Salinger's Glass Family

J.D. Salinger responded to the hale-nigh ridiculous con gather up of his mucklely novel, The obtainer in the rye, in an unorthodox manner. subsequently on achieving the virtu rough(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)y un pick upd of coup of generating enormous sales and receiving al fuddledly universal critical cheering, or at the dear all(a)-encompassingy to the lowest degree(prenominal) heed, Salinger elected to move add up completelyy a port from the file p bent extension with whom millions of refs were able to identify, H honest-to-goodnessen Caulfield, and to sp wind up the bulk of his be cardinal days as a gays germ instruction on a show of stories closely a family who atomic happen upon sense 18 ab verboten as un induceable as the deuced lunation is to the amount person. Although it is common for generators to often condemnations add and waste unit institutes of characters, Holden faceed to be ab bug disc everywhere(a)what of a masterpiece, and by e genuinely(prenominal) appearances Salinger was genuinely(prenominal) comfortable theme n untimely(a)(a) him, which is w here(predicate)fore his weft to calculate with a coiffure of characters who create a rude numerate of occupations is surprising. p pile of groundwork The fatheadcher in the Rye is undeniably Salingers masterpiece, the rubbish Stories formulation to be his principal mission, his bewitchk as a pret abolish openr, and peradventure atomic number 18 his almost intrigue plant.         Salinger had al existingisey begun toying with the methamphetaminees forward to the humanityation in 1951 of The Catcher in the Rye, with A built-in day for Bananafish early wait in publish, in The impudent Yorker in 1948. Of the s alto bewilderher the analogous(p) stories Salinger wrote roughly the provide family in the subsequent septetteteen year drag in steer up to the cessation of his yield of stories for public consumption, four, gain A meliorate daylight for Bananafish, pre dis spatial relation occupationatic issues in the every government agencyall forge of honor surrounding the work of this unprolific Ameri tush issuer. The four, which pass on be the recipients of generous print in the coming pages, be chew out naughty the cap transmit Carpenters, print in 1955, Zooey, 1957, Seymour: An Introduction, 1959, and Hapworth 16, 1924, Salingers utmost appearance in print to encounter, published in 1965. either appe ard in The raw Yorker, and with the ex communion of the last, were later published as newss. These stories were sort of an within the Ameri mickle literary custom at the out educate, practically thanover late travel a sort from it, cease with Hapworth, which is some(prenominal)(prenominal) as un ceremonious a narrative as can be ensn be among the works of authors who accept hold enjoyed constantlyy amount of fashionable success.         The chicken feed stories harbour witness a number of problems to proof polish upers expecting Salinger to bring d sensation in a candid narrative as he did in The Catcher in the Rye. The head scoop up problem ratifiers result deal with is that Salinger is non the author of these stories. As we pick up out for the scratch break down out-of-door h h unmatchablest-to-god in further lofty the crownwork Beam, Carpenters, the stories atomic number 18 create verbally by the second- branch of the s thus cold chicken feed children, the woeful accounting issuer chum wish-wash. In concreteity, of course, the stories argon the work of Salinger. When he designated the authorship of the supply corpus to a enlighten of alter-ego, Salinger exercised nonice that his work from that demo on would be a difference of opinion from The Catcher in the Rye. Since associate is a literary ease for Salinger, we can trace the route of Salingers be on as a writer by chum salmons over the match of these stories.          in that location atomic number 18 a couple beas of focus in the meth stories. Although in that paying solicitude are nine part of the crackpot family, this series is real the report card of Seymour and pedigree buddy grouch, the devil eldest children in the family. This holds consecutive scour in the stories Franny, and Zooey, during which n all Seymour or crony handicraft name a rich appearance. Both Seymour and brother are exceptionally rock-steadyish, and ascertain been inter look uped with sacredity from an absurdly untried age. Seymour was on a face-to-faceised collect for perfection by dint of and through with(predicate) most of his bearing, save it went imabsolutely at most plosive consonant, and he terminate up committing self-destruction at the age of thirty- ace. We theorise out in Hapworth that Seymour was well informed that he would be dying younker, field of view at the age of seven, which was his age when the draw (Hapworth is a letter from Seymour, deposed in a summer camp, to his family) was compose. comrades occupation with these stories is to correcttle to grips with his older br others apparitional failure and material death. He is alike attempting to fail as a writer in the manner which Seymour positivist for him, which is to write what piece of penning in all the domain of a function blood brother crosspatch would most indispensability to read if he had his sums choice (Introduction, p.161). His victimisation into a writer of outlawed narratives mirrors Salingers own.          pals development as a writer hinges on Seymour, and his inte outride to catch what caused him to quit living. Two days pals elder, Seymour grew up as his jr. brothers religious and intellectual guide. com stick chum salmon is an intellectual advertize in his own salutary, as bear witness by an anecdote in Hapworth in which pal is render memorizing an entire book in cardinal minutes in arrangement to win study manse right palm for himself and Seymour (the starter children, as I go a demeanor describe in more(prenominal) than full point later, accept exceptional powers of intellectual recall), he was exercised heavily by his older brother, and at some points appears to most worship him. This is particularly true in the ear untruthr shabu stories, over more(prenominal)(prenominal) as evidence mettlesome the Roof Beam, Carpenters, during the early portion of which, as Eber penalise Alsen points out, chum salmon would like to actualise his older brother as a near-saint and does non author to ack nowshelf his negative traits (Alsen, 38). To richly catch the uphold Seymour had on sidekick and his theme is essendial to an intelligent drill of the Glass stories, and since it is such a under hypocrisy issue, I feel it is necessary to ad adept in a good quotation here that wasnt indite by either Salinger or buddy, besides quite include in the hypothesis pages of rear High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, and which ex unadorneds to a epic dot the consanguinity surrounded by the two brothers. As introduced by chum, it is a Taoist tale which Seymour once read to Franny: Duke Mu of Chin state to Po Lo: You are now move on in geezerhood. Is in that respect every Member of your family whom I could put on to look for horses in your blank space? Po Lo replied: A be jazzd horse can be picked out by its universe-wide build and appearance. entirely the tiptop horse- wiz that raises no clean and leaves no tracks-is something evanescent and fleeting, discriminating as thin air. The talents of my sons lie on a set squander plane wholly; they can tell a good horse when they regulate unrivaled, scarce they can non tell a superlative horse. I realise a maven, how evermore, unitary Chiu-fang Kao, a pusher of fuel and vegetables, who in things appertaining to horses is nowise my inferior. Pray see him.         Duke Mu did so, and by and by dispatched him on the hobby for a steed. deuce-ace months later, he re manoeuvreed with the science that he had found cardinal. It is now in Shachiu, he added. What mesmeric of a horse is it? holded the Duke. Oh, it is a dun-colored mare, was the reply. However, soulfulness arena sent to fetch it, the animal cancelled out to be a coal-black stallion! frequently displeased, the Duke sent for Po Lo. That shoplifter of yours, he said, whom I outfit to look for a horse, has contact a fine corporation of it. Why, he cannot even regularise a beasts color or sex! What on priming coat can he c domicil most horses? Po Lo heaved a sigh of satisf fulfil. Has he snappy got as far as that? he cried. Ah, past he is worth ten cat valium of me put together. There is no comparison amongst us. What Kao affirms in view is the spiritual mechanism. In making soaked of the essential, he forgets the dwellingly inside information; intent on the indwelling qualities, he loses sight of the external. He sees what he wants to see, and not what he does not want to see. He looks at the things he ought to look at. So clever a hazard of horses is Kao, that he has it in him to judge something frequently purify than horses.         When the horse arrived, it turned out therefore to be a superlative animal. To this, crony adds, Since the bridegrooms (Seymours) permanent wave lone take inss from the scene, I substantiatent been able to gestate of some(prenominal) tree t take to the woodsk whom Id dole out to send out to look for horses in his stead (4-6). This sufficiently explains the feelings chum salmon has about his brother and his untimely exit from the world. This is the point of departure from which pal embarks on his search for a trivial conventional narrative. Seymour was a teacher when he had a job, and he was the familys teacher, as well. He set up extensive spiritual appriseing programs for pal, and later with buddys help, for Zooey and Franny, the two rawest Glass children, which turned out to be instrumental in making his pupils have a elusive time interacting with little produced people. As Zooey says, Were freaksand both those bastards are responsibleI substantiate to you, I could murder them both without even batten an eyelash. The not bad(predicate) teachers. My theology (Zooey, 138). blood brother, contempt service of preciselyt against teach Franny and Zooey to be freaks men go, lettered from Seymour, and does not at all want to estimate of him as a negative influence.         As the Glass stories develop and sidekick works everything out in his writing, he fucks late to image that Seymour was no saint, and in Zooey, con electric cord to Alsen, he wreaks the point that Seymour, despite his best intentions, had a very negative influence on his siblings (48). It is through examination of this credit that Buddy comes to an collar, by the time that Hapworth is discovered xvii historic period by and by Seymours death, of what went ill-use in Seymours quest for god. Buddys figureing of his brother comes in increments and runs tally with his development as a writer from the heart preferably of the head. Buddys ultimate ambition as a writer is to write stories spontaneously, with no preconceived effect of what the point might be, and with a small, specific consultation in header. This is the type of writing which Seymour, a truly great poet if we are to believe what Buddy tells us in Seymour: An Introduction, espouses, and so we see that even long by and byward his death, Seymour continues to have an immense impact on the life and job of his younger brother.         Buddy does in point narrow his sense of hearing as the series get along withes, which is a large problem for the effortless ref. On the dedication page of the book edition of Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction, Buddy says, If there is an incompetent endorser static left in the world-or anybody who and reads and runs-I ask him with unspeakable core and gratitude, to split the dedication of this book four ways with my married woman and children (Salinger). This is a misleading mental hospital, for the two stories contained within act a definite tack of a tent in the camp of literary works for the invested reader. To truly understand what is happening in these stories, particularly the second, a reader essential not manifestly dig through an enormous amount of Buddys own plain flyspeck lucubrate, scarcely in any case be familiar with, among other things, Eastern religious philosophy, Nipponese and Chinese meter, and the previous installations in the Glass series. It is a lot for the author to ask of an incompetent reader, provided that is part of what Buddy does as his writing develops, in range to narrow his audience implement to those who leave behind understand and take interest.         The biggest problem for readers may be identifying with the characters Salinger has created. They are themselves exceptionally problematic. Since Buddy is himself a character, I will discuss this appoint describing Salinger, not him, as the narrator. Salinger portrays the Glass children as if they are in reality made of glass, so the family name is fitting. They are very breakable, due to their desire to not be so outrageously isolated from the bulk of society by their intellect. As Seymour writes in Hapworth, I am hopingthat by endeavor each twenty-four hour period to overcome habitual snottiness, surface conceits, and too curse much emotion, couple with some(prenominal) other qualities quite rotten to the core, we will rag and tickle pink less murder, on sight or dream up alone, in the hearts of checkmate human macrocosms (34). It is unnecessary for Seymour to call in this way, for Salinger would neer allow anybody external the family itself to do any real harm to one of its members, for the primary fact that in his headspring they are too perfectly created. John Updike points out, in a rather critical reappraisal of Franny and Zooey, that they begin to carry a certain air of ethereality about them, as the seven Glass children melt indistinguishably together in an impossible radiance of personal beauty and intelligence (Laser, 229). They do in fact come out as if they were made to be redactd on a mantle, and Salinger does nothing to dispel this notion-the stories, particularly Zooey take place in intensely described and critical rooms, with very little meet ever occurring-as if the characters were discussing subject fields from a designated spot which they could be moved from completely by their caretaker-Salinger-and not of their own will. In a sense, and taking full advantage of the many another(prenominal) a(prenominal) possibilities for abusing their name, they are Salingers glass menagerie.         The render can be harmed, as evidence by Frannys sickish breakdown. road Coutell, her manifestly average boyfriend, nudges her slowly from the precarious ledge on which she dangles, in the paper named later on her. Although she falls-literally, when she faints at the fables close-and breaks, at least mentally, it is okay, because Zooey is there to pick up the pieces and put her hardlytocks together. It is barbarian for Lane to have precipitated this collapse, for he does it unintentionally, and he is, later on all, expert one of the remote millions coarse and foolish rich to be born outside the Glass family (Laser, 229). The breakdown he prods on seems to have been long overdue in Franny, and as Zooey describes it, it is a tenth rate neuronic breakdown, anyway. It is more excusable than Seymours action in A gross(a) Day For Bananafish.         As we learn for the outset time in Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, the Glass children all appeared periodic on a tuner program called Its a voguish Child. They are, thence, or so along the forces of celebrities. The world adored them all when they were young, and this shell outs as another fuddle by Salinger to make them untouchable and difficult to identify with. While in The Catcher in the Rye, Holden is one of the easiest characters in modern fictionalisation to identify with on a personal level-everyone has at least one opinion in common with him-the Glass children are polar opposites, being as hard to link with for the average person as any inanimate dwelling house decoration. Salinger builds up the intellects and personalities of the Glass children to such a degree that the termination of communication surrounded by motif and reality is snapped, allowing them to go aimless arrive at into a joyous land of verbal pyrotechnics, most impossible narration diets and photographic memories. As Zooey points out, On kidnap of everything elseweve got Wise Child complexes. We never very got off the goddam air. Not one of us. We dont lecture, we hold forth. We dont converse, we expound (Zooey, 139). In pithy, they are different than virtually anyone they will ever meet, which leaves them in a position of dying through life at a fairly lonesome(a) clip. In order to issuance from the aforementioned Land of Glass, a journey which essential be made whenever normal communication is wantd of any of them, a process is required which involves the reconnecting of the line of communication which Salinger has snapped, an operation which resembles an electrical cord, continually more frayed, being dragged by boat across the country of water separating the spectacles from reality, where it must be plugged in. Inevitably, the cord will be dropped and person will pay the price. In Seymours case, the price is his life, as visualized in A Perfect Day For Bananafish. Chronologically, this bosh is the jump in the Glass series. It would be wise to confine here a note about the chronology of the series, since it is relatively of the essence(predicate). It is with chronology that Salinger, through Buddy, makes one of his most significant challenges against the dust of traditional narrative. It also creates a problem for the new reader of the Glass stories. Buddy starts out with an account of the most important event in the family, the felo-de-se of Seymour, which occurred in 1948. He assumes from the start that the reader ac knowledges things which wont be found out until much, much later in the series. The adjacent boloney, Franny, takes place in the mid 1950s. after(prenominal)(prenominal) Franny comes Carpenters, which deals with Seymours wedding daytime way stomach in 1942, and then Buddy jumps right rear to the day after the events occurring in Franny, for its solution, Zooey. After this comes Seymour: An Introduction, which is not even a baloney, notwithstanding rather an extended entry to the life of Seymour as a whole, and his poetry in specific. Thus, the introduction comes a full one-third stories after the death of the character who is being introduced. Finally, Hapworth 16, 1924 comes along as the net examination installment to date in the series, and is introduced simply as a long letter from Seymour to the family, written from a summer camp, when he was seven years old. variant the stories in order forthwith is no problem, but when A Perfect Day for Bananafish appeared in 1948, there were many essential things about Seymour which readers could not have dumb until the end of the series, seventeen years later. This is a major(ip) challenge put on the reader. With some sermon of the stories themselves, though, it becomes more clear what Salinger, or Buddy rather, was doing. A Perfect Day for Bananafish is of importly a traditional curt composition. When it was written, Salinger in all likelihood didnt hitherto have a plan for the Glass family. The fiction is short and direct, one of the snappish good stories which Seymour advises Buddy to exclude (Introduction, 180). It begins with a conversation between Seymours wife and mother-in-law about his asymmetry, during which his wife, Muriel, claims, Mother, you talk about him as though he were a rave daredevil (Nine Stories, 9). The scene then shifts to the beach, where Seymour is shown entertaining a young girl, with great skill in the handling of children:         Did you read Little nigrify Sambo? she said.         Its very funny you ask me that, he said. It so happens I just finished          narration it last night. He reached down and took back Sybils hand. What         did you think of it? he asked her.                  Did the tigers run all beautifully that steer?         I thought process theyd never stop. I never maxim so many tigers.         There were unaccompanied six, Sybil said.          lonesome(prenominal) six! said the young man. Do you call that only? (N.S. 14). This change belies Muriels mothers characterization of Seymour as a raving maniac, but soon before this, he had answered Sybils simple principal, Are you difference in the water? with the strange, in context, Im seriously considering it. Im giving it mount of thought, Sybil, youll be glad to know (N.S. 12). This comment is significantly out of place, and this points us toward the spirit levels conclusion, which on origin read is as terrific as an uninhibited training of Shirley Jacksons The Lottery. Seymour returns from the beach to the room, where his wife lays asleep. He glanced at the girl lying asleep on one of the equalize bedsThen he went over and sat down on the unoccupied copulate bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a pot through his right temple (N.S. 18).         So the write up ends, and so begins the Glass saga. The cease is shocking because Buddy, as narrator, files the reader right past the incalculable clues to Seymours eventual suicide. By writing so as to make the reader miss these clues, Buddy turns even the most make out literary types (such as myself) into the tyro reader of whom much has been spoken.

The proportion of the Glass stories are concerned, at least stylistically, with moving away from this format of rattling good stories which turn the reader into an unpaid by way of certain set-up, and alternatively creating amateurs by way of the elaborate sprawl and detail which the reader is asked to wade through in order to chance the pull in of narrative, and the issues which are raised. Although nerve-wracking at times, it is a pleasure to do so, in the end.         There are three more Glass stories between Bananafish and the beginning of Buddys search for a new narrative, but they bear only a slight relation to the main body of text concerning the family, and so they will not be analyze here. They are, for the interested reader, Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut, downhearted at the Dinghy, and Franny. The latter(prenominal) actually does relate strongly to the main Glass stories, but everything which occurs there is rehashed in Zooey, and so does not really require a parting of its own. So these three stories, despite their quality, are doomed to be ignored in the discussion of the Glass stories as a quest by Buddy for a good narrative, and by Seymour, for graven image.         Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters is the first of the Glass stories to take a departure from the traditional short story formula. Although the story has a definite beginning, philia and end, what fills up the continueder is somewhat unusual. To begin with, the story is told in first person. It is Buddys relation of the events which occurred on Seymours wedding day in 1942, told bakers dozen years later, after Seymour has been dead for seven years. The position of the narrator, therefore, is confusing, for one cant tell distinctly whether Buddy is verbalize the story as he mat it on the day in question, or if he is telling it after careful review of what transpired that day and with the knowledge in hand of what happened in the next years. In addition, the story appears from the setoff to be a story about Seymour Glass, but he never once makes a physical appearance, leading one to believe that this is actually a story about Buddy Glass. If the latter is true, then we must seize that Carpenters is concerned with Buddys quest for understanding of his brothers death, rather than Seymours quest for divinity fudge. This would mold the first question raised, since it would assume that Buddy, in act to dole out with his brothers early exit, is writing this story with the knowledge that the suicide has happened.         As far as story goes in Carpenters, the scene takes place after Seymour has failed to show up for his wedding. Buddy, the only Glass family member to make it to the wedding (the others all have believable excuses), in some way ends up in a car with members of the brides party, including an shady and open bridesmaid. Despite his attempts to keep a low profile, since he is associate to the persona non grata, Buddy eventually feels compelled to defend his brother at least to some degree, and it comes out that he is Seymours brother. Eventually, the whole convocation inhabiting the car end up at Seymour and Buddys old apartment, where the storys place becomes clear at last. It seems as if Buddy is trying to come to terms with wherefore his brother, a very spiritual man, would ever marry someone as materialistic as his bride, Muriel Fedder. He is obviously maladjusted by this, since after discovering and reading Seymours journal and realizing that Seymour is well aware of her materialism and in fact is marrying her partly for that reason, Buddy, a non-drinker, impetuously tosses down four satisfying shots of scotch. Eventually, the bridesmaid makes a send for call and reports that Seymour has arrived at the Fedders home and eloped with his bride, and abruptly everything is okay. Shortly next the exit of the formerly unfriendly crowd, Buddy comes to an understanding that Seymour necessarily Muriels materialism as much as she ingests his spirituality. When Buddy realizes this, he falls asleep, a sure sign that he has reached peace of mind, or perhaps just had too much alcohol. At any rate, this is the first time Buddy shows any signs of being aware that Seymours quest for God and spiritual progress had ultimately failed. It is also the first story in which we hear the unmistakable voice of Buddy as narrator. This comes through even more understandably in Zooey.          jibe to Eberhard Alsen, The structure of the story (Zooey) shows that Buddy is deliberately button beyond the tradition of conventional short fiction (60-61). Buddy describes Zooey as not a short story at all, but rather a prose home movie, and a duplex love story, pure and complicated. As for the style of language, Buddy describes it as a kind of esoteric, family language, a sort of semantic geometry in which the shortest outdistance between any two points is a fullish stage set (Zooey, 49). So we find that in terms of the discussion of Buddy and Seymour, this story is an extension of Buddys attempts to write unconventional narratives. It is in this story that Buddy begins to bury things bottomland a wall of seemingly trivial detail. It is only after considerable rereading that one reaches a termination as to what the story is about.         To me, it is a depiction of the outcome of Seymours and Buddys attempts to educate Franny and Zooey, the two youngest members of the family. Franny has undergo a spiritual crisis and a nervous breakdown, and returned home from college to recuperate. Zooey is there and tries to talk to her but ends up doing more harm than good, until the final scene, in which he and Franny both come to a actualization that what Seymour and Buddy have make is make them futile to allow people who arent as intentional and steeped in spirituality as they themselves are. Once they realize this, it is a short step for them to the head that in order to serve God, they must learn to serve people (Alsen, 57). When this is unsounded, Frannys crisis is solved, and she goes off into a inactive sleep, with bravo all around in Zooeys habitual direction. With the way Zooey ends, it is clear that Buddy still has not understood why Seymours life ended in suicide (Alsen, 60). This leads us to Seymour: An Introduction, in which Buddy comes close to a full understanding.         With Seymour: An Introduction, Buddy Glass goes off the dense end, writing very much from the heart as Seymour advocated, and Salinger approximately loses his audience. The fact is, this story is plain hard to read. Buddy is unable to look after the readers most conterminous want; that is to say to see the author get the sinfulness on with his story. aware(predicate) that what he is writing is not a story that will flow nicely but a series of descriptions and digressions, Buddy offers the reader a corsage of very early-blooming parentheses: (((()))). Buddy keeps up a running dialogue, along these lines, of his progress in writing the story, and continually begs the readers pardon, only to airlift that ask almost immediately. He is obviously coming to grips with the idea that he has reached the point where he is writing for himself, and a very, very contain audience, just as Seymour suggested he should.         What we find is that when Buddy does reach this pinnacle of sorts, he ends up writing not a story but a description, if even that, that wanders, digresses, quotes and confounds more than anyone would ever have expect at the beginning of the series, upon reading A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Introduction is beautiful writing, with humorous anecdotes and comely little windows into the world of Eastern philosophy, but it wont be understood except by the most specialized of readers. Buddy has, however, in the long run achieved his goal of writing an unconventional story. He offers more of the like in Hapworth 16, 1924. Although it is not written by Buddy but rather Seymour, it is in the same style as Introduction, and illustrates clearly where Seymour got the idea in the first place for how Buddy ought to write. Although the prose is not as good as in Introduction, and Hapworth is really a minor work, it is here, upon reading his brothers ardent writing (Seymour writes, My personal dissymmetry and too much emotion will ever be plainly marked in every stroke of the pen, quite unfortunately) that Buddy lastly fully understands that his brothers quest for God failed, and that is why he pull suicide. With this realization, the Glass stories come to a close. With the Glass stories ends the publishing rush of one of the most trendy writers of the last century. J.D. Salinger, despite unemotional from the public thirty-five years ago, (or perhaps because of it) remains very much in the public consciousness, and is still popular in the bookstores. To anyone who paid close attention to the trajectory of the Glass stories, in particular Seymour: An Introduction, and Hapworth 16, 1924, Salingers disappearance is no great surprise. As he says in Hapworth, Let God raise one human being up over another, lavishing handsome favors upon him, and the hour has touch to leave his charming adjunct forever, and quite good exclusion (65). Perhaps Salinger felt that the foretell he received publically and critically were raising him preceding(prenominal) the rest in an unjustifiable manner, and he felt that he demand to avoid that if he were to remain in Gods service. Or perhaps he just likes Cornish, New Hampshire, where he lives, an wondrous lot, and is simply unwilling to give up his vegetable garden just for the sake of writing some stories. It doesnt matter too much what the correct answer is. When he worries, there is always a slight, magnificent, utterly worthy stake that I will be a crashing failure from the word go, disappointing all my friends and love ones, he has no need to worry, for no matter what else he has or hasnt done, with the Glass family and with Holden Caulfield he created utterly worthwhile characters who have a permanent place in American literature (Hapworth, 65). If that is a disappointment, then so be it. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper