>my feeling on this is that if salinger had implied that his characters >somehow had it worse than everyone else because of their "real" problems, >then his writing would seem superficial and self-indulgent. personally >though, i have never gotten the feeling that salinger intended to portray >his characters in that light. they seem to be concerned with their own >difficulties, but not above others' difficulties. i have not read much of >salinger's work outside of his widely published books, so if his work >published in magazines did lean in that direction, i haven't read it. > >elizabeth yes, i am responding to my own post - i just thought of something else. when i first read the glass family stories, i had only spent one week in new york to attend a conference which i was lucky enough to have a scholarship to attend because i was a performer there. i spent the majority of the time in rehearsals. my family was far from rich. we had enough money to eat, so i certainly wouldn't complain about our lack of wealth. i say this to point out that i had no idea what neighborhood the glasses lived in and any references to their social standing went over my head, not being anything i related to. however, as child raised smack dab in the middle of the bible belt by a baha'i mother and a unitarian father, i related and indeed was very drawn to their struggles with spiritual identity. i didn't know the glasses had money until after i joined this list. i wonder how much this may have colored my reading of franny & zooey? elizabeth