Salinger's Message Still Apposite

The death of J D Salinger (for some reason nobody calls him Jerome) on 27th January prompted me to read his one famous book, "The Catcher in the Rye," again. This book "had the dubious distinction of being at once the most frequently censored book across the nation and the second-most frequently taught novel in public high schools" (Yardley, Jonathan (2004-10-19). "J.D. Salinger's Holden Caulfield, Aging Gracelessly". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-13.)
Holden Caulfield, 17, has been expelled from prestigious Pencey Prep and it is not the first time he has been expelled from a school. Action takes place over 48 hours starting when he decides to leave early, not wishing to face up to his parents' inevitable rebukes. He travels to New York and checks into a hotel, near where he lives. His experiences, include contact with old girl friends, an encounter with a prostitute (he is unable to follow this through) and the rescuing hand of his younger sister Phoebe.
The language, uniquely for its time, is that of the disaffected youth, struggling to make sense of the world; alienated, defensive, cynical, immoral. Holden, in a touching conversation with his sister (chapter 22) confesses that all he wants to do is "catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff." "I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all."
With authentic turn of phrase, no censorship of profanities, his opinions, presented in a stream of consciousness, are cutting, shocking and depressing. When you realise that this young man, with life's big puzzle yet to be solved, is simply telling you how it is for him, the world turns upside down, and you question the sanity of our culture and morals; the pretensions of the modern world; the expectations we try to live up to and mostly fail. Who is it who is having the nervous breakdown here. Is Holden's treatment by "the one psychoanalyst guy" helping him or breaking him in.

Superman Returns (2006)

The original SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II films of 1978 and 1980 were spectacular at the time for their special effects and heralded the Super Hero genre. Superman Returns (2006) updates the brand to our modern expectations of production quality, but is disjoint from the sequence. Events in Superman III and Superman IV are ignored and my disbelief received little encouragement to be suspended from the arrival of flat screen TVs and mobile phones only a few years after we had been in the 1930's comic book world of Metropolis. Brandon Routh was cast, I suspect, for his likeness to Christopher Reeve rather than for any charisma although Kate Bosworth fared well as a chirpy Lois Lane. In all perfectly serviceable cinema but it only reminds me of the original series rather than adding to it. No surprise, then that that Warner Bros. have the Superman franchise on hold.

Seek confidentiality or you will not get it

“Where confidentiality is sought it is always given – unconditionally” – so says the home page of Christine Pratt’s web site for the National Bullying Helpline. I wonder if the “three or four” callers from No 10, of whom Christine Pratt speaks took the trouble to “seek confidentiality.” They certainly did not get it. How many staff are there in No 10 and how many of those might have made such a call. It is no wonder that Professor Cary Cooper, Ann Widdecombe and two other patrons have resigned. The charity has apparently “resumed service”, but I cannot see how it can continue whilst Mrs Pratt continues to be associated with it. Now that it emerges you are late filing your accounts at the Charity Commission, and you were alleged by Jane McGrath to be only ‘offering her "independent investigation services" at a considerable fee to my employer’, I think it is time for you to find another way of earning your living, Mrs Pratt.

Do we get the journalism we deserve?

"The day the immigrants left" (BBC1, Feb 24^th 2010, 9:00 p.m.) is fascinating on several levels, but so excruciating that I could not watch it to the end. Where does the concept for a documentary like this come from and why do so many people want to watch it?

Let me take you back to the first production meeting. “What we need must appeal to all political strains: the right wing middle class need to see the workshy British reveal the attitudes that ensure they never hold down a job; right wing workers can relate to the BNP arguments voiced by the workshy; the socialists can grieve over the dilemma that the influx of immigrant workers creates and the would-be TV stars can relate to the workshy no-bodies getting their break on national TV.”

‘So what is the concept?’

‘We go to a town in the UK where there are lots of low wage jobs, a high immigrant population and high unemployment. Then we persuade some of the local employers to lay off some of their immigrant workers for a few days; put in some of the indigenous unemployed in their place; let the cameras role.’

‘But how are we going to recruit the workshy British to be on the program? What do we do when they realise we are humiliating them and they don’t turn up on set?’

‘That’s easy; we’ll just pretend that they didn’t turn up for the jobs. They probably don’t turn up for new jobs anyway, most of the time.’

I’m sorry, but there are both workshy and diligent people the world over. So of course pitting the most determined workers from Eastern Europe against the most pitiable you might hope to find amongst the UKs indigenous population never was a fair competition. Actually, it’s a blood sport. Not like cock fighting, where both sides are equal; more like fox hunting. And how we love a good blood sport!

Let’s just remember that the migrant workers in Wisbech are people who have had the foresight and determination to make a new life for themselves in a wealthier economy than theirs. They are also most probably the most skilled and conscientious at what they do from their background. They have crossed Germany and France to be here, countries incidentally that deny the people from the EU's new Accession states the right to work. If everyone in their own countries were like them, their economy would be stronger and they would not need to move.

Getting the many without jobs in the UK back into work is obviously a major problem. These days we shy away from concepts like “work ethic.” Many would say that the benefit system is less a safety net and more the cause of unemployment. But does journalism of this nature do anything to promote a UK work ethic, to help those struggling back into work? Does it help promote pride in being British, whatever your ethnic origins. No, its just cruel exploitation of gullible unemployed for our entertainment. Shame on you BBC!