I think one is supposed to like Animal Farm, “supposed to” like The Catcher in the Rye, and only “‘supposed to’” like Moby Dick.
I have literally no idea what this comment means. I assume that you think Animal Farm is easier to like than Moby Dick, but have no idea what the different levels of “supposed to” are supposed to mean.
I imagine one of them might mean “people make the natural supposition that you like X, with no judgement” and one of them might mean “it is expected that you like X, with social opprobrium if you do not” but I don’t know what the other might be.
I think one is supposed to like Animal Farm, “supposed to” like The Catcher in the Rye, and only “‘supposed to’” like Moby Dick.
I have literally no idea what this comment means. I assume that you think Animal Farm is easier to like than Moby Dick, but have no idea what the different levels of “supposed to” are supposed to mean.
My guess, is as follows:
One is expected to have actually enjoyed, or at least be able to have a decent discussion about, Animal Farm (supposed to like it). One is assumed to at least say they enjoyed and have a small discussion about Catcher in the Rye, but nothing serious as no one will press it (“supposed to” like it). And one is implied to only have to say you read Moby Dick, as no one but literary critics will actually discuss the book (only “supposed to” like).
That was not my experience. I actually liked Animal Farm, but I was the only person in my 10th grade English class who did not like Catcher in the Rye1, and I’ve been reading Moby Dick on the kindle recently and finding some of it quite interesting, in a sort of pseudo-nonfiction way.
1 -- I regard Catcher in the Rye and some other books (A Farewell to Arms also springs to mind )as particularly awful in that I can barely remember anything about them except the negative emotional affect being forced to read them produced. This is distinct from, say, Wuthering Heights which I really didn’t like because it’s not my kind of book, but which I remember just fine and can understand why other people might think it was great.
Catcher in the Rye was actually the only book I was ever assigned to read in school which I wholeheartedly enjoyed, but I gather that it’s significantly a love-it-or-hate-it work.
I read Catcher in the Rye is high-school, at the time I found it reasonably mediocre and certainly nothing memorable. Later, when I was in grad school, I found out that apparently it was a huge deal when it was released. I can only assume that this is some combination of Seinfeld is Unfunny and possibly that I don’t remember it very well.
I have literally no idea what this comment means. I assume that you think Animal Farm is easier to like than Moby Dick, but have no idea what the different levels of “supposed to” are supposed to mean.
I imagine one of them might mean “people make the natural supposition that you like X, with no judgement” and one of them might mean “it is expected that you like X, with social opprobrium if you do not” but I don’t know what the other might be.
My guess, is as follows: One is expected to have actually enjoyed, or at least be able to have a decent discussion about, Animal Farm (supposed to like it). One is assumed to at least say they enjoyed and have a small discussion about Catcher in the Rye, but nothing serious as no one will press it (“supposed to” like it). And one is implied to only have to say you read Moby Dick, as no one but literary critics will actually discuss the book (only “supposed to” like).
Yes. You are expected to actually like Animal Farm, plausibly lie about liking Catcher in the Rye, and transparently lie about liking Moby Dick.
I think you’d get more points by knowledgeably hating Catcher in the Rye than by plausibly lying about liking it.
That was not my experience. I actually liked Animal Farm, but I was the only person in my 10th grade English class who did not like Catcher in the Rye1, and I’ve been reading Moby Dick on the kindle recently and finding some of it quite interesting, in a sort of pseudo-nonfiction way.
1 -- I regard Catcher in the Rye and some other books (A Farewell to Arms also springs to mind )as particularly awful in that I can barely remember anything about them except the negative emotional affect being forced to read them produced. This is distinct from, say, Wuthering Heights which I really didn’t like because it’s not my kind of book, but which I remember just fine and can understand why other people might think it was great.
Catcher in the Rye was actually the only book I was ever assigned to read in school which I wholeheartedly enjoyed, but I gather that it’s significantly a love-it-or-hate-it work.
I read Catcher in the Rye is high-school, at the time I found it reasonably mediocre and certainly nothing memorable. Later, when I was in grad school, I found out that apparently it was a huge deal when it was released. I can only assume that this is some combination of Seinfeld is Unfunny and possibly that I don’t remember it very well.
Off-topic, but I think a better name for the Seinfeld is Unfunny trope would be Actually, You Can Do That on Television