"How long should a man's legs be? Long enough to touch the ground"

J.D. Salinger’s rhetorical question, "How long should a man's legs be? Long enough to touch the ground", carries a sense of understated wisdom, wry humor, and practical acceptance. The apparent simplicity conceals a subtle perspective on expectations and purpose. At first glance, the question about leg length seems arbitrary, but the answer, "long enough to touch the ground", suggests that the only requirement is to fulfill the inherent function. Within this pithy response lies a commentary on the tendency to over-complicate matters, to seek objective perfection or measure people against illusory ideals.

Salinger is alluding to the futility of arbitrary standards, especially those imposed from the outside. Evaluating someone by how closely they fit a specific, unnecessary ideal, beyond what is required for them to be effective or to belong, misses the value of sufficiency. Legs need not meet a predetermined ideal of length, only fulfill their essential purpose, which is to provide support and mobility by touching the ground. This invokes a broader philosophy of adequacy over perfection. Rather than pushing for unattainable or superfluous goals, there is dignity in recognizing and accepting ‘enough’, what is functional, meaningful, and authentic to each individual.

The answer’s humor softens this challenge to societal norms, suggesting that self-acceptance and contentment do not require superlative qualities or conformity. Each person’s unique attributes are sufficient when they meet the natural requirements of life. Salinger prompts a reconsideration of value: worth is not measured by excess but by adequacy, authenticity, and utility. The spirit of the observation is gently rebellious, a call to embrace individual sufficiency and to question conventions that equate worth with arbitrary standards or unattainable perfection. By focusing on sufficiency and purpose, the answer becomes not just witty, but quietly profound.