> the point in the book to which people have most often referred to in relation > to the schizo theory is when he's walking through the streets asking for > allie to help him across the street...i find it kind of insulting to > attribute one of the most important events in the progression of the story to > a clinical mental illness (not that there is a standard explanation for any > give novel, but this explanation seems a bit far-fetched) > ...andrew This seems to me to be another of Salinger's `phony traps'. To recapitulate the theory that has dictated much of my Salinger reading for months now: a lot of the major questions in Salinger's fiction can be answered in two very different ways, the obvious way and the non-obvious way. For example, Franny pregnant/Franny undergoing religious crisis would be the archetype. My theory is that consciously or subconsciously Salinger places such binaries in his work to effectively `select' his readership - divide them into those who Get It and those who Don't. Those who try and explain Holden's condition away as schizophrenia, madness, whatever, would definitely fall into the second category in Salinger's opinion. I first came up with the theory with my own experiences - I published a book of short stories and by putting the most inscrutable one first I realised I was guilty of the same thing, putting up a sort of impasse to the uninitiated; if you don't pass this test you're not worthy of reading the rest. To my mind, Salinger's reader-selecting has grown and grown over the years until we reach Hapworth 16 which, by its sheer length alone is a work that says `I dare you to make it through this!' - not to mention everything that follows, which we haven't seen because Salinger has apparently decided that *none* of us Get It. So I think that your instincts are similar to mine. There is just something unsatisfying and - yes - phoney about explaining away Holden as a condition rather than a human being with all the shades of grey intact. Camille verona_beach@hotpop.com