AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Im about keeping it going

I dunno, I guess I just saw Holdems "phonies" ideals as his true self, and how closely it reflects the real world, its full of people like him. A bunch of priviliged shitheads who wanders around thinking that they exist in some sort of intellectual elite, while theyre actually talentless nobodies whos existance makes us all a little more miserable. Theyre the kind of people who makes me WANT to resort to violence, because an intellectual defeat wouldnt be satisfying enjough, I want to see them in actual physical pain.

OKAY OKAY OKAY

THE WHOLE POINT OF CATCHER IN THE RYE IS THAT HE'S TRYING TO JUST GET SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO HIM BUT NOBODY DOES

AND THEN HE FINALLY GETS SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO HIM

AND IT'S YOU

YOU HAVE LISTENED TO HIM TELL HIS ENTIRE STORY

FUCK I LOVE THAT BOOK SO MUCH

once again

"the point" does not excuse really really terrible shitty writing

Okay. Doesnt change the fact that hes an annoying douche

From what I gathered, you felt like the writing was bad because there was no development or climax, but there is: the climax is when he convokes Phoebe not to come with him and promises to not to leave for the midwest because it's a selfless act and he finally stops running from his issues. It's the climax because it's the culmination of Holden's conflicting ideal of protecting children and Holden's acting like a child. Then at the end, Holden tells the Phyc/reader that he would try to go back to school and do better. Catcher is probably a much better character study then it is a plot, because the 'plot' is really just a vehicle to seeing how Holden acts in different situations.

I talked about this in an earlier post, but I guess you didn't see it or something, so I recounted it.

On another note, I always felt that, throughout the book, you aren't supposed to relate or even like Holden too much, more just pity him because he's a bit of a fuck-up.

that'd be swell and dandy if it was actually development and not just what was happening the entire book.

Holden is a self-proclaimed fucking liar, and he does it constantly to both the reader and everyone around him. There's no evidence he was at all serious about leaving, in fact it just sounded like him whining again.

It's far more likely, given his character and his state of not learning fucking anything even when it's staring him down, that we were just seeing what he always does: lies.



I heard this as a "point" a few times as well, and there's another bit where it fucking failed. At no point did I pity Holden. At every point did I want him to put a bullet in his own skull after realizing how fucking awful of a person he was, so I could stop reading the fucking book.

Well, I mean, ok then. If you didn't like the book, and that's what you got from it, then that's fine. I mean, I feel that he may have learned his lesson a little bit, but there is a lot of evidence that he didn't really learn anything. I think he may be a bit less flat then you see him, but that really comes down to personal interpretation. I do get why one might think the book is bad, I guess I just enjoyed it anyway. Like, I suppose if you saw Holden's narrative as lies, then that would really throw the whole story into question and potentially make the whole book pointless. I suppose that may have been the kinda thing the author was going for, but If you don't like that and think it's dumb/bad then that's fine.

I don't think you could really call it objectively bad though, because too much is up to interpretation and someone might even like the interpretation of the whole book being a bunch of lies with no real point.

I dunno, I think this discussion has kinda run it's course honestly. I mean, I still kinda like the book, and disagree with some of you're points, but I can't really see the discussion moving anywhere.

Been rereading Night Shift by Stephen King and his other short stories. Most of them are pretty decent, but man, he mustve written The Mangler as a parody or something, this is what people say Kigns stories are like when theyre trying to satire him.

I'm reading A Feast for Crows again, because to be honest I never get sick of A Song of Ice and Fire.

When I was reading that I litturally got up and threw the book at the ground DURING THAT ONE PART.

Then I proceed to weep.

That sounds like me, but for different reasons.

My professor gave me an uncorrected proof copy of a book called DRAGON RUN by Patrick Matthews and I think it's out by now so go read it

ignore the fact that it's a scholastic book intended for 12 year olds read it

Finished Frankenstein for a class.
I get that the descriptions of nature scenes are important to the themes of the book, but I kinda wish some were a little shorter. All-in-all a good read though.

I read like half of it for a history course and I remember being pretty bored of it and just skipping much of the text.

I've also had this Witcher book for two months now (I know because tomorrow will be the second time I renew my loan) and I haven't even opened it.

Reading a book called "You Are Not So Smart"

It's all about different logical fallacies we use without realizing it and ways our brain basically lies about shit we think we know

p interesting