumption that Holden may be insecure about his sexuality and quite possibly homosexual himself, but this is all wide open to interpretation as he never says anything conclusive — such is the dilemma with an unreliable narrator. Unless anyone can find some published interpretations, though, all this babbling here is rather pointless, though. — 91.0.118.12 00:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the book there are many instances taht point towards Holden's possible homosexuality, even his stereotypical obsession with cleanliness. You must also keep in mind that Holden was also still a bit drunk, and that the problem arose from there. I don't about other people, but i do weird things when i'm drunk, patting someone's head might simply be because through my alcohol ridden eyes, i think they're a dog. People are just jumping to conclusions, Mr. Antaloni appears to be a very responsible teacher, while Holden is prone to exxagerations, assumptions and lies. Minerva's-kid. 8.17, 30 April 2007

It's Holden's neurotic fear of homosexuality that causes him to jump to the conclusion that Antolini's behavior is (to use Holden's term) "flitty." He has a common American problem: he's aftraid of male bonding, afraid of men expressing their affection for each other. Tom129.93.17.135 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Sorry, but Holden Caulfield is so totally gay. Obviously. 89.152.243.10 (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 89.152.243.10 (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 02:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)89.152.243.10 (talk)

antisocial

The word antisocial is often misused to refer to someone with social anxiety.


how is he antisocial?? - Omegatron July 4, 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Yeah, he's always talking to people and stuff, but he's very critical of people's behaviors. He's always calling people "phonies" and such, which to me counts as antisocial behavior. Peaceman 6 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

"antisocial" means that you have no empathy for the suffering of others and disregard the consequences of your actions. - Omegatron July 6, 2005 21:03 (UTC)
okay, well judging from the fact that Holden calls everyone phonies while in fact he too is one, I'd say he's lacking a little empathy (or he's conceited). Also, he doesn't care about flunking out of a lot of schools, and is not worried about his future. Therefore, I still think that he's antisocial. Peaceman 6 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

The themes section sounds highly editorialized to me.

I agree - there is altogether too much of the author's analysis of the book.

I think it needs to be taken into account that the author himself was highly anti-social. He fled to Vermont to live in a fenced in compound, completly alone. One idea I have heard, from an English professor, is that the book is somewhat of an auto-biography. That Salinder is living the dream of Holden, to be away from all the 'phonies'. 24.218.131.28 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this argument of Holden being or not being antisocial be included in the article? Many see the theme of social alienation in the novel. Shouldn't that be noted as well?

Holden's tendency to push people away can be seen as a defence mechanism, after Allie died, he's had trouble leeting people become close enough to him that he'll hurt if they leave. Throughout the novel he keeps reaching out to people but then puching them away if they come too close. Minerva's-kid. 8.20, 30 April 2007

Yes Antisocial is often misused in many ways. People that are socially nervous, people who do not blindly follow society and even people who rebel within social guidelines are often called antisocial, when they clearly are not.

Antisocial is the attitude of having no intention nor motive to regard the impact on society of your actions. Or so is the shortest explanation that I can come up with. I would not regard Holden as such. Holden could be considered a hypocrite, and probably realizes this himself.

Additionally, you can't really rule someone as antisocial when they aren't in an otherwise right state of mind. They are just antisocial behavior, which could be a symptom of their state of mind, and they are not actually antisocial themselves. This could be noted as another common phoney behavior of people is saying "he is . . ." instead of "he is acting . . ." --RuediiX 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime reference

Not sure if this is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, but the Anime "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex", which is a tv series that was created after the original movie (but I'm not enough of a fan to tell you how it relates to the manga). It's main plot involves a skillfull hacker who identifies himself with the Catcher in the Rye. The hackers psuedonym is "The laughing man", and he hides his identity behind a laughing face with words inscribed around it: "What I thought I'd do is pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes". Additionally, he hides himself in a mental hospital (as a deaf mute no less), and his only give away is that his favorite possession is a catcher's mitt. --Gryn 04:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning. --63.25.20.15 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone starts a "references in pop culture" section, it should be included. I don't know if one should be added because of the sheer number of reference. 66.167.148.135 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See Cultural references to the novel The Catcher in the Rye. –Pomte 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing up Wikipedia style

The Plot Synposis and a couple of character descriptions need Wikified. The plot synposis about halfway through veers straight off of the road, and a few character descriptions could use fixin ('Lillian Simmons....she has very big knockers') MardukZero 09:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Tysto 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark David Chapman/John Lennon

The article currently states, "Mark David Chapman, murderer of musician John Lennon, was carrying the book when he was arrested immediately after the murder and referred to it in his statement to police shortly thereafter, but oddly John Lennon was reading the book when killed." However, the cited link says nothing about Lennon reading The Catcher in the Rye, just Chapman. Can anyone verify that Lennon was reading the book at the time of his death? --Metropolitan90 07:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I believe the character named "George Andover" in this article was just a person named "George" who went to Andover college in the book. If this can be confirmed, please change it. --a nonmember of wikipedia, 7 november 2005

I'm confused. This article currently states that Mark Chapman only started reading the book after he'd killed Lennon. But it also carries a reference section link to a fairly silly Crime Library site ("Mark Chapman had met Holden Caulfield. Or was it the other way around?") that shows or purports to show Chapman's testimony to the effect that he'd bought a copy that morning and carried it while he was committing the crime. But the "Murder of Lennon" section of the Mark Chapman wikipedia article (which has no citations) just says he was carrying his copy of Double Fantasy. Rose H.

From what I know, Chapman had already read TCitR and took it to NY with him. He got Lenon's signature on it, and later in the day shot him. After this, Chapman merely sat down and began reading TCitR, with no attempt to run. Afterwards, he informed the jury that his testimony could be found in the book. (Potentially saying that he believed Lenon to be a "phony"). That's what I've heard, at least. Serge (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Brain washing?

The main article mentions suspicions that Catcher in the Rye was use for mind control purposes by the FBI. This seems very odd, considering the book is controversial possibly to the point of being subversive and certainly to the point of getting banned. Does anyone know anything about this? Johnsmy 82.1.229.53 12:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

-gemminten- I removed the FBI and CIA brainwashing junk because it was not NPOV and not cited. I also removed the James Dean movie poster as this book has nothing to do with the movie he starred in

If that goes anywhere, it goes in social references page. However, the book banning is more likely due to the attitude of independent thought the book takes, which has gotten many books banned. Sure, they claim it is due to profanity and other stuff, but that is hardly so. The talk of "phonies" and saying how society doesn't realize it's own faults is a rather bad socio-political image to be painting of free nations, as saying that even when we have free speech we use social pressure to eliminate it does bring up a very negative point about human nature. Of course, this is my opinion, you will want to find a better reference if you want to add this note, as I'm not exactly a college professor or anything.

B.S.

Up in "Wrong info/missing info", someone wrote "Also, should mention be made that Holden is relating his tale from some sort of psychiatric hospital - this is evident from the first and last chapter - it adds an interesting aspect to the book." Back in my last year of highschool English, we spent a lengthy discussion looking at whether Holden is telling the truth at the psych ward or simply bullshitting to whomever's listening. I think this is worth mentioning, but I'm not sure if anyone else has come across this argument, or where it would fit in the article. --Matharvest 10:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that in the last chapter he discusses that he's been "here" for a while since that incident, so would probably allude to him being at a psychiatric ward. However, as I stated in the first section of this talk, I think he's just talking to the reader. --V2Blast 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Title?

Maybe add the reason why the novel is called "Catchder in the rye?" I just read it and it's apparently about a wrongly quoted line of a poem and Holden thinking about what he wants to do in his life, saving children? (131.130.121.106 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Done. --Tysto 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's symbolic, he spends his life trying to protect innocence, Jane Gallagher and his sister Phoebe, are prime examples. He wants to catch the innocence before it falls over the proverbial cliff to adulthood. Minerva's-kid. 8.23, 30 April 2007

conspiracy is pretzel logic

i think the conspiracy stuff is only conspiracy and not real. I love the book, because I can really relate to Holden. Everything that he feels is what I feel for the most part, we have the same problems and everything. A lot of people out there are the same way. However, from what I've noticed, it seems anyone who can't relate to the book dislikes it greatly. There doesnt seem to be much in between, in general people seem to fully relate and love it (like me) or just not get it, and hate it. The social groups of the people generally reflect this, such as the "popular" kids (who seem to have trouble relating) and the "outcasts" or even just regular kids. In general, socio and psychopaths are outcasts, plain and simple. Almost all the people you read about who do horrible things have some sort of antisocial background or highly traumatizing experience. It doesnt defend what they did, but it definantly is a factor. For example, John Lennon's killer (like Charles Manson or JFK's killer) was probably just, simply put, a loser. They see someone who has everything they dont and they look at thier own lives which are pathetic in comparison and they probably already have some sort of mental disorder. This combined is not good at all. However, this doesnt mean all "unpopular" people are psychopaths and this book is great for anyone who can relate to it (which is a lot of the population). It lets those of us out there who dont have a cookie-cutter American apple-pie life realize we arent alone. But this doesnt mean we're all crazy, in fact we're the ignored majority. Very few people have the type of life everyone wants to emulate, but if it werent for things like this book, a lot of people would feel very depressed, lost, and failed. --insertwackynamehere 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that goes without saying. The only brainwashing that really could have been done to help influence Lennon's murder was putting him way to far into the spotlight.
I would also like to note that if the FBI has a file on the book, it's more in their list of books and what type of people like reading them, which is generally used in criminal profiling when trying to track down a person who they already have a psychological outline of but don't have a name and face. They can use such info to narrow the search drastically.
It doesn't surprise me that both John Lennon and his murderer had read the same book, nor that the FBI took note of this. They were both individual thinkers, and people who looked at things critically. Sometimes these behaviors alone can drive people insane in this world that hates such behavior. Such people often become insane because they realize the world around them is in denial of it's own problems, one of the major subjects covered in the book in question.
It does not surprise me that such notes were in John Lennon's files, or that they could be confused, as the copies found of the files are said to be quite "blacked out" with huge segments censored. Politics were not exactly "stable" at the time, and this has to be taken into account. --RuediiX 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Effort to clean up Characters section

I made an effort to clean up the "Characters" section. It still needs considerable work, though. Some of the character descriptions really need overhaul, but I can't do that right now. Since it was a mess, I divided it up into three sections: Protagonist, Holden's Siblings, and Major Supporting Characters. Admittedly what separates a major supporting character from a minor character is something of a judgment call. The standard I used was this: if an entire chapter was (more or less) dedicated to Holden's interaction with them, then they're a major character. Hence the inclusion of borderline cases such as Faith Cavendish and Mrs. Morrow.

I originally had four sections, including a "Minor Characters" section, but I think the page would be better served if we just forgot the Minor Characters altogether. Really, Mr. Haas, for instance, is mentioned in one paragraph in the whole novel. What good does it to do include him on the page, whether you've read the book or not? If anyone really disputes this and wishes to restore it, here's the list of Minor Characters I deleted:

  • George Andover. George Andover is a close friend of Sally Hayes. Sally and George accidentally meet at a theater, while Holden is on a date with Sally. Holden becomes increasingly bitter towards George while George and Sally have conversations during the intermissions.
  • Ernie. Ernie is a Black virtuoso pianist at a bar in New York. Holden believes that Ernie is a phony because he puts too many frills into his playing and accepts all the fulsome praise that he receives with false humility.
  • Horwitz. Horwitz is a cab driver that picks up Holden. They have a conversation about where ducks go in winter (a predominant symbol in the novel).
  • Lillian Simmons. Lillian Simmons is an old friend of D.B. Caulfield, whom Holden runs into at a bar that the three of them used to frequent. Holden regards her as a phony, too.
  • Arthur Childs. Holden recalls a conversation with Arthur Childs, whom he knew at Whooton. The two shared an interest in tennis, and converse about the sport. Eventually Arthur changes the subject, asking where the nearest Catholic Church is located--in an attempt, according to Holden, to ascertain whether or not Holden is Catholic. Holden says it made their conversation much worse.
  • James Castle. Holden remembers James Castle, a boy who jumped out a window while Holden is attending Whooton. Holden is taking a shower when he hears Castle fall. Holden assumes that it was a desk or a radio, but heads downstairs and finds Castle's bloody corpse on the pavement as well as observers gathered around it. Mr. Antolini is the only person at the whole scene who comes near Castle's body. Antolini checks Castle's pulse, then puts his coat over Castle, and carries the corpse to the infirmary.
  • Phil Stabile. Phil Stabile is responsible for James Castle's suicide. James Castle had called Stabile "conceited" in a conversation with someone else, and Stabile eventually heard about it. Stabile gathered a gang of his friends to confront Castle. When they break into his room, Castle refuses to take back his comment, even as they torture and humiliate him. He ends up jumping out of the dorm room window. Stabile and their friends are expelled for the death, but Holden wonders why they didn't have to go to jail.
  • Mal Brossard. Mal is an acquaintance of Holden's. Holden and Ackley go to see a movie with Mal on Holden's last night at Pencey.
  • Mr. Haas. Mr. Haas is headmaster at Elkton Hills. Holden remembers him as a big phony, because he would not talk to parents who were "funny-looking" at open houses.
  • Selma Thurmer. Selma Thurmer is the daughter of Dr. Thurmer, the headmaster of Pencey Prep. She goes to Pencey's football games often. Holden fondly remembers having a conversation with her on a bus from Agerstown. Even though she was a bit homely, she didn't seem phony; she didn't pretend her father was a big-shot, according to Holden.

StarryEyes 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Removed Faith and Mrs. Morrow from the Major supporting characters section. I don't believe that they played much of a role in the story, certainly not major. --V2Blast 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I removed the reference that Carl might be homosexual, I didn't notice anything of the sort in the novel (except maybe that he's unwilling to talk about sex, but I'd be uncomfortable talking to another guy about sex, too). And, on a different note, I think the only major character in the novel is Holden himself, but there are other characters, so they have to be included. --V2Blast 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I really have an objection to James Castle Being removed from the minor characters. He was VERY important in the characterization of Mr. Antolini and the connection of him to Holden through him wearing Holden's shirt when he jumped out the window.68.100.245.52 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

I think a lot of songs/movies/tv shows refer to this book. Do you think the only relevant cultural reference is the American Idiot album by Green Day because of their similar plots?

Removing all indirect references, allusions, similarities. This section was kind of bloated. Ronabop 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sugestion at the top - Billie Joe Armstrong says that the book is his best book, and a song on the Green Day album 'kerplunk' is called "who wrote Holden Caulfield?" in American Idiot the story of the book fits - running away, teenage angst, having trouble with women etc.

I decided to be bold and cut about 2/3 of the references, following some simple guidelines: (a) mentions in major, major media - exceedingly popular songs; (b) cultural references where the book actually serves a plot purpose or is discussed. I trimmed (a) non-notable bands, (b) passing references to the book (i.e. an episode of "Family Guy" where you have to read the credits at the end to get a kind of abstract joke that tangentially involves the book was cut, original research on Kevin Smith's character names in Chasing Amy was cut, references to song lyrics that mention Catcher in the Rye in passing were cut. I can almost guarantee this will all be reverted by an Offspring fan or something, but I tried. --MattShepherd 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
And again. I can see this will be a hobby of mine. For some reason, as soon as somebody notices that their favourite band says "Holden" or "Salinger" in a song, they feel strangely obliged to add it to this already-rather-large-list...--MattShepherd 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am doing a report on The Catcher in the Rye for school and was rather shocked that some of the major music refrences were deleted from the list. In my opinion, if the list has grown too large it should split off onto an article of its own and not be thined out. I restored some of the refrences that I have used in my report and added another that I feel is siginficant. If the list is too long then a separate article is probably best, it would allow there to be groups of movie, TV, and song refrences. --jjhat1 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with jjhat here. TCitR is not only a major piece of literature, but it tends to create an unusually strong connection with the average reader. Maybe we should have a section in the article mentioning the few major references and a link to a separate page with all known connections. This would perhaps help to show the scale on which this book is influential, as well as satisfying all those Offspring fans. Serge (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of Conflict

Any dispute over The Catcher in the Rye has to do about low class society and falling in society by the reported vices in the book (most societies practice public virtue and private vice, and many readers take it personal as if they actually witnessed it making vice public to the mind while falling in society), and any protagonist reported is not expected to have a good future. The interesting thing about society is most society has two parts and that is upper and lower class with the upper class controlling politics, and often the upper class do not want their children exposed to reality with the twist that book is set in New York City that has a lot of reality and hard stories: the high handed attitude people have with status is amazing when dealing with people considered low class where, by example, low class teenagers who play pranks have a good chance to go to prison while high class teenagers who play pranks are simply excused as being boys who are growing up. People do not always like to hear about misery, and in this 21st century it is ridiculous to point out old nefarious attitude to control print, because now you have Oprah, Jerry Springer, Dr. Phil, Rap Music, and decades of daytime soap operas that have wallowed in misery and bringing shame to the public attention as entertainment for the rest of us. Daytime soap opera got away with wickedness, because they portray wealthy people problems, so they are not low class and are considered healthy enough to deal with their wickedness and entertain everyone else. The New York City based television series Sex in the City that is about four women exploring sexual issues, and gets away with it, because the women are wealthy, so they are exercising choice without the label whores. The book The Catcher in the Rye is about low class society, and people want it censored as a result, because low class society is actively being put down and kept down. The modern Internet and all of the reported reality has changed perception for United States society, so it may become a classic.

By what standard is Holden Caulfield a member of "low class society" (in economic terms)? Keep in mind that he attended a private boarding school. --Metropolitan90 08:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lot's of the conflict comes from the fact that on face value, Holden is the worst kind of protaganist, (violent, hypocritical etc.) but if you look deeper you can see that he has some positive points (how he continues to try and help other people, how he accepts people, even if he critizises them in his mind, remember, actions speak louder than words). But most people can only see the bad to Holden, and thus he gains a bad name, because as Holden says 'eople always think somethings ALL true' Minerva's-kid. 8.29, 30 April 2007

Remove Tag?

It seems that this entry has been significantly improved since the rewrite tag was added. Any thoughts on removing it? Ionesco 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Character List

I noticed that the character list from a long time ago was just deleted for no reason in the middle of the history. I am going to put it back for now but it probably should be removed again if there was a real reason for its removal --jjhat1 21:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the external links are dubious. --Fasten 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Carl Luce's College

Carl Luce went to Princeton in the book, not Columbia University.


This is incorrect, at least in the version of the book that I have. It is clearly stated by Holden that Carl Luce graduated from the Whooton school afer he left and went to Columbia at the time of their meeting. I don't believe Princeton is mentioned anywhere in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.178.4 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I change some incorrect info

There was a part where the article says it was implied Holden had sex with Jane. This is false because Holden has only kissed her after an emotional outburst from her caused by her step father. Holden admits in his narration that he is a virgin, and that he would like to practice on the prostitute. Yami 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He also didn't kiss Jane on the lips, it was more of a comforting platonic thing.

Nice division of cultural references...

Thanks to whoever did it! I think the section is manageable in size, but I just gave the songs section a haircut... I don't think MENTIONING the words "Catcher in the Rye" is a "notable cultural reference." Just as some f'rinstances -- naming characters in Chasing Amy is notable (I'm still not convinced it's not original reasearch, but that would be a devil of a coincidence). "Some guy in the background of this movie is reading the book" is not notable. The Green Day song mentioned is obviously a long Catcher-themed ode, but saying somebody said "Holden Caulfield" in a throwaway line of a song isn't. I'm not trying to be a pissant, but there's a significant difference between Catcher INFLUENCING a cultural work and Catcher BEING MENTIONED IN PASSING in a cultural work. I'd like to stick to the former and avoid the latter, lest the article balloon to ridiculous size. --MattShepherd 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that they are starting to clutter the article, and I don't think they are of particular use to the article. Shouldn't we be a bit more selctive weith what is included here? 195.93.21.40 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in "Motifs" and "Style"

These two sections are filled with unsourced POV proclamations about what themes various symbols in the book represent, and how they are to be interpreted. This is an encyclopedia article, not a high school English essay. I don't know enough about published criticism of The Catcher in the Rye to fix it myself, and some of the text there may be useful, so I'm not taking it out yet, in the hopes that the original authors or someone else knowledgable about the subject will improve it. Kwertii 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What about school students who use wikipedia? Maybe this sort of stuff would be better in wikibooks. 195.93.21.40 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Phoebus Apollo

"The Greek God of the sun, Apollo, was also known as Phoebus Apollo. Thus, a clear connection arises between Holden's sister, Phoebe, and Maurice's prostitute, Sunny."

That... seems like a stretch to me. Can anyone source it? --Szabo 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a random vandal agrees with me. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Szabo 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pratfalls of an Unreliable Narrator

The posthimself as he does on those around him. That is an important distinction to make. Holden may or may not be aware that he is as huge a jerk as he makes his roommates seem (after all, he's the one that starts the fight with Stradlater, he's the one that doesn't pick up on Ackley's hints to leave after complaining that Ackley does the same), but he certainly doesn't dwell on them or go into any sort of painful self-criticism. No matter how much we find ourselves sympathizing with Hodlen's struggles we cannot easily divorce him from these hypocritical faults. Holden is not a clean and easy character to affiliate with. I think that's where the book has its power: while we cheer Holden's cynical struggle against the phonies and the bullies, the posers and the jerks, we are complicit in his own posing, his own bullying. To embrace his rebelliousness we must also embrace the ideals and subjective reality. It is, then, a revelatory moment when the reader realizes that Holden isn't just being "misunderstood" but, instead, is also "misunderstanding" the world around him ("she was right, though [...] though I didn't know it then" after all [173]). When we figure out that Holden isn’t necessarily a trustworthy narrator (nor a particularly attractive one), we are forced to question the trustworthiness of his ideals and the valor of his rebellion and, subsequently, our own attraction to it. Circumstantially, Holden doesn't care. But we do. And, for better or worse, it drives us wild. That's the tension.

All that to say that Holden isn't necessarily interested in self-criticism. He may be self-aware and very self conscious, but, even as (or maybe "especially because he's") an unreliable narrator, the text shows us that he doesn't really care about such blatantly apparent hypocrisies. However, to bring up the untrustworthy narrator opens up a whole other set of issues that there isn't quite space here to interact with...

...yet that reminds me to note that the opening paragraph of the "Motifs" section seems a tad unnecessary. All of the motifs discussed are well received in the academic world; nothing is really outlandish enough to warrant a disclaimer. But what really piqued my interest was that the introduction suggests that the lack of knowable authorial intent directly lead to the polyphony of possible interpretations, which is untrue. Authorial intent, though a valuable insight into possible meanings of the text is merely another interpretation: no more privileged than the next and must be balanced by the text itself and may or may not eradicate other possible interpretations supported by the text.

Uhhh, no. "Authorial intent" is definitive concerning what the author intended. 66.167.148.135 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Serialization

Auggiebjorn left this note on the article page where it was deleted. I'm moving it here in case anyone has further information. -- MarkBuckles 03:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF EDITING THIS PAGE, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS ENTRY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE WAS NOT SERIALIZED. THE BOOKS ADDITION IS THE FIRST EDITION. I AM AN ANTIQUARIAN BOOK DEALER, AND SALINGER'S RECOGNIZED OFFICIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY STATES NO SERIALIZATION OF THIS BOOK.
well, you are in charge of editing this page as much as anyone... -- frymaster 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
okay, went looking for a citation and can find nothing other than this article that makes a serialization claim. i've removed it. -- frymaster 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

bold deletes

there has been a move by EnglishDiva to delete the following from this article:

  1. supporting characters
  2. cultural references
  3. trivia
  4. memorable quotes

this is pretty dramatic and reduces the size of the article by almost half, so i have reverted it pending some input from the editors here. personally, i'm inclined to think it's a good idea. the article is getting long and stuff like cultural references and trivia, while interesting, should be kept to a minimum or eliminated to avoid cruftiness. -- frymaster 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the list of characters should be increased to included almost every chracter even if they only get a line. If you look at the article for Catch 22 whoever wrote the page made it clear exectaly who everyone in the novel was.However, the cultural references just clutter the article and I can't imagine that they are of any use to people searching for Catcher in the Rye in wikipedia. I wouldn't mind seeing them all deleted really.

Quotes maybe move into wikiqutoes?

Keep the trivia as I imagine that most people know the book as the one which John Lennon's assassin mentions. 195.93.21.40 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The culturual references is good for people doing critical essays and the like, which is people come to such things as this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
okay, i can get behind keeping the characters... but i just went a reread a lot of the cultural references stuff and, maybe it's just that i'm out of touch with the mainstream world or something, but they mostly seem remarkably superficial and tangential -- for instance, the jay and silent bob / kevin smith one seems farfetched. also, some of the trivia seems super trivial... winnona ryder's favourite book and all. now, having said all that, i also think that the lennon assasination angle and the banning/challenging angle are under represneted. i'm willing to work on expanding that, but i still think trivia and cultural references should be trimmed down. -- frymaster 23:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been arguing this for ages, but people just keep adding the same crap in. Somebody (probably User:195 below) added a "cultural references" article to accumulate this chaff, so hopefully that'll help keep the article clear. --MattShepherd 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we give the cultural refereneces their own article which would both trim the article and allow people to list as many references as they like? 195.93.21.40 12:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Black? Jewish?

Is Holden black? 24.253.92.226 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember any reference to Holden's ethnicity in Catcher in the Rye.

I have always thought he was Jewish, myself. If you reread it, he may very well have been Jewish. But Black?

Holden is not black or Jewish, although J.D. Salinger is half-Jewish. Holden is white and Christian.

Holden is white and is half Jewish actually. Or it can be assumed he is have Jewish. There is one part of the book where I'm pretty sure he mentions being half and half, and I think it can be assumed from the setting and author that by half and half he means Jewish and Christian --insertwackynamehere 19:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I personaly think he is a bit of a mix. there are part where he says he doesn't aggre with alot of the stuff the bible says. i'm pretty sure that he said he didn't even care about religion that much.

I just finished reading the book, I'm pretty sure he's not black or jewish. I don't know why you guys would even think he's black. Where are you getting that from?

Holden is at least half Christian, as he does mention how he likes Jesus but hates the disciples, however I don't think any refernce to his race is made, therefore we should probably not assume he's white or black or asian or hispanic or ... Oh, and everyone, even if you don't have an account, please sign your name with four tildes(~) Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 06:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Holden isn't Jewish nor Black. He says he was raised as a Christian, but he doesn't really believe in it. He says his father used to be a Catholic, but his mother was from another church. He mentions it after he has the talk with the two nuns and how they don't ask him if he's a Catholic. Then he goes on about some guy at the Whooton school who asked him if he knew where the chapel was. Also, he mentions that his lastname, Caulfield, is Irish and that some people automatically assume someone is a Catholic because of their name and that he can't stand it and so forth. --Soetermans 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone has an irish last name doesn't mean they're not black ... haha, see stereotypes (joking) Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How can there be any question that Holden is white? In the late 40s/early 50s, had Holden been black, it would have been a vastly different novel! --63.25.235.140 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not neccesarily, just because a book may be about an african american kid in the 40s or 50s doesn't mean that it has to deal with racismDaniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, to answer the original question - Holden was (according to Soetermans) either Christian or athiest, depending on how you look at it, and there is no reference made to his race.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Holden is a white atheist (he refers to himself as atheist while trying to sleep in his hotel room, though I'd say he's not actually atheist, but merely doesn't identify with any major religion (plus, true atheism was pretty stigmatised in the US around that time) — he talks about wanting to pray, after all). His father is Irish and used to be Catholic. Whether his mother is Jewish, I don't know. His ethnic background doesn't really matter as it doesn't seem to affect the storyline much (otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion about his ethnicity). What's with you damn yanks being so racist (in the non-supremacist sense) all the time anyway? He's not Jewish himself, so who cares whether any of his relatives are? His semitism or lack thereof, nor his skin colour, don't seem to cause any distinct reactions by his surroundings, so why bother? — 91.0.89.54 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd most taught book in highschool

2nd most taught book in highschool -what is the source to this claim? (I am interested in which is the first most book)

I think its the lord of the flies but thats a guess

Couldn't find anything that approved that claim. Think it should be removed. Oncecreative 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Which high school is it referring to? I doubt Walt Disney High School (a real high school) teaches this book, or any other non-Disney work. Same with Ronald Reagan High School. Erudecorp ? * 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

orbit

Why is the word "orbit" chosen here? Hackwrench 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Holden being a smoker?

"Because he smokes, is overly critical, and because of the fact that he points out faults of people only to exhibit them later, Holden is widely considered to be an unreliable narrator, the details and events of his story are apt to be distorted by his point of view."

What has that got to do with anything? Can it be removed please? (I'm new to this, tell me if it's ok and I'd go ahead and remove it!). Thewilk 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Smoking means you're unreliable because you're addicted and thus not fully under control of your habits. Or at least that's what it means according to some post-post-modern interpretations. Way into the '90s it simply used to mean you're tough (the bigger the smoke, the tougher the bloke).
Half-kidding. The mention of his smoking habbits is rather random. — 91.0.118.12 00:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Holden's a smoker beacuse he needs to smoke when his 'nerves are shot'. There are references to Holden's breakdown and institutionalisation in the novel, and smoking is a way in which he can lower the stress. Minerva's-kid. 8.35, 30 April 2007

First/Second Person?

From what point of view is The Catcher in the Rye written? In the article, it explicitly states first person - and I have to disagree. Holden makes liberal use of the word "you"... indicating to me that it should be second person, not first.

First person. He says "I went" etc, second person is more the thing of roleplaying fantasy books where YOU make decisions.

To be specific: The “you” is where he addresses the reader. It's a first person narrator because he's telling the story from his perspective rather than from an observer's perspective (which would be third person). Second person is almost entirely limited to “Choose Your Own Adventure” type books and text adventures. — 91.0.118.12 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not so. There are plenty of novels and short stories that use the second person to gain distance from the novel. This definately isn't second person, but it isn't limited to those mediums. 69.202.18.38 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)K

Cheers on "cultural references" page

The cruft was getting ridiculous on this page. Deleted the "Trivia" relating to cultural references, as, well, it's got its own page now, so anyone who heard their favourite band mention the word "Holden" once in an interview can go blather on about it there. Hooray! --MattShepherd 20:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel??

I have never read anywhere but here that Simon & Garfunkel wanted to call themselves "The Catchers in the Rye" and I've read a fair amount about them. I have added a "verification" tag to the main article. This sounds like an urban legend to me.


Once I met Paul Simon in africa and asked him about this thought and he refused! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashayeri (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Running away?

What's all this business about running away? As far as I remember it, he just gets kicked out and then wants to wait out the time until xmas vacation starts to delay telling his parents that he was booted. Does anyone else remember anything about him "deciding to run away?" Either way... this article is in need of some serious attention/cleanup. I'll get around to it as soon as I have some extra time. --Bri 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The article's correct; he was told not to come back after Christmas break, but a night or two before their last day before break, he packed up his things in the middle of the night and ran away. Tflynn17 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus, he wants to run away from New York entirely. He was practically kicked out at the point he ran away from the boarding school, though. I don't think he intended to attend any more classes or anything before he decided to run away, anyway. — 91.0.118.12 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He wants to run away to a place where he can pretend to be a mute and not talk to anyone, then he asks Sally Hayes to run away with him. Minerva's-kid. 8.37, 30 April 2007

He wants to be "the catcher in the rye", to look after the children who are playing and to catch them when they wander too far and are in danger of falling off a cliff. He wants to protect children. Actually, he almost wants to protect them from the terrible experience of growing up. Sort of a Peter Pan kind of impulse. Tom129.93.17.135 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted the page to its previous state before someone vandalised it - when I came on this page, someone had replaced the article with unintelligible gibberish and had removed everything important in the article. --Insolectual 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had to revert vandalism here, too - see The Catcher in the Rye history. This article may need a motion for protection if those who neither agree with nor understand the novel continue to voice their frustrations on the article page rather than in the talk section. Orethrius 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship v. Challenge

While the ALA lists Catcher in the Rye as a frequently "challenged book," such challenges "attempt" to remove a book from curricululm or a library. The challenges are not in themselves censorship, nor do they necessarily constitute attempted censorship, as a challenge may simply be a formal demand by a parent to remove a book from a curriculum. At least, the language should be "Despite these challenges,..." Even so, it is highly speculative and unsubstantiated to assert the sporadic challenges have had any impact on the distribution and popularity of the novel.

Characters - Sally seems to be plagiarized from SparkNotes

The part of the page dedicated to Sally is identical to the last 2/3 of the first paragraph on the page http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catcher/section6.rhtml except for a brief sentence tacked on to the front of the passage by a comma.

Will someone please look into this? It wouldn't be surprising if more of this page was copied from SparkNotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.176.78 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There's a "cultural references" page for a reason.

Just removed a bunch of pop-culture cruft to keep the page tidy. Please put cultural stuff on the "cutural references" page, and genuine trivia in the "trivia" section. Thanks. --MattShepherd 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Misc. unsigned comments (section created March 30, 2007)

the prostitute's name is not sunny. SHE calls Holden "sunny" once and once only in chapter 13, and at the start of the next chapter (14) he has apparently appropriated the appellation in an ironic way (as she wasn't so "sunny" at all) so there.

A caul is a kind of skin over a baby's head, leaving the womb. It is a symbol of innocent, i believe. Also, Holden's red cap is his Caul.

Does this sound right, it was in an analysis of the book in a class held at my university?

If so, should it be included?

"Sunny - The prostitute Holden hires through Maurice. She is one of a number of women in the book with whom Holden clumsily attempts to connect." (sparknotes)

Reference to the meaning of the word Caul

Looking through the net for various scottish dictionaries, and trying to verify that Caul does indeed mean Rye in scottish has come up with finding that Caul either means a weir or damm or a cold.

Also I think that the membrane thing should be added into the article as it is a correct way to analyse it.

Zeerak.w 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

hey theres vandalism on the major themes section but the offending sentences don't show up on the edit screen? Ive never edited on wikipedia so I dont know how to fix it. Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.29.128 (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

God I hated this fucking book.

Thankyou for that foul language. Ironic isn't it, because that foul language is also vandalism. I don't think your negative views need to be broadcasted. This isn't a forum, dude. 91.109.64.58 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated an important quote.

I put the "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." quote back into the text.

It's possibly one of the most poignant quotes in the entire book, besides being a key quote as it is heavily referenced in the anime series "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex". If someone wants to remove a quote, remove one that is less important and renowned for heaven's sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TorchTitan (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. That particular quote does not say anything whatsoever about Holden's fears and dreams. And so what is referenced in GitS:SAC? That doesn't add anything to the article. --Soetermans 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Where does language, such as -- "although the question of whether Antolini is homosexual, drunk, a caring man, or a combination of the three is never answered."" -- come from? It isn't in the book. In addition, the subject of pedophilia needs to be permantly stricken from this encyclopedia article. This is not a thesis. It is suppose to be an encyclopedic article about the book. And yes, in consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup I deleted the trivia section. The trivia section has been nothing but a safe harbor for useless facts and information including the pedophelia theme, which is nothing short of vandalism. Thank you. Bluestripe 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • the information on how many "goddam" is in the book is pretty important since it can affect the reader on how serious this piece of literature is. Compared to most, the reader might want to take in the fact that Holden compulsively describes everything as "goddam" and everyone as "bastard." If you never read this book before and you came here to read about it, then this might give you a first good impression on what kind of book it is. But maybe the pedophilia was crossing the line.
    • It is unfair to leave a comment without a signature. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup I removed the trivia section. Nevertheless, if the use of specific words is thought to provide insight into the book, its narrator, or the perspective of the narrator, then it needs to be worked seamlessly into the content of the encyclopedia article. And, it needs to be done with a neutral point-of-view (NPOV). Thank you. Bluestripe 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry I don't know how to do signature. My name's Jerry if that helps, I did most of the editing for the plot summary, and added in that big chunk that was missing right between when Holden goes to New York and when he gets a hooker. Anyway can you tell me how the plot is not neutral so I can fix it?
        • "Jerry", you add your signature by simply typing 4 tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your statement. If you are logged in it will add your user sig, if not it will add some identiying numbers at least. Padillah 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

significant and memorable quotes

I'm sorry but please cut down on the quotes. Some of these I simply do not agree would belong on there, especially the first sentence of the book. Some of these are not stand-alone and need to be changed into something where someone who has never read the book can read the quotation and go "oh that makes sense." The first sentence in chapter one, while it does seem to summarize the main point of the chapter, is way too generic and recognizable. Some others don't even make sense. But the point is there are too many quotes here so please use a little discretion. Jerrykim 13:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Jerry

Made a few changes

Hope no one minds. I think I had to change Ackley from "outcast" to "loner" because the book never really states Ackley as someone who is ridiculed by society, but rather Ackley seems to choose out of his own will to be antisocial. Jerrykim 13:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Jerry

Removed NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag, because there is no active discussion here about the "neutrality" of the story. Also, I made a clean up of this talk page as it was filled with useless discussions and POV matters. --Soetermans 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove other users' talk page comments if they do not violate any policy, regardless of whether you think they are useless or not. There being no active discussion here does not mean the article has a neutral point of view, and the dispute could very well continue from the discussions that you deleted. –Pomte 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. No longer shall I delete or change comments on talk pages. Still, about the NPOV tag in the article itself could be misleading, as there is no active discussion going on. Users may pay little attention or even skip the plot, because someone disagrees with the apparent sexuality of Mr. Antolini. --Soetermans 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle Class Background?

Holden is quite wealthy. He is constantly being sent between posh boarding schools and never worries about money or his belongings. His social status and the relationship between social classes is a theme running throughout the book. 203.171.82.170 06:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)K.W.

Style: Stream of Consciousness?

As I understand it, Salinger's Catcher in the Rye is not stream-of-consciousness writing precisely because Holden Caulfield narrates and speaks directly to a second person (the "you" throughout the novel, whether we interpret it as a therapist or more generally as just the reader). Regardless of how random and scattered his speech is, Holden is still speaking aloud and not merely thinking or feeling. At any rate, it is clear that Holden is in a mental-health facility and speaking directly to a listener ("If you really want to hear about it...", "I'm not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything... I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy", "A lot of people, especially this one psychoanalyst guy they have here", etc.). Hearing the narrator speak aloud is, by definition I believe, not stream of consciousness. A few definitions may help (all emphases are mine):

Compact OED (askoxford.com): a literary style which records as a continuous flow the thoughts and reactions in the mind of a character.
Columbia Encyclopedia 6th Ed. (bartleby.com): in literature, technique that records the multifarious thoughts and feelings of a character without regard to logical argument or narrative sequence. The writer attempts by the stream of consciousness to reflect all the forces, external and internal, influencing the psychology of a character at a single moment.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language 4th Ed. (bartleby.com): A literary technique that presents the thoughts and feelings of a character as they occur.
New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy 3d Ed. (bartleby.com): A kind of writing that presents the thoughts of a person or character as they occur. Stream-of-consciousness writing uses devices such as characters speaking to themselves, free association, and lists of words.

I would suggest removing the section on style or replacing it with a paragraph on the novel's actual style of first-person narrative. 149.217.72.1 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"english-speaking"

The addition of "English-speaking countries, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia." is a bit too redundant and even stating that it's taught in many English speaking countries is redundant as well. Just say that it's still part of the majority of literature curriculum in many high schools worldwide (as I'm sure that it's not just "English speaking" countries that take a look at this great novel.)

Khabibulan 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)N. Khabibulan

Unless you find a source stating it's taught outside of English speaking countries, it's best not to assume so for the sake of keeping a well-cited article 24.96.242.143

The spoiler tag

The spoiler tag was removed as "unnecessary and intrusive". I put the tag back in saying that it's necessary and every other wikipedia article about a book or movie has it. I was reverted. Let's open it up for discussion. There are many details in the character description and synopsis that would spoil points for the reader. I therefore say a {{tld|spoiler}} tag should be there. Comments?--Loodog 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Many articles have had their spoiler tags removed for this reason recently, though there has been no consensus yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning and Template talk:Spoiler. –Pomte 02:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a wikipedia "policy" that is still under debate, wouldn't it be more prudent to leave the spoiler in until a consensus has been reached otherwise?--Loodog 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's seductive, but there's no reason to keep something in an article for mere bureaucratic reasons, where it obviously serves no useful purpose. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether it serves a useful purpose is the very idea under debate. I think it's very useful. You and I could have the very same debate here on this discussion page, but it'd be entirely redundant. Again, I propose sticking with old convention until it's been changed everywhere.--Loodog 04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please put it back and we'll wait a while. David Gerard is up to about 2,000 articles with spoiler tags removed, and very few complaints on his talk page yet. Lots of people expressing their happiness with the edits. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Loodog 05:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

beatniks

Did this work influence what the Beat gerneration would come to preach? The general dissatisfaction with manistream society and all... it seems too similar to go unmentioned.

-samaraphile Small Text

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Catcher_in_the_Rye/Archive_1&oldid=1137229739"