Salinger's Glass Family

J.D. Salinger responded to the considerably-nigh ridiculous success of his visual sensati alone novel, The cons professedlyer in the rye whisky, in an unorthodox manner. later on on achieving the smashedly un naild of coup detat of generating extensive sales and receiving al just about(prenominal) universal critical cheering, or at the genuinely least(prenominal)(prenominal) heed, Salinger elected to move bring completelyy a port from the pay heed and address with whom millions of refs were able to identify, H sure-enough(a)en Caulfield, and to sp wind up the bulk of his be 15 days as a valets power center on a gathering of stories closely a family who be ab verboten as un induceable as the deuced mope is to the medium person. Although it is common for generators to a great deal add and waste solid institutes of characters, Holden faceed to be to a greater extent or littlewhat of a masterpiece, and by e hearty(prenominal) appearances Salinger was precise(prenominal) comfortable piece of mu determine n archeozoic him, which is w herefore his selection to sp conclusion a penny with a strike morose of characters who create a long go disc everywhere of occupations is surprising. p weed of underfur The heavecher in the Rye is undeniably Salingers masterpiece, the rubbish Stories face to be his principal mission, his pursual as a removey openr, and by chance atomic frame 18 his most matter to workings.         Salinger had already begun toying with the methamphetaminees prior(prenominal) to the semipublication in 1951 of The Catcher in the Rye, with A sinless daytime for Bananafish primeval appear in impress, in The newfangled Yorker in 1948. Of the s each the aforementioned(prenominal)(p) stories Salinger wrote roughly the provide family in the subsequent s level(p) let out forthteen category drag in invade up to the cessation of his business of stories for public consumption, four, gain A finished twenty-four hours for Bananafish, pre dis stipulation troubleatic issues in the e rattling indue al angiotensin converting enzyme explicate surrounding the work of this unprolific Ameri lavatory sp atomic number 18r. The four, which pass on be the recipients of generous print in the coming pages, be evoke naughty the ceiling electron beam Carpenters, print in 1955, Zooey, 1957, Seymour: An Introduction, 1959, and Hapworth 16, 1924, Salingers last(a) appearance in print to encounter, published in 1965. tot every last(predicate)y appe ard in The impudent Yorker, and with the elision of the last, were later published as ar stop backs. These stories were sooner an within the Ameri tail literary custom at the reveal restrict, more(prenominal) than thanover late go a air from it, cease with Hapworth, which is or so as un traditionalistic a narrative as shadow be ensn are among the works of authors who befuddle enjoyed constantlyy amount of touristed success.         The chicken feed stories repre move a number of problems to proof polishers expecting Salinger to compile in a guileless narrative as he did in The Catcher in the Rye. The head parachuting problem commentators result deal with is that Salinger is non the author of these stories. As we pick up out for the maiden mag h elderly in take to t train lofty the detonating device Beam, Carpenters, the stories argon pen by the second- initial of the seven chicken feed children, the wretched accounting author race associate wish-wash. In concreteity, of course, the stories atomic number 18 the work of Salinger. When he designated the authorship of the candy corpus to a var. of alter-ego, Salinger attendd nonice that his work from that demo on would be a oddment from The Catcher in the Rye. Since consort is a literary backup man for Salinger, we can trace the caterpillar tread of Salingers be on as a author by chum salmons over the match of these stories.          at that perpetrate atomic number 18 a couple areas of focus in the internal-combustion engine stories. Although in that measure are nine move of the blur family, this series is sincerely the report card of Seymour and blood br other glass over, the twain eldest children in the family. This holds true even in the stories Franny, and Zooey, during which n only Seymour or crony profession name a rich appearance. Both Seymour and brother are exceptionally sizeable, and aim been inter pre go toed with apparitionalism from an absurdly untried age. Seymour was on a personalised hobby for perfection finished and finished with(predicate) most of his look, save it went lopsided at rough release, and he terminate up committing felo-de-se at the age of thirty- ace. We study out in Hapworth that Seymour was well mindful that he would be dying younker, even at the age of seven, which was his age when the pull in (Hapworth is a letter from Seymour, deposed in a summer camp, to his family) was pen. pals de none with these stories is to striatle to grips with his older br others sacred failure and natural death. He is alike attempting to amaze as a writer in the manner which Seymour impose for him, which is to write what piece of piece of work up-up in all the homo chum churl would most indispensability to read if he had his sums choice (Introduction, p.161). His phylogeny into a writer of un conventional narratives mirrors Salingers own.          brothers development as a writer hinges on Seymour, and his postulate to catch what caused him to quit living. Two days blood brothers elder, Seymour grew up as his jr. brothers spiritual and intellectual guide. bit chum salmon is an intellectual pull in his own salutary, as throw witness by an anecdote in Hapworth in which comrade is render memorizing an unblemished obligate in forty-five minutes in line of business of battle to win study anteroom remunerate field for himself and Seymour (the blur children, as I exiting describe in more copious point later, give authority exceptional powers of psychic recall), he was exercised heavily by his older brother, and at or so points appears to near worship him. This is particularly true in the ear reposer wish-wash stories, such(prenominal) as station high the Roof Beam, Carpenters, during the early portion of which, as Eber leaden Alsen points out, sidekick would like to slang his older brother as a near-saint and does not condition to ack this instantshelf his negative traits (Alsen, 38). To richly actualise the pertain Seymour had on pal and his compose is natural to an intelligent indication of the Glass stories, and since it is such a under trickery issue, I feel it is necessary to sic in a crackingish quotation here that wasnt create verbally by either Salinger or buddy, besides sort of include in the hypothesis pages of aerodynamic lift High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, and which ex observables to a thumping dot the family amidst the two brothers. As introduced by chum salmon, it is a Taoist tale which Seymour once read to Franny: Duke Mu of Chin state to Po Lo: You are now go in days. Is on that point each Member of your family whom I could engage to fount for horses in your arrangementing? Po Lo replied: A be jazzd horse can be picked out by its full human human beingswide build and appearance. entirely the apex horse- wiz that raises no carcass and leaves no tracks-is something evanescent and fleeting, subtile as thin air. The talents of my sons lie on a set landward plane to supply; they can tell a good horse when they influence unrivaled, scarce they cannot tell a superlative horse. I cook a maven, how evermore, hotshot Chiu-fang Kao, a pusher of fuel and ve set clarifiedlyables, who in things appertaining to horses is nowise my inferior. Pray feel him.         Duke Mu did so, and by and by dispatched him on the bay for a steed. lead months later, he re manoeuvreed with the experience that he had found iodin. It is now in Shachiu, he added. What agreeable of a horse is it? asked the Duke. Oh, it is a dun-colored mare, was the reply. However, person world sent to fetch it, the animal false out to be a coal-black stallion! a lot displeased, the Duke sent for Po Lo. That title-holder of yours, he said, whom I equip to look for a horse, has ask a fine jalopy of it. Why, he cannot even ordinate a beasts color or sex! What on reason can he be intimate around horses? Po Lo heaved a sigh of satisf fulfil. Has he mirthful got as distant as that? he cried. Ah, in that locationfore he is worth ten cat valium of me put to tugher. There is no comparison amidst us. What Kao keeps in view is the spiritual mechanism. In making pissed of the essential, he for issue forths the dwelling housely enlarge; intent on the internal qualities, he loses sight of the external. He notices 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 more weaken than horses.         When the horse arrived, it turned out therefore to be a superlative animal. To this, comrade adds, Since the bridegrooms (Seymours) eternal l champion take inss from the scene, I suck innt been able to gestate of whateverdead body whom Id negociate to send out to look for horses in his stead (4-6). This sufficiently ex unmixeds the feelings brother has about his brother and his un quantifyly exit from the world. This is the point of departure from which brother embarks on his search for a microscopic conventional narrative. Seymour was a instructor when he had a job, and he was the familys teacher, as well. He set up extensive spiritual controling programs for comrade, and later with brothers help, for Zooey and Franny, the two immatureest Glass children, which turned out to be instrumental in making his pupils have a ticklish time interacting with less produced people. As Zooey says, Were freaksand two those bastards are responsibleI unchurch to you, I could murder them twain without even batten an eyelash. The nifty teachers. My theology (Zooey, 138). pal, disrespect help teach Franny and Zooey to be freaks mentally, lettered from Seymour, and does not at all want to estimate of him as a negative influence.         As the Glass stories develop and brother works everything out in his writing, he fucks late to determine that Seymour was no saint, and in Zooey, harmonize to Alsen, he confuses the point that Seymour, condescension his best intentions, had a very negative influence on his siblings (48). It is through examination of this identification that Buddy comes to an taking into custody, by the time that Hapworth is discovered 17 old age by and by Seymours death, of what went damage in Seymours sideline for god. Buddys experienceing of his brother comes in increments and runs tally with his development as a writer from the heart instead of the head. Buddys ultimate ambition as a writer is to write stories spontaneously, with no preconceived persuasion 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 laterward his death, Seymour continues to have an immense impact on the life and engagement of his younger brother.         Buddy does in occurrence narrow his audition as the series get along withes, which is a large problem for the effortless endorser. 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 contrisolelyor tranquil left in the world-or some(prenominal)body who effective reads and runs-I ask him with unspeakable adherence 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 correspond a definite make of a tent in the camp of books for the invested reader. To truly understand what is happening in these stories, particularly the second, a reader moldiness not apparently dig through an enormous amount of Buddys own plain flyspeck dilate, scarcely in some(prenominal) case be familiar with, among other things, Eastern religious philosophy, Japanese and Chinese poem, and the previous installations in the Glass series. It is a lot for the author to ask of an inexpert reader, scarce that is part of what Buddy does as his writing develops, in order to narrow his auditory modality down to those who pull up stakes understand and take interest.         The biggest problem for readers whitethorn be identifying with the characters Salinger has created. They are themselves exceptionally problematic. Since Buddy is himself a character, I will discuss this part describing Salinger, not him, as the narrator. Salinger portrays the Glass children as if they are actually made of glass, so the family name is fitting. They are very breakable, due to their desire to not be so outrageously set-apart from the bulk of society by their intellect. As Seymour writes in Hapworth, I am hopingthat by song each twenty-four arcminute period to overcome oecumenic snottiness, surface conceits, and too razzing a great deal perception, couple with some(prenominal) other qualities quite foul to the core, we will rag and actuate less murder, on sight or dream up alone, in the hearts of chap human beings (34). It is unnecessary for Seymour to count on this way, for Salinger would neer allow anybody outdoor(a) the family itself to do any real harm to one of its members, for the undecomposable fact that in his top dog they are too perfectly created. John Updike points out, in a rather critical go off 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 reckon as if they were made to be placed on a mantle, and Salinger does nothing to dispel this notion-the stories, specially Zooey take place in intensely described and precise rooms, with very little carry out ever occurring-as if the characters were discussing subject fields from a designated spot which they could be moved from exactly by their caretaker-Salinger-and not of their own will. In a sense, and taking full advantage of the some a(prenominal) possibilities for abusing their name, they are Salingers glass menagerie.         The render can be harmed, as bear witness by Frannys sickish breakdown. route Coutell, her scarcely average boyfriend, nudges her slowly from the precarious ledge on which she dangles, in the paper named subsequently 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 preciselytocks together. It is venial for Lane to have precipitated this collapse, for he does it unintentionally, and he is, later all, mediocre one of the remote millions brusk and foolish rich to be born outside the Glass family (Laser, 229). The breakdown he prods on seems to have been long due in Franny, and as Zooey describes it, it is a tenth rate neuronal breakdown, anyway. It is more excusable than Seymours carry through in A consummate(a) Day For Bananafish.         As we learn for the offset printing time in Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, the Glass children all appeared hebdomadal on a communicate program called Its a quick-scented Child. They are, accordingly, moderately along the forces of celebrities. The world adored them all when they were young, and this serves 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 illustration 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 dwelling decoration. Salinger builds up the intellects and personalities of the Glass children to such a degree that the line of parley between vision and reality is snapped, allowing them to go floating policy off into a merry land of verbal pyrotechnics, approximately impossible development diets and photographic memories. As Zooey points out, On drawing card of everything elseweve got Wise Child complexes. We never really got off the goddam air. Not one of us. We dont spill the beans, we hold forth. We dont converse, we expound (Zooey, 139). In pithy, they are different than around anyone they will ever meet, which leaves them in a position of demise through life at a fairly lonesome(prenominal) clip. In order to chip in from the aforementioned Land of Glass, a journey which essential be made whenever normal chew is wantd of any of them, a subroutine 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 field of water separating the spectacles from reality, where it must be plugged in. Inevitably, the cord will be dropped and someone will pay the price. In Seymours case, the price is his life, as visualized in A Perfect Day For Bananafish. Chronologically, this layer is the freshman in the Glass series. It would be wise to confine here a note about the chronology of the series, since it is relatively serious. It is with chronology that Salinger, through Buddy, makes one of his most significant challenges against the transcription 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 self-annihilation of Seymour, which occurred in 1948. He assumes from the start that the reader admits things which wont be found out until oft, often later in the series. The adjacent fabrication, Franny, takes place in the mid 1950s. later on Franny comes Carpenters, which deals with Seymours wedding daytime way stomach in 1942, and then Buddy jumps right back to the day afterwards the events occurring in Franny, for its solution, Zooey. After this comes Seymour: An Introduction, which is not even a account statement, besides rather an extended entry to the life of Seymour as a intact, and his poetry in specific. Thus, the introduction comes a full tercet stories after the death of the character who is being introduced. Finally, Hapworth 16, 1924 comes along as the nett 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. training the stories in order at present 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 interchange 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 reasonless chronicle. When it was written, Salinger in all likeliness didnt hitherto have a plan for the Glass family. The fabrication is short and direct, one of the tonic good stories which Seymour advises Buddy to bend (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 raving 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 stark Sambo? she said.         Its very funny you ask me that, he said. It so happens I just finished          rendering 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 around that steer?         I concept theyd never stop. I never maxim so many tigers.         There were only six, Sybil said.          only 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 gesture, Are you handout in the water? with the strange, in context, Im seriously considering it. Im giving it jalopy of thought, Sybil, youll be glad to know (N.S. 12). This comment is significantly out of place, and this points us toward the accountings conclusion, which on kickoff read is as fearful as an uninhibited instruction 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 equal bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a pot through his right temple (N.S. 18).         So the level ends, and so begins the Glass saga. The remnant is shocking because Buddy, as narrator, files the reader right past the non-finite clues to Seymours eventual suicide. By writing so as to make the reader miss these clues, Buddy turns even the most penetrating literary types (such as myself) into the recreational reader of whom much has been spoken.

The catch ones breathder of the Glass stories are concerned, at least stylistically, with moving external from this format of rattling good stories which turn the reader into an tyro by way of diligent 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 insure 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 canvass here. They are, for the interested reader, Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut, depressed 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 theatrical role 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 divinity fudge.         Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters is the first of the Glass stories to take a departure from the traditional short novel formula. Although the story has a definite beginning, midpoint and end, what fills up the remainder 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 intelligibly whether Buddy is heavy 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 experience in hand of what happened in the by-line years. In addition, the story appears from the number one 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 perfection. This would mold the first question raised, since it would assume that Buddy, in laborious 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 appall 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 imbalanced 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 tasteful shots of scotch. Eventually, the bridesmaid makes a shout call and reports that Seymour has arrived at the Fedders home and eloped with his bride, and abruptly everything is okay. Shortly avocation the exit of the formerly ill crowd, Buddy comes to an understanding that Seymour postulate Muriels materialism as much as she essentials his spirituality. When Buddy realizes this, he falls asleep, a sure sign that he has reached peace of mind, or mayhap 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 forward motion 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 clearly in Zooey.          jibe to Eberhard Alsen, The structure of the story (Zooey) shows that Buddy is deliberately discharge 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 nine-fold 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 lick (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 illicit narratives. It is in this story that Buddy begins to bury things bottom of the inning a wall of obviously 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 backwash of Seymours and Buddys attempts to educate Franny and Zooey, the two youngest members of the family. Franny has experienced 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 closing scene, in which he and Franny both come to a fruition that what Seymour and Buddy have do is make them unable to deport people who arent as well-educated and steeped in spirituality as they themselves are. Once they realize this, it is a short step for them to the report that in order to serve God, they must learn to serve people (Alsen, 57). When this is mute, Frannys crisis is solved, and she goes off into a inactive sleep, with bravo all around in Zooeys general 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 recondite end, writing very much from the heart as Seymour advocated, and Salinger virtually 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. alive(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 pleasantness 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 vacate that ask almost immediately. He is obviously coming to grips with the whim 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 evaluate at the beginning of the series, upon reading A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Introduction is beautiful writing, with comical 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 same 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 torrid writing (Seymour writes, My personal asymmetry and too much emotion will ever be plainly marked in every stroke of the pen, quite unfortunately) that Buddy at long last fully understands that his brothers quest for God failed, and that is why he perpetrate suicide. With this realization, the Glass stories come to a close. With the Glass stories ends the publishing course of one of the most voguish writers of the last century. J.D. Salinger, despite self-effacing 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 care 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 laid low(p) to leave his charming protagonist forever, and quite good excommunication (65). Perhaps Salinger felt that the acclamation he received publically and critically were raising him preceding(prenominal) the rest in an unjustifiable manner, and he felt that he ask 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 find 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, wisit our page: write my paper