Editing Hapworth 16, 1924 (section)

==Reception and assessment==
{{quote box|width=30em|bgcolor=cornsilk|fontsize=100%|salign=center|quote= Crucial to any to any approach to the [[Glass family]] stories is a recognition of Salinger's refusal to recast standard literary forms, a tendency that becomes most manifest in the diffuse and digressive ''[[Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction|Seymour: An Introduction]]'' and the shapeless and interminable "Hapworth."—Literary critic John Wenke in ''J. D. Salinger: A Study of the Short Fiction'' (1991).<ref>Wenke, 1991 p. 76</ref>}}

Both contemporary and later literary critics harshly panned "Hapworth 16, 1924"; writing in ''[[The New York Times]]'', [[Michiko Kakutani]] called it "a sour, implausible and, sad to say, completely charmless story .... filled with digressions, narcissistic asides and ridiculous shaggy-dog circumlocutions."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/20/books/from-salinger-a-new-dash-of-mystery.html |title=From Salinger, A New Dash Of Mystery |last=Kakutani |first=Michiko |date=20 February 1997 |website=[[The New York Times]] |quote=a sour, implausible and, sad to say, completely charmless story…filled with digressions, narcissistic asides and ridiculous shaggy-dog circumlocutions.}}</ref>

Calling it "virtually unreadable" and "an enigma", critic John Wenke compares "Hapworth" to viewing a neighbor's unedited family home movies.<ref>Wenke, 1991 p. 67, p. 108 And p. 76: “Crucial to any to any approach to the Glass stories is a recognition of Salinger’s refusal to recast standard literary forms, tendency that becomes most manifest in the diffuse and digressive ‘Seymour’ and the shapeless and interminable ‘Hapworth.’”</ref> He writes:

{{blockquote |Possibly the least structured and most tedious piece of fiction ever produced by an important writer, "Hapworth" seems ''designed'' to bore, to tax patience, as if Salinger was trying to torment his readers.<ref>Wenke, 1991 p. 67 And p. 90: Perhaps Salinger "was teasing his readers about the existence of forthcoming materials". And p. 108: "possible to construe 'Hapworth' as a joke…a hoax".</ref><ref>Hamilton, 1988 p. 21-22: "the reader is blithely disregarded: 'Take it or leave it' is Saliinger's unmistakable retort" to those who object to the story.</ref>}}

Wenke adds that the story is a striking departure from the "urbane, pithy and wry" short fiction ''[[The New Yorker]]'''s editors and readership favored.<ref>Wenke, 1991 p. 108</ref>

Biographer Kenneth Slawenski considers the piece "professionally, a disaster"<ref>Slawenski, 2010 p. 370</ref> and ponders what may have motivated Salinger to submit the work for publication:

{{blockquote  |  Questions regarding "Hapworth" have plagued Salinger fans ever since. Did he intentionally write the story as his final publication? Why is "Hapworth" so unreadable? The story fostered a suspicion that...Salinger attempted to release himself from the affections of average readers by feeding them a work that was completely indigestible.<ref>Slawenski, 2010 p. 371: Ellipsis for brevity, the material Salinger had initially "alienated" readers with ''Seymour: An Introduction''.</ref>}}

Biographer [[Ian Hamilton (critic)|Ian Hamilton]] concurs that Salinger appears to abandon his loyal readership and retreat into the exclusive realm of his characters. He writes, "The Glass family has, in this last story, become Salinger's subject and his readership, his creatures and his companions. His life is finally made one with art."<ref>Hamilton, 1988</ref>

Salinger is said to have considered the story a "high point of his writing" and made tentative steps to have it reprinted, though those came to nothing.<ref name="Lathbury">Lathbury (2010)</ref>