Authority

 Well guys and gals I am finally well enough/have a chance between make-up assignments, to work on my blog post. With this open prompt I want to take a look at how Steinbeck shows authority and its abusive nature through out this novel by the police.

I want to take a look at how the cops are represented. The police in this book are portrayed as cruel and unjust. I think back to the beginning of the book when Tom first was released from prison. The moment he was let out of the institution, he was on his own to get back to where ever he lived. He was on his own instead of some sort of assistance in how to get home. Then there is the incident in chapter eighteen, when the officer rudely enters the Joad’s tent and tells Ma they will have to leave. I do not know if this is just my Southern up-bringing, but where I come from, you treat everyone, especially mothers, with the up most respect. I was completely baffled by how rude and obnoxious he was to Ma while she was nursing her sick and dying mother. Then it happened again as they were trying to cross into the valley after being forced from their tent. I understand doing your job, but when the officers were made aware of Grandma’s condition and did not act, her death is now on their hands. The officers could have helped get Grandma to a hospital and potentially, could have saved her life. What happened to the "protect" in "protect and serve"? The final incident in chapter twenty-one sent me over the edge in rage. The officer shot an innocent by-stander and then arrested an innocent man with no real charge against him!  Is this how corrupt the government used to be?

A Man of Many Faces

Ma Joad is a character that imitates strength, and is definitely one that the characters cannot survive without, but Tom Joad left the strongest impression on me. Grapes of Wrath made it clear that community is needed for successful progress, but Tom seems to take that concept a bit further. There is nothing flat about his character.

In the beginning of the story, Tom says: "But, hell, if I seen Herb Turnbull comin' for me with a knife right now, I'd squash him down with a shovel again." Prison changed him in many ways, but he still came out with the tremendous ego that went in with him. His life was worth keeping even if it meant that he had to take someone else's life, and he did so without any regrets. He was not much different from the men that drove the tractors; each man saw his life as too valuable to spare for another man's life.

As the story progresses, Tom's character transforms into someone more complex. Even though he continues to have a short fuse, he concerns himself with a matter in the Hooverville that doesn't directly involve him. In prison he would have minded his own business in a situation similar to this one, but the more he experiences other people's struggles, the harder he finds it to ignore their pain.

Casey is involved in the final situation that makes Tom aware that he belongs to something much more significant than himself. Survival was no longer the most important thing in life. He is able to see that the sacrifice of his life will possibly mean the survival, equality, and success of many lives. Tom Joad's life is the symbol of how life becomes richer when the "I" converts to "we."

One Day at a Time

Throughout the novel the Joad family has been moving along on their quest for a better life, not once have they stopped moving until now. They have hit many obstacles along the way; pessimistic people who are coming from California with stories of hopelessness, members of the family running off either by choice or because it was what needed to be done,and finally, reaching California after weeks of traveling only to find that everyone is hungry and that there is little work and scarce amounts of food.

They have made the choice to stop in what's called a government camp. The only sign of hope in the entire state.There are toilets, washtubs, and nice welcoming people just like them. The Joads have chosen to stay because they are running out of money quickly and they can work around the camp to pay for the basic costs of living by contributing to the community. The best part about the government camp is that it is run by the people and police officers are not allowed in the camp without a warrant.

The Joads are taking life one day at a time and have yet to lose their faith. Things are looking up for the family and they are beginning to feel like human beings again. Showers are a part of their everyday lives and they have a stable place to rest their heads at night. Throughout their journey they have lost many things including people but they have gained a new found sense of what is truly important "fambly" and sticking together.

Silent Religious Mockery?

We are all aware of Steinbeck's use of crazy folks to represent the religious aspect of the book. Some characters had to be chased away with sticks, others verbally told to go away, and some stood in the background glaring at the goings-on of the evil people. Perhaps there's a silent and unseen slam on the practice of Christianity in his era. Just a weird thought, but allow me to spew forth my verbarhea.

Jim Casey is a fallen angel persona, questioning his faith and the why's of the human race. A man of the cloth questioning his belief puts religion into obvious question. He wonders about the humanity of the race and how anything can be considered religious if people are going to do what they want to do without consideration of salvation until after the fact. He wanders the desolate dust-desert to figure out not how religion works, but if he can work within its confines anymore.

The Joads meet up with a few more fanatics of religion; some have religious flatulance in tents for the soon-to-be-dead, some have religious rants that attack young pregnant ladies with threats of stillborn babies. These outward projections of the insanity of religion are in plain sight. I have another instance I would like to broach and see if I'm putting too much into my thinking.

The first-born of the Joad family was named after a biblical character. The character was chosen by God to preserve the human race and all the animals from a world-wide flood. He built an ark and survived forty days and nights on water. Noah Joad was born with issues - Pa Joad had to deliver while waiting for a mid-wife, and his attempts caused some deformation to the young baby. Because of the guilt, Pa was warmer with Noah than his other children. We do know Noah ate so much pig he got sick, then ate some more before he kind of disappears until his exodus at the Colorado River.

Allow me to put together a warped theory of Steinbeck's intent? Noah is named after a religious figure, yet is not in most of the book. Is this omission an accident or intentional? The only character with a biblical name is not used throughout the book? Again, mistake or intended?

The biblical Noah stood his ground against many odds to build his ark, and survived the massive flood. The Steinbeck Noah gets to the clear cool water of the Colorado, and can't leave it. Is it his divine destiny as it was biblical Noah's to the waters? The water of the biblical Noah separated him from humanity, and Steinbeck's Noah chose water over family to separate himself. Not a great connections or anything, but what if?

Biblical Noah stayed with his family and persevered by strength of his faith, Steinbeck's Noah beat feet. Is Steinbeck trying to say something by counteracting the faith of biblical Noah through the abandonment of his Noah? Is he offering that the biblical story isn't real or that human nature would not last through the flood?

Perhaps he was just forgotten (oops), and that's that.

Ma Takes Charge

“One month we been here.  An’ Tom had five days’ work. An’ the rest of you scrabblin’ out ever’ day, an’ no work. An’ scairt to talk. An’ the money gone. You’re scairt to talk it out. Ever’ night you jus’ eat , an’ then you get wanderin’ away. Can’t bear to talk it out. Well you got to.”

Once again, Ma shows she is the leader of the home. While it is the men who go out and try to find jobs to put food on the table, it’s Ma who takes charge after seeing the situation and knowing something needs to change.  The family has hot water and toilets, but the family is starving, and Ma is not going to let the family starve. The men are satisfied with the status quo, not willing to leave what they know and where they are comfortable. In a time when it was not a woman’s right to take a man’s job, Ma is not afraid of stepping on a few toes and saying what needs to be done. Pa even sarcastically tells ma that she is doing a man’s job. It may be easier to sit back and allow someone else to lead and make the tough decisions, but so far no one else has been doing that job and Ma has had enough. Even earlier, when the men threaten to split the family up, it is Ma who steps in and says “no” that they need to stick together because that is the only way they will make it.

Maybe the reason we have seen other families give up on California and go back to their homeland is because they do not have a Ma Joad in their family. They do not have someone who sees the value of family or will see the situation as it really is and say what needs to be said. Ma Joad is not afraid of the unknown and will make changes when needed. 

Tom: Empty Shell?

Every chapter from Rhetoric has brought us to placing various characters into categories and stages of development. Just today, we discussed pilgrimages versus quests and which characters think one or the other. Time and time again, we get to Tom and are not really sure what to say. What is it about Tom Joad that makes him so hard to place? Even from the beginning of the novel, we are not really sure about Tom Joad. He has just gotten out of prison on parole after 4 years. His conversation with the truck driver draws us to keep our eyes on him through the story, as the narrator wants. Why, then, do we not get to see his ideals, fears, and changes as well as we see in the other characters?

There are main characters created by the author specifically to be the “empty shell” readers fit into as the story goes along, like Bella from Twilight. Could Tom Joad be the empty shell we, as readers, fit into? Obviously, there are some descriptions set up as to the kind of person Tom is, but he is relatively vague; Oakie, no regrets, fresh from prison. If this is the case, is it possible that we are supposed to develop along with Tom Joad as he goes through these hardships with his family?

In all honesty, I’m not so sure of this theory. From what I have read of “shell characters”, they usually go through little, if not zero, changes through the story to accommodate the various differences in the readers. If there are changes, normally there is not so much a clear, specific beginning state. In Twilight, (I know. bear with me) Bella does not have any sort of ideals about the Supernatural (vampires and werewolves). She is simply a “normal teenager girl.” Did Tom start out as a “average oakie” and then developed his and our thoughts on migrant workers and their lives during the 1930’s?

Go Ma Joad!

When we're first introduced to Ma Joad, she is the epitome of motherly love and strength. As the novel progresses, there is a profound change in Steinbeck's portrayal of the matriarch. I am going to try to dance around my topic for questions on Wednesday, without the spoilers.

By chapter 18, Tom Joad asks, "My God, Ma. I knowed you when you was gentle. What's come over you?" (215) This is a far cry from the original description of a woman that had seen her tragedies and built strongly on them. A mother whose children looked to before allowing themselves an emotional reaction. She was the emotional lead of the family, and powerful in that position. (74) This did not change as the novel progressed.

Ma Joad had to change what she led in the family. From the emotional rock and foundation, to an actual out-in-the-world leader. I don't think she really changed what she was doing to lead, she just took over the "male part" of the family unit. This would be nearly unacceptable to the lifestyle of the farmer (nearly, because they all did accept it), yet her actions to take over were deemed "not lady-like", yet would be acceptable as a man. She grabs a tire iron and threatens physical harm to her own family in order to get her way. She grabs a stick to defend Rose of Sharon from the crazy religious lady. She threatens a cop with a frying pan.

As she's defending her rights with a frying pan, she tells the cop that if her men were there, they wouldn't allow that kind of talk to happen to her. Would this reaction to the cop's attitude by "her men" be any different if they threatened to physically stopped the cop from verbally abusing Ma Joad? Just a man's stance in a conversation could be perceived as a soon-to-be faced physical threat, is Ma Joad bad because she felt she needed to even the playing field with a tire iron/stick/frying pan? The irony (pun!) of Ma Joad being asked the gentle question from Tom Joad is a joke - the man killed someone with a shovel.

Poor Ma Joad. Do you think she would rather be back on the dust farm? There she only had to do the motherly things expected by society. On the road, she had to ADD the physical leadership responsibilities. In a society where women were considered the lesser half of the species, isn't a frying pan just a little coercion to convince the thick-skulled males of the time that her word was the new law? Is it any different than men-folk bowing up during a verbal conflict? Both actions deliver the same message - my way, and I'll back it up with a beating. Ma Joad, considered the "fairer sex", had no choice but to slap the silly men's egos down to accept her as a serious chief of the clan. Hey, Ma Joad, they laid this crap on you - you kick them around if they get out of line!

Is Ma helping or hurting?

For my blog topic this week I would like to discuss Ma.
In class we have established that Ma is the hero of this novel and her mission is to keep the family together. But like in every story, the hero is forced to endure daring trials that test their spirit and dedication to their mission. In the beginning of the novel, Ma is calm, collected and the center of spirit in the family. But as time goes on, Ma is hit by many trials throughout the trip from Oklahoma to California. The first test comes with the loss of Grandpa. His sudden loss starts the breaking apart of the family. After his loss, Grandma dies next. The sudden loss of her husband seems to be too much for her to take and she starts showing signs that are similar to that of Alzheimer's disease. Grandma starts speaking randomly to no one in particular and the family assumes that she believes she is speaking with Grandpa. When Grandma finally dies on the mattress, Ma's strength is once again tested as there is another loss in the family and Ma feels her family is falling apart. The next to break up the family is the Wilson's. Though they were not biologically part of the family, they had been through enough with the Joad's that Ma saw them as part of the family. At the same time as the Wilson's leave, Noah, Ma's oldest son, decides he needs to break away from the family as well. Ma's spirit keeps being torn apart as each part of the family leaves. Throughout these events, we can see Ma's determination and frustration when anyone talks about splitting up the family, even if it is only temporarily. The best example of this is when the Wilson's car has a messed up rod and the family tries to decide what is the best way to fix it. When the decision is almost made to leave Tom and Jim Casey behind to fix the car, Ma threatens physical violence if they were to leave anyone behind. Her calming nature is shattered by the loss of the family and it is causing her character to unravel.

My question is, is there a possibility that Ma could cause the family to break up even more? By keeping such tight reigns on her family, is she going to hold them to tightly that they slip through her fingers like sand?

Moving Forward

One of the pit stops that the Joads made was at a rinky dink gas station. They stopped to get water and gas when the fat man who owned the shack kept making the same comment over and over again “What’s the country comin’ to?” The fat man was rambling on and on about everyone on the move for good reasons but how no one knows what the country is comin’ to.

 Jim Casy finally gets fed up with hearing the fat man repeat the same words redundantly, so he finally tells him he has been hearing folks talk like him and askin’ why the country is the way it is and he tells him it is because they have no other choice. “They move ‘cause they want somepin better’n what they got.” It is the want and need that makes the families seek out and finally get something. The fat man even after Casy tells him why still continues to ask what the country is comin’ to. Tom Joad finally breaks in irritably by saying “Well, you ain’t never gonna know. Casy tries to tell ya an’ you just ast the same thing over and over. You aint’ askin’ nothin’; you’re just singin’ a kinda song. ‘What we comin’ to?’ You don’t wanta know. Country’s movin’ aroun’, goin places. They’s folks dyin’ all aroun’. Maybe you’ll die pretty soon, but you won’t know nothin’. I seen too many fellas like you. You don’t wanta know nothin’.”  (Steinback, 128)

The fat man symbolizes hopelessness in the country. So many people knew what was happening but couldn’t fully grasp the idea that there was honestly nothing they could do about it. The Joads, rational minded people, recognize that things are bad and that things are not fair but they are not going to sit around and not do anything. They would much rather be on the move and do whatever possible to see that the family makes it and most importantly succeeds. The entire Joad family is optimistic but not naïve, they understand that things might not be all that great in California but at least they can take a shot because anything is better than starving to death back in Oklahoma.

The Promise Land?

“Suddenly they saw the great valley below them. The vineyards, the orchards, the great flat valley, green and beautiful, the trees set in rows, and the farm houses.”

This is California! Things here couldn’t be that bad, right? Its land is green, with rich—barns, peaches and orange trees are a far cry from the dry, cracked, dusty land that they came from. Along the way though they have been hearing, “we can’t make no livin’ out there.” Looking from the outside in, things look better then they appear. People can always look to something or someone and think that life would be better if they had this or that. The Joads are determined to stick it out to the end and stay as a family.

“None of this here talk gonna keep us from goin’ there. When we get there, we’ll get there. When we get a job we’ll work, an’ when we don’t get a job we’ll set on our tail.”

It cannot be as bad as what they came from. The land is fruitful and green and there is work. What do they have to lose? As long as they are a family and they stick together they will be alright.  They need to go see for themselves what California is really like and not just take someone’s word.

“Look, mister. I don’t know ever’thing. You might go out there an’ fall into a steady job, an’ I’d be a liar. An’ then, you might never get no work, an’ I didn’ warn ya.”

The Joads have nothing to lose. They have everything they own with them, and the most important thing they have is that the family is together. As long as the family is together, with Ma as the “strong place” the Joads can face the storms of life. 

A Soul of Many

     I was quite puzzled when Ma starts talking to Rose of Sharon about bearin' and dyin', and I really didn't understand how each one is a piece of all dying and all bearing. As I read it over several times, I was able to see how Ma deals with the weight that she carries for her family. It is through this wisdom that all of her challenges seem obtainable.

     Ma states: "When you're young, Rosasharn, ever'thing that happens is a thing all by itself. It's a lonely thing." When one is young and going through something, nothing else matters, but what is happening at the moment. It feels like the world has stopped, and no one can possibly understand what one is feeling inside. Ma knows that when a woman is pregnant, it feels like she is the only one that has ever worried about keeping a fetus safe, or knows the pain of carrying an unborn child. She explains that grandma and Rose of Sharon are the only ones that can experience their situation, and therefore that is a lonely feeling.

     Ma goes on to say: "They's a time of change, an' when that comes, dyin' is a piece of all dyin', and bearin' is a piece of all bearin', an' bearin' an dyin' is two pieces of the same thing. An' then things ain't lonely anymore. An' then a  hurt don't hurt so bad, 'cause it ain't a lonely hurt no more, Rosasharn." She is explaining that with age comes change, and that change makes one aware that dying and bearing has been experienced by people throughout the existence of human beings, so one is not truly alone in these seasons. When a person arrives at this revelation, one realizes that many other people have encountered the same emotions.

     This wisdom does not only apply to Rose of Sharon and grandma, but everyone the Joads come in contact with throughout their trip to California. Each one of them are dealing with their own conflicts, but these problems are not one person's struggles or the Joads' difficulties, instead they are the burden that society carries together.

Treatises

All right folks, now that my sickness has subsided I can finally bring to you my blog post. Google defines treaties as "formal and systematical." I can not see The Grapes of Wrath as a treatises. While it does have many underlying principles that are brought to light about the Dust Bowl and the 1930's but a treatises should be something more accurate such as a news paper article or a scholarly essay. The Grapes of Wrath seems to be more of novel which can integrate fiction with fact.

What do you think? Is there enough fact in The Grapes of Wrath to be considered a treatises?

Grapes: A treatise?

The Grapes of Wrath is, at least in my opinion, easy to see as a novel and not a treatise. Here is the difference:

A treatise is defined as a work "formally and systematically" (according to Google) dealing with a subject. This is more along the lines of a newspaper article or essay on a subject to bring to light the underlying principles, or creating a criticism of it. In this case, The Rhetoric of Fiction is more of a treatise than The Grapes of Wrath.

A novel is defined as a work of fiction representing a character with "some degree of realism" (also Google), which by far fits much nicer with The Grapes of Wrath than a treatise. The novel, though it may have some bits of treatise in it, can be real, as if another world was created from our own.

Keeping this in mind, what characteristics does The Grapes of Wrath have of a treatise?

Treatise or not?

The definition given by Merriam-Webster states that a treatise is a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached. The written work is considered a treatise if all the discussion and events that took place are given and display the conclusions reached.

 Yes, The Grapes of Wrath is a treatise. Jim Casy was a preacher and one day he decided that he was not going to be a preacher anymore because of his lustful ways. The novel lays out all the facts and principles involved and shows how Jim Casy reached his conclusion. While Jim Casy was a preacher,he was so bothered by the sin that he would beat himself up after each encounter he had. "'Why is it that when a fella ought to be just about mule-ass proof against sin, and all full up of Jesus, why is it that's the time a fella gets fingerin' his pants buttons?'" He then begins to lay out his philosophy of not only sin but also virtue. "I says, 'Maybe it ain't a sin. Maybe it's just the way folks is. Maybe we been whippin' the hell out of ourselves for nothin'." "There's just stuff people do. It's all apart of the same thing. And some of the things folks do is nice, and some ain't so nice, but that is as far as any man got a right to say.'" Jim Casy reached his conclusion and decided that preaching was not for him.
I feel Jim Casy should have had a more righteous reason to stop being a preacher. He was controlled by his lust for the women that he would preach. Tom Joad committed a sin by killing a man with a shovel. If Tom Joad would not have killed that man,the man would have killed him. It was in self defense which makes the sin justifiable.

Treatise?

Treatise, according to Webster, is a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached. Simply put, it is a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject.

Now, I'd like to explore some of Steinbeck's tactics in The Grapes of Wrath. I saw him as systematic as the big machines plowing straight lines no matter the obstacle. He is telling a story from the perspective of these migrants, not stating facts and principles as the above definition requires. He probes the fears and anger of his characters allowing the reader to build his or her own emotional reaction; human emotions are rarely methodical and systematic.

I do believe he had a strong anti-establishment (machine, bank, etc.) intent, but was far from a statistical diatribe with his in-depth trade of emotions between characters. Grandpa died. With no immediate emergency medical car, a fact of the time is that many family members died at home or at least around family. The family came up with a plan but not systematically, they bantered with emotion, then facts of money and procedure, then emotion again, and back to reality of their situation. The previous two sentences were a treatise of the death and burying of Grandpa. Steinbeck wrote of  the turmoil of "doing what's right" for family and the hard facts of their money situation preventing it. The reader can convey the emotional pain of what to do for Grandpa. Emotions are not formal, systematic, nor methodical discussions of facts that gives a solid conclusion. Each reader will react differently from personal frame of reference. I don't believe this choice would be involved in a treatise.