I like Ryan Zimmerman, but "the best third baseman in the game"? Mr. Beltre and Mr. Longoria would definitely argue with that statement.

However, I love this analogy:

In her way, and very briefly, Sarah Palin was also a phenom, but the flaws in her swing became apparent very quickly.

Sarah -- the Hurricane Hazle of politics.

History is littered with young phenoms who endured – for example, Genghis Khan, William Pitt the Younger and

LORD PALMERSTON!

Piffle.

That Lionel Messi, the ultimate of the sporting genre, has never been the footballer with Argentina that he is with Barcelona is surely explained by the fact that Xavi Hernández and Andreas Iniesta play for the Catalans.

That really isn't it. Argentina has crazy talent to surround Messi, they just haven't had any organization or coaching at the national level for the length of Messi's peak.

Sarah -- the Hurricane Hazle of politics.

I always thought of her as the Hurricane Hattie O'Hara of politics.

Salinger's well was never full. "Catcher in the Rye" was obnoxious tedium. So is Sarah Palin, and her well has always been dry.

Harper, however, looks like the real deal. I love the fact that he's so obviously raw. I hope those rough edges never get smoothed out, because that would make him somewhat less entertaining to watch.

I both enjoy watching Harper play and enjoy watching him get thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double, or a double into a triple as it happened the other day.

Harper, however, looks like the real deal. I love the fact that he's so obviously raw. I hope those rough edges never get smoothed out, because that would make him somewhat less entertaining to watch.

Sadly, those rough edges probably will be smoothed; listen to the jazzy Bing Crosby of 1931, then compare him to the blander (but still capable) Bing of a decade later (thanks, Jack Kapp).

Heck, for a more recent comparison, think of the Sun Records Elvis Presley to his RCA counterpart, especially after he left the Army. Still good, just not quite as interesting -- or revolutionary.

J.D. Salinger hit one out of the park with Catcher in the Rye but his well ran dry afterwards.

Strange thing to say. I think most people rate Catcher as either his weakest or second-weakest book, depending on their feelings about RAISE HIGH THE ROOFBEAM, CARPENTERS AND SEYMOUR: AN INTRODUCTION.

John Kennedy’s comet was hit by a bullet

That's some writing there.

Amy Winehouse:Adele::Sandy Koufax:Jerry Reuss

So is Sarah Palin, and her well has always been dry.

A sad commentary on the First Dude's prowess.

A sad commentary on the First Dude's prowess.

If this were old Primer, I'd be disappointed you didn't go with:

"I knew it!" (posted by Andrew Sullivan)

The pop world had Amy Winehouse, cut short in her uncertain prime last year.

Amy Winehouse wasn't cut short in her prime. Her lungs were emphysema-fried; her prime was long gone.

She was a talented woman, but her prime ended in 2007-8. She died in her "Bobby Crosby as a Pirate" phase.

Strange thing to say. I think most people rate Catcher as either his weakest or second-weakest book, depending on their feelings about RAISE HIGH THE ROOFBEAM, CARPENTERS AND SEYMOUR: AN INTRODUCTION.

I think most people have only ever read Catcher or maybe Catcher and Franny and Zooey if they were an English major in college. Personally, I'm not particularly well read on Salinger but I think Catcher was a fantastic book.

Adele? Really? Man, the music industry is in a real dry spell.

Nine Stories is pretty clearly Salinger's best, to my eye, but he's also doing something different there than he is in Catcher and the novellas. His later Zen stuff kinda bores me.

Strange thing to say. I think most people rate Catcher as either his weakest or second-weakest book, depending on their feelings about RAISE HIGH THE ROOFBEAM, CARPENTERS AND SEYMOUR: AN INTRODUCTION.

That sure isn't my impression of the state of the critical appraisal, and, anyway, if it is, that is just a shame. Catcher is, if nothing else, a tour de force. It is is tone perfect, has a memorable story, and is intensely felt. The other two novellas mentioned are really underrated. They are both unique, could only have come from the pen on one man. They are very different in style from each other, as are the earlier Franny and Zooey. Not to mention that his book of short stories is essentially the Highway 61 Revisited of short fiction--each cut is of high quality and each is different in style and substance. Even if Salinger hadn't been secreting great works in the last forty years of his life, his reputation is high, and deservedly so. As Spencer Tracy supposedly said of K. Hepburn, there ain't much of her, but what there is, is cherce. Same with Salinger. But there may be a lot more. And of course it may not be chirce. His last published story (June of 1965, I think, in The New Yorker) Hapworth 16, 1924, is not encouraging, many say.

I am at once very, very interested to see what Salinger produced but kept away from other people and very, very wary. In particular, I'm feeling that ambivalence about that long-rumored sequel to Catcher... part of me wants to know about it just to hear for a fact that Holden didn't kill himself right after he related that story, but at the same time how do you improve on that? I probably overuse the word "perfect" in these contexts but I can't really think of a way you could make that book objectively better by adding more material to it.

His last published story (June of 1965, I think, in The New Yorker) Hapworth 16, 1924, is not encouraging, many say.

That story is . . . bad. It is a bad story.

Heck, for a more recent comparison, think of the Sun Records Elvis Presley to his RCA counterpart, especially after he left the Army. Still good, just not quite as interesting -- or revolutionary.

Sorry, but From Elvis in Memphis is the best thing the King ever recorded. It's what sold me on the man, he wrings every last drop out of those songs and it's exhilerating from front to back.

I haven't read Hapworth since I read it since it first came out (well, maybe I re-read it once not long afterwords). It is such a strange literary effort. Weird, really weird, but I'm not sure it may not be a story that a readership has to evolve to come to appreciate. Like, say. James Joyce, Salinger showed he could do it the traditional way, but the trajectory of his known career after Catcher is that he was veering more and more into exercises in stylistic experimentalism.

Politics is like that, too. Barack Obama was definitely one four years ago and in November we will learn if he still is.

Obama was good at first, but then he went too far.

Obama was good at first, but then he went too far.

This is a reference to something, but I've had two beers and I can't remember what it is now.

This is a reference to something, but I've had two beers and I can't remember what it is now.

On the off chance that I'm not just missing another inside joke, the quote refers to Marge Schott's comments about Hitler.

Marge Schott's comments on Hitler.

I hated Catcher in the Rye. I hated Holden Caulfield. This was in 9th grade. Have not revisited the book, or any Salinger.

I hated Catcher in the Rye. I hated Holden Caulfield. This was in 9th grade. Have not revisited the book, or any Salinger.

This echoes my thoughts exactly. Except that I was in 10th grade.

I remember that everyone else in my class liked the book. I thought that Caulfield was himself a phony. According to wikipedia, he was indeed a bit of a phony, and this was Salinger's intentional way of introducing tragic irony. I just interpreted it as him being a sickening character.

This is a reference to something, but I've had two beers and I can't remember what it is now.

Godwin. You know, the guy who produced the game shows with Toodman.

I remember that everyone else in my class liked the book. I thought that Caulfield was himself a phony. According to wikipedia, he was indeed a bit of a phony, and this was Salinger's intentional way of introducing tragic irony. I just interpreted it as him being a sickening character.

I guess it's irony, but I just thought he was a hypocrite.

Yeah, exactly.

I just thought he was a hypocrite.

He's ####### 15 years old! Of course he's a hypocrite!

Yeah, I did not get Catcher when I was in school either. In some ways, I think it's a book best read as an adult.

I suppose when you're the same age you hold him to a higher standard.

I read it in my 20s again, and Caulfield came off as even more of an insufferable wanker than he was when I was in my teens. I don't think I'll be giving it another go.

I figure it's just one of those books that was perhaps revolutionary or provocative in its own time, but doesn't resonate with a more modern audience.

Heck, for a more recent comparison, think of the Sun Records Elvis Presley to his RCA counterpart, especially after he left the Army. Still good, just not quite as interesting -- or revolutionary.

Sorry, but "From Elvis in Memphis" is the best thing the King ever recorded. It's what sold me on the man, he wrings every last drop out of those songs and it's exhilirating from front to back.

You've got me there; I love that album too, particularly "I'll Hold You In My Heart (Till I Can Hold You In My Arms)" -- it's prime Presley.

In retrospect, I painted too broad a brush, as I should have qualified it with "before his late '60s comeback." He made some fine records in the '70s, too, "Burning Love" of course, his "For The Heart" (which the Judds remade under another title) and some others. I still wonder sometimes how rock history might have changed if Atlantic's Ahmet Ertegun had been able to raise enough money to purchase Presley's contract from Sun in 1955.

I read it in my 20s again, and Caulfield came off as even more of an insufferable wanker than he was when I was in my teens. I don't think I'll be giving it another go.

I figure it's just one of those books that was perhaps revolutionary or provocative in its own time, but doesn't resonate with a more modern audience.

Everyone has their own tastes, of course, and I'm not saying you *have* to like Catcher in the Rye or anything, but I just don't think that it's a "contemporary readers don't get it" issue. I definitely thought Caulfield was insufferable when I first read it in high school. Going back, I just did not get that sense at all. I'm pretty sure everyone's read it, so I hope this doesn't count as a spoiler... you're talking about a guy whose little brother recently died (I think of cancer) and whose parents' response to this was just to toss him away into yet another private school, and then on top of that he discovers that a girl he had a pretty big crush on had essentially been date-raped by his roommate. He's a "phony" in the sense that he is experiencing an existential crisis but can't put it into words or otherwise convey the depth of his despair except through his actions, but I just don't think that's a brand of "phony" that's all that much different from what a lot of us might feel were we in his shoes. I saw a review of the book on YouTube which sums it up as best as I could, that the most optimistic aspect of this book is that the writer is relating it in first person some time after the events have transpired. That is, there's at least an implication that he survived to tell the story.

My sister-in-law remarked that she hated the book because it was "too depressing". That's a statement I don't think I'd ever make about any book, as being moved emotionally is one thing I seek out in my reading, but IMO that's an opinion that implies a better understanding of the book than the "he's an insufferable wanker" one (which, again, was my own opinion of the book the first time I read it).

"Raise High The Roofbeam Carpenters" is fucking brilliant..

and anyone who disagrees with that is..

(well, they just is)

That sure isn't my impression of the state of the critical appraisal, and, anyway, if it is, that is just a shame. Catcher is, if nothing else, a tour de force.

I don't disagree in the slightest -- when I say people consider CATCHER the weakest I'm only emphasizing how highly they esteem the other books.

Hapworth is must reading if you really care about Salinger, absolutely missable if you don't. It doesn't really succeed on its own but it casts a really interesting retrospective light on the other books.

I could easily rate Catcher an A and Raise High the Roofbeam an A+.

The fact that the former doesn't relate with everyone doesn't make it somehow less a work of groundbreaking and brilliant fiction. I cannot connect at all to F. Scott's plots and characters, or the court drama of Mozart's operas. To turn around and call them "obnoxious tedium" as a result just seems a bit much.

To get back to the phenom at hand, hopefully the burnout hasn't started already: Harper says his back is fine

To get back to the phenom at hand, hopefully the burnout hasn't started already: Harper says his back is fine.

Last night, Harper had five plate appearances, every one of them against lefties. He went 3 for 5 with a single, double, and home run. That performance raised his OPS against lefties up to 1.118!

Yes, that number will go down, but good God, this is just unreal. This kid is such a damn natural phenom, it's scary. He is already advanced enough to make needed adjustments within the game after only one or two at bats. 19 year old rookies just aren't supposed to be able to do these kinds of things.

He does look like he's certainly one of the best players in the game. I wonder what his (theoretical) trade value is. Is he already the game's single most valuable property? Would you trade him for Evan Longoria?

I don't remember liking or disliking Holden Caulfield when I first read The Catcher in the Rye, when I was about 15 myself. I just remember thinking that I had never read a book with a main character who was so much like a living, breathing human being.