ESSAY ON ARTICLE

The word "brat" conjures up many images in the mind, none of which is positive. No less, does Rufus Olins from The Daily Mirror achieve in his article Enter Superbrats-the Children Of The 1990's. With persuasive rhetoric, use of anecdote, close manipulation of verb tense and quotes from professionals, Olins proceeds to paint an awkward picture of today's youth - characterised by their penchant for arrogance, 'devil-may-care' attitude - ensuring that the reader owns the same skeptical and pessimistic attitude.

Olins cleverly employs the use of the active tense when relating to the youth in the article; youth which he presents to us early on in the article as "cherish(ing) ambitions to earn pots of money" and not "car(ing) a lot about …poverty or the family." He states that 'children are demanding', that 'they possess material luxuries", "want" to have "more money than the parents' or who "don't want that". (My emphasis). Olins' youth are not fearful or without vision, as selfish as this vision may be. Instead, Olins' youth are manipulative and in control of their goals and their belief that what they will, will be achieved, even when they do not work for it. (His reference to the 'free and holiday- atmosphere education' for his generation of youth is very telling). In fact, Olins is painting a clear contrast between his target audience (themselves parents, who must be interested in the world since they are reading The Daily Mirror) and his youth. Whilst the latter are presented as contently walking the path of decadence, as the repeated allusion to their promiscuity indicates, the former are broken- victims of divorce, single parenthood and people 'disrupted by rows.' Olins does not need to work hard to encourage the reader, despite the absence of many facts, that he is stereotyping all youth.

Through the use of the personal pronoun "your son,"the 15 year old son who lost his virginity at the age of 13 is rendered an "everyman", a universal representative (along with his sister, thereby covering both genders), of the youth in Olins world; irresponsible, (" My parents use AIDS as an excuse to stop me from seeing Jim") and foolish, lacking any foresight ( as his reference to youth indifference to environmental issues, indicates). Olins is encouraging the reader to see his youth as far from humble or lacking in confidence or fear. However, through Olins' allusion to well-known stereotypical images of the troubling teenager, the reader comes to see this self-confidence as stupid and having potentially devastating results for our future.

Once Olins has established his negative view of youth, he proceeds to make reference to cliched images which are highly connotative phrases or words. As a result, Olins needs to say little to reinforce his opinion since the reader is well aware of the significance of such words. For example, Olins speaks of the "caring, sharing values" which the "spoilt brats" who are "looking after number 1" and "revolt" and "drink", are lacking. Their actions are motivated by this 'revolting' nature of theirs, even when this could lead to their self-destruction, for "young people will automatically reject" any issue 'championed by their parents' despite the intrinsic value of the campaign (in this case, prevention of AIDS and environmental issues.) Olins is sure to quote youth demonstrating this foolish self-confidence, when he quotes one who says" Aids is only a problem if I get it."

Olins does not encourage the reader to see this situation as changing. Rather, through use of the future perfect tense, the reader is encouraged to indeed fret at the "unbeatable brats" ( 'adultified' children) who will have "assumed power" by 2020. Olins' prophecy into the future influences us to see that "Obsession for success WILL be inherited by young people", "1/3 WILL be illegitimate," ageism WILL become a problem due to a lack of youth concern, and yet jobs and success WILL come their way. This latter 'fact' is of course, due to their 'bratness'.

In all fairness, Olins alludes to this 'bratness' as being caused by family breakdown. Firstly, Olins states that an obsession with 'material success' is due to their parents' love for 1980's' gadgets. Also, the reference to the 15 year old 'everyman' whose family life was destroyed when his father walked out and whose mother worked (by implication of sequencing) in order to buy him a television, seems to indicate this. However, given the context of the piece and the gaps we fill due to the overall tone of the piece, the actions of the mother who buys her son the television set, is viewed as a metaphor of her powerlessness and need to compete for the manipulating child's affections through purchase of 'material luxuries'. The cycle which is then initiated ( youth having illegitimate children, a disinterest in family life and children and therefore an increase in career opportunities and money), is one which the youth values. " My parents never had much money because they spent it on …..me. I don't want that { for my life }…you can't have fun." Hence, even though Olins alludes to possible external causes of youth indifference, the responsibility ultimately rests on the youth who are presented as so irresponsible and, as indicated before, consciously contrary to sound advice. Once again, the self-confidence of Olins youth indicates that psychological unbalance caused by family breakdown or the lure of the 'yuppie' image is not the cause of their stupidity. Sheer 'obsession' is. Seen in this light, even Olins' reference that youth interviewed said 'they expected finding their first job would be difficult', is interpreted negatively.

Ultimately, Olins seeks to incite readers to agree with the findings of the 18-month research project, based on a cross section of 327 children aged between 12 and 15. Through his various techniques and persuasive rhetoric, allusions and use of well known stereotypical representations of youth, Olins encourages the reader's attitude to become one of pessimism. One can't help lamenting the 'stupidity' and selfishness of our present youth who will grow up to lead a society valuing expediency over life and affluence over care and generosity for all. Perhaps Olins would want that the reader begins to fight to beat the "unbeatable' brats?