Post a response to this discussion thread
The problem with books (or movies or music etc.) that are viewed as classics is that if you don't like them you figure there's something you missed and you go back and read it again and you start to develop these little theories and read way too much (more than what was there) into it and then you've convinced yourself you've just read a classic. Like the time my friend told me Frances Mcdormand's character was pregant in Fargo to symbolize that good people create and bad people (Peter Stormare and Steve Buscemi) kill. It sounds good and gives you a chance to play interpreter (you understand the message, you knew what the creator was saying, even when no one else did) but it's still a load of shit.
And Ken: You could've taken his Rye monologue many different ways (he could've wanted to fix people's problems so he wouldn't have to concentrate on his). And that's the problem, Salinger wanted you to pick which ever interpretation you liked the best so you wouldn't think twice about calling him a genius. And your theory about his romantic Jane fantasy is nice (I'll admit) but it's fabricated. He painted himself into a corner with Jane and figured anything he did with her would be considered a let down, so he let us decide what happened with her in our minds. I look forward to hearing your rebuttles (sp?).
Tralala: I'm too old to understand Holden? Isn't that a great way of dismissing my statements on a book you like. "Dave's twenty, he's way to old to 'get' Holden". Right?
Post a response to this discussion thread