AWKWARD ZOMBIE

goodness, did you get a papercut on your dick from it or something

Galaxy Man wrote:

Lambeth wrote: Pff whatever man catcher in the rye is rad

if you like giant douchebags

and shit books

and retarded plots

and stupid secondary characters

and just waves and waves of boredom

and having a cattle prod in your booty

I love giant douchebags thank you

Lambeth wrote: I love giant douchebags thank you

i rest my case

i rest every case

all cases

Well nice dudes make pretty boring characters

Lambeth wrote:Well nice dudes make pretty boring characters

yet somehow a total dick manages to also be boring!

wow, it's almost as if it's more the quality of writing, not the character's general disposition!

And it's almost as if you seem to be confusing the two statements "I dislike this book" and "this is a bad book"!

Galaxy Man wrote:

Lambeth wrote:Well nice dudes make pretty boring characters

yet somehow a total dick manages to also be boring!

wow, it's almost as if it's more the quality of writing, not the character's general disposition!

Bet you don't like The Road huh

e: or Blindness now that I think about it.

Spoony wrote:And it's almost as if you seem to be confusing the two statements "I dislike this book" and "this is a bad book"!

I dislike bad books

it's a bad book

and I dislike it

Bet you don't like The Road huh

e: or Blindness now that I think about it.

I have honestly not heard of either of those until just now.

Galaxy Man wrote:I dislike bad books

it's a bad book

and I dislike it

Try giving a proper, objective critique of it rather than a bunch of "fuck i hate it cattle prod in your booty"

Cafall wrote: Try giving a proper, objective critique"

hi i'm galaxy man have we met

Seriously though. I already have. It's boring. Bland. Nothing really happens in the book that matters. It boils down to an idiot running though a city fucking up everything just a little bit more and blaming all his flaws on other people. He doesn't change, he doesn't learn, he just whines.

It's not a good book because any books that aren't horrible have plots where hey, things matter. Something important happens, at some point, anywhere in the book, something happens that actually is noticeable.

Nothing of the sort ever happens in Catcher in the Rye. In fact nothing happens. It's like reading a journal of the most boring whiny person to ever exist, and it did get so much attention because when it came out it DID break the norm for what was "acceptable", but that's it. They cursed a few times, and it has prostitution. That was what made the book so popular.

It's not even close to being anything of the sort now, not to mention even if it was the glaring problem where there isn't an actual plot or any characters to give a shit about.

That's why it's not good.

When I was five I thought it was about some sort of kidnapper in a rye field. That would be interesting.

What it actually is? Not interesting or really any sort of good at all, unless you're an english teacher and even then you fake it.

Unfortunately, "it's boring" isn't a pro argument. I don't get kicks out of sitting in the garden staring at rocks, yet, geology is a thing that exists. Objectively interesting is not. And, a character not changing and just whining is in itself commentary on both society and the character. Have you read The Stranger? Very little happens in that; dude shoots a guy, that's about it. Yet it's a book with a lot to say about nihilism. "Nothing happens" is, in my experience, generally what people say when they're out of anything else to critique. Unless it's a book where a guy sits and stares at a wall for five hundred pages, then, shit probably did happen.

Galaxy Man wrote:It boils down to an idiot running though a city fucking up everything just a little bit more and blaming all his flaws on other people.

See, this is what we call things happening. This is a plot, or sequence of events. It's a take on his character, in that he's avoiding responsibility, and doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. This is telling us something about his personality; character development, which you said doesn't occur at all.

Just looking at the wikipedia article, apparently Time magazine listed it as one of the 100 best books since 1920! You'll forgive me for assuming they know slightly better what they're talking about than you do, yes?

Spoony wrote:Unfortunately, "it's boring" isn't a pro argument. I don't get kicks out of sitting in the garden staring at rocks, yet, geology is a thing that exists.

Geology isn't sitting around in a garden, staring at rocks.

Geology is studying the way the ground works. Staring at rocks is... staring at rocks. A geologist would stare at the rocks and wonder how they were created, and then go off and figure it out.

That was honestly a fairly bad metaphor.

Objectively interesting is not. And, a character not changing and just whining is in itself commentary on both society and the character.

I really, honestly, don't see how that makes a character any better at all. You can analyze anything, anything at all, but that doesn't change what it is. No matter what he's supposed to represent, Holden (I think that's how his name is spelled) is still a very boring and uninteresting character.

Have you read The Stranger? Very little happens in that; dude shoots a guy, that's about it.

I never, and will never say that a lack of action is what, alone, makes a book bad. A book about two people talking, as long as it is well written and the characters are extremely likable, would make a good book.

Not to mention, a murder? That's interesting. That's something happening.

Yet it's a book with a lot to say about nihilism. "Nothing happens" is, in my experience, generally what people say when they're out of anything else to critique. Unless it's a book where a guy sits and stares at a wall for five hundred pages, then, shit probably did happen.
See, this is what we call things happening. This is a plot, or sequence of events.

Yeah okay, if you wanna take the smartass route then yeah, "things happen."

Do important things happen?

Does anything actually matter in the end?

Does anyone get anywhere?

That's actually things happening, that's a story progressing in at least a BASIC manner. Nothing important happens in Catcher in the Rye, nothing matters in the end, nobody gets anywhere.

That's what I mean when I say nothing happens. Nothing of any notable importance occurs in the entire book.

It's not that I don't have anything else, because I do. It's just that it is actually a very large, glaring flaw.

It's a take on his character, in that he's avoiding responsibility, and doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. This is telling us something about his personality; character development, which you said doesn't occur at all.

Actually let's use the definition of character development. Character Development is when a character changes over the course of a narrative. Luke Skywalker goes from a regular farmer into a Jedi, Neo goes from a scared computer hacker into a digital superhero, Ralph decends from a leader into a scared child running for his life, while Jack becomes the savage hunting him.

That's character development. That is the character actually developing, even if it's blunt or subtle or anything at all, it's actual progression of the character's basic attitude.

Holden does not change. He does not alter. Holden is exactly the same the entire book. He's a whiner, he's a hypocrite, and he's generally a little bitch about everything. He stays this way. He doesn't change, he doesn't realize anything, the book ends with him learning nothing at all.

So no, there is no character development.

Just looking at the wikipedia article, apparently Time magazine listed it as one of the 100 best books since 1920! You'll forgive me for assuming they know slightly better what they're talking about than you do, yes?

There are people who read books, and people who "read" books. By "read" I mean they look at everything and try to discern any sort of meaning they can. It's not a bad thing by far, because yeah usually these people do have something. May not be what the author intended, but they do understand books better than most.

Most people do not "read" (and I really, honestly only use the quotes for lack of a better word,) they read. And just reading the book? It's not impressive. It's not fun. It's not any sort of dramatic.

So if I were to take the book, and break it down into bits and think about each one for a good time, then yes I might be able to discern meaning from it that is not outwardly obvious.

That does not, however, change the core of the book, which as I have said before, nothing happens in.

I would also like to say that it IS actually a point with many people that Holden is a whiny, hypocritical person. I would ALSO like to point out, that since the 1970s, it's "themes of teenage confusion" has been more than obsolete, they've been crushed into the ground and buried, flowers and trees have long since grown there. That's what held the book up until then, although not as much as the "shocking" amount of adult themes.

If I was a teenager in the 1920s, I might have liked this book. I might have understood it from Holden's perspective. I might even acted much like Holden.

I am not. I did not and I don't. I couldn't act less like Holden if I tried.

It is not a good book. I do stand by that. The plot revolves around nothing of importance, the character does nothing of importance then whines about it, and none of it even matters any more because the book has aged so badly it's lost the main charm it had.

Every point you've made there is a subjective one, you realise? You don't think the events of the story are important or interesting. That's fine! That's great. I'm glad you've thought it through; but I still really don't see, at all, how it's objectively of poor quality.

Spoony wrote:but I still really don't see, at all, how it's objectively of poor quality.

There is, honestly, a reason why I didn't give any objective points.
Because, in most literature there are none.

If a book makes it out to the market, if it's actually published, it's usually, about 9.9 times out of 10, decently written.

That's not exactly a feat, because decently written essentially boils down to no grammatical errors and a coherent plot. Even Twilight. The characters are mostly stupid and bland, but they're not spouting out nonsensical words every five seconds, nor do the books misspell basic words. I'm not seeing many time paradoxes either.

So no, from a completely objective standpoint it's not bad. Nor is it good. It's fairly middle-ground.

But if you're looking for objective things, when reading a book? It's mostly missing the point.

Although, thinking about it, it does now lack the ability to communicate with the stereotypical modern teenager, which is objective.

I haven't read this book and don't read much fiction any more in general, but I want to add something.

Galaxy Man wrote:I never, and will never say that a lack of action is what, alone, makes a book bad. A book about two people talking, as long as it is well written and the characters are extremely likable, would make a good book.

Not to mention, a murder? That's interesting. That's something happening.

Likeable=/= interesting. I don't always want to read or view fiction wherein all the characters are nice, reasonable or at least understandable people. Sure, such feats make a character more identifiable, but that is not always the authors goal. If you read/view a lot of fiction, all recurring character traits eventually become boring. Authors who try and write differently and try new things should at least be applauded for effort, for it's indeed more difficult to keep the viewer/reader interested when he can't identify with the characters.

Also GM, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously. I've noticed this before, you're very convinced of your own viewpoints about subjective things. It's coo' if you find this book dull or that you find it bad. But you have to accept that other people might have different opinions and your viewpoint isn't better than theirs.