Mattis wrote: >This, as I am sure it was your intention to convey, is the exact opposite >of what I wanted to say, that children with their faults are "nice". >While I can agree that an obsession with innocence can be faulted, I would >not have to say it was because the (what you would call the "so-called") >innocence is at fault. This raises a very important question when it comes to Salinger, and that is the definition of "innocent." Here there seem to be two different interpretations of the word, one of which seems to be Untainted By the Evils of the World, a la Allie. The other seems to be Without Intentional Endangerment to the Well-Being of Others. Unfortunately, I was considering the latter without the former, and while Mattis may not have, it seems very common to consider the former without the latter. I think that, when considering the "Innocence" of Salinger's characters, particularly his very young characters, the two definitions must coexist. One may or may not precede the other, or both may be ubiquitous, especially when considering the question of inter-life karma, but it's important to consider them still. Just a thought that I had hoped would lead somewhere. It may not have, but I'd be interested in what you all think anyway. If you got this far, thanks for humoring me. Brendan Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere! http://www.mailexcite.com