Bravo for Deborah Batts.

Last week, the federal judge barred U.S. distribution of an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye. Her ruling was a victory for 90-year-old author J.D. Salinger, who for decades has jealously guarded his privacy — and his words. The courthouse battle in Manhattan focused on 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye (read a review here), which tells the story of Holden Caulfield as a senior citizen. The book, written by a Swedish author, already is available in Europe and was scheduled for a summer release here.

Authors have lots of leeway to parody other works, as anyone who ever read Mad or National Lampoon knows. But Salinger’s lawyers argued that he retains an interest in Caulfield — 57 years after the classic was published — and called the new book a “ripoff.”

Judge Batts (Radcliffe, Class of 1969; Harvard Law, 1972) rejected claims that 60 Years was a critical examination or parody of the original, according to news reports. The literary battle may continue; Judge Batts’ order is a stopgap measure until a trial is held.

But her ruling doesn’t address a larger issue: Is Catcher still relevant? Last fall, Oberlin professor Anne Trubek argued that the book is past its prime. “I think that most American teenagers will find it rather tame and sort of laughable the things that were once considered so controversial,” she said on NPR.

Certainly, today’s teens shouldn’t be fed a steady diet of books featuring angst-ridden white prep school boys — A Separate Peace; Good Times, Bad Times; etc. — as I was.