I'm not sure I'd go so far as "a load of rubbish" though I certainly thought it was a snooze.  But I've always seemed to have a big impedance mismatch with "great literature."  I think this is because I've never grokked the language of symbolism.  For example (and please consider this a rhetorical question) what's the deal with the houndstooth coat?  He goes on and on (and on and on) about it.  What do hounds teeth have to do with anything?  Why not a terrycloth robe?  For that matter, what the fuck <i>is</i> a houndstooth coat?  And why rye?  Why not corn?  Or wheat?  Would The Shortstop in the Azaleas have conveyed the same message?<p>Those were the sorts of things that were foremost in my mind when I read Catcher, so clearly I missed the point, and I'm still missing it.  But I do find it kind of fascinating that so many people get something out of it that completely eludes me to this day.