Catcher in the Rye

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My dear, I have my pitfalls. I have things that tempt me, try to drag me into sin. Things many people wouldn’t even think. There are many things I know causes me harm and I need to avoid like the plague, but a book has yet to prove to be one of them. Now, a Will Smith movie, on the other hand…😉
 
I do understand that some stories have elements that are part of the story but there is difference between “reading about” and being “exposed to”. Use of such language (especially in regards to profanity) is not just “reading about”, it is also “exposing to”.

I am aware that Catcher in the Rye is a common book. I think as a society we need to take a step back and look at ways that even in our educational system we are subtly desentisizing students to profanity and bad language.

Let’s wake up and stop excusing everything. We are to be holy and give glory to the Lord! Think of Mary, St. Paul, and the apostles! Surely, such profane and low language is not part of the light of the Gospel message! Would St. Paul have been found with such a book!? Would he really going to spend the day preaching and then sit down and read a book with abuse of the holy name of Christ and vulgarity!?

Purge the evil from our schools! At least Theh Cathcher in the Rye should be revised to remove the profanity.
 
I grew up in a hick town, where profanity and the lord’s name were used every other sentence. I’ve not been “exposed” to one single thing through a book that I wasn’t already well aware of in the real world. Your daughter has undoubtedly been “exposed” to this before. The book isn’t exposing anything new.

it’s called scene setting. If, for example, I watched a war movie about rough and tough soldiers, it’s sure not going to make much sense to hear “Oh golly gee wiz!” when there’s a bomb headed for them. More likely it would be a profanity.

People cuss and swear and take the lord’s name in vain every single day. If a character in a book is the sort who would do that, then it’s part of charactorization. Truth in writing. I’m not a supporter of just editing editing things out of books because it’s unChristian. Not everyone in the world in christian, and not everyone in the world refrains from using the Lord’s name in vein, so not everyone in the fiction world should be that way either.
 
shondrea said:
I…when there’s a bomb headed for them. More likely it would be a profanity.
Click to expand...
Hi Shondrea. Jesus modeled perfect dignity for us including when He was on the cross. Our mission is to cooperate with Him in raising a fallen culture, not to depict the “reality” but to transform the reality.
 
…so we should never write about the world, never write tales with realistic characters fighting true-to-life issues, and only write about a perfect model universe where we’re all sinless saints?

Don’t get me wrong; I DEFINATELY dfon’t think we should be glorifying sin, or portraying it as something alluring. FAR from it! I do however believe that the portryal of sin has it’s place. I have no read all of Catcher (I found it dull) but speaking in general, it is not the portrayal of sin that is morally problematic, but how it is handled. Gratuitous and excess use of profantiy should not be deemed appropriate, but I don’t feel the utterance of 'For Christ’s sake" in Babe made the movie’s message any less beautiful and uplifting, and helped the show the social divide between parents and child.
 
shondrea said:
…so we should never write about the world, never write tales with realistic characters fighting true-to-life issues…
Click to expand...
Hi Shondrea. I am not necessarily saying that but we should keep in ming what our mission is and apply this to the media that we produce and consume. As, I pointed out, a story can be acceptable. I think that a “depiction” of the misuse of the name of God is not acceptable even to tell a story because I still consider it a misuse of His name if it does not glorify his name.
shondrea said:
…and only write about a perfect model universe where we’re all sinless saints?
Click to expand...
Maybe if we focused more on holiness in media then it would help transform the world.
 
Victorious said:
Does that also go for pornography?
Click to expand...
Of course, it depends on the context.

Let’s start with the pornographic images. If you go looking for them then yes, finding them is a sin. If however, you click a link or turn a page and something pops up that you were not looking for it is not a sin. If you dwell on it, it may lead to sin.

Let’s finish with pornographic words. If you go looking for them by reading a book specifically loaded with them, just the act of looking for them would start the sin. If you turn a page or come across them in a novel or magazine article or web blog, they are not a sin. If you dwell on them, there is sin in that.
 
I just want to throw it out there that the newest south park addresses banning Catcher in the Rye…although it is a bit of vulgar episode. Check it out.
 
I liked that book. The older I get, the less relevant it is in my life. I enjoyed reading it though.
Some questionable things in it, that’s for sure. 16ish would be the proper age to read it.

Reading it and enjoying it is not sinful.
 
I didn’t even like that book when I was a teenager. What a jerk that kid was.

But I just wanted to say, it drives me batty that blasphemous language is more acceptable than merely vulgar language. If you read people taking the Name of our Lord in vain, that gets into your head, and it just doesn’t affect you so much, in fact, you might start doing it yourself.

And is that where a good Catholic is supposed to be?
 
I’m a 16-year-old guy, and attend a Catholic High School in Vancouver, Canada. This year we were, yes, required to read The Catcher in the Rye. All things aside, it is an amazing piece of literature. Look, I’m one of the most theologically conservative Catholics I know (you can check my posts for confirmation of this), but I still think Catcher has an immense amount of value and is, really, an exploration of human nature and of what it means to be a teenager. Holden Caulfield, in his three days in New York, searches for meaning—or for what I called in one of my essays as a “former innocence.” He’s a good guy at heart, and I think that schools, whether Catholic or not, should continue to teach this book.
 
It is very hard to address sin in a novel if no one sins.

An excellent question that one might ask in a class of teens reading this novel would be why do the characters use such profanity? What does it reveal about them? About their culture? Is it related to their worldview, the other problems they face?

I remember watching the movie The English Patient with a friend. (A wonderful book by the way.) He felt that it was immoral, glorifying adultery. I pointed out that it hardly seemed to be glorifying it, since it caused everyone involved and some who were not profound unhappiness, and led to two suicides, two rather slow and terrible deaths, and treason.

Or a woman I worked with who was convinced Death in Venice was an immoral story, because the main character was enamored of a young boy. The way the situation played out was irrelevant to her.

Even when the author comes to very different conclusions that we would, we can see and evaluate that. Now, with a child some things may indeed be too advanced or mature, and others would be best read in a guided way. * Catcher in the Rye* has a lot to offer young people; the teen years are probably the most appropriate to first read it. ((as a pp noted, it can become a less relevant book as one ages.) And one part of the reason it is a useful book is because kids that age are being exposed to things like profanity and taking God’s name in vain - it is an excellent way to talk about and evaluate such things.
 
Bluegoat said:
It is very hard to address sin in a novel if no one sins.

An excellent question that one might ask in a class of teens reading this novel would be why do the characters use such profanity? What does it reveal about them? About their culture? Is it related to their worldview, the other problems they face?

I remember watching the movie The English Patient with a friend. (A wonderful book by the way.) He felt that it was immoral, glorifying adultery. I pointed out that it hardly seemed to be glorifying it, since it caused everyone involved and some who were not profound unhappiness, and led to two suicides, two rather slow and terrible deaths, and treason.

Or a woman I worked with who was convinced Death in Venice was an immoral story, because the main character was enamored of a young boy. The way the situation played out was irrelevant to her.

Even when the author comes to very different conclusions that we would, we can see and evaluate that. Now, with a child some things may indeed be too advanced or mature, and others would be best read in a guided way. * Catcher in the Rye* has a lot to offer young people; the teen years are probably the most appropriate to first read it. ((as a pp noted, it can become a less relevant book as one ages.) And one part of the reason it is a useful book is because kids that age are being exposed to things like profanity and taking God’s name in vain - it is an excellent way to talk about and evaluate such things.
Click to expand...
Best. Answer. Yet.
 
As Holden might say, It’s really too bad that so much crumby stuff is a lot of fun sometimes. It depresses the ____ out of me. It really does!
 
Bluegoat said:
…And one part of the reason it is a useful book is because kids that age are being exposed to things like profanity and taking God’s name in vain - it is an excellent way to talk about and evaluate such things.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned before, stories about various sins are one thing but I have a problem accepting showing an “example” of the misuse of the name of God because I consider that such an “example” is itself a misuse of His name.
 
Coder said:
As I mentioned before, stories about various sins are one thing but I have a problem accepting showing an “example” of the misuse of the name of God because I consider that such an “example” is itself a misuse of His name.
Click to expand...
What about the examples of sin in the bible? The Bible often gives direct examples of sin: Rape, murder, lust, blasphemy, etc.

But the Bible is, of course, not at all evil. I’m not saying that “Catcher in the Rye” is like the Bible, but if it gives examples of people committing sins, but then shows the pain that results from such actions, is that not a thing that is actually beneficial?
 
Keep in mind Coder has not said they don’t want to see any examples of sin in fiction, just that one particular one is what they find bothersome, mostly.
 
Coder said:
As I mentioned before, stories about various sins are one thing but I have a problem accepting showing an “example” of the misuse of the name of God because I consider that such an “example” is itself a misuse of His name.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think this is the case in fiction, or at least not always the case.

It is more like if you were discussing a hypothetical situation with someone. Say I asked you, "Why does John always say (blasphemous phrase X)? “What does phase Y mean?” In discussing such a subject there would be no sin in speaking frankly.

Remember that for Christians, sin is not only an objective act. Intent is an important component - to take the Lord’s name in vain one must really intend to do so, or do so thoughtlessly. To speak blasphemy one must have a blasphemous heart.

Now, there are other sins related to language use. If an author included profanity just to disturb and shock, or to sell more books, that would be wrong in another way - greed, uncharitableness, and so on. It might indicate a disregard or lack of respect for the things of God as well, by using profane language thoughtlessly.

But to do it because it really puts forward the subject of the story, tells us about the experience, background, or emotional state of the characters - that is simply indicating what the state of the soul of those people are. It doesn’t in itself indicate what the author thinks of God.
 
phoenix3212 said:
I’m a 16-year-old guy, and attend a Catholic High School in Vancouver, Canada. This year we were, yes, required to read The Catcher in the Rye. All things aside, it is an amazing piece of literature. Look, I’m one of the most theologically conservative Catholics I know (you can check my posts for confirmation of this), but I still think Catcher has an immense amount of value and is, really, an exploration of human nature and of what it means to be a teenager. Holden Caulfield, in his three days in New York, searches for meaning—or for what I called in one of my essays as a “former innocence.” He’s a good guy at heart, and I think that schools, whether Catholic or not, should continue to teach this book.
Click to expand...
“What it means to be a teenager”? Is that what the book was about? Funny, I didn’t get that out of it. I hated, hated, HATED that book - can’t believe I made it all the way through. I wanted to throw it against the wall.

My son had to read it in high school, too. I think he hated it as much as I did.

Neither of us saw any redeeming value in the book. We can certainly find better things to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top