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.

The Trial – Franz Kafka

We all have stories that you could not make up. I was once allocated the budget to recruit a new member of the engineering team I managed. However, before I could spend this approved budget, I had to apply for approval to 'increase the head count'. To do this, I had to submit a particular form at a certain date to the HR department and this, I was told, would be reviewed at the next board meeting. My first submission was rejected, with the instruction that more information was needed, which I duly provided – a full A4 sheet justifying the need for the post. This was also rejected – I was informed that the extra information must fit the form. OK, much reduced information was now provided, and soon I heard from one source that the position had finally been approved, and I should expect official notification soon. I proceeded with the recruitment, but on the day before a second interview with a candidate to whom I expected to make a job offer, I was told through the official channel that in fact the position had not been approved. I cancelled the interview. Half an hour later I heard from a more senior person in the organisation that yes, the position had been approved. After explaining the situation, I got an e-mail endorsed by the CEO to confirm this. Through the recruitment agent I then tried to contact the candidate, who as it happens was flying to the UK for the interview. Sorry, I wanted to say, can you come after all? The message did not get through. The second interview never happened. Who in their right mind would want to work for an organisation which behaved like that? Like me? How could I find myself in such a position? In the event I had to continue the search and the position was filled more than a month later than it could have been.
Kafka knows this world. A world were little makes sense. Where each action you take made sense at the time, but, when you are judged by the result, none of it makes sense. A world where snippets of information must be weighed for their value in influencing your decision, but the rules are never clear and the results unpredictable. A world where your emotions, you anger, must be harnessed, not unleashed, if you are even to survive. In the human search for understanding, familiarity sufficient to achieve predictability, there is so much to digest, so many theories to test against the meagre data.
'The Trial' is probably Franz Kafka's most pure example of his art. A complex fabric of topics, treated with consummate ease. In simple language. On bureaucracy? Is Kafka's world an amplification of the absurdity we find all around us? That absurdity that results from human behaviour that is the natural consequence of animals with consciousness, driven by emotion. We only pretend to be working in a rational framework of necessary rules designed to achieve a clear purpose. Worse than that, the fabric grows as we each attempt to carve out our own livelihood in what has gone before. We are at once cushioned and shielded from the original intent by the ever expanding fabric of the organisation. Inscrutable procedures are evident but few clues as to what you should do are available. The rules are never explicit; they depend on interpretation and everyone has their own interpretation.
Equally, this novel evokes a tingling sensation reminiscent of that curious state between wakefulness and sleep, between dream and reality where nightmares are mixed with reality and it is impossible to tell which is tangible and which pure imagination – or horror. For a Jew living since the holocaust this novel is a chilling echo to the view held by Nazis that Jews are in some way guilty to the extent that they must be eliminated, a whole race. But no one can say what they are guilty of.
Sex is a recurring theme. Kafka explores this in its many aspects. Read the novel, there is much, much more in store for you!

Song of Stone by Iain Banks

Written in the second person from Able, nobleman, to his lover Morgan (maybe wife, but like a sister in childhood), Banks has succeeded in his unique approach to yet another confounding topic - that of loyalty.

Able and Morgan are overrun in a time of war, forced to return to their castle by a group, presumable representing the new occupation, led by "the Lieutenant", female leader of a disorderly band of soldiers.

Abe fights with his loyalties to so many things: these are the enemy, but he is unable to fight back; they slowly but systematically consume his wine and food and destroy the family art treasures, but he is powerless to stop them; the Lieutenant takes Morgan as her lover, but he cannot react for fear of what they will do to him. Inevitably, he is destroyed; as it happens as a result of a practical joke by the band of soldiers.

The total ambiguity of place or time (it could be anywhere in the western world over the last 70 years) adds power to the point. However much we may imagine that we would defend what is of value to us, the reality maybe somewhat different given the circumstance of war. The grandiose setting perhaps plays on that hackneyed phrase: "an Englishman's home is his castle" This novel questions the loyalty and strength of all of us.

http://www.spikemagazine.com/1298banks.php

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6422/rev0342.html

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/stone.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/iain-banks