[ SECRET POST #2759 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2759 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. http://i.imgur.com/RxSwFNN.jpg

[mekkio]

I thought it was alright to. But it's strange how many people relate to Caulfield since while reading it I thought, "This kid is manic depressive. He needs serious therapy." SPOILER FOR A BOOK THAT HAS BEEN OUT SINCE YOUR GRANDPARENTS WERE TEENAGERS: In the end, it turns out I was right.

[(Anonymous)]

I felt the same way and I didn't love it because I just couldn't relate to Caulfield on any level.

[(Anonymous)]

That is why I related to him, and probably lots of other people. That's why I think it's weird that it's popular for so-called open-minded people to read the book and say nothing but "Shut up, privileged white boy."

[(Anonymous)]

My grandparents weren't teenagers when that book came out! My dad was a young teenager, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I did relate to him a lot, even though we come from different backgrounds. But I was pretty depressed in high school, and so his feelings of isolation, impulsive random thoughts, and this grounding fantasy of being the "catcher in the rye" just struck home with me. Of course, I wasn't as overboard as him, but I felt bad for him. He needed help, but refused to really go to anyone for help, even as he had people who would try to help him or potentially could have changed things for him, and he kept putting himself in stupid situations. He brought it all on himself, but I guess I mean I felt I really did understand his thought processes, and most of it made perfect sense while I was reading it - only after I put the book down it was like, wtf, dude, why are you doing this to yourself.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Not my grandparents, they got Hemmingway.

[(Anonymous)]

*whispers* One of my grandparents was in her 40s when it came out...

[ninety6tears]

A lot of people who either love it for the wrong reasons or hate Holden for supposedly being little more than a rich white boy seem to overlook the whole thing about Holden's brother being dead and him seemingly suffering from depression. I remember the confirmation of his psychological issues being kinda vague, but throughout the entire book I definitely felt like he needed some help.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I mean, the fact that it was heavily implied (or outright stated, I don't remember) that he had been narrating the book's events from a mental hospital of some sort should have been a big clue to readers that Caulfield had serious issues that he needed to work through. Even a lot of the book's characters seemed put off by his erratic behavior

[(Anonymous)]

ANyone who has to hate classics just because they are classics are just as idiotic and eye-rolling as the people who love classics (or claim to because they can't think for themselves) just because they are classics.

Here's a wild thought: maybe it didn't inspire any rage and disgust in you because *gasp* it was alright? As in, not a horrible book? As in, an okay book?

Seriously, a book is not automatically horrible just because it's a ~white dude classic~ or whateverthefuck.

[scrubber]

Yeah but how is anyone on the internet supposed to relate to someone who's clinically depressed, abused, stoking a vague superiority complex, aimlessly wandering through life trying to find a purpose after schooling has failed them, and is white??

Seriously who????

[cushlamochree]

+1

Being a classic does not make a book good or bad

[galerian-ash.livejournal.com]

I don't get why you'd feel you're missing out over not being disgusted or angry. Isn't it a good thing that you didn't let your prejudices color your impression of the book, regardless whether you liked it or not?

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh at the notion of stories being reduced in merit because they are about ~white guy problems~. Catcher in the Rye isn't about Holden being white. Certainly him being from a well off family and high position of privilege and social status is part of his story, but that's not really what the book is about.

But like it or not, whatever. I loved it, but not because I loved Holden or anything. Not that I disliked Holden, I found him really easy to sympathize with while simultaneously shaking my head at what a massive, hypocritical idiot he was. It's just the psychology of the character, to me, is so well written, so like a depressed, impulsive adolescent without any direction in his life, and I guess I could relate to that a bit. If not the upper class rich boy parts.

But it really shouldn't inspire rage and disgust in you. Unless you're either a Concerned Mother or a social justice warrior who resents the fact that Holden is a white upper class male. Or, at best, someone who doesn't understand that Holden's flaws were written that way on purpose and they too are part of the story.

[chardmonster]

The thing with this book is that Salinger never meant for Holden to be a hero--he's just a messed up kid acting like a messed up kid. However we assign this book to high school students--ie messed up kids--so of course they idolize him.

All those people you see offended by this book? Most are also messed up kids, still. They think Holden's voice is the author's.

[cushlamochree]

I agree mostly. It's a pretty decent charactwr study, there's no law saying you have to love or despise the character in question for it to be good.

It is weird though, because people do take it that way. And I don't think it's just high schoolers either - it's an inextricable part of the book now. I get the impression that more young people these days hate the book than love it, but that's probably a reaction to the people loving it for that reason. So strange.

[ceebeegee]

Oh God, no. Holden is much sweeter and an all-around better person than JD Salinger who was creepy as fuck and incredibly narcissistic.

[(Anonymous)]

I originally read this book because it was banned in my high school. I wanted to see WHY it was banned. Honestly? I still have no idea. I couldn't relate to really anyone in the book at all, and I tried re-reading it a couple times, just in case I missed something, and still nada. Nothing. It's an okay book, sure. But I don't think it's this OMG BEST BOOK EVAR that some people make it out to be.

[(Anonymous)]

WHy is everyone so obsessed with ~relating~ to characters? Can't you find characters interesting even if you don't relate to them?

This attitude has always struck me as supremely narcissistic in the extreme on the parts of both readers and the writers who pander to them -- "I can't care about anyone unless I see myself in them waaaahhh!"

[electromouse]

Well, the main character had a really severe depression. And by this, I mean that he was really messed up and he wasn't supposed to come off as a hero as much as simply a messed up kid.

I don't think you're supposed to feel disgust or feel like you should go kill Ronald Reagan or anyone for that matter.

[(Anonymous)]

I never got assigned this book in high school and I've never read it but I've heard this argument a lot.

I saw this post on tumblr once about how all of the kids in Lord of the Flies would have gotten off the island without incident if they had all been girls because... they didn't actually give an explanation which I was hoping for since I'd like to see their reasoning but it just boiled down to "they were white dudes and therefore they screwed themselves over".

[(Anonymous)]

I never thought he had mental illness. I don't think anybody even mentioned anything about mental illness when we read it in school. The way I remember it is Holden is a lonely cynical kid, and you know how they say that 'every cynic is a disillusioned idealist' or something, I thought he was kinda like that. Everyone was not kissing his ass so he decided they were phoney. But lbr everyone is a phoney in high school lol. And then he ran away, and interacted with 'the real world' and i guess eventually he made peace with the world not revolving around him. Huh, now that I wrote this it sounds like I should like this book. idk why I hated it so much at the time. Maybe cause I hated school. I should read it again.

[(Anonymous)]

I loved The Catcher in the Rye. I loved Holden. I think it's brilliant and he's an amazingly engaging character.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm so fed up with things that have nothing to do with race being dismissed as "white dude stuff". Something that features a white male doesn't automatically make it about race or privilege or whatever, sometimes something is just a story that features a person who happens to be white because it is written by a person who also happens to be white.