Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Critical Response
Throughout the book, The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck demonstrates the many different forms of self preservation and how it affects how the individual responds to competing demands. Steinbeck used the main characters to show the audience these aspects of an individual’s drive to pursue personal well being by having them develop throughout the story. He also introduced other, minor characters throughout the book in intercalary chapters that are used to contrast the main characters that represent the ideal response to competing demands.
Tom Joad is a major character in the book. The plot follows him very closely along with his family. Steinbeck has clearly done this because Tom is a prime example of what Steinbeck believes should happen in society. When the book, The Grapes of Wrath began, after the chapter on dust, Tom was trying to get home after being in jail for four years; he had only two things on his mind at that time, his family and himself. Steinbeck showed us this beginning stage of Tom so that he could develop this character. Tom spent a large portion of the book thinking about his family and himself, about things like keeping the vehicles from breaking down, where they were going to sleep and how they were going to get enough money to survive. The plot required Tom to have this set of thought, for the country was going through very difficult times, however Steinbeck tried to show us that because everyone had that set of mind the country and somewhat more importantly the lower class of society remained in that state of depression and need. Steinbeck used Jim Casy to make Tom Joad develop. When Tom found Casy on strike and watched him die, he developed a new way of thinking. He realized that Casy was right and that change had to happen. Casy spent most of the book thinking. Steinbeck created Casy as a Christ figure, and when he died for his cause he finally got a true disciple to carry on his ideas. Although there were also men on the strike with Casy they were not as committed as Tom was after Casy died. Tom showed that he truly understood and was willing to take action when he said “Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there.” (pg. 572). Tom changed and finally realized that he could help his family the most by helping the revolt that was brewing. He realized that he couldn’t keep on thinking about the individual, and proved this when he said “Throw out the cops that ain’t out people. All work together for our own thing – all farm our own lan’.” (pg. 571), but had to instead start working for the good of the collective. This was the major concept that John Steinbeck tried to make his audience understand. He wanted his society to understand that the individual couldn’t just worry about their selves but instead work for the collective group. He believed that this was the only way to bring success and prosperity to the majority, instead of letting a few become wealthy while the majority faces extreme poverty and hunger. Steinbeck also developed Rose of Sharon’s character in such a way as to prove his beliefs were the best. She was like many of those who were in the same difficult situation. She thought about herself and her unborn child, growing inside her. When she gave birth to a still born child it changed her ways though. Not only had she lost the father of her child earlier in the book but she also lost her child before she ever really had it. This is what made her change and realise that she had to start not being so selfish, and think about others. She made it clear that she understood this and was willing to change at the end of the book when she fed the starving man in the barn.
Steinbeck also created characters that were never or never developed into examples of Steinbeck’s ideal citizen to be part of an ideal society. One main character that Steinbeck included was Noah. Noah had more than his fair share of difficulties and hardship not only while trying to get to California but also just in life. Since Noah was challenged mentally he felt that he never really belonged in the family. As the family began travelling and Noah was forced to be a bigger part of the family, Noah realized how much he did not belong. He finally gave up when he refused to continue travelling with the family and stay at the river. When Noah said, “I’m sad, but I can’t he’p it. I got to go.” (pg. 284) he showed that he was only concerned about himself and not the collective and was never going to change. Steinbeck included Noah to show us what happens if the individual only thinks about their self instead of thinking and working for the collective. Since Noah just thought about himself he likely died on the edge of the river and he was never able to not only be part of the collective but more importantly to Steinbeck he was never able to help the collective group. Connie was another character that Steinbeck used to show us what the problems are with the individual only concerned about the individual. He was a character that had many challenges and finally they became too great so he just left so that he did not have to face these challenges. Connie did not want to have to face the hardships of being a father and caring for a family. He also realized how hopeless the situation was and saw no relief in the future so instead of working for the good of the collective as Steinbeck wants society to do, Connie left so that he did not have to deal with that pressure resting on his shoulders. He finally understood that his and Rose of Sharon’s plan to study nights, get a good job, and live in town, where they could go watch movies and have a doctor for their baby’s birth was just a dream that would never come true. This finally became apparent to Connie and he could not face Rose of Sharon with this truth. Connie was never able to understand that he should be working for the good of the collective instead of only worrying about the individual. By including these characters as a main part of the book Steinbeck showed us what happens if we do not understand that we have to work for the good of the collective. Steinbeck showed us that if we only concern ourselves with the individual no one can succeed.
In the book Steinbeck wrote intercalary chapters and introduced new characters to contrast his idea. At the beginning of the book Steinbeck wrote about a tractor driver who was just like all the other people who were being pushed off of their land, but was still working for the government, who were pushing those people off their land. The tractor driver was getting three dollars a day to drive the tractor while it was pushing hundreds of people of their little source of income; this was Steinbeck’s example of what happens when the individual puts more importance on the individual instead of the collective group. Steinbeck showed us the tractor driver’s beliefs when he said “Times are changed, don’t you know? Thinking about stuff like that don’t feed the kids. Get your three dollars a day, feed your kids. You got no call to worry about anybody’s kids but your own.” (pg. 51) which clearly goes against everything Steinbeck was trying to get across to people by writing this book. Eventually the farm will die and the soil will have no nutrients left in it to grow a new crop, when this happens the tractor driver will be out of a job and his three dollars a day just like everyone else. Steinbeck tries to make us understand that if he had worked for the collective group and not taken the job then the people would not have been pushed off their land and forced to starve to death in an unfamiliar place. The tractor driver was included to contrast the ideal way people should think and act for society to run ideally. Steinbeck wrote “The decay spreads over the State... Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. ...cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten” (pg. 476) so that we could understand how scientists who were creating beautiful food and produce were only concerned about their selves. If they were not only concerned about their selves and their income they would not be letting the food that they create rot while fellow human beings starved to death. Steinbeck shows us that if everyone were to just work for the benefit of the collective group then thousands would not have starved, especially when there was so much food left to rot instead of being fed to the poor and hungry people. Also as a kind of summary, Steinbeck wrote about the brief history of how the hungry, angry Americans were able to take the land from the wealthy, comfortable Mexicans. Steinbeck used this to show us that not only was a violent revolution used, but also is necessary for society to understand that everyone is equal and a classless society must be created for change to happen.
Tom Joad is a major character in the book. The plot follows him very closely along with his family. Steinbeck has clearly done this because Tom is a prime example of what Steinbeck believes should happen in society. When the book, The Grapes of Wrath began, after the chapter on dust, Tom was trying to get home after being in jail for four years; he had only two things on his mind at that time, his family and himself. Steinbeck showed us this beginning stage of Tom so that he could develop this character. Tom spent a large portion of the book thinking about his family and himself, about things like keeping the vehicles from breaking down, where they were going to sleep and how they were going to get enough money to survive. The plot required Tom to have this set of thought, for the country was going through very difficult times, however Steinbeck tried to show us that because everyone had that set of mind the country and somewhat more importantly the lower class of society remained in that state of depression and need. Steinbeck used Jim Casy to make Tom Joad develop. When Tom found Casy on strike and watched him die, he developed a new way of thinking. He realized that Casy was right and that change had to happen. Casy spent most of the book thinking. Steinbeck created Casy as a Christ figure, and when he died for his cause he finally got a true disciple to carry on his ideas. Although there were also men on the strike with Casy they were not as committed as Tom was after Casy died. Tom showed that he truly understood and was willing to take action when he said “Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there.” (pg. 572). Tom changed and finally realized that he could help his family the most by helping the revolt that was brewing. He realized that he couldn’t keep on thinking about the individual, and proved this when he said “Throw out the cops that ain’t out people. All work together for our own thing – all farm our own lan’.” (pg. 571), but had to instead start working for the good of the collective. This was the major concept that John Steinbeck tried to make his audience understand. He wanted his society to understand that the individual couldn’t just worry about their selves but instead work for the collective group. He believed that this was the only way to bring success and prosperity to the majority, instead of letting a few become wealthy while the majority faces extreme poverty and hunger. Steinbeck also developed Rose of Sharon’s character in such a way as to prove his beliefs were the best. She was like many of those who were in the same difficult situation. She thought about herself and her unborn child, growing inside her. When she gave birth to a still born child it changed her ways though. Not only had she lost the father of her child earlier in the book but she also lost her child before she ever really had it. This is what made her change and realise that she had to start not being so selfish, and think about others. She made it clear that she understood this and was willing to change at the end of the book when she fed the starving man in the barn.
Steinbeck also created characters that were never or never developed into examples of Steinbeck’s ideal citizen to be part of an ideal society. One main character that Steinbeck included was Noah. Noah had more than his fair share of difficulties and hardship not only while trying to get to California but also just in life. Since Noah was challenged mentally he felt that he never really belonged in the family. As the family began travelling and Noah was forced to be a bigger part of the family, Noah realized how much he did not belong. He finally gave up when he refused to continue travelling with the family and stay at the river. When Noah said, “I’m sad, but I can’t he’p it. I got to go.” (pg. 284) he showed that he was only concerned about himself and not the collective and was never going to change. Steinbeck included Noah to show us what happens if the individual only thinks about their self instead of thinking and working for the collective. Since Noah just thought about himself he likely died on the edge of the river and he was never able to not only be part of the collective but more importantly to Steinbeck he was never able to help the collective group. Connie was another character that Steinbeck used to show us what the problems are with the individual only concerned about the individual. He was a character that had many challenges and finally they became too great so he just left so that he did not have to face these challenges. Connie did not want to have to face the hardships of being a father and caring for a family. He also realized how hopeless the situation was and saw no relief in the future so instead of working for the good of the collective as Steinbeck wants society to do, Connie left so that he did not have to deal with that pressure resting on his shoulders. He finally understood that his and Rose of Sharon’s plan to study nights, get a good job, and live in town, where they could go watch movies and have a doctor for their baby’s birth was just a dream that would never come true. This finally became apparent to Connie and he could not face Rose of Sharon with this truth. Connie was never able to understand that he should be working for the good of the collective instead of only worrying about the individual. By including these characters as a main part of the book Steinbeck showed us what happens if we do not understand that we have to work for the good of the collective. Steinbeck showed us that if we only concern ourselves with the individual no one can succeed.
In the book Steinbeck wrote intercalary chapters and introduced new characters to contrast his idea. At the beginning of the book Steinbeck wrote about a tractor driver who was just like all the other people who were being pushed off of their land, but was still working for the government, who were pushing those people off their land. The tractor driver was getting three dollars a day to drive the tractor while it was pushing hundreds of people of their little source of income; this was Steinbeck’s example of what happens when the individual puts more importance on the individual instead of the collective group. Steinbeck showed us the tractor driver’s beliefs when he said “Times are changed, don’t you know? Thinking about stuff like that don’t feed the kids. Get your three dollars a day, feed your kids. You got no call to worry about anybody’s kids but your own.” (pg. 51) which clearly goes against everything Steinbeck was trying to get across to people by writing this book. Eventually the farm will die and the soil will have no nutrients left in it to grow a new crop, when this happens the tractor driver will be out of a job and his three dollars a day just like everyone else. Steinbeck tries to make us understand that if he had worked for the collective group and not taken the job then the people would not have been pushed off their land and forced to starve to death in an unfamiliar place. The tractor driver was included to contrast the ideal way people should think and act for society to run ideally. Steinbeck wrote “The decay spreads over the State... Men who can graft the trees and make the seed fertile and big can find no way to let the hungry people eat their produce. ...cannot create a system whereby their fruits may be eaten” (pg. 476) so that we could understand how scientists who were creating beautiful food and produce were only concerned about their selves. If they were not only concerned about their selves and their income they would not be letting the food that they create rot while fellow human beings starved to death. Steinbeck shows us that if everyone were to just work for the benefit of the collective group then thousands would not have starved, especially when there was so much food left to rot instead of being fed to the poor and hungry people. Also as a kind of summary, Steinbeck wrote about the brief history of how the hungry, angry Americans were able to take the land from the wealthy, comfortable Mexicans. Steinbeck used this to show us that not only was a violent revolution used, but also is necessary for society to understand that everyone is equal and a classless society must be created for change to happen.
Steinbeck made it very clear throughout the book that an individual must work for the good of the collective instead of the individual. By doing this the group will strive instead of suffering like Steinbeck demonstrated in The Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck used the development of characters like Tom Joad, Rose of Sharon, and Jim Casy to show the audience that you have to stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the group before the majority will strive. He also included characters like the tractor driver, Noah, and Connie that demonstrated that if you only act in the good of the individual the majority of the collective will never be able to strive. Steinbeck showed us how many can suffer because they are only concerned about the individual therefore the collective suffers and will continue to suffer until they unite and work for the good of the collective.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Personal Response
Throughout life everyone faces difficult situations. These situations may be extremely different to each person not only because everyone’s life is different, therefore the situations that they face will be different, but their personalities will dictate which situations are difficult for the individual to face. Many people will have to face these situations by their selves while others may be lucky enough to have someone to help them through their hardships. However, whatever the situation is, whoever is there to help you through it, or why the situation presented its self in the first place, everyone will make it through the problem whether they make the decision that they are proud of or not.
For many getting their divers licence means getting their freedom. This was no difference for me. When you get your licence you no longer need someone else to take you to where you want to go like have needed for the last 16 years or so. This, however, is much like the picture of Pinocchio and the puppet master. When I got my licence and felt this new freedom it was actually an illusion. Although there is freedom in that you can now go somewhere without someone having to drive you, there are now more rules that you have to follow. This is why it is a false sense of freedom / free will. Like the puppet master, the government wants the public to feel like they have freedom however the government has laws that dictate what you are allowed to do on the roads. While the government allows you to drive on the roads there are things you are prohibited from doing; things like speeding, not stopping at either a red light or stop sign, or passing in a prohibited area.
I have also begun racing in shootouts and autocrosses. This takes driving to the next level. Many may think that this gives us even more freedom. You don’t have to follow a speed limit for that is the goal of it, to go the fastest. In an autocross you are driving in a way that would not only be dangerous on the road but also illegal, however it isn’t illegal in the right place. There are still rules that must be followed however. In a shootout you can’t stay on the gas longer than the designated length of the race. While in the autocross you can’t go so hard that you are sure to loop out every time you try to make a turn. These rules like the rules on the road are meant to keep you and the public safe even though they reduce the freedom that you have while on the road or racetrack.
The individual has many factors that they have to consider when pursuing personal well-being, and having to respond to conflict only makes this task even more difficult. The Pinocchio and puppet master picture shows us that the individual can’t do this without the help of a puppet master or the government. I have experienced restrictions since I have began driving which is what the puppet master and Pinocchio picture is trying to explain to us; that the individual can’t pursue personal well-being while responding to conflict.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Why I chose to read 1984 By George Orwell
I chose 1984 by George Orwell as my individual book study for a few reasons. One, I enjoy reading stories set in the past that involve the future. I enjoy seeing how different their ideas of the future from what it actually became or how ridiculous they thought something would be and it actually did become reality. I also like stories where the protagonist has all odds set against him and somehow overcomes it all and from what I have read about it on the back of the book and on the internet it sounds like he has a lot of odds set against him, I am interested to find out if Winston Smith is able to overcome them or not. Finally, it seems like it could have a similar concept as Hunger Games, a book, which I recently read and enjoyed.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Inelligence Without Ambition Is A Bird Without Wings
When I read the quote intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings by Salvador Dali I found it very relevant to my life and values at the moment and what I picture them like in the future. Salvador was a great artist and he got there by having the ambition to perfect all of his art with amazing artistic talents. I think that if you don’t have the ambition to do something then it doesn’t matter how good you are at it. You could be the smartest person on the planet but if you don’t have the ambition to do something with that intelligence then it won’t do you much good. This would be like a bird without wings as Dali said in his quote. A bird wouldn’t have the extraordinary gift of flight if it didn’t have wings. I try my hardest to achieve the marks that I do, but I wouldn’t have the marks that I do if I didn’t have the ambition to achieve those marks. This quote applies every thing that I do. Since I have begun racing cars I have done very well. This would not be the case if I didn’t have the ambition to do well, my ability to actually drive the cars wouldn’t mean much if I had no desire to compete in the competitions. I think that people with amazing talents wouldn’t be known for those talents if they didn’t have the ambition not only to do something with that talent but to also improve them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)