Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Although Catcher in the Rye became No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list when it was published in 1951, it attracted the attention of censors immediately. It was banned from public libraries and schools for reasons ranging from using excessive vulgar language, sexual scenes, moral issues, excessive violence, racist, rude and the occult. Regardless of efforts to ban the book, it was translated into 30 languages and sold more than 65 million copies.
1 posted on 09/09/2010 9:53:00 AM PDT by usalady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: usalady

Schools and libraries want kids having sex now.

I like it back then better


2 posted on 09/09/2010 9:54:07 AM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

they should have banned it because it sucked but it definitely foreshadowed the “Cult of Me”.


3 posted on 09/09/2010 9:55:04 AM PDT by j.argese (Liberal thought process = oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

a self-centered kid in our society? no!


4 posted on 09/09/2010 9:57:21 AM PDT by therightliveswithus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

Authors DREAM of getting ‘banned’. It assures big sales... for liberals.


5 posted on 09/09/2010 9:59:21 AM PDT by GOPJ (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_power_of_images_turned_aga.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

Authors DREAM of getting ‘banned’. It assures big sales... for liberals. Crying all the way to the bank...


6 posted on 09/09/2010 9:59:59 AM PDT by GOPJ (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_power_of_images_turned_aga.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

I hated that stupid book. So he is offended by phonies...get over it. Today, Holden Caulfield would be taking hostages at the Discovery Channel.


10 posted on 09/09/2010 10:11:37 AM PDT by rlmorel (The New Oval office: If all you see is brown, you should probably pull your head out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

But John Hinckley and Mark David Chapman loved this book!


11 posted on 09/09/2010 10:14:17 AM PDT by Andrea19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady
yoko Pictures, Images and Photos

Should be banned just for missing Yoko.

12 posted on 09/09/2010 10:18:44 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady
Regardless of efforts to ban the book, it was translated into 30 languages and sold more than 65 million copies.

That should read, "BECAUSE of efforts to ban the book.

They turned-on to the idea that getting 'banned' would sell books. And sell 'art' - it worked so well it became the first choice of the talentless.

Liberals competed to become the most offensive - a plastic crucifix submerged in the 'artist' urine was the poster work of this type of 'art'.

Eventually the idea became so fashionable liberals couldn't find anyone to ban their works...

Mapplethorpe was the last of the great 'finger in your face' type 'artists'... After him - it was hard to get banned, but they kept trying... In a hundred years the 'art' that existed only to express hatred for traditional Americans will be classed with hate pictures of Jews and Blacks from an earlier time. Mapplethorpe Photography

13 posted on 09/09/2010 10:20:51 AM PDT by GOPJ (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_power_of_images_turned_aga.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

Amazing book, stylistically a roadmark that is still read and copied in hundreds of crappy knockoffs each year.


14 posted on 09/09/2010 10:23:13 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. -- written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

the occult? It’s been a while, but I can’t recall how that worked into it all


17 posted on 09/09/2010 10:32:47 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

I had a conversation with my mother about this book. I said I had to read it in high screwl (back in the 1970s), and I thought it was stupid.

Apparently my sister had the exact same comment about the book.

For some reason English teachers adore the book.


20 posted on 09/09/2010 10:39:07 AM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady
Holden Caulfield: One very spoiled and self-centered egotist.

What he needed was a kick in the rear end and a stern reprimand to “Go! Get a life!”

24 posted on 09/09/2010 11:30:32 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady
The Guardian obituary is interesting, not least because the author, Mark Krupnick, died seven years before Salinger.
26 posted on 09/09/2010 11:52:07 AM PDT by AZLiberty (Yes, Mr. Lennon, I do want a revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: usalady

So was the childrens book Little Black Sambo, a story of a boy that lived in the jungle....The libs had it removed from all library’s and its never been published....was not racist in any way...a story of a little boy and a tiger...my father used to read me books all the time, especially sunday mornings in bed. 3-4 year olds didn’t see race as a problem....now its shoved in everyone’s face every day, just like the gay (?) agenda..


27 posted on 09/09/2010 12:19:22 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson