Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Books That Have Been Banned" video.

  1. I voluntarily read it in high school because we had it as our main production in drama class. I don't know if I "enjoyed" the novel since it's such a horrible and dark story, and I got emotionally exhausted from acting in it, but I like the concept, the development of the children's madness, and the allegoric and symbolic elements of it
    4
  2. it's virtually banned from getting a film adaptation
    2
  3. +Ellen Collins My interpretation is that there is often a norm or principle (or maybe an expectation?) that people should be happy about their lives and the world/society they live in, and it makes people forget that some other people actually are dissatisfied, feel alienated, have teenage angst, and cannot relate to the people around them. Since most of us live by these norms and principles of being happy about life and the society's expectations, we cannot relate to those people who don't live by the same principles as us, and Holden therefore has a subtle rebellion and open disdain for those kinds of people I remember very well back in high school that they tried so hard to seem "heavenly" and that there would be no conflicts or dissatisfaction, but I disagreed a lot with how the lessons worked (since I had drama programs, I mostly disagreed with the theatre norms and principles, as well as curriculum), and I was rarely taken seriously, and it pisses me off even today. Of course, everything has worked out now
    2
  4. Dylan Christensen Before I begin, I must say that you still make judgments based on personal preferences, and you attack Holden Caulfield as a person rather than attacking him as a character. The novel is mostly a character study of Holden Caulfield, and the key word for this novel is “representation”. Holden Caulfield is a representation of teenage rebellion, angst, alienation, and longing for innocence in the 50’s, a period influenced by the post-trauma and lack of innocence after World War II. He condemns and criticizes the society and their structures, their insecurity, and their façades because he cannot relate to the people around him or find his place. He also criticizes adult life because of the society’s expectations to them, and he hesitates to lose his virginity because most women at the time were treated more as objects than someone you could respect and grow attached to. The norms and principles for casual sex are also much of the reason he has fantasies about childhood innocence; he wishes to stay away from sex because he cannot have casual sex and still care about the woman, and childhood fantasies seem to be the solution since sex is not expected. And of course, Holden Caulfield is very affected by the death of his younger brother and the suicide of one of his classmates. The novel also talks about how much Holden Caulfield’s depression escalates and affects his health; he feels dizzy and nauseous and eventually ends up at a mental hospital. I also believe that the novel is a rebellion towards the society's norms and principles of being happy about life and the world around you, so when you feel dissatisfied and judgmental (even if it is for good reasons), the world around you cannot relate to you and you grow a disdain for them 
    2
  5. Dylan Christensen The reason the book was banned because it was not acceptable back then to have “immoral content” such as profanity, smoking, casual sex, and such open disdain for the society’s structures. Some schools have also claimed that it had a communist theme, and it has been controversial later because it had influenced killers such as Mark David Chapman Understanding the time setting and relating are necessities to get into the story and the novel. If you are completely satisfied with the people and world around you, never have felt rebellious, never felt alienated, never had something against the society’s expectations of you, never grown up in that type of society, and never experienced a tragic incident that has affected you in later years (in Holden’s case, it’s both the death of his brother and the suicide of one of his friends), then there’s no hope for you to understand the novel. People who cannot relate to Holden will thus label him as whiny and pathetic even though they would have different thoughts if they were in his position. Yes, sex is a recurring theme in the story because of that “women as sexual objects VS women as people”. The society has through history been very misogynic, and in the 40’s and 50’s, women were especially seen as sexual objects (which is also talked about in movies like “Raging Bull” and “A Streetcar Named Desire”). Just to answer a previous question, he is actually 17 years old, so him wanting to lose his virginity should not be that much of a surprise.  The reason it has been considered such a classic is because of its influence. It was not normal back then to write about the teenage life and their problems and inner conflicts, and the movies did not take it seriously until “Rebel Without A Cause” (1955). Because of that, it probably wouldn’t have the same impact today, so people can have the right to say that it had not aged that well compared to other literary works, but people should not deny that it’s still influential and iconic. He may be a prototypical emo, but I don’t see that being a bad thing since the novel does such a good job of doing a realistic portrayal. That’s the biggest flaw I see in many people’s judgments of the book; they criticize it because they don’t like “emos” and “whiny teenagers” instead of looking at how well this portrayal is (with the logic that you have to “like” and agree with the character for it to be considered well-written or portrayed, I don’t understand why people then praise characters like Tyler Durden).  I can assure you that critics and historians didn’t call it a classic because they were “fans” of its theme and Holden Caulfield, they did it because the novel has been an icon for the teenage troubles, angst, and inner conflicts in that period. I mean, I can be highly against communists or think that Mafia figures are completely inhumane, but I will still give a novel or film good reviews if it does a great job of portraying one. 
    2
  6. +My Name's Whatsername I can also picture James Dean in that role, but people back then claimed that only Salinger himself should play the role, and the project just didn't work out
    1
  7. My Name's Whatsername Salinger actually passed away just 5 years ago, but it's still sad
    1
  8. it's also easier to read it if you see it from the perspective of the time period it was written, as well as if you have ever felt alienated or rebellious towards the society you live in
    1
  9. Daniel Ruman-Gonzales He’s more than that if you just take your time to in-depth: Holden Caulfield is meant to be a representation of teenage angst, alienation, and rebellion against the society’s standards, hypocrisy, and expectations, as well as the feeling of living in a world that you can’t relate to nor find your place in. Identity crisis also plays a part here, as well as criticism towards the adult life’s expectations and norms, so he wishes to remain his innocence, most likely because of the un-innocence and post-trauma culture in USA after World War II. He tries to make friends in his life, but cannot relate to any of the people near him. He tries to lose his virginity, but is unable to do it because he thinks it’s wrong to treat women as objects (which was quite common at that time), and he finds himself unable to develop a true relationship because of the society’s standards. The suicide of one of his classmates and the death of his brother have also affected him a lot. What I don’t understand however is why most people criticize Holden Caulfield as a person rather as a character. There are fictional characters that are generally unlikable and despicable as persons, but still worshiped as characters because of their complexity. Why should Holden Caulfield be any different? If I have to choose between a golden boy and Holden Caulfield, I would definitely go for the latter since I find him much more interesting. 
    1
  10. good that somebody enjoyed it. All I see most of the time whenever it shows up in these videos are "The book is so boring", "Holden is such a whiny brat", and "I don't understand the hype at all!" I haven't grown attached to it yet, but I still thought it was an interesting experience to read it
    1
  11. Ellen Collins I can understand that it's not the easiest novel to understand, and it probably requires deep analysis and reading it more than once. I also don't completely understand Holden Caulfield, and it was hard to explain my state of mind too. maybe Holden is simply too complex to understand and relate to? I can also understand that it's not the first book people would recommend to read "for fun" (reading it just to enjoy it instead of analyzing and interpreting it, and judging its formal qualities), but I think it has lot of layers and interesting elements from an aesthetic perspective
    1
  12. Ellen Collins Ok, I apologize that. My general impression is just that people (not necessarily you) criticize it because they don't understand it. I also had the same attitude as them until I read it over again and in a more analytic way, so I just believe that it's the key I also don't have anything against people who dislike it as long as they make it clear that it's just their opinion (which you did but many other people have not)
    1
  13. +crash979797 There has often been an "ideology" that if the content of the book (or just a piece of art) is considered to be of bad moral, its aesthetic value means nothing. I think some authors in the 19th century even got arrested for writing books about immoral topics, and it's possible to become offended or provoked by something that is written. It's just that nowadays, most book critics (and possibly art critics) believe that the book should not be evaluated based on moral but instead on aesthetics
    1
  14. +Dylan Christensen It's not an assessment, it's just you disliking a novel based on personal preferences without giving any valid arguments
    1
  15. Dylan Christensen​ You just do not know how to make an aesthetic judgement, do you? And it's clear that you just cannot relate to him or the period, which is the main reason you do not understand the novel, which does not make the novel bad. The fact that it has complexity and layers, as well as aesthetic values, is what makes it great; a text is nothing without its formal qualities And one last tip: check your spelling and grammar
    1
  16. Dylan Christensen Still no aesthetic assessment or even arguments, so I will label your statement as invalid
    1
  17. Dylan Christensen I didn't say you were wrong and I was right; there's no right or wrong in these kinds of statements. I only said that your reasoning isn't very well-thought-out, and it is based on personal preferences rather than the formal qualities of the novel, so I will not change my mind regarding the novel
    1
  18. Dylan Christensen Several literary works and pieces of art often look like nothing at first sight, but there is often a deeper meaning and more layers if you use your associations or evaluate it from the setting or context. The plot of "The Catcher in the Rye" may seem superficial and overly simple at the first reading, but there is a lot so say about the novel if you analyze Holden Caulfield either like you would analyze most characters or through a psychoanalytic approach, interpret the title of the novel, study the the period and setting the novel was written, and bring out your associations around the novel as a whole. If it was nothing to say about the novel, I wouldn't have written that long reply where you asked me to tell you what the book was about. And as a side note, story and plot are not always the only things that matter; it's the formal qualities that differs litterature from speech and communication
    1
  19. Max Islas​ I meant "tip". Or "advice"
    1