Talk:The Catcher in the Rye

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)

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)

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)

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)