Ismael, although I enjoyed the whole book much more than you, i had the same issue with the writing style. the repetition you pointed out drove me nuts, as did his habit of referring to people as Old so and so. distracting.

Meh. One of the best novels ever IMHO. But anyway, I suggest your next novel to read be "The Kite Runner", if you haven't read it already.

Dee,
YES! That was also really annoying!

Santi,
I understand why people enjoy this book. It just didn't do it for me. I'll read The Kite Runner after I finish the book I'm working on right now, Tipping Point.

Let me summarize the plot for you, with apologies if I ruin the book for you

Do you have a lot of junior high students reading your blog? As this tends to be a book everyone, other than you it would seem, read in high school, I assume adolescents would be the target of your spoiler alert.

Also, I love that your law review "expertise" is helpful for your criticism of a classic. You truly are a world class jackass.

Mr. Anonymous,
I think your assumption that everyone read the book in high school is rather unwarranted, given the fact that neither I nor anyone else I went to high school with read it then. It seems possible, if not likely, that at least a few people who read this blog might not have read the book. I'm sorry that my attempt to not ruin the book, which you describe as a "classic," for anyone who hasn't read it met with your wrath.

As for the influence of Law Review on my critique, I merely meant that having to edit professional pieces with random italics has increased my awareness of that stylistic nuance from where my own awareness was before. I did not mean that I was more aware than others. Nor did I claim to have expertise.

You're, of course, free to come on this blog and criticize me, but let me remind you. I don't give a shit what you have to say and the fact that you're coming to someone else's blog to anonymously post insulting comments does more to undermine yor maturity than it does to hurt my feelings.

I didn't read it in high school either; I waited until college. And my reaction was much the same. It was just okay. And I think there are a couple of reasons for it being so underwhelming.

When it was first published, it was a fairly scandalous book and managed (still manages, in fact) to make the list of books that should be banned, for the sake of the children. The problem is that the book is pretty tame, these days. So it's lost some punch.

Second, I think the book resonates very powerfully with immature people who are still searching for their identity (i.e., teenagers, or the anonymous moron). It's a book best appreciated by a younger person.

It is technically a "classic" so it's good that you read it. But like so many classics, it's only mediocre. So good for you for not buying into the hype.

I don't give a shit what you have to say

If you honestly didn't care, you'd ignore and perhaps even delete my comment.

You do come off as a jackass and, as long as I am being honest, are frighteningly obese. I really think if you have time to a) read the works of Salinger and b) post a lenghty critique of the works of Salinger that you can heft your lazy butt up a flight of stairs or two and burn some calories. It would behoove you to avoid the trans fats - yes, it's a personal choice but they arent doing you any favors. I mean, come on, there's a reason girls only want to be your "friend".

A good resolution would not be "I won't put on any more weight" but "I will get to a point where my heart isn't doing the work of a small army to move my body around". As long as you have free time to waste on Nintendo and learn the drums, you can do the rest of us, and the healthcare industry, a favor and fit in a good thirty minutes of aerobic activity a day. Thanks.

I don't delete insulting comments because I'm not a fascist. People can write whatever they want here--I'm more than happy to provide a forum, even if the topic is my own flaws.

Let me briefly address some of your points. You argue that I should use the time I use to read and write to exercise and lose weight. Certainly, getting in better shape is important. So, your argument seems to be that I should always put my time to the best possible use. Instead of reading a book I don't like, you seem to be saying, I should be exercising.

Although I find the premise (again, that time should always be put to the best use) of your argument intriguing, I must reject it. I do not believe that there is always a "best" use for time or that, if there is a "best" use, that it is always determined by long-term goals, such as weight loss. It seems much more likely to me that the best use of time depends on the more immediate circumstances. So, when I'm at my parents' house, it's 9:30pm, and I'm watching Mexican soap operas with my family, the best use of time seems, to me, to be reading. You might disagree, but, then, it's my time.

An interesting side issue does appear, however. You criticize me for reading and writing when, according to you, I should be exercising. In other words, I am not putting my time to its best use. The question, then, is whether you are, by coming onto my blog and insulting me, putting your time to its best use.

The only possible answer, I think, is that you are certainly not. Rather than coming here and insulting me or lecturing me about my cardiovascular fitness, I humbly submit that you might put your time to better use. For example, you could instead concentrate on fixing your own flaws, of which there are clearly many. Hell, you could even exercise. Moreover, you seem to be very well-versed in Here is No Why lore, so I wonder why you would waste your time reading my blog when you clearly dislike me, even though, according to you, one should be careful about how one uses one's time.

In the final analysis, people like you are a fact of blogging life. I'm frankly surprised there haven't been more rude and disrespectful comments here. In any event, keep posting if you want. I'll keep responding because, after all, this is my blog.

I completely agree with your eval of Catcher in the Rye. I read it in high school, and it didn't do anything for me. I read The Awakening and it was much more moving, simply because both more happened and what happened was more relevant. And it was written long before Salinger's "revolutionary" novel. Sure, Chopin's work isn't about teenage angst, but its still about being trapped in a situation that you don't know how to get out of. Chopin's heroine just happens to have more juevos than Holden. I agree, Ismael; there's nothing really compelling about "Catcher."

Catcher in the Rye eptiomized everything good about life...alcohol, hookers, and the music of Ludacris. Plus, it was the book Mel Gibson's brainwashed character was compelled to buy in the worst movie ever: Conspiracy Theory.

I too love Catcher in the Rye. My reasons are numerous but not revolutionary; yet the points taken about the lack of activity in the book are I think incorrect. Holden's life is happening, I don't think there has to be some glorious climax or worthy episode to prove it. His journey reflects many adolescent's and it is in the small episodes that reign so largely at that time which make the story interesting in our own. I know that my teens were not the stuff of blockbuster movies, they were more real, much like in "Catcher". Also J.D.'s use of literary devices mentioned above are that different than our own - how often do we say "dude" or "douchbag" or overuse "like" in describing mundane events? That all being said, I think that the the comments regarding the book are all valid, and I think that many people feel the same way. It's not a measure of not "getting" the book, it's just more a measure of feeling it.

By the way, who takes the time to read through a blog just to blast it, but not whats even being written? Are all of these people minions of Rush Limbaugh or some shit?

Catcher never resonated with me, either. I remember being utterly bored by it, and I was exactly the age where I should have been identifying with Holden. I also remember thinking that I was losing my angst-cred, lol. But that is probably the hallmark of teenage angst; nobody else's drama is ever as interesting as our own.

ditto :)

I read Catcher a couple times and was never that enamored of it. I did read it first in High School, although I think you need not worry about "spoiling" a novel with no plot where nothing happens. There were many books I read in HS that I enjoyed much more, including The Awakening, Benito Cerino (sp? I am too lazy to look up the correct spelling...it's by Melville), Hamlet, and The Nose.

And Utah, I beg to differ. "The Heist," starring Gene Hackman and Delroy Lindo, and viewed by you, Ismael, Ryan and me at my apartment in September, clearly blows "Conspiracy Theory" out of the water as the worst movie ever.

But you do agree that J.D. Salinger was writing metaphorically about the music of Ludacris?