[Antoninus]

Catcher in the Rye is assigned on the premise that Caulfield is a character some teens can relate to and thus be more motivated to read about.

Imagine thinking that most teens want to read about a pathetic, shallow, hypocritical phony whose main goal in life is to seek out booze and loose women. Even if that's how many of us actually behaved as teens, was it good that we lived in a society that just accepted such behavior with a wink and a nod? Wouldn't it be better to present young men with literature that showed an alternative? Wouldn't it be better to offer them literature where the male protagonists act in ways that are heroic, self-sacrificial, gentle toward the women in their lives, but implacable when faced with evil?

My own early life may have been different if such exemplars had presented to me earlier on and I didn't have to figure things out for myself in my late 20s.

[Borges]

“whose main goal in life is to seek out booze and loose women.”

And his attempts at both are defined by failure, loneliness, and emotional distress. This lifestyle is shown for what it leads to.