The Catcher in the Rye is Objectively the Worst Book Ever Written

-Which is what I probably would have said if you asked me my thoughts several years ago. But now that I have your attention, I'd like to share my new (and arguably improved) thoughts on The Catcher in the Rye. Not only has this reading been more enjoyable, it's been more interested as well. In fact, it has almost felt like reading a completely different book than what I've read two other times before.

In the two previous English classes that I have read this, my experience was roughly the same. Back then, we would be assigned groups of chapters to read each night, only to barely discuss anything deeper than the surface in class. Nothing about the book was interesting to anyone because the only thing we knew about it was the actual events in the story, nothing about their hidden meanings or importance. This made myself--and pretty much everyone else, I'm sure--quickly dislike the book.

But things are different this time around. Mr. Scalia has been kind enough to actually teach us how to read, allowing for a completely different experience from the past. First off, the groups of chapters that we read actually have a purpose behind them! Not only do these chunks of chapters remain manageable from a workload standpoint, but they also help us make connections and analyze the meanings of events and actions better. Next, we actually have thought-provoking discussions that not only cover the events of the story, but go over their significance. Through these discussions, I have also learned things that overlap into other books as well, such as the use and meaning of water in literature. Lastly, the blogs have served as a way to solidify the material from the book, as well as get us to discover secrets in the text and analyze the events on our own.

This new way of reading Catcher has made me actually begin to like the book. Before, the book just seemed like a pointless story about some troubled teenager that can't seem to wrap his head around anything. Now, we've been discovering and learning about the hidden meanings of what were previously regarded as pointless details. Personally, I actually enjoy finding meanings of tiny details and finding out how they relate to the larger picture and meaning of the book (I also have a tendency to enjoy analyzing plays that I watch, so this is right up my alley). Reading this has also made me significantly more skeptical of minor details and I have started believing that everything has a meaning, unless proven otherwise. This new-found enjoyment of the book has made both reading and the work involved significantly less agonizing, which I welcome with open arms.

So far, I have made no groundbreaking discoveries in the book, however I hope to figure something out by the time we wrap things up. In the beginning of the first chapter, I compared Holden--someone who doesn't follow the rules--as being a loose cannon, relating him to the cannon that he stood alone with during the football game. Despite this remarkable discovery, it has yet to receive Scalia's seal of approval, so I'll try and develop this more and see if it gets me anywhere. This cannon theory, Stradlater's name, and the ducks (although I pretty much cracked this wide open with Josh) are on my bucket list of things to dig deeper into.

For me, one of the most interesting things about this book that I enjoy pondering on is Holden's character. On the surface, I really like his voice and dialogue as it is written in a way that makes his character seem real and natural. Going a bit deeper, Holden's character is so consistent, yet unpredictable at the same time, it's almost fascinating to see what he will do or get himself into next. As well as this, I also enjoy looking into Holden's psyche, assessing whether or not any mental disorder is involved in his decision making and if so, what may have caused it and what actions it is responsible for.

Welp, that's all for now. In summary: this still isn't my favorite book (I think some previous and unnamed teachers could have ruined that possibility for me), but I have developed an actual liking for this book that was absent during my previous two readings.