Sir Les Patterson (the Australian cultural attache) has pointed out to me that one might take a different approach to the problem. Instead of moving `out' to the universal, one could go in the opposite direction `in' towards the particular. Most works of fiction will contain some elements that refer to universal experiences like death & taxes & others that are more `local'. The greater the proportion of the latter, the more corruptible the work. What is the balance in any given book ? I can usually raise only a wan smile at most of Shakespeare's jokes since they seem to me to depend on knowledge & expectations that were readily accessible only to Londoners of the 1600s. On the other hand, a book like the Education of Hyman Kaplan is one of the funniest things I know - largely because I've seen lots of films about New York & have listened to Kerry Shale's inspired reading of the same book. Shakespeare's comedies would have died a long time ago if the funny bits had been their sole raison d'etre. Sadly, Hyman's survival will last only as long as people know about German immigrants attending citizenship classes in New York in the 1920s. It seems to me that while Holden does express some of the rebellious bewilderment with the world that young people have probably always felt, an awful lot of its charm & humour is grounded in the particular ambience of a priviledged part of America in the mid 20th Century - which knowledge will wither away in the not very distant future. Scottie B.