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.