60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye

[Moon Rabbits]

Yay or nay? (http://jam.canoe.ca/Books/2009/07/01/9996061-ap.html)

I vote very nay.

[Bunny]

Nay.

Catcher in the Rye was a terrible book and nobody should ever read it or anything associated with it.

[charliepanayi]

The Catcher in the Rye is one of my favourite ever books - if someone wants to do a book like this they can knock themselves out to be honest, I'm not too fussed.

[McLovin']

It's a great book about what's going on in that kids mind. Was really interesting.

[Miriel]

Nay.

Catcher in the Rye was a terrible book and nobody should ever read it or anything associated with it.

Bunny knows the score.

[Vermachtnis]

Never read it. Came here cause I thought Rye was making a movie xD

[Breine]

Never read it, but I intend to. Writing a sequel just seems strange.

[qwertysaur]

nay

[Ouch!]

My old man and I fight about this book all the time. He thinks it's brilliant. I think it's absolutely awful.

Either way, I don't think that this "sequel" should be allowed to be published. It's glorified fan fiction, as far as I'm concerned. Write something new.

[fire_of_avalon]

I agree with Ouch! as far as glorified fan-fiction is concerned. It does not fall under fair use. Guy's retarded.

That being said I love Catcher In the Rye, I love JD Salinger and I will poke you in the eye.

[Rye]

Catcher in the Rye is interesting. It's something I'd continue again, but I'm still not sure exactly how it FEEL about it. I'm not sure how I'd approach it either when I'm teaching.

I much much much prefer Franny and Zooey though. It makes me love JD Salinger.

[eestlinc]

yea, his other books are better. And I find it amusing that some random guy from Norway decided to try to publish a fanfic sequel.

[Araciel]

The original is boring and pointless.

But that's just my opinion, and no amount of making me read it and write about it in high school changed that.

I don't see why anyone would WANT to write a sequel or even talk about this book, but I don't see why I care if they do, so I say let them.

[Ouch!]

I don't see why anyone would WANT to write a sequel or even talk about this book, but I don't see why I care if they do, so I say let them.
Aside from the fact that it infringes upon someone else's intellectual property without any artistic merit?

As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to write something similar, that's fine. But to explicitly use characters and to market it as a sequel... well, that's pushing it too far.

[Bunny]

I don't see why anyone would WANT to write a sequel or even talk about this book, but I don't see why I care if they do, so I say let them.
Aside from the fact that it infringes upon someone else's intellectual property without any artistic merit?

As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to write something similar, that's fine. But to explicitly use characters and to market it as a sequel... well, that's pushing it too far.

The words "intellectual", "artistic" and "merit" do not belong in a thread about Catcher in the Rye.

[Araciel]

I don't see why anyone would WANT to write a sequel or even talk about this book, but I don't see why I care if they do, so I say let them.
Aside from the fact that it infringes upon someone else's intellectual property without any artistic merit?

As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to write something similar, that's fine. But to explicitly use characters and to market it as a sequel... well, that's pushing it too far.

I hold few things sacred when it comes to intellectual properties. If I write a book and some hack comes along and writes and publishes one based entirely on what I wrote, I don't care. The only thing that would irk me is if he made more money, but to be honest that's a minor consideration since it would simply mean he either wrote a better book or had better marketing/exposure. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that I only write for leisure and to share my ideas, backward though they sometimes may be.