Aged 91, and quite the author, he's dead.
The only reason I'm posting a topic is because I'm reading The Catcher in the Rye right now for English, and it's a pretty (goddam) good book.
Now, if you've ever read the novel aforementioned, you'd know that Holden, the main character, thinks that art is something to be admired personally, not sold to the masses. He says it himself about a quarter of the way through the book, if he could play piano well, he'd play it in his closet.
This mentality reflected how Salinger thought in reality. Salinger wrote possibly hundreds of books in his lifetime, but published very, very few, The Catcher in the Rye being one of them.
This thread asks a simple question: Do you agree or disagree with Salinger when it comes to how Art should be shared with others? Should art be a personal pleasure, or should it be shared with everyone?
Oh no, he died? I loved Catcher in the Rye.
Personally, I think art isn't that black and white. Some things should be a personal pleasure (writing or playing music just for yourself, to relieve stress or for your own enjoyment), while other times you may have a message you want the entire world to understand, and so you can share your art to hopefully inspire others. It depends on the piece of art, in my opinion.
He couldn't stop kids from running off that cliff forever.
Question sounds like something my AP English teacher would ask...
Man, Holden Caufield annoyed the hell out of me at times, but The Catcher in the Rye was still good. Whether or not art should be shared is up to the artist. Some things you want to make known, others, no. What someone creates is their business, and if they want to share it then let 'em go for it.
As my roommate said, "And lo, as the death of Salinger was spread, the wail of a thousand screaming English majors was drowned by an interplanetary chorus of 'meh.'"
Catcher in the Rye is, behind Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, the most overrated book in existence.
Quote from: Dark Link on January 29, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
As my roommate said, "And lo, as the death of Salinger was spread, the wail of a thousand screaming English majors was drowned by an interplanetary chorus of 'meh.'"
Catcher in the Rye is, behind Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, the most overrated book in existence.
I'm not saying it's best book ever, but Salinger was a good author. Catcher in the Rye is a pretty good book, it just doesn't have... well, a plot, really. That's the only way I can put it. The story just leads to nowhere.
Quote from: Kilroy on January 29, 2010, 08:29:59 PM
The story just leads to nowhere.
Which is my entire problem with the book.
Quote from: Dark Link on January 29, 2010, 08:22:42 PM
As my roommate said, "And lo, as the death of Salinger was spread, the wail of a thousand screaming English majors was drowned by an interplanetary chorus of 'meh.'"
Catcher in the Rye is, behind Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, the most overrated book in existence.
I have to wholeheartedly agree. I've met people that get so up in arms when I say I didn't enjoy the book at all. I've never seen the reason for such praise of it.
Quote from: Dark Link on January 29, 2010, 08:39:42 PM
Which is my entire problem with the book.
True, I guess. I still enjoy it as a pleasure read, but analytically (as we need to read it for English classes -_-), it's terrible.
Now that Salinger is dead I hope all of his unpublished books are sold to the masses.
I was depressed when reading Catcher in the Rye so I could relate. It was a pretty good book in my own opinion.
I absolutely loved The Catcher in the Rye.
Just read it this past year.
RIP JD Salinger
Well that stinks. I haven't read any of his works beside The Catcher in the Rye, but I really liked that book. It was very emotional, very relative, and I loved the mood. Once you understand Holden, you "have" to feel bad for him, and you can't help but notice at least a little bit of yourself in him.
/ \
/ R.I.P. \
| J. D. Salinger |
| 1919-2010 |
| |
| |
| |