Google loves to play both sides of an argument. First, they claim it’s extremely difficult for them to filter out copyrighted material from YouTube, but at the same time they’ve been very strict and very effective at filtering out child pornography. Why can they do one and not the other? I’m sure Viacom would like to know. Google has also argued that they don’t need to protect their data, particularly IP addresses, more stringently because a user could generally not be identified through IP address. This is in addition to Google’s history of keeping more user data than God. But now that Viacom wants this data, YouTube (owned by Google) is saying the exact opposite - releasing IP addresses to Viacom’s legal team seems like the end of the world for Google.

Viacom is trying to get these records (which, to be clear, include the username, IP address, video data, and viewing statistics for every YouTube user) in connection with their March 2007 lawsuit Viacom International, Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television, LLC v. Youtube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google Inc. Viacom is claiming massive copyright infringement has taken place on YouTube (I don’t think this is a point of contention, we’ve all seen this), but more importantly that the scale of this infringement combined with YouTube not proactively removing copyrighted content has hurt Viacom and even aided Google in the form of ad revenue. Viacom is also alleging inducement of copyright infringement, a relatively new claim in copyright cases and the result of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Et Al.v.Grokster LTD, Et Al.

I definitely do not have the legal expertise to analyze the case itself, but I’m quite interested by the data Google is being forced to turn over. I should note that the blogosphere has gone absolutely up-the-wall-best-to-put-some-people-in-an-insane-asylum crazy over this latest decision in the ongoing battle between Google and Viacom. TechCrunch suggested that Google toy with Viacom by sending the records over in paper format. (The records total 12 terabytes and, in paper format, would probably fill the Googleplex). My lawyer relations tell me type of game has been played by litigators in the past, so the courts are now very specific about how data is turned over. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require all parties to agree to the format of the data, and failing agreement, the judge decides.

So, it seems, Google will have to turn over the data. The EFF is already going crazy, but I’m not sure the privacy implications are as dire as some believe. Google and Viacom, according to The New York Times, are working on ways of protecting user privacy, though no deal has been formalized and Viacom is under no obligation to agree to any such deal. Google wants to anonymize the data by redacting IP addresses and user names. But an EFF representative says even that’s not enough because when AOL release anonymized user data for research in 2006, The New York Times was able to track down one AOL user by analyzing her search queries only.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a moot point because the data, anonymized or not, will never be made public. Viacom certainly does not want the data to get out because it makes them look terrible and if anyone leaked it, their job and the next several years of their life would hang in the balance. Google definitely doesn’t want this data to get out. The only people that will see this are paralegals, assistants, and a handful of lawyers. I’m certain some people are concerned that the data will be used to target them individually, for illegal acts like copyright infringement, totally unrelated to Viacom’s cause of action against YouTube. Good news for them because the court’s protection order will not allow them to use the data for anything other than their initial claim. It’s just not that big of a deal.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical that anti-copyright activists want to make it hard for copyright holders to get data without a lawsuit, but when the copyright holder pursues legal means of obtaining the data, they also go crazy. I think a lawsuit should be a requirement for someone to obtain user data, but when the data is ordered, it should be delivered.

I’m worried about the precedent that this case sets, but in this particular instance I, as a YouTube user, am satisfied with the safeguards in place to prevent my privacy being violated. But if those safeguards are ever lessened in the future, then that’s a big problem. I’ll be following this case closely, like all copyright cases, because it could tie up some loose ends left by other cases.

The launch of the first iPhone was amazing. I wasn’t standing in line, but the pictures tell the story. When I received my iPhone at Christmas, it was an experience that probably rivaled that of the early adopters. The whole experience of unwrapping it and the high blood pressure moments waiting for activation to complete were thrilling.

AT&T has killed the romance of activating an iPhone for the launch of iPhone 3G. You can’t take it home - everything has to be done in store. Instead of a more relaxing activation for which you can prepare at your own pace, buyers are directed to be “iReady,” a term that sounds like it was created by an intern in AT&T marketing. Some details about what will happen for FamilyTalk users are not doing wonders for my stress level.

Despite the Draconian iPhone launch procedures to which Apple has acquiesced (perhaps to protect AT&T’s investment in subsidizing the phone), I feel that I’d be missing something if I wasn’t at the Apple store. Apple retail employees can really put on a show - clapping for you and otherwise expressing their appreciation. But logistical complications force me to a local AT&T store at 6 AM to wait for the 8 AM release.

I’ll miss the Apple store, but it wasn’t going to be the same anyway.

The Secret Life of Bees is the second book in my mandated summer reading collection.
I wrote about The Catcher in the Rye a few posts ago and I thought that post would be balanced by this one, much as the two choices my school made in selecting these books balanced out each other. It’s interesting that these two books were selected, and after reading both of them, I’m sure that they were not selected independently of each other.

The Secret Life of Bees is decidedly a “girl book.” I hate that term, but it’s certainly a book to which a girl could more easily related. Indeed, for the first one hundred pages or so, every male in the story is evil. The plot follows Lily Owens as she leaves her abusive father in pursuit of her mother, about whom she knows very little, except that the death of her mother may be her own fault. Following a clue on the back of a picture Lily’s mother had in her possession at the time of her death, Lily travels to a town in South Carolina where she and her African-American nanny are taken in by three sisters who run an apiary, also African-American.

I feel justified in labeling this a “girl book” because of how central femininity is to the plot. A group of women calling themselves the Daughters of Mary, led by the sisters, worship Mary as opposed to Jesus. Lily finds her home in a community of women and her contact with males is extremely limited, though she does find a love interest by the end of the book. Lily even mentions issues that arise as she matures, certainly something to which males cannot relate.

Despite the fact that I don’t seem to be the author’s intended audience, it was not a bad book. Especially for the author’s first novel, it was remarkably complex and I’m interested to see what my classmates (and anybody out there who’s read this) think of the book. The story was engaging and the bees provide a perfect metaphor for the turmoil in Lily’s life.

But the “girl-power” aspect of the book was still bothering me. I don’t mind books about girls, nor do I mind feminists, but it seemed odd that my school would pick a book so blatantly “girly” that some readers would be completely bored. I finally realized how The Secret Life of Bees balances The Catcher in the Rye. I hadn’t realized it before (being male myself), but The Catcher in the Rye could be labeled a “guy” book. It follows a male and is entirely focused on that male’s messed up world. While the gender association doesn’t seem as clear with The Catcher in the Rye as it does with The Secret Life of Bees, I imagine one of my female classmates would say the exact opposite. The choices make sense when viewed in light of gender association. Two books, two characters, two genders, two perspectives.

I’m surprised (and a little annoyed) that it took me so long to figure out the combination was likely a conscious decision, but I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks about this.

The first job is going extremely well. I’ve received my second pay check, the people with whom I work are excellent, and the work really is not that difficult. It can even be exciting at times. A lot of what I do is boring (filing receipts, entering charges, etc.) but I get to talk to people in person and over the phone, which presents a great opportunity for comedy. I thought I’d share some of my stories from my first few weeks of work.

For the record, I have not disclosed where I work because if these stories were ever connected with my workplace, it wouldn’t exactly spell career advancement for me.

The Moth

I was confirming a reservation when a huge moth flew towards me from behind the computer screen. The person sitting next to me burst out laughing because I had dropped to the floor to avoid the moth because I hate bugs. Once she started laughing, I started laughing, but I was still on the phone call. Neither one of us could get ourselves together in time to talk to the member and we couldn’t go on the call laughing, so the member just hung up.

The Weather

“What’s the weather?”

That’s probably the question we get asked most frequently. I would love to respond, “Look out your window,” but more recently I’ve invented a new method of retaliation. I will give them the basic temperature and forecast, but then I’ll go into excruciating detail about percent humidity, pressure, and visibility. I’m particularly proud of accomplishing a way to quietly rebel because the person on the phone certainly cannot complain.

Reservations

Part of my job (which I share with several summer assistants like me) is to take reservations, but it can quickly degenerate into a nightmare. Multiple families want to sit together, but they reserve twice. Or they make a reservation for two and they call back the day of the event to change the reservation to eight. Or they are “absolutely sure” they made a reservation for 7:30, but the book shows 6, so they “insist” on being moved to 7:30, even though there aren’t any tables available. Then they call back and make the situation worse by adding four more people.

The Mini-Fridge

A woman came up to me just yesterday and said, “I have this sandwich that needs to be refrigerated. Do you have a minifridge back there in the office?”

I restrained my snappy retort and politely said that we don’t have a minifridge. Her response stunned me. She said, “Are you sure that you don’t have a minifridge or are you just guessing?”

Tennis Court Reservations

We don’t do tennis reservations in the office in which I work. That’s handled by a completely separate office, but that doesn’t stop people from trying. I transferred this particular call to the tennis shop, but nobody picked up. When I explained to the caller that it was impossible for me to take the reservation, he practically yelled, “That doesn’t seem like a very good solution, does it? Now how can I reserve my tennis court?”

I asked him to call back, after which he theatrically sighed and hung up the phone.

That’s only a taste of what happens on a daily basis. Maybe I should write a book.

Every time I go to a Broadway show, I go absolutely crazy because they never start on time. It says 8 PM right on the ticket, but they can’t seem to start before 8:05 or 8:10 PM. It’s one of my Pet Peeves - I paid for a ticket that says 8 PM, why aren’t they starting on time? Last year, I decided to stop making myself crazy in favor of making somebody else crazy, so I wrote a letter to the cast and crew of Mamma Mia! (the show I saw). I looked all over for the letter, but it must be on my Dell (which I wouldn’t touch for money), so I don’t recall the exact wording of the letter. I can tell you that it wasn’t mean; it wasn’t even strongly worded.

I kindly explained my frustration and asked them to start at the appointed time. I never received a response.

That’s not the first letter I’ve written containing a suggestion. I’ve written to airlines and computer companies, but every time I’ve written one of these letters, it’s been because of my displeasure at some aspect of the service or product. I’ve decided to change my letter writing campaign of displeasure to one of happiness and support.

So over the next several weeks, I’m going to write letters to several companies, people, groups, etc. listed below, telling them how much I like their product or service. I figure that so many people hear how terrible their product is (from people like me) that they wouldn’t mind the occasional word of support. The list is not complete (as soon as I sat down to write this, every company I wanted to list went out of my head), so let me know in the comments what companies, groups, etc. I should add. I’ll cross names off as I write the letters.

1. Apple
2. Charles Shackleton Furniture and Miranda Thomas Pottery
3. Coca-Cola Company, The
4. Colbert, Stephen
5. Coldplay
6. Lee, Harper
7. Lehrer, Jim
8. Sorkin, Aaron
9. Stewart, Jon
10. Twitter

That’s the kind of speech George Bush should have given after 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. That’s the kind of speech I wish any politician could give. It’s the type of speech that seems cheesy in peace-time, but in a time of crisis (the speech takes place after a pipe bombing in The West Wing universe), we are reassured that everything will be all right.

I’ve mentioned The West Wing in posts several times before, but I’m a huge fan, so a mention was not good enough. The West Wing was television at its best. It was smart and funny; it wrestled with the same issues that politicans face today. The show, for those of you who don’t know, was carried by NBC from 1999 to 2006 and the name comes from the West Wing of the White House, which contains the Oval Office and the offices of the president’s senior staff. Aaron Sorkin (my favorite writer) created the series and wrote every episode in the first four seasons. After Sorkin’s departure, the show’s ratings declined until it was cancelled by NBC. Incidentally, as The West Wing’s ratings fell, so did the success of network as a whole (but I can’t attribute this exclusively to the fall of The West Wing).

When I say that I love The West Wing, I’m probably understating. It sounds a bit odd, but my personality was probably molded, at least in part, by the influence of The West Wing. I suppose that’s not the worst inspiration one could have in life, and I seem to be doing just fine. In every episode, there’s a healthy dash of comedy, but always a confrontation with the most complicated issues of policy and morality.

The comedy is seen in teasers like this:

The main title sequence is one of the best I’ve seen. I also enjoy the occasional smackdown of crazy interpretations of the Bible.

The cinematography is outstanding. Thomas Schlamme and Aaron Sorking developed the “walk-and-talk.” Much of the show is filmed with a Steadicam, like parts of this section from the pilot. It enhances the tension in a show that could be viewed as boring, since most of it does take place in an office.

I’ll stop throwing illegaly posted YouTube clips at you. I can’t convey the series in the course of a few short clips. For me, it was amazing because I have an idealistic view of how government could be. If I write a pilot script (which I want to do, not to shop it around, but for practice writing in a different style), I hope it can be half as good as The West Wing. Television today is occupied by trash and I wish we could return to intelligent television.

I did a Summize search, and people are still raving about The West Wing on Twitter. As I said, it’s hard to convey the storylines and plots because of the complexity of the show. Download a few episodes from iTunes (do it in order; the best episodes are the ones that are most intertwined with every episode before). Let me know when you become a fan!

Internet safety means so many things. Password choice, protecting your wireless network, etc. All important, but they don’t get soccer moms across the country as excited as Today show segments about kids posting something on Facebook and turning up dead in a river the next day. Yes, I’m exaggerating, but Internet safety “experts” are much happier when talking about how the Internet will kill you, your children, and you family than when they forced to talk about what the Internet does well. To tell you the truth, I’m not interested in password choice or wireless network protection any more than the soccer moms who watch The Today Show because I know that I’m fine on both counts. But I do hope to draw on my experience and speak directly to the thousands of teens on the Internet and parents who want to keep their kids safe by striking a balance between using the Internet to its potential and being safe on the Internet.

This would be so much easier if everyone used common sense, of course. If every teen used common sense, there would be no stories about sexual predators on the Internet, Chris Hanson would be out of a job, and parents wouldn’t be spying on their kids. This would fix a lot of problems, but it’s obvious that those who do use common sense are forced to follow the same rules as the people who don’t, even if those rules were created because of the people who are without any sense, common or otherwise.

My experience with the Internet undesireables is a bit different than many others, perhaps because I’m a little bit more visible than the average Internet teen. (I’m no Michael Arrington, but most teens just read blogs; they don’t write them). I get the occasional interesting e-mail and one person who was dressed in the guise of friendship, but turned out to be a pedophile, using Web 2.0 services to select, then contact victims.

For Teens

I did a Google search for ways to protect yourself online and so many resources focus on parents and not teens themselves. There seems to be a feeling, never explicity stated, that teens are unable to manage themselves online, that parents are the only ones who can protect their children from the dangers of the Internet. Perhaps that’s because the “experts” have assumed teens are incapable of handling themselves appropriately online and have spent time arming parents with spy tactics rather than giving teens tools to help themselves.

For teens, I have just a few pieces of advice. First, don’t talk to people you don’t know, unless that’s what you’re aiming for (i.e. if you’re a blogger), but keep in mind that when you do distribute your e-mail, the undesireable people on the Internet will eventually start talking to you. The second is not to be afraid to use services like Facebook and Twitter, so long as you don’t give away personal information. The first two have been said before, but my last point isn’t said enough. You don’t have to give away your street address to be a vulnerable target. Some people have a tendency to spill out their life stories on the Internet and predators are just as coercive online as they are in person.

For Parents

Unfortunately for parents, this section will have to focus a bit more on what not to do than what you should do. Parents, or at least the ones I have come into contact with, will instinctually try to protect their child’s privacy and put trust in their child. “Experts” (I’m not going to name names because there are too many to single out just one or two).

1. Do Not Put Blocking, Spying, Parental Control Software on Your Child’s Computer

There should always be some basic trust. If you want to know what you child is doing, talk to them, not deploy spy software to read every conversation you child has. Teenagers deserve privacy and the ability to talk freely with friends.

2. Do Not Force Your Child to Keep Their Computer in a Public Area

We deserve to have computers in our rooms, but this is an area where I admit parents have a reasonable argument. If a parents suspects inappropriate online activity, this should be the first right rescinded. I would encourage teens to be as open about their computer use as possible. For example, I have my computer in my room because that’s where I have my printer and textbooks, but I’m writing this post with my door wide open.

3. Don’t Assume All Online Activity is Sinister

Remember the Internet is, on balance, good.

Or everyone could just be more like me.

Let me know in the comments if there’s anything I didn’t cover. I know it exists, the Internet is a very big place.

A few weeks a go, I wrote about my middle school graduation. It was a big accomplishment for me - completing my first year at my new school and graduating successfully. My school recognized how important it was and they celebrated our graduation with a nice ceremony, a formal dance, a breakfast, and an appropriate appreciation of my grade’s collective accomplishments.

It never struck me that anybody thought eighth grade graduations being a “big deal” was problematic until I saw this New York Times article.

My interest was piqued when I discovered that the principal of my former school was quoted in the article (towards the end).

So I read the article and I’m now sufficiently annoyed at those who say middle school graduations are overblown. The naysayers’ rationale is that completing middle school is not a big enough accomplishment to warrant a big celebration. Even Barack Obama said, “Let’s not go over the top. Let’s not have a huge party. Let’s just give them a handshake. You’re supposed to graduate from eighth grade.” I disagree with you on this, Senator Obama. You are supposed to graduate from eighth grade, just like you’re supposed to live to see your next birthday. Just because it’s expected of you is no reason not to celebrate. The supposition that we will live to see our next birthday does not mean that we won’t have a birthday party when that day rolls around.The fact is that graduation is a big deal. When you accomplish something, it is right to celebrate it.

The Times quotes Dr. Timothy Knowles who is the director of the Uniiversity of Chicago Urban Education Institute as saying, “…if the impression that’s left is that you have croseed the stage, the threshold, rather than, ‘You’ve have made it halfway through the trajectory to college,’ then we risk those kids walking away from the ceremony thinking they have accomplished something — when they haven’t.” I think Dr. Knowles should spend some time in one of the four charter schools he oversees to look at the accomplishments students make everyday. Middle school is a time of transition and celebrating that the transition has been completed seems logical. I do agree with Diane Ravitch, an education scholar, who says, “I don’t think anyone should say, ‘Hey, it’s only eighth grade.’ Lots of parents celebrate their kids’ accomplishments and we don’t say, ‘Hey, it’s only Little League.’ At least we have parents celebrating their children’s educational achievement. It says, ‘There are good rewards to staying in school.’” She’s absolutely right.

What drives me even crazier are the schools (like my former school) that don’t call middle school graduation “graduation,” but instead “moving-up.” Those people need to take a look at a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines a graduation as “the receiving or conferring of an academic degree or diploma; the ceremony at which degrees are conferred.” Graduates do receive diplomas so call the ceremony what it actually is!

It’s disappointing to see that more than a few schools are trying to diminish the accomplishments of graduates. Some people look back on middle school with fondness, others with hatred, and most with mixed feelings. But it cannot be denied that the eleven-year-old who enters sixth grade is worlds apart from the fourteen-year-old who leaves eighth grade. The pressure of school, both academic and non-academic, at the very least warrants a ceremony. A graduation is a graduation and there should be no effort to diminish its power by changing its name or changing the ceremony. No eighth grade graduate is confused. We know that we celebrate now, then start an uphill climb towards college in September.

But some schools still don’t get it. Ann Edwards, principal of the school I used to attend takes the watering-down of school ceremonies a step further, and is pretty careful to imply that eighth graders are incapable of attending elaborate dinners. Traditionally, graduates were given a formal dinner, but it has since been reduced to a casual lunch. Edwards said of the dinner, “…the kids looked so awkward, it was so age-inappropriate, it was ridiculous.” That’s frankly insulting. Graduates deserve a nice dinner, but quite apart from that, how is such a meal “age-inappropriate” and “ridiculous”? When asked about the parties that parents give to celebrate graduation, Edwards said, “We’re fighting the culture of the communities in which we work.” Yes! How terrible that parents give their children a party! I’m also surprised at the combative nature of the comment that educators are “fighting” the more formal takes on graduation.

I’m glad that my school handled graduation well. It was tastefully done, called by its proper name, but not overdone. As for the schools that don’t handle graduation so well, I’m appalled.

Computer users are bombarded with ads. It’s hard to go to a website and not see ads. Even websites like nytimes.com or cnn.com have ads. Google has filled search results with so many ads that most of us have been conditioned to just ignore them. Ads and content sites seem to be synoymous.

But now the ads are spreading! Desktop apps are being eaten by them too. Weatherbug swallows your screen with huge, obtrusive ads and videos. Twitterific is more tastefully ad supported (it displays just one small ad every half hour and it doesn’t take up your whole screen).

The good part about both Weatherbug and Twitterific is that they give you the option of paying to opt-out of the ads. For $19.95, Weatherbug gives you more features and no ads. Twitterific is ad-free for $14.95. This is an excellent solution. They can still fund future projects, but they don’t have to give users the inconvenience of ads.

But I think that no matter what options developers give users regarding ads vs. no ads, developers need to keep their ads unobtrusive. Users don’t like ads, but we tolerate ads to an extent. When you pass the threshold of reasonable advertising, users hate the product. A bit like I hate Weatherbug.

Websites are a bit more complicated. Twitter, for example, is not ad-supported yet, but in order to be a profitable company, it will probably have to be. Facebook already went down that road. That’s because there are really only two options to make a website, service, or app profitable: ads or payment of some sort. Twitter has indicated that it wants to be a global communication utility. It’s a lot harder to be global when you cut out the millions of people who can’t pay. So most websites turn to ads, but I really wish they wouldn’t!

I would much rather pay for Twitter than see it go down the ad-supported road. In fact, I would pay to have Google searches with no ads. While a pay-for-no-ads solution seems to be taking hold in the desktop app community, it has not yet reached online services and that’s annoying. In the past year, The New York Times discontinued its paid TimesSelect service which presented articles by certain columnists without ads. It was discontinued for a variety of reasons, but I strongly believe they should have an ad-free version of The New York Times online. I would pay a steep price for it too, if I continue to like The New York Times as much as I do now. There’s really no downside to doing this, unless I’m not thinking of something.

So I have suggestions for ad-supported apps, services, and sites. Number one: Don’t make the ads huge, like Weatherbug. It makes me want to uninstall the app and erase every trace of the disgusting over-adness. Take a leaf out of Twitterific’s book. Number two: Always give people the option of opting-out of ads for a fee.

If the end result is the same for the content or service provider (the end result being revenue), then giving the users more choice is better.

And one more thing in support of my plan, though it’s hard to measure or prove. As I mentioned above, we’ve been conditioned to ignore some ads (in Google searches, for example), so if ads become less common, then the value of the ads that we do see would go up. Whether or not this would actually make a measurable impact on ad values is impossible to ascertain.

If View from a Farley ever has ads (certainly in future plans), I will offer a paid alternative. I’m putting my money where my mouth is.

I don’t like the way The Catcher in the Rye is written. I really don’t.

The Catcher in the Rye is one of the books I knew I’d have to read eventually for school, so I didn’t even bother to read it before. I’m never sure if I would have liked something better had it not been required reading, but it’s too late now!

My first problem with The Catcher in the Rye is about style. I’m a bit of a writing snob, to tell you the truth. I don’t always write as well as I’d like to, but I recognize good writing in others. The Catcher in the Rye is not well written, but it’s saving grace is that it wasn’t intended to be a great specimen writing style. Most of the writing in the book is structured exactly as the first paragraph of this post is. It’s jarring and disturbing to the reader.

“It has a very good academic rating, Pencey. It really does.”

“They can drive you crazy. They really can.”

“I don’t blame them. I really don’t.”

You get the picture. I understand the author’s desire to make the book conversational, but Salinger sadly over-conversationalizes. Nobody talks like Holden does in the story. Used sparingly, it might be effective (and partially forgivable because it was written over fifty years ago and I don’t know how people had conversations those many years ago), but Salinger liberally used this particular device, which Holden would probably say was “annoying” and “depressing” were he to read his own story.

The plot is…meandering. Holden’s adventures across New York City are unpredictable, but quite odd. It’s hard to empathize with a character who is so “out there.” If I were to run away from school and bumble about New York, I would probably reserve a room at the Waldorf instead of stumbling into a cheap hotel. The lack of purpose to Holden’s time in the city is indicative of how screwed up he is. (I used “screwed up” because, according to Wikipedia, the novel popularized that phrase).

My last issue is with the over-use of “annoying” and “depressing.” I cannot accuse Salinger of innacuracy here. Indeed, fifty years later, the words “annoying” and “depressing” are still among the most-used words in the vocabulary of an average teenager. For precisely that reason, the novel annoys me. Much of my free time is spent playing therapist for friends who need assistance. It’s a task that I don’t mind at all, but hearing the constant cries of annoyance and depression, then reading about it becomes too much.

Yet somehow I can still muster some fondness for The Catcher in the Rye. I respect the book, even if I don’t like the writing. The book’s weaknesses may not even be weaknesses. Salinger was not trying to create a coherent plot or write a refined story. It appears to be his style, which I happen to dislike. I’m a very logical person (it may not seem like it, but I am) and this type of disorganization is unacceptable from a novel that’s trying to be a perfect specimen. Salinger is just willing to be imperfect, I suppose.

I’m also inclined to like The Catcher in the Rye just because it’s one of the most banned books. (The thirteenth most challenged book between 1990 and 2000, according to the ALA). The book is really not as bad in terms of language and adult topics as I had been led to believe. It is certainly no worse than what one would hear walking down the hallways of an average high school. Book censors are very strange, but that is an entirely different blog post.