OK, so I finished the book. I’ve decided that Salinger was brilliant, and that I’m the only one who understands the book…either that, or I’ve taken it in a way Salinger didn’t mean it, and everyone else understands it but me.

The main character (and narrator) is this self-important, self-absorbed, hyper-critical twit named Holden Caulfield. He gets thrown out of his prep school, essentially for not even trying to study, and spends the weekend in NYC making a fool of himself. My point is this: I don’t think the character is realistic at all. He spends most of his time trying to buy alcohol in bars, trying to pick up girls who are too old or sophisticated for him, and trying to convince you, the reader, that he’s much smarter, older, more sophisticated, and more mature, than he really is. Frankly I took it as more of a comedy than anything else; it’s not laugh-out-loud funny, but it did get more than a few chuckles out of me.

However, I have to ask: why would anyone describe this as a coming of age novel, or give it to a teenager with the intent of letting them identify with the main character? The kid winds up institutionalized at the end of the book…does anyone consider that a good thing?

After I read the book, and described my reaction to it in contrast to the other reactions other people have had, my wife commented that maybe this was why Salinger retreated into his isolation. Maybe everyone misinterpreting his book, identifying with a main character he didn’t want *anyone* to identify with, and the resulting fame and adoration…maybe that sent him over the edge, and he didn’t want to talk to anyone any more. Being misunderstood would I suppose be pretty upsetting in such a context, if you didn’t intend the character to appeal to anyone, and it *did* appeal to a large segment of society anyway.