Talk:The Catcher in the Rye/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dead Links

At least two of the citations (the ones that link to the ALA's "most challenged" lists) are dead links. Needs fixed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.223.146 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

allusions section is poor

someone fix it?

The whole article is badly written, save for the plot outline. This thing needs some serious work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.192.122 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to comment. I just want to ask a question. The collector in John Fowles' novel of the same title heartily disliked the novel. Was this ever commented on?Kw1d1t1 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)kw1d1t1

'In Other Works' section

This section has lots of things that are tenuous, at best. Also, what does "Featured prominently as an unconcious 'tracker' in the Mel Gibson movie, Conspiracy Theory" mean? Unconscious is spelled wrong, which I'm going to correct now, but... What is an unconscious 'tracker'? There are a number of entries like this in the "In Other Works" section that need to be cited, linked when jargon is used, or removed completely. Kurt S Koller (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs the symbols in the book

like the: Red cap- Holden's escape from the outside world

Phonies-The Adults or people who conform to join society. i know what you are talking about boy that is so annoying

Baseball mitt- his love for littature

Ducks - Holden thinks that in the winter the ducks are frozen in the lake he wonders where they go. the ducks can escape society but when they come back they have not changed

Museum - every thing in it never changes it stays in glass. But when you go inside you change.

“Little Shirley Beans” record - it symbolizes that he wants pheobe not to change and that pheobe is like that broken record still going threw childhood

Movies- they are phony and the people in the movies act and aren't people

Unmade phone calls - hi

Erasing profane graffiti - joining society and seeing the realities of the world around him

Mummies - a peaceful place and mummies are never changing.

Carousel - the never change child hood and to grow up you must reach for the circle and you learn from falling but you have to just get up and try again

As though the author was writing an elaborate code that could be deciphered and definitively reduced to such trite concepts.Lestrade (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Possible copyright infringement for "Plot summary" section

Due to large sections of matching text with http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catcher/summary.html, I have removed the current version of the plot summary and replaced it with the most recent untainted version as edited by 82.27.227.103 (Talk) at 17:27, September 28, 2007. The copyright infringement was made by 71.198.213.19 (Talk) at 20:16, September 29, 2007. Other sections have been left unchanged.

Larry (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The summary is awfully skeletal and lacking. 208.81.91.135 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor, please add new comments to the bottom of the page. Yes, the summary is terse; it's supposed to be. --Loodog (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The summary is skeletal and lacking, as well as just plain wrong. Holden never asks Jane to accompany him on the trip out West. He wants to go alone. He considers giving her a buzz before he leaves, but never even talks to her about it. 208.81.93.16 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be more than a few paragraphs describing the plot synopsis. However, if there's an error, don't hesitate to fix it yourself, that's what Wikipedia's about. Kerrow (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeletal, yes. I don't feel that is's lacking, however. The article isn't supposed to be an in-depth analysis of the novel, simply a short synopsis. JelloExperience (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's a perfectly factual description of the book's events. After all, the beauty of the book is in the telling, rather than the events themselves. I do, however, question the mentioning of "Stradlater and Ackley" at the end of the summary; these characters weren't mentioned *during* the summary, meaning that the uninitiated browser wouldn't understand who they were or their significance. Spuddddddd - 17Jun09

Sources

Someone added the unsourced paragraph: "The book has also been criticized for having almost no plot or action. Critics claim that the series of events are unrelated and have no meaning within the context of the book, and the style of writing is intentionally childish and difficult to read, with a lot of unnecessary words and stall tactics that lend nothing to the story and only increase its length. Indeed, much of the book is nothing but wild tangents that go nowhere and cut off as suddenly as they start. The novel's success has been described as a fluke." If these criticisms were in fact made by actual literary critics, I'd personally like that to be cited. --JayHenry (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Im a fukken real literary critic i get payed for this shit. this is my job i critique fukken books just because i havent won a peabody like ebert and roper its still a critisism.

Interesting. Our policy on this, Wikipedia:Verifiability, requires that these claims be published in reliable sources. I wonder how many literary critics have won Peabody's. --JayHenry (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

or a fucking pulitzer or whatever i dont keep track of what awards are for but yeah its published on wikipedia just now thats a pro bono critique just for you. its a fucking fact that the book has been criticized like that because i just criticized it like that by writing that on wikipedia and whats more reliable than wikipedia citing itsself? i ask you

Unfortunately, another rule is that Wikipedia does not publish original thought. The idea is: imagine if everyone shared their opinion on George Bush. Some people think X, some people think Y. While it's true that people think all these things, the whole encyclopedia would end up kind of crazy if everyone got to write a paragraph sharing their personal thoughts on every subject. There are just so many people in the world. That's why we have to stick with stuff that's been published in reliable sources. It's not perfect, but otherwise things would be completely unmanageable. Imagine if, hypothetically, somebody wasn't a literary critic, and he or she posted a review that didn't make much sense, but lied and said they were a real critic? --JayHenry (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

that would be better because the george bush article would be informative of public opinion and not a compilation of filtered news jargon like you see on tv. wikipedia is different than a regular encyclopedia because its users write it and not a team of professional encyclopedia writers checking sourches and putting facts. criticism is opinion its not like you can fucking fact check it like a publishing date or a page number

But actually that's not how Wikipedia works. Things have to be neutral, verifiable and can't be original thought. I'm sorry, but that's how it's always been. Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions, and certainly not for everyone's opinions. Sorry if you thought it was something different, but I'm just trying to explain how it works. --JayHenry (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, anyone can claim to be an expert or professional on anything so wikipedia should never be the first place for an opinion to be published. Wikipedia will only report opinions that have been published in peer-reviewed sources with quality control. Please include a link to the notable periodical your work is published in and no additional "fucking fact check" is necessary.--Loodog (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically wikipedia-nazis shitting on the common man who actually does stuff other than masturbate to cartoon porn.

(Oh man, that whole exchange above was hilarious). ~fendermat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.105.101 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Assassins

I noticed that Robert John Bardo is mentioned to have been carrying the book on his person when he murdered Rebecca Schaeffer, but no mention is made of the fact that, at least according to Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear", Bardo was known to have had an obsession with Mark David Chapman; this is believed to be his reason for having the book, as well (as Chapman had it on his person when he murdered John Lennon). The "Controversy" section of the article makes it seem as if these are both isolated incidents -- lending a further negative connotations to the possession of the book rather than a "copy cat" element. There also seems to be no source for the Bardo information -- though only the Winona Ryder/shoplifting note seems to require citation. Forgive me for my amateur Wiki-editing skills or lack thereof, but I thought it deserved a mention in case a more skilled/experienced editor agrees. --Chacharu (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that paragraph ought to be split off from the section on Controversy and given its own section. I propose to call it Assassins. I also propose to add a 2nd paragraph to that new section, as follows:

In the movie "Conspiracy Theory", Jerry Fletcher, a CIA-trained assassin, has a copy of CITR on his person when he's arrested, and it's noted that several other assassins also had one. It becomes a major clue in the movie; the CIA supposedly brainwashed these assassins that if they didn't have a copy of that book, they would feel worried until they bought one; and thus the CIA would be able to track them - by electronically monitoring sales of the book. (Jerry has dozens of copies of it but has never read it.) Interesting plot detail; you'd think tho that they'd pick a book that wasn't selling a quarter million copies a year. Or maybe there's 50 million CIA assassins out there?Friendly Person (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that now. Also, I'm going to merge the discussion section titled "John Wilkes Booth" into this one, as it's on the same subject (and a pretty intriguing thought). Also I'm changing the title of this section from "Bardo/Chapman connection" to "Assassins".Friendly Person (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't John Wilkes Booth found with a copy after murdering Abraham Lincoln? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.141.127 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Booth was found clutching a dog–eared copy of A Confederacy of Dunces.Lestrade (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The Catcher and the Rye

This book was a required summer reading for my Freshman year of high school at St. Vincent's Academy all girls Catholic High school in Savannah, GA. I loved this book and would like to see it portrayed in an onscreen film. Someone please gain the rights to make that happen. But the book is always better than the movie. It's a very interesting read for young adults. I would recommend it to anyone. Teerios (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Tee Rios

this book was great and everyone should read it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.66.30 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This book was the WORST thing i have ever read. With all due respect tho those who like it, this book should be BANNED from any libary! Dockofusa (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

I read this article a few months ago and there was a section describing when the events of the book took place. (Based on what days of the week things are described, etc. it must have been December something on a certain year, etc.) That was really interesting, exactly the sort of thing I enjoy reading on wiki. Where is it now? I've been reading wiki for about a year now, and I've started noticing how things get "improved" by having interesting info removed. Drag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Murderers?

John Hinckley Jr. was not a murderer, his assassination attempt did not work. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.224.134 (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

CATCHER IN THE RYE IS A REALLY REALLY REALLY NICE BOOK. BUT PPL THAT I KNOW DOESNT LIKE IT. ITS NOT BAD TO ME BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO. NOTHING BUT LIVE WITH IT AND THE PPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.166.169 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Murderers gone?

It appears the whole section about murderers has been deleted...to not mention at least Mark Chapman in an article about Catcher in the Rye seems inexcusable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.130 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kings represent virginity?

Quote: Holden frequently stated that Jane always "kept her kings in the back row" whenever she played checkers (representing her virginity) and asked his roommate if she still did that.

I have removed the "representing her virginity" bit because it's speculative and doesn't make much sense (why Holden would want her to preserve her virginity with him is anybody's guess). Maikel (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ackley kid = insult?

Quote: Holden refers to him as "Ackley kid" as an insult.

How is "Ackley kid" an insult? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, Holden mentions that Robert hates to be called "Ackley kid": "He didn't like it when you called him 'Ackley kid'. He was always telling me I was a goddam kid, because I was sixteen and he seventeen. It drove him mad when I called him 'Ackley kid'." Still, I think "insult"'s too strong. Maikel (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

J.D. Salinger changed to Ayn Rand

Someone changed all of the references to J. D. Salinger to Ayn Rand throughout the article. I tried to change as many as I could find back, but I'm bad with wikipedia, so there may still be some in the refences section. Also, some of the links are dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.236.78 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same and tried to revert, but I'm not sure if it helped. Can we get a professional editor in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.25.43 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem's been solved. SamanthaG (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I thought someone Holden knew at school jumped out a window and died? Thats when he went crazy. And that the guy with the cheap suitcase being ashamed compared to the expensive suitcase was a picture of American values, phoney. But, even more it was a picture of life as it could be for Holden or the alternative was out the window with Allie.121.213.20.208 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Man_%28Ghost_in_the_Shell%29 Seems like this would be a good reference in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.214.251 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Self advertisement in "Interpretations"

I place much less weight on doubtful "Interpretations" which prominently show the name and publication of the interpreter. Shall I relegate the citations to footnotes?Jezza (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Beilder, Captians Courageous, and Holden's immaturity

The article contained the following which makes too many POV claims. (I've put into boldface language that was changed or removed)

• A recent discovery has shed light on the interpretation of Holden's immaturity. Peter Beidler, in A Reader's Companion to J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, is the first to identify the movie that the prostitute Sunny refers to in chapter 13 of The Catcher in the Rye. She says that in the movie a boy falls off a boat. The movie is Captains Courageous, starring Spencer Tracy. The reference is important because Sunny says that Holden looks like the boy who fell off the boat. Beidler shows (see p. 28) a still of the boy, played by child-actor Freddie Bartholomew. That shows that Sunny thinks Holden looks like a little boy, not the tough guy he is trying to be.

I removed "the first to identify" which is completely unsupported and also "The reference is important" which is POV. I don't know if others have identified the movie, but strongly suspect they have. The more important issue here is that the novel elsewhere clearly establishes that Holden looks young, so that Biedler's identification of the movie cannot be called important, nor, even, a real discovery. The novel makes numerous references to characters the clearly believe Holden is a minor, and he mentions many times that he's skinny and (except for his "heighth" [sic] and gray hairs) young looking. Because of this, it's hardly true that "A recent discovery has shed light on the interpretation of Holden's immaturity." At most, this part of Beidler's book has identified a reference that's made a single time and then just in passing. Interlingua 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Newpapers are carrying the story WITH the items you removed for POV. Just saying.--75.4.197.141 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. A few ideas. First, do you have any citations for these newspaper articles? Second, are they specifically mentioning Beidler's book as "the first to identify" the name of this movie? Third, regardless of the previous two points, is the tracing of the title of a movie mentioned just once in the novel sufficiently important for an entire paragraph in an article on The Catcher in the Rye? Interlingua 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, I used Google and Yahoo.

2. Yes, using that or similar language.

3. That is a matter of opinion. I am fine if you or the original poster feel it is a "yes" answer to that question, and I am also fine if you feel it is a "no" to that question.

Purely in my own personal opinion and based upon my personal reading of the book, and taking into account what I knew at the time of reading the book, I do not now feel that the identity of the movie then added (at that time, that is, when I was then reading the book) to my understanding of what the character was saying/feeling at that point in the story.

On the other hand, knowing now what the movie was (or at least knowing what it likely was) does add to my belief that I indeed did then at the time of reading the book actually understand what was going on because the movie being Captain’s Courageous is consistent with what I thought was going on with the principal character in that then unidentified movie, and therefore how the principal character in this book was saying that he viewed himself.--75.4.197.141 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.197.141 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --75.4.197.141 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CONSENSUS SOUGHT

The question is about deleting the author's year of birth and death from the following:

"J. D. Salinger (1919–2010)."

to then read just:

"J. D. Salinger."--75.4.197.141 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)--75.4.197.141 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted the dates again, the rationale for which has been supplied in numerous edit summaries. There still has been no explanation as to why author's birth and death dates are appropriate here, when this is not the standard, as far as I can tell, applied to other articles about publications, as opposed to biographies. Please do not re-insert without a consensus. Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to change text and then say that a consensus is required to revert to original text. Rather, it is incumbent upon the person wanting the change to maintain the status quo rather than to artfully start an edit war and bring in all of his buddies to change things once each so as to avoid the 3 revert rule. This gang/bullying approach is inappropriate.

Also, why is it that none of you ever stated any talk about a consensus on the talk Page? No. it falls to the one being wronged by the gang attack to do so. You do not want a consensus, you want to have things your way by bullying and by ganging up on one person.

Do only fools such as I discuss while the gang engages in multiple revisions to bully things their way?--75.4.197.141 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no gang. I've had no engagement with the other editors who've reverted your addition in the last half hour. And you still haven't offered any rationale for adding the dates, an edit that is pretty plainly not standard. I'm off for a bit, but I do regret that this will eventually require some oversight. Big deal for a small thing. JNW (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I gotta go up the senior center to pick up grand pappy. He usually has made an annoyance of himself by now and its' near closing time any ways.

You go about taking care of your “other business.” I suspect that your “other business” amounts to you going up to the city library to log onto the internet there and post more comments for your sock puppets and to make other revisions by “persons unknown.”

I see you and your game clearly. You are a sock puppeteer. I am not impressed.

And now to the matter at hand; I have done some research as to how things go, to wit, how things are usually done. I find that most commonly a gang sweeps in and forces things to be their way by threats, turning people into “administrators,” getting people “blocked,” multiple reversions and changes, by sheer weight of numbers, etceteras.

Therefore, in accessing the questions, and in vetting them against and with the standards here, I find that you are within your rights to have multiple accounts, have your friends sweep in to help you, engage in sock puppetry, etceteras. According and thereto, I also find that then you can delete the author’s dates of birth and death and edit things your way and so I will change them back to your way so you will feel good about yourself and your friends, and I will block myself from access and warn myself and suspend of myself all priviliges and rights thereto and among henceforth and for all days hence.

So, you have another Victory Admiral, the opposing fleet in tattered, burning, and in ruins. My bones be cast unto the ocean to rest nevermore. Oh, how no widow weeps the mourning’s eve of winter stillness as the grave be no giddiness. Forlorn and forgotten as all, no CVS store ahead. Bye and be gaunt for one less all perish acumens and atone. --75.4.197.141 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who JNW is and have no contact with him except by WP edits, all of which you can browse if you are curious. However, WP:AGF requires you to presume there is no WP:CABAL. I do not see any standard that does recommend including these dates. These dates are not relevant to the writing here, they are merely a side-note about the author. The author is not the topic here, so details about the author belong on the author's page because he is the topic there, not on a not-about-the-author page. Off-topic is off-topic, WP has page for each topic, not monolithic pile of every semi-connected fact. The converse of WP:AGF is to develop a paranoid persecution complex and make yourself feel yourself excluded. That's your right if you choose it. DMacks (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My other business was dinner. Re: the above claims, I don't think this is the forum to make accusations against other contributors, or to continue an off-topic discussion, so I'll be brief. As stated on my user page, I do edit anonymously. If someone has a legitimate concern that I have abused editing privileges, please bring them to an appropriate venue, the administrators' noticeboard or sockpuppet investigation page, so that these concerns may be assessed. JNW (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Picking the Book Apart

In The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield gets kicked out Pencey, a school for boys. Once he leaves, he decides that he doesn’t want to go home until he’s sure his parents received the letter from Pencey saying he was kicked out. He wants them to fully digest everything before he sees them face to face. Since it would take a few days for the letter to get to them, Holden spends most of his time alone either in hotels, bars, restaurants, or just in the city as he wanders around. He comes in contact with many of his old friends, and he goes through a few rough patches here and there. Being all alone in a big city for a few days had a big impact on Holden growing up and becoming an adult. The theme of The Catcher in the Rye is everyone learns to be independent at some point in their life. Holden starts to become independent when he leaves Pencey earlier than he had to. He decided he would get “out of Pencey - right that same night and all … not wait till Wednesday or anything. [He] just didn’t want to hang around anymore” (51). Once he was gone, he got on a train and went back New York, where he lives. The theme starts developing when Holden arrives there he is free to do whatever he wants until he decides to go back home. The first thing he does is check into a hotel and he gets himself situated. After he starts to feel lonely, he decides to go out and see what he can find to do. He does such things as going to bars, trying to order drinks even though he’s underage. Although, just because he is too young to drink, it doesn’t mean he’s not used to doing it. “[He] can drink all night and not even show it, if [he’s] in the mood” (90). Other than going to bars and drinking, Holden also pays for a prostitute but he just talks to her for a while. He eats at restaurants and makes conversation with random people, observes all of the “phony” people around New York, and basically just bounces around from place to place trying to pass time. Throughout all this time of Holden being on his own, he begins to feel very lonely and sometimes what he feels like doing is “committing suicide” (104). Even though Holden is at the age where he should be learning to be independent, he still has a hard time making it on his own. This shows that he might not be ready to completely go out into the real world. A motif of The Catcher in the Rye is Holden’s animosity towards anything phony. He hates everyone and everything that appears to be phony and he refuses to take part in anything phony. The biggest reason he left one of his previous schools, Elkton Hills, “was because [he] was surrounded by phonies” (13). Holden hates movies because he hates actors. While watching something, he’s always “worrying about whether [they’re] going to do something phony every minute” (117). Holden told himself that when he had his own house, he would have a “rule that nobody could do anything phony when they visited [him]. If anybody tried to do anything phony, they couldn’t stay” (205). Throughout the whole book, Holden complains about everything that isn’t sincere and clearly states that he won’t tolerate anything like that. The purpose of The Catcher in the Rye is to entertain. The author achieves this purpose by writing about a teenage boy and all of the experiences he goes through. The author also entertains by throwing in thoughts that typical seventeen-year-old boys think about. One of those things is girls. Holden likes girl, mostly pretty girls, but he can’t figure them out. He thinks it’s easy to fall in love with them but “they can drive you crazy. They really can” (73). Another thing that Holden thinks about is his family, which consists of his parents, his younger sister Phoebe, his older brother D.B., and also his younger brother Allie who died a while back. He thinks about them a lot after leaving Pencey, especially Phoebe because he holds her in high regards. Eventually, Holden seemed to be missing his sister, and his home for that matter, so after getting drunk, he decides to go home from Central Park. He “walked all the way. It wasn’t too far, and [he] wasn’t tired or even drunk anymore. It was just very cold and nobody around anywhere” (157). Even though Holden went home because it appeared he missed it, the feeling was only temporary because he only stayed long enough to catch up with Phoebe before his parents found him there, and then he left to be on his own again. Another thing Holden briefly thinks about was what he wants to do with his life, which is a usual thing for teenagers to think about. He decides that he would “just be the catcher in the rye and all” (173). What he meant by that is he would stand by the edge of a cliff and watch kids playing nearby in a field of rye. If any of the kids start to go over the cliff, he would catch them, making him the catcher in the rye. The setting of The Catcher in the Rye is New York in the 1940s. It’s presented through Holden by all of the places he goes to in the few days he’s on his own. “[He’s] lived there all [his] life, and [he] know[s] Central Park like the back of [his] hand” (154). The setting is necessary to the author’s theme because New York is the place where Holden receives his independence. It was also in New York where Holden starts to appreciate a place to go that is quiet. In New York, “you can’t ever find a place that’s nice and peaceful, because there isn’t any” (204). Holden understood what it must feel like to go back to someplace quiet after a day of chaos. Holden Caulfield is a seventeen-year-old who was kicked out school, and it wasn’t his first time. He was actually happy to not be going there anymore because he “just didn’t like anything that was happening at Pencey” (169). He hated all of his subjects except for English, which is the only class he’s good in. He is generally a good person but he had a mouth on him and he lied quite frequently. When it came to lying, Holden knew he had a bad habit because he admits that “once [he] got started, [he] can go on for hours” (58) if he really wants to. He likes to express his opinion but he can’t defend himself well if his opinion gets him into trouble. If he were to get into an argument over something with another guy, [he’d] just stand there, trying to look tough. What [he] might do, [he] might say something very cutting and snotty, to rile him up – instead of socking him in the jaw” (89). When you get right to it, Holden was a bit of a rebel in his own right and basically did whatever he wanted; it was easy for him since he was without supervision for a few days. Overall, he was a good a good guy, he just wasn’t perfect. With a character like Holden, it wouldn’t be uncommon to find his traits in everyday people. The style of J.D. Salinger’s writing in The Catcher in the Rye is mostly based on his persona of an adolescent boy. Throughout the whole story, he takes on the tone of his character Holden Caulfield, who is rather sarcastic and opinionated, and also a bit of “a pacifist, if you want to know the truth” (46). To make the story more interesting, Salinger had to be able to switch the mood of the story from being depressing when the character “felt so lonesome, all of a sudden” (48) to being happy and him feeling good about himself. For Holden to enjoy himself, “all [he] need’s an audience. [He’s] an exhibitionist” (29). Through this style of writing, Salinger was able to bring the story from joyful to sad, and back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.36.172 (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to provide a forum for people who have ideas as to how to improve the article. That being said, I don't see one thing in that paragraph of yours that does this. First of all, you misinterpret the novel's message, the author's intent and even neglect to follow the title of your post. Instead of "picking apart" the book you provide a bunch of fragmented observations. And they're all false. For example, the theme of The Catcher in the Rye is not that everybody has to learn how to be independent. Quite the opposite actually. If anything, Salinger tells us that Holden's quest through the belly of the beast that night in NYC showed him he needed others and that was a bitter pill to swallow. And he's quite independent for a teenager those days in a big city, even if he's familiar with it, particularly one who is suffering from delusions and depression. The time in hotels, bars and other places are times he reaches out to others, such as the nuns, or the girls, or even potential Wise Child Alumnus Carl Luce. You use the term "persona" in the wrong way. Moreover, the setting of the novel is actually a psychiatric hospital in California, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, yes the action takes place in New York City. There's little joy expressed in the book, except for the glimpses of the past of good people: Allie's mit, playing catch in the courtyard years back, the teacher carrying Castle's body to the infirmary, Phoebe in the Park, D.B. when he was a hungry writer, and people like Kinsella. None have to do with any "joy" in the city, perhaps the Museum of Natural History. So I suggest you re-read The Catcher in the Rye, closely, carefully.

Jim Steele (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct in your reasoning, but what kind of a sentence is this: "None have to do with any 'joy' in the city, perhaps the Museum of Natural History."? It sounds like two fragments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.88.24 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Screen adaptation

The article claims director Terrence Malick has been linked to a possible adaptation of the novel, but footnote 49 links to a source which doesn't - as far as I can see - say anything about that at all. Footnote 8 of Terrence Malick links to the same source. It is possible that the source has been modified since the original linking.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, that was conjecture and there is little chance there will be a film adaptation of The Catcher in the Rye in our lifetime so that should be removed. Jim Steele (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be noted as well that this book has shown up in many movies, including "Conspiracy Theories" with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. It was also in the first scene with Shelley Duvall, in the "Shining", where she is setting at the table reading the book. I am sure it is mentioned in many movies.

Redundant?

"The Catcher in the Rye is a 1951 novel by J. D. Salinger.[3]. Originally published for adults, it has since become popular with adolescent readers for its themes of teenage confusion, angst, sexuality, alienation, and rebellion.[4] It has been translated into almost all of the world's major languages.[5] Around 250,000 copies are sold each year, with total sales of more than sixty-five million.[6] The novel's protagonist and antihero, Holden Caulfield, has become an icon for teenage rebellion.[7]

The novel was included on a 2005 Time Magazine list of the 100 best English-language novels written since 1923,[8] and it was named by Modern Library and its readers as one of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. It has been frequently challenged[9][10][11] in the United States for its liberal use of profanity and portrayal of sexuality and teenage angst. It also deals with complex issues of identity, belonging, connection, and alienation."

I don't think that extra sentence needs to be there, or at least the repetition of the themes. WizMystery (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally much of the article is written in a very disjointed manner. This article needs a major re-write in order to flow nicely. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Misleading

This needs work to become NPOV. The article gives the impression that the book is good, but in reality it's just about a kid who doesn't try at school and then complains that his life is going nowhere but does nothing about it. The story is really stupid. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You know how people wear their hats backwards? I am fairly certain that is because of this book, Holden's "people shootn' hat." This is definitely a well known book. --71.178.185.177 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying 'the story is really stupid' is, I think you'll agree, not a legitimate or informed critical assessment, and is surely not an acceptable rationale for an NPOV tag. It's actually a violation of WP:NPOV itself. As I stated at my talk page:

Neither your opinion nor mine amount for much on Wikipedia, where content must be supported by reliable sources, so your assessment of Holden's character is a personal reaction that has little to do with the quality of the writing. As the recent obituaries attest, there are numerous positive critical assessments of Salinger's work, and of this book. Perhaps you can find some alternative informed criticism. I recollect having read a tough essay on Salinger many years ago by Norman Mailer in Advertisements for Myself. Incidentally, the article does include various receptions to and interpretations of the work, both positive and negative. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. We can edit war on this, but first I'll request further input and administrative help, if necessary. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

well the article does make it seem more popular than it is. most people who read it, read it in school. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, 60 million copies, 250,000 sales a year, and an indelible influence on culture. I can't imagine why the article would suggest it is a popular book.

Jim Steele (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP said "good", not "popular". I could name many, many things that are popular but not good. --99.254.8.208 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would now like to add my tuppeny worth on the subject of The Catcher in the Rye. I was in Waterstones in Piccadilly, about to go on holiday, and asked for a good book as a holiday read. I made it very clear to the Waterstones employee that in general I found American books grossly overrated, self-indulgent plotless crap, eg The Great Gatsby, On the Road, American Psycho, anything by Henry Miller. She nonetheless managed to recommend this crock of horse manure which I then dutifully read. Oh my God. Another example of the Great American novel. Having said all that I do love To Kill a Mocking Bird and One flew over the cuckoo's nest and I quite like The Turn of the Screw.62.232.34.3 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: The talk page is not a forum, but rather is intended for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

This is purely my opinion but I think a large part of the intro should be moved into a new section titled synopsis. This is generally how most novel/story articles are layed out and it would reduce the intro to a relatively short punchy thing which in my mind is good. Althalitus (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited out "Holden's ultimate insult"

I edited that line out because while there may be some truth to it, it's clearly an opinion and appeared to trivialize Salinger's literary intent.

75.16.44.145 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) (not sure why four tildes amount to a signature, but okay there's my signature)

It's all about Allie.

This is one of the deepest books I've read. At first I couldn't work out the Caulfield's character. Why he was so negative and distainful of everyone and everything. In chapter 5 ( I think ) he 1st mentions the death of his younger brother Allie of Lukemia, and afterwards it started to make more sense. I believe Caulfield's behaviour is a reaction to this horrible incident that he has never come to terms with. He is too young to have the life experiences to deal with the death or to put it into any meaningful perspective, and is just raging against the injustice of this great kid brother dying so young and so pointlessly. And yet I don't believe the character even understands this himself and can't see it's effect on his own attitude and behaviour. The defining moment was the reference to the dream and the title of the book. He wanted to be the 'Catcher in the Rye' and prevent those kids from going over the cliff. An obvious allusion to saving his own brother from death. In the end the love for his surviving sister Phoebe saves him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.168.151 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Laughing aloud to myself, I say "what?"

This sentence

"Originally published for adults,[1] it has been translated into almost all of the world's major languages.[2]"

makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, I see that it contains two facts, and I understand them, but I am at a total loss as to how this sentence is supposed to connect them, because they seem to have nothing to do with one another. I think this books deserves better.

In related news, I have time enough for brash criticism, but not for constructive editing. Thus, if this sentence is your wiki-baby (or even wiki-godchild), then you have a couple days before I fix it for you the past, present and future fans of this book. Chip McShoulder (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It means you're supposed to go kill John Lennon and Ronald Reagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.114.181 (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing Times: Clarifying Stern's Article

On the main Wikipedia page for this book it states, "For The New York Times, James Stern wrote a negative review of the book.[21]" Our class feels that this is a false interpretation of the article. In the article Stern writes in a voice similar to that of Holden Caulfield in a respectful manner. At the end of the article Stern writes, "But old Hel, she was already reading this crazy "Catcher" book all over again. That's always a good sign with Hel." We believe this statement supports an interpretation of Stern's article as positive. 208.116.128.56 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Marymount Manhattan College Writing Class208.116.128.56 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Catcher in the Rye/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

It's one of many books frequently taught in High Schools, therefore the Top-class rating. I'm not familiar with the rating system, but it looks pretty good in the plot synopsis. The style and theme parts could be developed more if necessary, and the quotes sections looks a little lengthy to me. But it's a nice article Hurrah 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Ratings given above seem fine to me. Left as given. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC) == Plagiarized content == This article is largely a word for word plagiarization of the CliffNotes publication linked here: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/c/the-catcher-in-the-rye/the-catcher-in-the-rye-at-a-glance Thank you for your attention to this matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.163.16 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected

The fool quotient got a bit high, so I've semi-protected the article for a bit. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Change of subject: isn't it possible to describe the use of vulgar language (in section "controversy") without actually using explicit vulgar language? Consider that the wikipedia is uncensored and there is controvery about the use of such language, doesn't this violate wikipedia article rules about controversial material? Just saying....--96.244.248.77 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Character List??

Would it be ok to create a character list for Catcher in The Rye? There is not one currently posted.Killhat101 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Change title 'Plot Summary' to 'Synopsis'

Do wiki writers not distinguish between a synopsis (all books have), and a plot (not all books have)? I would label Catcher, since it is a Naturalist-type, without a plot, of which is usually defined as a series of events, each logically proceeding the other, that fit into a grander story or narrative (eg. all tragedies have plots). I recommend renaming the title of section 2 to a 'Synopsis' (not Plot Summary) as that is what the content contains and better represents the book. Plot =/ Synopsis. One issue is I imagine since the book is still used in high school, many of the viewers of the wiki page will be looking to fill in the blank on their assignment sheet labeled 'Plot'. I invite comments. Plots can typically be described in a short sentence for any book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewTRed (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. I don't know if the word "synopsis" is the best choice though. As you admit, many viewers may be high schoolers and perhaps the term is too collegiate. Perhaps "summary" or "outline" are better choices when "plot" may not be a good one. I'm somewhat concerned that precise definitions for such terms are not universal and that maybe we aren't giving "plot" the leeway that general usage suggests it should have. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

POV

Why does it mention that the novel was aimed for adults but is read mostly by adolescents in the first sentence? Nor should it mention that the book is controversial before all else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.84.2 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation in "Plot" section

It seems to me that the line, "Because of this misinterpretation, Holden believes that to be the 'catcher in the rye' means to save children from losing their innocence," is an interpretation that goes beyond what is said or directly implied (i.e., understood) by Holden. It's most likely a correct interpretation, and could appear (if sourced) in another part of the article, but should not be a part of the Plot section. Schoolmann (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it should be moved. Also, the bit about Captains Courageous doesn't really belong in the interpretation section. 110.144.196.18 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sales

The author's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Salinger mentions that this novel sells 250,000 copies per year, however here it is mentioned that it sells 1,000,000 copies per year.2A02:8084:9842:4000:78D4:CF58:7902:60DB (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Title

Is the title of the book explained anywhere in here ? I failed to locate it. --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's in the lengthy synopsis. Perhaps it should be mentioned up-front. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC).

The title is what it is because he always had like these dreams or visions of him in a rye field at the edge of a clifr catching kids who would slip off the cliff making him the "Catcher in the Rye" B-Movie Fan (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The title of the book is a very significant piece to the goals and and values of the novel. A lengthier analysis of the title would provide a better understanding to the context of the rest of the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaseshea (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

TB Facility or Mental Hospital?

Hello. There seems to be a bit of debate in respect of where Holden resides when he tells his story. I am fairly confident that Holden speaks to a psychoanalyst at a TB facility. At the end of the first chapter, he states: 'That's also how I practically got t.b. and came here for all of there goddam checkups and stuff. I'm pretty healthy though.' (Galaxycat (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

Hello again. Someone reverted my edits (as he or she is entitled to do so, but I just want to open a friendly debate as to where Holden resides when he tells his story.) For a long time, I thought it was at a mental hospital. Holden goes to a psychiatric facility when he smashes the windows in the garage after Allie dies. The quote above is the closest that the novel gets to Holden stating emphatically where he is when he tells his story to a psychoanalyst. At the end of the novel he states: 'A lot of people especially this one psychoanalyst guy they have here, keeps asking me if I'm going to apply myself when I go back to school next September.' This could mean that he sees a psychoanalyst while at a T.B. clinic. (I also accept it could mean that he is at a psychiatric facility). If anyone is able to find a quote which sates that Holden is in a psychiatric facility, I would be grateful. Thank you very much. (Galaxycat ([[User talk:Galaxycat

HOW can we have the article directly state it IS a TB sanitorium, when there is no direct evidence of that, and most evidence points against that? Few people who ALMOST get TB go to a TB sanitorium. He was soaking wet at the end of Ch 25 (probably crying in the downpour), so he probably came down with something - but TB is a bacterial infection - you do not get it from being run down. Mono would be more likely - and more apt for a teenager. Perhaps some TB sanitariums had psychoanalysts, but why would JDS have HD mention it if it were not an important clue as to HD's whereabouts? TB was being eradicated after 1943 streptomycin. By the 1950s, tuberculosis was no longer a major public health threat; it was controlled by antibiotics rather than extended rest. Most commentators say it was a mental hospital. (We gather it is California because his brother DB "drove over" (from Hollywood))--JimWae (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all I'm going to tell about. I could probably tell you what I did after I went home, and how I got sick and all, and what school I'm supposed to go to next fall, after I get out of here, but I don't feel like it. I really don't. That stuff doesn't interest me too much right now.

A lot of people, especially this one psychoanalyst guy they have here, keeps asking me if I'm going apply myself when I go back to school next September. It's such a stupid question, in my opinion. I mean how do you know what you're going to do till you do it? The answer is, you don't. I think I am, but how do I know? I swear it's a stupid question.

D.B. isn't as bad as the rest of them, but he keeps asking me a lot of questions, too. He drove over last Saturday with this English babe that's in this new picture he's writing. She was pretty affected, but very good-looking. Anyway, one time when she went to the ladies' room way the hell down in the other wing D.B. asked me what I thought about all this stuff I just finished telling you about. I didn't know what the hell to say. If you want to know the truth, I don't know what I think about it. I'm sorry I told so many people about it. About all I know is, I sort of miss everybody I told about. Even old Stradlater and Ackley, for instance. I think I even miss that goddam Maurice. It's funny. Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you start missing everybody.

----Ch 26 at http://thegreatestnovels.com/etext/catcher-in-the-rye.htm --JimWae (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Search for "psych", "analy", and for "tuber" and see which topic has more context in the rest of the story.--JimWae (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is really not something to be debated and distracts from the JDS message he is trying to send us about mental illness. Now in 2015 society should really embrace this message and use this book as an example. We still don't seem to acknowledge mental illness when it's staring us in the face. So here is my argument. Chapter 1, first page, "I'll just tell you about this 'madman' stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy." 'Madman' stuff doesn't end you up in a t.b. facility. Holden has major depression and is quite possibly bi-polar. To downplay the nature of his mental illness, in any way, is to seriously miss, and in so doing, seriously disrespect JDS and his message to all of us. Holden's single reference to t.b. relates to the psychoanalyst asking him to stop smoking. While searching for a cause for a mental breakdown, in those days, things like his growth spurt, and possibly t.b., are what they were examining as a cause, at the Mental Hospital. Also, if you can accept that Holden has suicidal thoughts, no chance he is in a t.b. clinic. I think I will start a new section in the main article to systematically document Holden's decent into mental illness rather than do so here.Moocheetah (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but it seems to be a simple case of finding credible secondary sources. The mention of TB seems to be one of Holden's characteristic exaggerations. The only thing that commends the suggestion that Holden is anywhere other than a psychiatric hospital is the phrase, "this one psychoanalyst guy they have here," which seems to be odd if the whole place is devoted to mental health. But anyway, the opinion of the majority of critics should be respected, and then if there is also a credible minority theory (also with secondary sources), that could be included as such. Schoolmann (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is one such secondary source, for what it's worth:

Holden (despite the confusion of the Harcourt Brace executive) is not crazy; he tells his story from a sanatorium (where he has gone because of a fear that he has t.b.), not a mental hospital. The brutality of the world makes him sick. -- Louis Menand, 'The New Yorker,' http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/10/01/holden-at-fifty

Schoolmann (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely a hospital or some type of phsyciatrist, but not a mental hospital. A mental hospital in 1950 would have been a permanent place and he wouldn't be "driven back home by D.B." B-Movie Fan (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the «(implying a tuberculosis diagnosis)» bit at the end of the Plot section. This was first added here saying a mental breakdown was implied and then changed to tuberculosis diagnosis with this edit. Please, refrain from adding unsourced information. Kakahuete (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Mal Brossard

I don’t understand why he is identified as Holden’s best friend. He was in the one scene when Ackley and the 2 of them took a bus to Agerstown. Holden doesn’t refer to him as his best friend. He’s mentioned mostly in Chapter 5 and once in Chapter 7. Nothing suggests he is Holden’s best friend. Sovper (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the adjective "best". Muzilon (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Censorship of printed editions?

This is a somewhat minor point, but it does fit in with the censorship controversy about the book. I have seen two older editions of Catcher in the Rye (Penguin Books, as I recall, so presumably British imprints) where "Fuck you" (the graffiti Holden sees on the wall) was printed as "— you". I can't find a scholarly source that discusses the bowdlerization of the text, however. Muzilon (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This book has discussion of a similar topic on p. 130-131.Modernist 2000 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Hofstadter (Le Ton beau de Marot : In Praise of the Music of Language, Basic Books, New York , 1997, xxiv + 632 pages, ISBN : 978-0-465-08645-0, at that time 0-465-08645-4) complains (p. 282) that the Penguin edition is not the original Salinger’s novel, but a British translation, where not only the spelling is changed, but sometimes even words, all this without a single word of editorial comment or warning! --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)