A Novel or a Treatise

     The Grapes of Wrath seems to extend beyond a treatise. It does explore the hardships of the 1930s, but I feel it examines and illustrates life. There is Jim Casy that is concerned with the human spirit, and how people affect each other as a whole. He says, “There are just things people do.” His philosophies reveal how everyone has good and bad things that they do, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the things people do are always seen as that by everyone. Ma is an example of what is to be humane. It is through her acts of kindness to others that displays how helping each other can provide people with strength, relief, and hope. Tom Joad shows us how good people can do horrible things.

      I feel this book is more of a novel, because it presents the reality of life. It presents the problems that people face, and the different ways that they deal with perplexing times. Every character does not have a certain way of looking at life, and it never assumes that any idea is superior over another. I believe The Grapes of Wrath presents the reader with more than one central idea or subject, and definitely more than one systematic way of dealing with life.  

A Novel or Treatise

Is The Grapes of Wrath a novel or treatise? A treatise is a formal writing that deals with or treats a specific subject. Steinbeck goes into detail about the way life was in the 30s. The land was dry and dusty, and the people were out of work. Booth, writes in his book, " The "implied author" chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we read; we infer as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man; he is the sum of his own choices." The author chooses what he wants his reader to know or not know. It is true that The Grapes of Wrath could be treated as a treatise, I believe that it should still be called a novel. Steinbeck is writing in a way to help us see the hard life of the 30s.

"The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country." As Steinbech opens with telling us how the land is dry and crusted, we learn how the land is effected but also how it is effecting peoples lives.  "Three dollars a day, I got damn sick of creeping for my dinner--and not getting it. I got a wife and kids. We got to eat. Three dollars a day, and it comes every day." Through this telling of harshness of life the reader can feel sympathy for the characters, the Joads, and the reality of having to choose between staying and loosing everything or moving west to the "promise land".

Realism?

Realism is a controversy in itself; if an author creates a character, where do that character's traits come from? The author has to put something of him/herself into the character, using personal knowledge and feelings to create the persona. Is there a perfect way to write Realism?
Although Steinbeck comes across as a neutral third party telling a story, where does the dislike and mistrust of "the big man" or the police come from? He either infuses his own opinion, or feeds in the opinion of others (that he created in his mind) from that era. Hoovervilles were a fact then, but the character interaction with the fact has to be created,
I am most definitely not knocking Steinbeck (or any other author) in abilities to create a novel. I believe it's what makes an author appealing to the reader, and in the decision if I'll continue reading that author's works.

Realism

Booth states in chapter 2 that one of the first general rules of writing a novel is that it must be realistic. Personally, I'm not sure that I agree with that. Most readers do not read a story looking for something that is a mirror image of their life . They read to escape that world to enter one that lets them escape reality. There needs to be a nice balance between what is real and what is fictional. The reader wants realistic characters with heroic qualities and tragic flaws but events that are require large amounts of courage and self-sacrifice that any normal person would run away from. The readers want a hero that they can gawk after and wish they were. Then when the book is over, the awe factor wares off and they move on to another hero they wish they were. I'm not sure if this is right, but I wonder if that is one of the reasons that The Grapes of Wrath was so controversy during the 1930's? The people of the time wanted a hero and the main character turned out to be a murder who was given a second chance and jumps his parole. He completely destroys any credibility or reliability that he may have had within the first eight chapters.


Another view Booth has is that an author's voice should not be heard in the novel. Sometimes the author's voice is very helpful and cuts out unnecessary scenes but the reader still receives the necessary information. In The Grapes of Wrath the author uses his own voice to describe members of the Joad family because if the descriptions were to come from a murderer, then the views could be seen as corrupt because the main character is untrustworthy.

My question is, can we trust Tom Joad? And is The Grapes of Wrath at controversy because Tom Joad does not fit the hero image that readers expect?

Realism

What is realism? To some it's telling about the unpleasant side of life. To others, it may be that life really is not all that bad and needs to be viewed that way.
If literature is to be like life, how far should an author take that idea? Some would say that there should not be conclusive endings, or plots in life that do not exist. Life should be told as close as possible to real life. Literature should not have an narrator since there are not narrators in real life. The Grapes of Wrath is a realistic novel in which Steinbeck shares about life in the 1930s in Okalahoma.

"Three dollars a day. I got damn sick of creeping for my dinner--and not getting it. I got a wife and kids. We got to eat. Three dollars a day, and it comes everyday" (Steinbeck 37).

Steinbeck is letting the readers know how hard life was during the 30s. With the dust bowl and the great depression everybody was doing what they had to do to survive. The 30s were dificult times for everyone and many people did not have anything to look forward to. The way Booth puts it in his book, "Many in this century have required that a work reflect adequately the ambiguities of the human condition or even of the universe."

I do not believe that realism is strictly good, or strictly bad. Writers need to consider their purpose, the functions and effect. People can relate to realism and life. Whether the story is depicting life as pleasant or unpleasant the reader can sympathize with the character's view. The reader may have had a similar experience. Many of Steinbeck's readers may have lived through the 30s and can remember the difficulties during that time. It can serve as a picture of life during that time and be a bit of a history
lesson for all. It may even lead a reader to consider their own personal growth in honesty, integrity, their values about money and saving or even a good work ethic.

Realism

Many authors believe that a good novel is one that depicts the social reality of a given community or society. I can agree because when the novel portrays real life the readers are able to relate and identify with the characters of  a story. Fictional authors have grappled with conflicting attitudes toward realism. On one hand, there are naturalists who believe " no picture could be real unless it did justice to the unpleasant side of life." While others find life is not so bad after all and would like more positivity displayed. In real life there is not just a positive and negative side. Actuality is complex there are things in life that happen which are beautiful and other things that happen which are devastating, but real life just is and there are no rules that life will follow. I feel authors should portray both sides for the novel to truly be a good one that is realistic.
Authors will try and make their novels so realistic to readers that they will tell exactly how the characters feels through streams of consciousness and give the inside view through the characters head. This might add insight to what the author wants the reader to believe and feel but it hardly adds to the realism of the novel. Booth sarcastically says at no point does he forget that he is reading a novel. For an author to begin to write a novel worth reading the subject mater, structure, and technique plays a big role in making the the novel worth reading. That is the easy part anyone can study and observe this "unity" and attempt a novel. As Booth points out "like any art, this one cannot be learned from abstract rules."

Realism

     The outlook of how realism should be displayed in fiction differs greatly among authors. I believe that all of the perspectives give sufficient reasons for believing their methods are correct, but in anything there is always room for improvement.

     When dealing with the subject matter Booth explores the point of view that the subject matter should validate reality outside the book. There are those that believe that it should show the unattractive sides of life, and others that believe it is not realistic unless it includes the enjoyable events in reality. I believe one cannot exist without the other. It is the good and bad events that construct our lives. Everything in between is simply transitional points.

     When naturalists are writing about social reality there isn't strict rules about when or how a writer will intrude, but metaphysical truths seems to require more precise techniques and form. Booth says, "Many in this century have required that a work reflect adequately the ambiguities of the human condition or even the universe itself." I find myself wondering why there is more flexibility in one than the other.

     There are others that believe reality should be explored through the accurate reproductions of feelings formed by objects instead of providing one with how something can be viewed in life. I understand the logic to this notion, but I feel that it would be hard to create reality with just this alone.

     Then there is the dilemma of how to make a subject real. Some believe that it is doesn't make since to use chance in fictional literature, while others believe chance is what life is tailored around. I see the need for both. There are certain things in life that are influenced by what happens before that situation, but the outcome can also be left up to chance.

     This all ties into the technique that one chooses to express reality. Some believe it is only realistic to tell a story the way one would in real life. Isn't that the ultimate goal? That outlook is a reasonable one, but many believe reality is experiencing life, so that leaves us with the argument that a narrator should make himself invisible, so that the readers feel as if they are observing life in action.

     As I have stated before, all of these points of views have legitimate arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, so I believe there is no wrong or right answer. After going over the information that Booth provides one with, I believe a writer should use whatever methods and techniques that help him or her effectively display one's truth. Do you all believe that there are any of these points that make a book more enjoyable to read?

The Wisdom in The Grapes of Wrath

Though I have already read this book before, I feel as though there was a lot I missed the first time around. I have especially taken a liking to Jim Casey, especially when he is first introduced in Chapter 4. He has an odd sort of wisdom many people did not have back then. 

"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do. It's all part of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't nice, but that's as far as any man got a right to say" (Steinbeck 23).

The development we can already see in the introduction of his character is amazing. Normally, in books, the author starts a character one way and develops what they will be like for the rest of the book, and though I know Steinbeck does this as well, I enjoy seeing the development that has already happened to the character. I feel like this makes Jim Casey seem more real and less created. He used to be a virtuous man to people in the typical preacher way-- trying to make better people who turn from sin, though he did not follow what he preached. We see, in the deep conversation that occurs between him and Tom Joad, that he has found a new perspective on the bigger picture of life: mankind is sinful and should not judge their own actions and make themselves hypocrites. It takes a very wise man to step off his holy status and understand his own sin. Steinbeck did this very well.

Update: Forgot to end with a question.

Is this development of Jim Casey in line with what Booth says in Chapter 2? Does Steinbeck properly disguise himself to make his description of Jim Casey realistic? Is the story telling itself?

Telling and Showing

Prior to reading the first chapter of Booth I never really thought about why authors choose to write  novels or stories in the particular ways that they do and how these decisions can determine whether a novel is worth reading or not. If an author was to change even a small thing in the story it can be disastrous or it can be what really makes the novel one of the best. Through different techniques stories can be manipulated to get the reader to feel or think a certain way. Booth uses the terms "showing and telling" showing is considered by most authors to be artistic and telling is widely known as inartistic. By showing the author plays out the scene and leaves it for the reader to interpret his or her own opinions; the art can be when the author uses metaphors or illusions to get the reader thinking. By telling the author has a clear point of view that he is displaying and the view is straightforward and necessary for the continuance of the story.
 As a reader we are forced to see things through the lens of the author and take in each word that we read as truth. When the author tells us that a character is a fool and not to be trusted it is necessary to believe in order for the story to make sense as we read on. In other novels where the truth is being shown you must figure out for yourself the truth the author is trying to portray in the novel. Booth gives a good example of how in everyday life you are to figure out through your own experiences the truth in what is honestly said and what is not true at all. Booth uses the butcher example and tells of a butcher who sells meat by labeling it the best. The consumers can take the butcher's word but when they get home to cook the meat then they themselves will decide if the meat is really the best. The same is true with novels questions should arise as you read and it is up to you to separate truth from deceit.

My first blog!

     Telling and Showing - what we all thought writers were supposed to do without really knowing what it means. Booth gets into the grime of the process, and changes the way I look at books. So many books I've read immediately delve into the characters and plot, giving the reader an instant gratification of who, where,when, and how of the story. Some books torture you with little to no information until you're already 3-5 chapters in, leaving so many questions open about who the characters are, what the plot is, and - most important - who's the bad guy and how much can I hate him? Once I get over the total control the author has over the input and accept my role as an observer, I start to enjoy the story (or not and put the book down).

     Booth explains this phenomena (to the inexperienced English major) in ways that both make sense, and perturb me. I'm perturbed because, in essence, I'm being told what to do by some authors. The making sense is putting into words how the process works. His examples of Job and Jesus being written about is telling, as in how did anyone in the garden know what Jesus did when they were all asleep? We were told of Job's faith, and we took it as gospel (budum-tiss). If we're shown what the pro- and antagonists do through observation and make our own inferences, do we get more out of the story?

     I will never read a book the same way again; I will be analyzing the tactics the author uses to get his or her point across. I won't have issues with enjoying the reading, but have an enhanced sense of what the story is supposed to invoke from the style of story telling the author uses. I can almost guarantee I won't be picking up a Steven King novel for awhile - he likes to let the observers make their own choices in his writing. This means the deep, dark evil emotions of his characters or plots aren't from his writing, but from my own abyss of darkness.

Showing and Telling, what the reader gets to know.

So, this is my first time with a blog and I hope you will be patient with me as I learn how to use it. What I am taking away from the chapter is that in every work, the author is the only one who truly knows everything about their work and they manipulate how you view characters by what they choose to tell you and what they choose to keep secret. They accomplish this normally through the main character. The main character is used because when you read, that is the character you become most attached too. The author can either give biased opinions of other characters through the main character's point of view, but depending on the main character's personality some times their opinion cannot be trusted. For instance, if the main character is a criminal, his opinions may be false, but you never know if they were falsely accused or if someone framed them as revenge for a previous act. Essentially, as readers, we are at the complete mercy of the author and only see what they want us to see. As writers, we hold the power over readers to make them see what we want them to see and believe what we want them to believe. 

Telling vs Showing

In the chapter, Telling and Showing, Booth talks about the importance words have in telling or showing certain information. Depending on how the author wants the reader to feel, he may leave something out or add something about the main characters so that the reader will love him, hate, cheer or feel sorry for him. Booth writes in The Rhetoric of Fiction, “Because the narrator has told us what to think of her, then shown her briefly in support of his claims, all the while keeping our sympathy.” The author wants the reader to feel emotions about the characters. Monna is a widow woman with a son who is seriously ill.  In this instance he wants there to be sympathy.

We are told that Federigo lived a life of poverty, and that all he has is a falcon.  Knowing this allows the reader to peer into the characters life and begin to cheer for him. Booth goes on to say, “Once we have become assured of his character in this way, become the equivalent of inside views, because we know that everything he says is a trustworthy reflection of his true state of mind.” As we learn that Federigo was willing to do anything to serve Monna, and his determination, we learn to trust him and his character.

I have never recognized how much authors can play with the reader’s attitudes. By sharing information about characters or leaving something out, the writer can help form certain feelings towards a certain character, Knowing this will help us get beyond the surface level of reading and really go deeper into the characters and why the author included what he included.  

Telling vs. Showing

        Chapter one of The Rhetoric of Fiction explains the differences between an author telling a story and showing one. Wayne C. Booth explains that whether an author is showing or telling his readers about one’s characters, one must use some type of trickery to guide the readers throughout the narrative.

       Authoritative telling in early narratives place more restraints on their readers, so that an author can direct their judgments and beliefs about the characters in the story. The author leaves little room to assume anything about the individuals in the narrative. Readers are told that Job is “perfect and upright,” and Odysseus is a hero without giving any explanation as to why these statements are true. The author decides what we will know and how we will feel about each person and their actions.

     Showing is now seen as the superior technique, and has become the preferred method for writing modern literature.  By using this method, the readers are given more freedom to engage with the characters. The author allows their readers to experience the things that are present, so that they can use their own discernment about each individual’s role in a book

.

     The speaker can never completely be erased, but there are subtle ways to create an illusion that the speaker is not present. An author can achieve this as long as one does not shorten a conversation, compact an experience into an unbelievable time span, or provide commentary in the narrative. These methods are still not without fault, because Booth explains that anytime the author changes the point of view or decides to reveal more about one character than another, the author reappears.

     Booth reveals throughout the chapter how each method has their own faults, but still has the ability to be effective. While reading this chapter I believe it is difficult to say any one exists without the other. Where exactly does one draw the line when labeling whether an author is showing or telling his or her readers?

   

Course Overview

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 is a watershed moment in American History; along with this dramatic economic decline came a natural calamity and political and social changes that define our understanding of the 1930s. A decade of explosive technological modernization and a devastating depression filled with questions about international entanglements and giant government projects, the 1930s seem somehow especially prescient and relevant to contemporary eyes.

One of the working subtitles for this course is “Propaganda, Art, and a Social Literature: The 1930s.” In this course, we will read novels from this turbulent American decade alongside significant works of literary criticism. We’ll look at objective and rhetorical theories of literature, talk about the much-contested political capacity of literature, and come to an understanding of the social, historical, and political contexts that shaped the “Modern Novel” of the ‘30s. As we go, we’ll explore an array of questions: Is good literature “art for art’s sake” or the “social novel”? What is the line between the social novel and propaganda? How does rhetorical theory help us understand narrative and how writers make their novels work for readers? How is literature shaped by the culture in which it is created, and how does it shape that culture in turn? How might this period help contemporary readers consider contemporary problems? The course will pay a great deal of attention to matters that still clamor for our attention: poverty, race, crime, socialism, capitalism, gender, and human agency.