>Andrew, > >So who's saying you HAVE to rip it apart? There's nothing wrong with >wanting to understand it on different levels, and to do that you have >to >analyze it and break it down, then put it all back together again. Are >you saying that `to be enjoyed and not ripped apart' means reading it >only >on the most superficial level, and not digging any deeper? It's hard >to >believe any author, Salinger included, would want his works read like >that >(regardless of what the damned covers looks like). What disturbs you >about >the analysis and why does it disturb you? > >RickL > i disagree. why should you have to rip it apart in order to understand it on more than one level? and why should understanding be only on a cerebral level? can't you understand something without knowing? can't i phrase a declarative sentence? not in this post.--matt