Throughout Tony Blair's infamous tenancy at number 10, Boulton reported every row, revolt, reshuffle and resignation. Boulton nowadays tries to set himself up as the Walter Cronkite of Britain, just as infamously trying to make capital out of no news items.

He has written a book that pretends to take the reader behind the scenes of contemporary history by intercepting unflattering but unimportant details of the daily work in cabinet. Tony will be ever so pleased with this eulogy, a flattery so sickening treacle syrup is salty and sour in comparison. He even makes a case that only Blair could have made the Northern Ireland peace process work by his skill and temperament. He doesn't address the real questions though, is it at an end? How much was paid to bank accounts of Northern Irish politicians to make them swallow it? Because the only cause for a freedom fight like the Irish one is always and only the enrichment of its leaders.

To make the fairytale more digestible to the less credulous reader, he sprinkles negative information into the book, well dosed not to distract from the great hero, just enough to make it believable. He reveals some of the lies, the blackmails, the bullying and the cheating of Downing Street and its inhabitant. But we knew that all before, even if some details might not have been common knowledge. He goes in great detail into the Prescott election incident. Yawn. Yes, we know.

He also writes about many other persons than only Blair Superman, for example about Lord Mandelson of Sleaze, and most come off very creditably. Which cabinet were we talking about? It is to hope that a person less hypocritically inclined will someday give us the true story of it all. Obviously, strong inducements have been brought to bear on Boulton and his wife to publish this hand tame accolade.

He analyses Blair's press officer Campbell as a ruthless bully and a compulsive liar. Well, that was exactly why he had become press officer one is tempted to say. He had to give word of a prime minister who was a compulsive liar and a ruthless bully. So no surprise there either.

He goes into the ignorance of Blair, for example his complete ignorance of the Balfour Declaration which laid the foundation of a State Israel in the lands rightfully belonging to the people of Palestine. But we knew he was an ignorant git, anyhow, so what is new about that? To this day I am not even convinced that Blair is literate.

There are many faults in little details, not even worth mentioning, and dates, that are not really that important to warrant making a list of them. The main problem of the book is that it doesn't address any real issues. All the meat is missing on the bone, because the writer carefully avoids going into the troublesome spots of that Prime Minister's tenure at Downing Street.

The obvious lapse concerns world politics. He does not tell us what made the man become a war criminal, ordering and abetting the manslaughter of tens of thousands innocent people in Iraq, locals and British alike. He leaves us in the dark by what means he was convinced of the Bush game, if by flattery, by blackmail, or by pecuniary inducements, and hereby consented to kill British Boys and Girls in the friendly fire of incompetent American marksmen.

Did Blair know that Bush was lying through his teeth when telling the world about Iraqi weapons? Did he know that it had been Bush's company which had sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Did he know that the CEO in charge of that company at that time was some Hilary Rodham Clinton? And how much was he paid for keeping quiet? How much was he paid for sending troops into a war that is and was only in the interest of the Bush family's firms in weapons and oil?

If you are somebody who likes to read what one already knows, then fine, the style is pleasing. The news content is zero, most grievously, considering that a person in the know would have been handy to give the information necessary to tell the real truth.

That is the time when any one person realizes that it is necessary to escape and go against society. Individuals begin to break free and go against a corrupt society when they start to think further than what the society wants them to. This is shown through the use of indirect and dynamic characterization in Ayn Rand's timeless novella Anthem, as well as Ray Bradbury's everlasting novel Fahrenheit 451.Throughout the whole story, Equality 7-2521 develops through the use of indirect characterization. He starts off his life being different from others, even looking different: “For your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers” (Rand 18).

Even from the start of his life, he is different from others. And although little is known about him except his physical feature, the author constantly reveals what he is like through his thoughts and his actions by the use of indirect characterization. It should be obvious to the reader that he is already beginning to think differently and further than the society thinks. This is revealed through his early thoughts and actions: “'This is a foul place. They are damned who touch the things of the Unmentionable Times.' But our hand which followed the track, as we crawled, clung to the iron as if it would not leave it” (Rand 33). Here, Equality, knows that being around and examining this thing is wrong, and he knows that he shouldn't be doing it, but he does it anyways. We can see through indirect characterization that he is beginning to think differently and beyond what the society would like him to think. He was taught when he was younger that the things of the ancient days were not to be experimented, yet there's this impulse inside of them that tells us, as the reader, that he is really beginning to break away from society.

His train of thought is running into a different station than all of the other ones. He doesn't quite realize here that he needs to start breaking away, but this passage alludes to it. Later on in the story, he realizes what is wrong with the world that he is living in and starts to break free from it: “We swung our first through the windowpane, and we leapt out in a ringing rain of glass” (Rand 75). Equality finally recognizes that it's necessary to getaway from the corrupt world that he is living in. There is always a time in an individual who understands when his moment comes and he needs rebel against the messed up society that he's living in. This was Equality's moment. He leaves in an outburst of anger and by this action the reader should comprehend through indirect characterization that Equality is an individual who is striving to get rid of the government system that exists.

In comparison, indirect characterization is also used throughout the story of Guy Montag to show when individuals recognize the need to break free from a tainted society. Guy is a burner of knowledge. His job is to destroy books as if they were monsters. He is stirred to think about things from a different viewpoint by Clarisse McClellan, his neighbor. His conversations everyday always end up with him rethinking about what life is: “He felt his body divide itself into a hotness and coldness, a softness and a hardness, a trembling and a non-trembling, the two halves grinding one upon the other” (Bradbury 24). Through indirect characterization, the audience can tell that he's beginning to question everything that he has been doing. His conversations with this one girl, Clarisse McClellan, have such a big effect on him. Montag lives in a brainwashed society, but he is starting to think beyond what the government wants him too.

Only one in a million, like McClellan, actually think about what life is and question what happens every day. Montag, being a fireman, is almost like a tool that is being used by society to destroy all knowledge of the past. This is like in Equality's story, where to seek knowledge of the past is forbidden, and it's wrong and shunned upon. Both of the characters in the stories realize that knowledge is something that should be sought through. Equality and Montag both take extreme measure to prevent the destruction of knowledge, which eventually leads to straight-forward rebellion. Later on in the story, Montag begins to escape and rebel against society. This can be seen as he is talking to an old scholar, Faber, when they start to hatch a plan, “Plant the books, turn in an alarm, and see the firemen's houses burn” (Bradbury 85). His words tell the audience that he is a man of action, and that he wants to do something about the “burning books” problem as soon as possible.

This is the time in his life that Montag begins to understand why he needs to run away from this polluted society and get away to rebel. He's ready to turn around and betray his fellow fireman and instead of burning books, he plans to burn the people that burn books. Although this plan is very direct, in reality it would never work because the society has already stopped reading, the problem is not because of the fireman, but it goes deeper, it goes to the loss of knowledge probably years and years back. In both stories, it should be obvious that Montag and Equality relate to each other in many ways. They both have a point in their lives when they realize that need to break free from the society that is corrupt and damaged. This indirect characterization in both Fahrenheit 451 and Anthem show the reader and the audience the development of the main characters and when and how they break free of the corrupt society that they live in.

Also, as Equality develops throughout the story, he is seen as a dynamic character and this is also another element that shows why and when individuals need to break away from a corrupt society. As Equality grows through the story, he changes quite a bit. He is taught the rules of society and the values of the society, but he changes from them and develops his own values. He is always constantly changing and disregarding the rules: “Never, not in the memory of the Ancient Ones' Ancients, have men done that which we are doing. And yet there is no shame in us and no regret” (Rand 37). Equality is obviously changing dramatically because, he feels that never, not once in the history of the whole world, has anyone done as much evil as he has. This dynamic change shows us how he is breaking away from this tarnished society. He starts disregarding the rules, he develops his own ideas and own values, and he doesn't feel any wrongdoing in it, where as any other person in that society would feel wrong and live with it on their conscious.

He is always constantly growing and realizing that he needs to break away sometime soon and his changes are dynamic. And even once he is away from society and his community, he still is constantly changing: “But I am done with this creed of corruption. I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame” (Rand 97). This change in character tells the reader, that even though he's basically alone, he is still going against society. Throughout his whole life, he has been taught the word “we” as a word of equality, but he realizes that this definition of “we” isn't the definition that is true. His dynamic characterization in this novella shows how individuals break free of a corrupt society.

Along with Equality, the dynamic growth in Guy Montag also shows individuals breaking free of society. He starts of as a fireman, a burner of knowledge, and a wielder of fire. In the beginning, he believes that fire is this beautiful thing, this flame, but as he is changing and growing, he realizes that “Its real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences” (Bradbury 115). This is a very dynamic change because he was always someone who favored fire. The author tells us that he always loved to burn; he always thought, “It was a pleasure to burn” (Bradbury 3). And as he goes on through the story, he comes to realize that fire destroys as well as creates. It takes away as well as gives. This change in him helps him realize that knowledge should be sought and should be taught instead of being burnt and lost forever. His thought changes from the brainwashed state that was of the past: “Montag grinned the fierce grin of all men singed and driven back by flame” (4).

His thought differs from everybody else's, and this difference causes him to discover that his true purpose in his life is to break free of the polluted society that he was born into and then change. He knows that once he takes this road that he can't turn back, but once he started thinking real individual thoughts, there was no turning back from that either, which was like Equality. Also, in both stories, both of the main characters take dramatic action against the society when they break free of it. They both change from people who kind of believe in the society, but always have a doubt, to individuals who both understand when and why they need to take action against the society is damaged beyond repair, so they need to break free, rebel, and create their own. All of these similarities in both stories demonstrate when and why individuals need to break away from a corrupt society because both of the stories are very similar.

Both of the stories, of Montag and of Equality, are similar in many ways. They both start of as individuals who are a part of the society and are apart of the big picture, a piece of the puzzle. But once they break away, the piece is missing and that ruins the whole picture. Both develop by means of dynamic and indirect characterization and this characterization shows individuals breaking away from a corrupt society when necessary. The two stories are also similar in the manner that they both realize that there needs to be a change in the society, whether it's for individuality or for knowledge, the two main characters recognize the need to change and rebel against society.

The authors demonstrate good use of dynamic and indirect characterization in the manner that they are able to convey the message of an individual distinguishing when a society needs to be questioned and to be rebelled against. It's when individuals begin to actually think, to think beyond the need to think, but to think because there's a want to think. To think thoughts that are different, to think thoughts that aren't manipulated, to be creative and think in a manner that would never be imagined, as long as that thought is in a positive manner. That is the moment that an individual will feel the need to change society.

Governance and Maintenance

During the Anthem story, the society met the needs of government and maintenance, but it wasn't a quality government where people can express themselves. The only reason that the government could work in such a society is because the people have not experienced a different one and so when they are born into a society like this, they can't do much about it. The whole system of the government picking the jobs and the government deciding basically everything that happens in your life is something that really makes you feel that you're being totally controlled. The people in that kind of society are brainwashed in a sense because they don't know a life of individuality and a life of freedom. I guess that the society met the needs of government, but the government that was established was one that did not improve upon society, but rather held it back.

When Equality 7-2521 went to see what job they would get they were assigned street sweeper, “for the lips of the oldest did not move as they said: "Street Sweeper"”(26). This is a specific example and it shows how society meets the government's needs. The government established was controlling everything that was going on. Everyone has to be satisfied with what they do because the government controls everything and that's how this collective society decided to meet the needs of a government system. Also, the response to whatever job that a person received was “The will of our brothers be done” (25). This doesn't make sense because they call each other brothers even though it is very obvious that the council members that are giving the jobs have a position of power so not everyone is exactly equal although they call each other equals.

This government system reflects the value of everyone being equal. Even though the people have no choice in what they are to do, everyone needs to be happy with it and satisfied with it because it is for the greater good of that society. So the society values everyone being equal, and I would think that most individuals don't value that, but they have to just because the society does. The government also reflects the value of obedience, because in order to listen and to take every order that you receive without questioning it or without arguing is very hard to do. All the individuals need to be obedient towards the government and that is another value that the society has as a whole.

Education

I think that the collective society in Anthem chose a good way to meet the education needs of the society. Everyone learns what they need to learn in their ten years at the Home of the Students. It's a very organized system that I think should work out well. The only problem with this system is that learning too quick is a sin. If you learn quick, it should be counted as a blessing, but it's almost like the government is trying to control what the people learn so that no one can be better than another person. The education system that the society has come up with is a good one, but the fact that they reject quick learning is a horrible problem with the education.

The good part about the education system is that it's organized and everyone should be learning the same thing throughout the 10 years in the learning progress. “In the Home of the Students we arose when the big bell rang in the tower and we went to our beds when it rang again” (21). This passage tells me that the system was very effective and it was a good system that was established by the collective society. It's kind of like the education system that we have today only longer and without any kind of free time. The worst part of about it was that it was a bad trait to have a quick learning ability. “It was that the learning was too easy. This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick” (21).

The educational system of the collective society once again shows that the society as a whole values the fact that everyone should be equal. The story tells us that it is a sin to have a quick head which means that everyone should be at the same pace, no one should be any worse or any better than another single person. It shows that everyone isn't actually living for themselves, but for the society. This educational system also shows that the society values intellect, because everyone is constantly learning from the morning until the night and that's a lot of learning. Even though quick learning is a sin, the society still values education because the educational system puts a lot of time and effort into it.

Recreation

The collective society did not meet the needs of recreation because there were very few examples of recreational activities in the story. The one example that they had was the social recreation time at the end of the day. It's always a theatre play and it's always about the same thing. This definitely does not meet the needs of recreation because recreation is a time where individuals can have fun and enjoy themselves, not a place where you sit and watch a play everyday.

“Then the bell rings and we walk in a straight column to the City Theatre for three hours of Social Recreation. There a play is shown upon the stage, with two great choruses from the Home of the Actors, which speak and answer all together, in two great voices” (28). Although this is a long quote, it really shows that there is no difference in recreation everyday. At the end of the day it's always the same thing, by the same people and there is no possible way that anybody can enjoy themselves every single day like this. Recreation is about the individual having fun and in this collective society, there was no such thing so the needs of recreation was not met.

Once again, recreation shows the value of everyone being equal. The actors all speak and answer together, in two great voices it says. There is no individualism in that, it's all a group effort and something that is completely based on society. This type of recreation also shows that they don't really value variety. Everyday, everybody does the same exact thing, watching the same exact things, eating the same exact things. There is absolutely no difference in anyone's lives because no one really values change in this collective society.

Purposely handicapping people, like adding weight to those who are fast and putting masks on people who are more attractive, hinders the progress of civilization. It might not be apparent that handicapping a runner could stop the movement of civilization, but handicapping people who are smart or who are naturally talented stops the growth of knowledge and creativity of the country that is enforcing this appalling law. Imagine what it would be like to have no scientists or engineers accomplishing new feats and bringing the future closer to the present. It's possible someone might feel envious toward the people who are successful, but in the end isn't it worth it.

The best way to describe civil equality is to say the world stops spinning, not literally of course, but the country would appear to be in a time warp. There would never again be bands like The Beatles, or The Rolling Stones. There would never be any great art like The Mona Lisa, or Starry Night. George and Hazel Bergeron watched a performance of Ballerinas on TV. The most graceful of dancers, could not even move about the stage without appearing sluggish due to their handicaps. Anyone in the country could have walked onto the stage and performed just as well. What should have been a example of grace and beauty, was awkward and average.

Without individuality there would be no such thing as a soul mate. If everyone was equal, then you couldn't love someone more than another. They say opposites attract and relationships are built on individual personalities. Usually these personalities have no similarities.

There are people of every size, shape, and ethnicity. There is good and there is bad, there is honest and there is dishonest. The world would not be a better place if everyone was identical. Harrison Bergeron doesn't want to be average because he's not average in any way shape or form. Harrison Bergeron is tall, good looking, fast, strong and intelligent. Harrison Bergeron announces over the TV, “I am the Emperor”, “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once”, because he wants to excel beyond equal and become an individual.

The repressive regime of the Empire purposefully instills fear in its people to keep them ignorant and therefore subject to their dictation. The people of the village are kept under constant fear of a race of people they have never known to harm them. By encouraging this fear through violent campaigns against these barbarians, the Empire forces the people to rely on them for protection and knowledge rather than themselves.

Coetzee uses the magistrate to illustrate the journey of learning the true nature of oneself, and how this will ultimately lead to a rebellion against violence. In the beginning of the novel, the Magistrate does not feel accountable for the actions of his government in his jurisdiction. He turns a blind eye on the injustice and violence of the state and allows them to infiltrate his town in defense against the barbarian threat. This marks the beginning of his journey to self understanding.

At this time, the magistrate desires merely to bide his time towards retirement in hopes that the remainder of his service is peaceful and uneventful. Here Coetzee demonstrates the passivity and indifference of the people under such repressive regimes. By forcing the people to rely on them for protection and even what to think about others, the Empire has caused the people to lack ambition to improve themselves and the world they live in. Therefore, when the people believe the Empire is treating someone unjustly, instead of questioning and challenging it, the people place more trust in the Empire's judgment than their own and allow the cruelty to continue. If the people came to know and understand themselves, they would be able to trust their own judgment enough to know when it should overrule the judgment of their government.

When Colonel Joll tortures the boy and the man, the magistrate begins to question the justification of the punishment. This is the first instance the magistrate begins to challenge authority and takes some responsibility for the actions of his government. By defiantly questioning Colonel Joll's torture of the old man and boy, the Magistrate learns that Joll justifies using torture to obtain information because he believes "Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt" (Coetzee 5). In this case, Joll does find himself accountable for the violence he commits, but justifies his continuance as a service to the people. Whereas the Magistrate also finds himself accountable for the violence committed by Colonel Joll, he feels responsible for supporting his victims after their torture. The magistrate even provides the boy with a plan to escape more torture from Joll by telling him to "tell the officer the truth" (Coetzee 7).

However, by this time, it is questionable that the truth is all that Joll seeks from his torture since he has killed an old man and is still torturing a young boy who are both very unlikely candidates to be in a raiding party due to their health and age respectively. If they were not in the raiding party, they would have had no knowledge of the movements of the barbarians. Not only does this element make Joll's torture suspicious, but eventually he submits the boy's confession of being part of the raiding party. Joll did not torture them to discover the truth, but to encourage the fears of the locals that they are in constant danger of being attacked by the barbarians.

From this we see that Coetzee provides an explanation for the actions of both the opressor (Joll) and the oppressed (magistrate) and how their relationship is interchangeable. Even after helping the boy get cleaned and cared for after being tortured, the Magistrate still turns a blind eye when Joll tortures him again the next night saying, "for a while I stopped my ears to the noises coming from the hut by the granary where the tools are kept" (Coetzee 9). Here the reader may question the Magistrate's reasoning for placing all blame on Joll. If the Magistrate allows such injustice to be committed under his service, is he not responsible as well? He wonders how Joll can live amongst clean peoples while his hands are filthy with violence, "Does he wash his hands very carefully, perhaps, or change all his clothes, or has the Bureau created new men who can pass without disquiet between the unclean and the clean?" (Coetzee 12). Yet he never turns this questioning on himself, looking introspectively at his own contributions to the violence committed.

Once the fishing peoples are captured as prisoners by Joll's forces, the magistrate accuses the Empire of being ignorant. Now, the magistrate is beginning to recognize the connection between ignorance and violence. He openly defies their actions and immediately realizes that, "One should never disparage officers in front of men" (Coetzee 17). The magistrate is still on the fence at this point, he recognizes the mistakes and injustices of the Bureau, and thinks of ways to halt them, but is still afraid to act in complete defiance of their authority. He considers how to handle the problem of the prisoners from the fishing tribe, "If I unlock the gate in the dead of night, I wonder will the fisher folk sneak away? But I do nothing" (Coetzee 20). Here, the magistrate remains passive-aggressive in his contradicting idealism because he has been conditioned his entire life to obey the Empire without questioning its morality or intentions.

What finally leads the magistrate to understand himself is his interactions with the barbarian girl. The magistrate has lived in the town and served the people for many years, yet he is in great isolation. His perpetual isolation makes it difficult for him to feel accountable for what he has allowed the Colonel to do in his jurisdiction. After Joll leaves, the magistrate feels that the violence has left his town stating that he is now "relieved of my burden and happy to be alone in a world I know and understand" (Coetzee 14). This statement shows that the magistrate is not familiar with the presence of violence. This is partly why he does not feel accountable for the violence of the Colonel against the suspected barbarians. He does not understand violence, why it is committed, or how to stop it. Once the magistrate knows the barbarian girl, he begins to know himself. This allows him to have more faith in his judgment and thereby question the violence that not only the Empire commits against the barbarians, but also that which he commits against the barbarian girl.

The interest that the magistrate develops for the blind barbarian girl eventually leads him to a recognition and understanding of violence. She has been mutilated by the officers who captured her. They have destroyed her foot and ruined her eyesight as well as killed her father. Coetzee shows the magistrate's fascination with the girl, which could be read as a dual fascination with violence, not only in the form of the violence committed against her by the officers, but by the violence that he himself will commit against her. He takes her into his care, but then she has no choice to submit to his manipulation of her body, his touching and caressing. Although he establishes his relationship as one of kindness and care, he does act violently against her by forcing himself upon her, not by sexual intercourse, but through other physical contact.

Here the reader may draw a parallel between Joll and the magistrate. Joll justifies his intense pleasure in torturing by claiming it is a necessary evil to discover the truth that will protect the people. The magistrate justifies his actions with the barbarian girl by classifying it just as he would if he were caring for a helpless and wounded animal. The magistrate takes deep pleasure from washing and caressing the girl, even saying "I lose myself in the rhythm of what I am doing. I lose awareness of the girl herself. There is a space and time which is blank to me; perhaps I am not even present." (Coetzee 28). By indulging himself in caressing this wounded girl, he becomes only aware of the pain and the scars of violence without being aware of the human herself. In acquiring this knowledge and familiarity with violence, the magistrate is in "rapture, of a kind" (Coetzee 29).

After some time with the girl, the magistrate begins to grow uncomfortable and confused with their relationship. He does not desire her sexually- he goes to other women to fulfill his sexual needs, but he gets such enjoyment from examining and feeling her body that he cannot come to any other conclusion than that he wants her, but something is holding him back. Finally he acknowledges that the girl is still violently oppressed, but now it is by him instead of the Bureau. The magistrate admits, "She is as much a prisoner now as ever before. Though my heart goes out to her, there is nothing I can do" (Coetzee 55). Now the magistrate is making an even bigger jump from innocence to guilt. Now he is actually instigating violence himself, by forcing his will upon the girl, instead of just letting violence go on in his presence. Still, he does not take any responsibility for correcting the wrongs that are being committed.

With time, the magistrate's guilt overwhelms his fear of rebelling against the Bureau and he decides to take a party to meet the barbarians and return the girl to her tribe. This is in direct opposition to what he is ordered to do by the Bureau. He not only leaves his post as magistrate, but he consorts with the enemy barbarians. When he returns from delivering the girl, he is confronted by Joll. To Joll this constitutes a friendship with the barbarians and he places the magistrate in jail. It is here that though imprisoned, the magistrate finally feels free, "I am aware of the source of my elation: my alliance with the guardians of the Empire is over, I have set myself in opposition, the bond is broken, I am a free man." (Coetzee 78).

As the officers return with more prisoners, this time chained by wires looped through their cheeks, the magistrate is horrified. He knows that now he must speak out to the people so they will realize the cruelty of the officers. This time he will act upon his conscience's pleadings because since he is already in prison, he is free. As he breaks out of his cell to see the new group of prisoners he asks, "What have I to lose?" (Coetzee 102). Now the magistrate heroically defies Joll by establishing the humanity of the barbarians and demanding their humane treatment:

"We are the great miracle of creation! But from some blows this miraculous body cannot repair itself! How - !" Words fail me. "Look at these men!" I recommence. "Men!" Those in the crowd who can crane to look at the prisoners, even at the flies that begin to settle on their bleeding welts. (Coetzee 107).

This speech is prompted by the conspiring of the gathering in the town to incite a little girl to contribute to the beating of the barbarian prisoners. This final despicable act inspires the magistrate's outburst. He realizes that each person is accountable for the violence against the barbarians, whether they are beating them, encouraging others to beat them, or merely standing by and watching the beatings. By repeatedly stating that the barbarians are men, humans, and deserve humane treatment, the magistrate finally shows the reader that he has come to self-realization. That self-realization allows him to realize the true nature of everything and enables him to rebel against the forces of cruelty that repress the barbarians.

Now that he has already consorted with the enemy, he is free to defend them as he should have from the beginning. Since he is already being reprimanded, he cannot be further punished. The magistrate exposes the violence for what it truly is- not a measurement of punishment or a preemptive strike against a known enemy- but a fear that is festered by reinforcement from the Bureau and ultimately the people themselves that keeps the people under the complete control and influence of the Empire. From his self-understanding comes his freedom, and from that comes his ability to confront the injustice of the Empire.

Works Cited

Coetzee, J.M. Waiting for the Barbarians. New York City, NY: Penguin Books, 1982.

Barbara Alexander was born in Butte, Montana, in 1941. Her father, initially a copper miner pursued an education and escaped blue collar work to a successful private sector career. Barbara graduated at Rockefeller University in 1968 with a doctorate in cell biology.

Her foray into science ended with the Vietnam War. In New York she met her first husband, John Ehrenreich and became involved in anti-war protests. Barbara Ehrenreich discovered a passion for writing and editing with Health PAC, writing articles about health-care options for low-income earners.

In 1970 she gave birth to Rosa in a public facility where her labour was induced “because the doctor wanted to go home.” Her attention on medical care, as an instrument of social control, established her reputation as a feminist.

In the 1970's, Ehrenreich joined the New American Movement. She engaged in strike support and union organizing, political strategizing and consciousness-raising.

In the early 1980's following her divorce, Ehrenreich met second husband, Gary Stevenson. Money was a problem and in the 1990's her acerbic commentary became directed at yuppie values and materialism.

Ehrenreich has been published in many reputable magazines including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Harper's, The Nation, The New Republic and Social Policy.

She has also written numerous books and received grants, fellowships and awards including a Ford Foundation Award and a Guggenheim Fellowship.

Locally, she is an honorary graduate of Latrobe University, Melbourne.

In 2000, she received the Sydney Hillman Award for Journalism following publication of Nickel & Dimed in Harper's magazine.

About the Book:

In 1996 public welfare reforms in the U.S., “ended welfare as an automatic federal entitlement and required states to oblige able-bodied recipients to work.” In 1998 over lunch with Harper's editor, Lewis Lapham, Ehrenreich angry at this government betrayal, wondered, "how the roughly four million women affected by welfare reform were going to make it on $6 or $7 an hour?” Her suggestion that “someone”should do a story about life on the minimum wage pointed the bone back at her as the best journalist for the job.

Lapham commissioned the piece. Ehrenreich would go undercover into low-wage U.S.A, get a job, rent a home and survive. She convinced herself it was an experiment and developed a set of controls to keep to this paradigm: She would not rely on skills or education, she would always take the highest paying job and the cheapest accommodation and she would not unionize. In addition her “get out clause” would assure her escape if things got tough: she would always have a car, never be homelessness and never go hungry.

Nickel and Dimed covers recurring themes: meagre wages, backbreaking jobs, nutrition, health and the simple maths of economic survival.

The book is divided into sections. Like a scientific report the “Introduction” provides an abstract or overview; “Getting ready” is the methodology and the three parts that follow, Florida, Maine and Minnesota are detailed observations of the experiment and cover Ehrenreich finding work, accommodation and managing survival. The final “Evaluation” reviews her effectiveness, the experience and insights overall.

Literary Journalism:

In crafting the expose, Ehrenreich follows the literary tradition established as early as Jack London's (1903) The People of the Abyss.

With the British Empire at its most prosperous, London's aim was to highlight the plight of the poor in the East End. London too, kept an “emergency sum … a gold sovereign in the armpit of his stokers singlet” and had a “port of refuge” to remind himself “good clothes and cleanliness still existed.“ In slipping into working class garb and then the masses, he marvelled how quickly “all servility vanished.”

Ehrenreich takes readers into a “parallel universe. “ She meets various characters: some male and many single working mothers, all of whom accept their fate and continue to “give and give.” There are facts and figures, analysis, quotes and emotion but the book's main focus is Ehrenreich herself. Naturally, the voice is colored by her character as a ferocious feminist, irascible idealist and stubborn socialist.

The writing is clear, easy to read and precise. The research is timely, footnoted throughout and pre-empts reader questions. Occasional confrontations dwelling on topics like “cleaning shit” off toilet bowls often provide relief into humor.

Undercover Journalism:

Florida:

“Out of laziness” Ehrenreich starts work in Florida. Her story to potential employers is plausible: a divorced housewife returning to work. No one really cares about her background as long as she is obedient and tests negative for drugs. She learns quickly that job ads are not opportunities but rather employer insurance against turnover. Waitressing at the Hearth side family restaurant pays a meagre $2.43 per hour plus tips, meaning a second job is a necessity. Hardly lazy, Ehrenreich's pace between 8am-2pm shifts at Jenny's and 2.10pm -10pm shifts at Hearth side ends in “Ibuprofens” for back pain. Her accommodation search also ends a similar fate and “trailer trash” becomes a shocking demographic to aspire to.

Maine:

Portland, Maine is chosen for its “whiteness”, and she figures this means no questions asked. Ironically Ehrenreich asks the question, “so what am I doing here and in what order should I be doing it?” Again she finds needing an address to have a job and needing a job to afford an address a familiar and frustrating paradox!

Out of claustrophobia, and intoning George Orwell's 1933 theory, that poverty creates boredom and idleness, Ehrenreich accepts two jobs. One as an aide in an aged care nursing home at $7 an hour is frenetic and exhausting. The other with “The Maids” at $6.65 per hour is an eye-opener for the emphasis on cosmetic touches and minimal water usage in cleaning homes of the rich. Lunch breaks, despite the 30 minutes allocated, are more like pit stops and worker nourishment ranges from the sublime salad sandwich to the ridiculous half bag of Doritos!

Her "Zen-like" non attachment to "dusting, bathrooms, kitchen and vacuuming", is shattered when a colleague, Holly, "snaps" her leg. There is no sick leave or health care. The Team leader extols "working through it". The whole experience leaves Ehrenreich angry and defeated.

Minnesota

Minnesota is appealing for “its deciduous trees, liberal stance and merciful attitude to the poor.” Ehrenreich house sits for a week pending secure accommodation and joins 875,000 “associates” selling for the largest retail chain in the world, Wal-Mart. In “Ladies” she masters of the constant race to “keep ladies wear shoppable.”

At $6 an hour renting at $250 a week is impossible. Motel living at the Clearview Inn gives readers a taste of “living in the worst motel in the country.” No window coverings, no door bolt, no screens and no air demand “keeping the senses alert,” allowing fear and sleep-deprivation to set in.

At Wal Mart, Ehrenreich to the reader's relief, finally suggests, "We need a union". Overwhelmed by staff complaints she only manages to scrape the surface. The tension of secure accommodation cuts the odyssey short.

Discoveries:

The scientific experiment over, the shock and shame delivered to Middle America is electric! Ehrenreich confirms that 30% of the American population earn less that the “living wage.”

• On average it took an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one bedroom apartment
• The odds of a welfare recipient being on this “living wage” level were shockingly 1%.

She had lived the "proof" that the working poor can't make it.

For Ehrenreich personally, her discoveries confirm that life in the lower class is oppressive! “What you don't necessarily realize when you start selling your time by the hour is that you actually start selling your life.”

Ehrenreich recognizes the shortcomings, the lack of kids in tow, and her “average” abilities. She is deserving of the “applause”. Her fitness to task despite age, her guts and determination in leaving a comfortable lifestyle and starting over three times are admirable.

Conclusion:

Nickel and Dime's public shaming of the affluent middle class for their blindness to “a state of emergency” and their life line dependency on underpaid labour hit the mark at the time of publication. The book was a bestseller. Sales continue to rise and it has found a place on reading lists in schools and universities around the world.

Critics argue however, that the book is really a “self-portrait of Ehrenreich, a long-time rebel with an anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide, who can't stomach the basic boundaries that most people easily accept in the workplace.”

Pointing to post-welfare reform reports, they lambast Ehrenreich's expose as leftist propaganda, stating that, the “poverty rate among those households has continued to drop” and “poverty in single-mother households fell to its lowest point ever just three years after welfare reform became law.” The alternative view is recognized by Ehrenreich and for readers it opens the door to other questions.

Post the book, Ehrenreich describes, "My moment of maximum influence was in the summer of 2001 … at a lunch of Democratic senators and congress people … all listening to me, and nodding, "yes, yes, we must do something!" I said to myself, "Wow, I am so influential!" But then came 9/11 and they forgot all that."

If things have regressed since, in terms of government action, reader interest has not waned and the topic is perennially newsworthy. It is certainly recommended. Readers are guaranteed to learn more about economic realities for minorities: single mothers, the unemployed, unskilled, uneducated, ethnic and colored. Living in a capitalist society and achieving the American dream is tough.

More satisfying now, is the knowledge that Ehrenreich is part of a class action by 1.6 million workers against Wal-Mart for systematic discrimination against women workers.

It leaves one to ponder that reform agendas can work in mysterious ways. Viva la revolution!

References:

• Ehrenreich, B. (2001) Nickel & Dimed, Grant Publications.
• London, J. (1903) The People of the Abyss Pluto Press.
• Orwell, G. (1933) “Down and Out In Paris and London” Victor Gollancz Ltd.

Websites:

• iso.org.au
• cjr.org
• identitytheory.com
• cityjournal.org
• cjr.org/issues