Search this Site

  • Google


« Scott Brown, Glenn Beck and the Spirit of the Age | Main | The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back »

February 01, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


i bet t his is one of the few books Selwyn has actually read.


I always disliked Catcher in the Rye, both when asked to read it as a student, and when asked to teach it as a teacher. I found another book for my class, one I thought they could relate to better.


I didn't like it much either. I read it as an adult, and was a bit shocked that it was considered a classic. Irregardless of the author’s intent, I believe the reason it was a classroom staple, was to fracture our society...a piece of the Gramsci puzzle. The powers that be in academia, know life imitates art far more than the inverse.


I also despised the reading of the book. Most of the kids did, and in fact most would get cliff notes or answers from others in previous classes so we wouldn't have to carefully read it, but just skim. As an adult, I realize many things I opposed naturally as a teen were safety nets to a manipulative system I didn't understand. So, perhaps those intent on corrupting the next generation underestimate the power of God's Spirit and the standard He still holds for His creation, including mankind.


Thankyou for this bit of sanity.
I always detested Catcher in
the Rye and resented having been
subjected to it in highschool.
"If you want brotherhood,
seek Truth." Happily that will
eternally stay with us, while
the rantings of a man who knows
better now, and has all eternity
to bemoan the error of his way,
will long be forgotten.


Along similar lines as the son with A.D.D. I’ve wondered in the past about the wisdom of talking to children about suicide. How many kids wouldn’t have if they had not been first introduced to the idea at school and/or in the media? Has there ever been a real study of this?

These people recklessly play with children’s lives and never have to take responsibility.


I dont disagree with everything you are saying in this article but I think this statement is somewhat silly

But the point is this: If something is supposed to tell you what’s going on out there, it’s not called art.
It’s called news.
And there is a reason why people complain about the news: It’s not exactly uplifting. Yet one of the purposes of art is to do just that, uplift man, not degrade him. Is this disputable? Do we want our art to lower us morally?

What about Hogarth, or Dickens or Plato for that matter. Realism in Art often has very positive social benefit as well as aesthetic value. It can expose things we need to change especially to those who may not be aware of it.


I think Selweiner is a phoney.

Michael Bresciani

This is a piece of genius,


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30