Saturday, September 12, 2009
Steinbeck's Central Argument in The Grapes of Wrath
After reading and considering Chapter 1 of Everything's an Argument, what do you understand Steinbeck's central argument to be? How does he use literary devices common in fiction to present that argument? What rhetorical devices and strategies does he employ? How effectively does he present this argument? Use specific textual evidence to support your comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, well, I'm not going to be here tonight to participate in the blogging, so I'm just going to go for it right now.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 1 of Everything's an Argument, I think that Steinbeck's central argument in that During the time of the Dust Bowl and Great Depression, it was entirely necessary for families to cooperate and stick together to solve problems as a whole, rather than being individualistic when trying to come up with a solution to a problem. Throughout the novel, Ma Joad serves as the strength and binding force for the family. She is determined for everyone to safely arrive in California, and she grows stronger as the novel progresses. However, towards t he beginning of the journey, Ma was not this strong. In chapter 10, she confesses to Tom that she is concerned about going to California, saying, "I ain't got faith. I'm scared sompein ain't so nice about it" (Steinbeck 123). Later on in the conversation, Tom assures his mother that she is very capable of being sure of herself and her family, telling her, "I'm a-gonna tell you somepin about bein' in the pen. You can't go thinkin' when you're gonna be out...Jus' take ever' day" (124). "That's a good way" (124). In having this conversation, Tom is able to restore his mother's confidence, and because of this, she is able to make it to California without "cracking".
Each time some sort of decision is made, it is for the benefit of the entire family. As in the conversation Ma and Tom had, the family wants to do everything in their right mind to ensure a successful trip across the country. Throughout the journey, Ma tries her best to keep the family together, but along the way they loose three member: Granpa, Granma and Noah. Each time someone is lost, Ma looses a bit of strength, which makes the family spirit dim even more. However, in contrast to this, the prospect of a new baby is a positive image, and it brings hope into the family. When they finally arrive, and Ma shares that Granma is dead, Tom attempts to comfort her, but she retorts saying, "Don' touch me...I'll hol' up if you don' touch me. That'd get me" (312). While this is indeed a show if individual strength, it is still in order to benefit the family as a whole.
Perhaps a better example of working together and cooperating occurs in chapter 13 when the Joads meet the Wilson family. While the two families have never set eyes on each other before, they end up acting life old, true friends. After setting camp for the night, Granpa announces that he is "Sicker'n hell" (184). Sairy Wilson replies with, "How'd you like ta come in our tent? You kin lay down on our mattress an' rest" (184). After Granpa dies, the two families seem to share an even stronger bond, because of Steinbeck's use of pathos, in order to better connect with the readers emotions.
Steinbeck clearly uses a great number of rhetorical devices, most especially imagery, atmosphere, (those two tend to overlap a bit) and repetition. Not only does he use these devices, but he also alludes to the Bible in several instances throughout the novel. The title itself is a biblical reference; the words are lyrics from the well-known song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". The lyrics to this section are: "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord: He is trampling out the vintage where THE GRAPES OF WRATH are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on." The lyrics of this part are a reference to a part of scripture that discusses justice and oppression, which do indeed apply to the novel and its themes. Another-rather obvious- religious reference is Jim Casy. He represents Jesus Christ without a doubt, as Steinbeck was not so subtle with his symbolism for this character. They share the same initials (J.C.) and Casy had been a preacher earlier on in his life (oh how convenient!)
wow that was a lot, and I'm not done yet haha! It wouldn't let me post because I had too much...
ReplyDeleteSteinbeck's imagery, especially towards the beginning of the book, help to set the tone, mood and atmosphere of the book. A good example of imagery is "The dawn came but no day. In the sky a red sun appeared, a dim red circle that gave little light, like dusk; and as the day advanced, the dusk slipped back toward darkness, and the wind cried and whimpered over the fallen corn" (5). Clearly, we can imagine a field of corn dimly lit by the falling sun, and due to what we've read in earlier pages, we can envision the thousands of dust particles all over the surrounding landscape.
Alright, well I think I should probably leave some topics for you guys to discuss later and hopefully I didn't say too much, even though i think I did!
PS one more thing I promise and then I'll be done. Steinbeck's argument can be defined as a forensic argument because it took place in the past, and he relies on evidence and past information to secure his thoughts.
ReplyDelete*Spoiler Alert!* I'm up to page 486 right now, so some of my examples will be dealing this things that have happened in the story up that point. Beware!
ReplyDeleteWhat I see as Steinbeck's main argument is pretty similar to what Larissa said. I think Steinbeck is arguing that in times of poverty and depression, unity is the most important thing there is, and those who are allied together will indeed prosper over the ones who are alone or have been abandoned.
So far in the story we haven't learned the fates of those who have strayed away from the Joad family: the Wilson family, Noah, Connie, and Casy, so we don't yet know what happens to those who try and survive on their own. However, one interesting things is that all of the above were never really a part of the group to begin. The Wilson family was an entirely different family in the first place, so they were their own group; Connie's only interest seemed to be Rose of Sharon, and he was never shown interacting with other members of the Joad family; even Noah, an actual member of the family, was presented as an outsider from the very beginning of the novel, being described as a "stranger" to all of the world (106). Casy's departure from the group seemed to emphasize how he didn't belong, too. He chose to sacrifice himself and take the blame for the assault of a cop in Hooverville in order to protect the Joad family, thus preserving their almost sacred union.
Throughout the novel we've seen how important it is for groups to band together through the worldly perspective that Steinback presents alongside the Joads' perspective. In chapter 19, we can clearly see that importance. When talking about farms in the past, Steinbeck shows how the hiring of more and more workers for such farms ends up thinning out the landowners, saying that, "...all the time the farms grew larger and the owners fewer," as well as, "...the imported serfs were beaten and frightened and starved until some went home again, and some grew fierce and were killed or driven from the country," (Steinbeck 316). The selfishness of the landowners to make more money is what led to their downfall; they're all on their own and allied with no one, so once they lose all of their assets they have no one to help them. Later in the chapter, Steinback takes a look at the Okies, saying that "they were hungry" and "they were fierce," as well as that owners knew that "they were soft" while the Oakies were "strong" (318). While each landowner is only concerned with himself and how he'll fare against the so-called "Oakies," the Oakies all have the same interest and same feelings, and because of that, they all make up one angry, forceful presence. As Steinback then talks about the increasing numbers of Oakies going west, we begin to see the steady parallel between them and the landowners, and how greaty they outnumber them. We get the sense that the Oakies will prevail. He ends the chapter by saying that, "...the associations of owners knew that some day the [Oakies'] praying would stop," and, "...there's the end" (326). We get the same sense of their power in chapter 25 at the very end, which is also the very heart of the novel. As the Okies are continually oppressed by the guards and the police, Steinback claims that their is a "growing wrath" within them, and the in the souls of the people the "grapes of wrath" are filling up and "growing heavy" for the vintage (477). In this passage the Okies are presented as an almost deadly force, and there seems to be a sense of foreshadowing in regards to a possible uprising, which can in turn be "the end" that Steinbeck mentioned before.
Once the Joad family arrives at one of the government camps that Tom heard about, we're able to see how everyone gathering in this one place and making a stand has impacted all of their lives in much better ways. They have hot, running water, plentiful amounts of food, Tom's able to find work, and there's even some leisure time for everyone in the dances they hold. As one man says, "This here's United States, not California," showing that the very essence of the Okies is present in this place (456). Everyone has managed to establish a place of peace for themselves, all by simply sticking together.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting instance of the importance of unity occurs when Ruthie tries to join in on a game with the other children at the camp, but ends up being cast out because she fails to go with their rules of waiting for the next game to join in, while Winfield is allowed into their group because he doesn't join Ruthie when she intrudes and starts her own game. Steinbeck then describes how the game went on, while Ruthie went back to their tent and "wept miserably," giving us a simple example of how important it is to try and get in a group instead of survive on your own (434).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter one in “Everything’s an Argument”, it is clear that Steinbeck’s central argument asserts the need for a group solution as opposed to an individualistic approach to society’s problems. The central argument displaying the conflict of society is established in Chapter 19.
ReplyDelete“…Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression…the changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on” (Steinbeck 325).
Steinbeck states that economy and society were addressed with an individualistic approach at the time, in which a multitude of people and their problems were not aptly regarded. From this he concludes people of society attempt to counteract this approach (as repression works to strengthen and knit the repressed), by staying strong. But as demonstrated by the Joad family, the path to redemption is not easy, and strength is often difficult to attain.
Steinbeck successfully portrays his argument throughout the novel by a use of perspective and focus. Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family and their struggles, but also follows the movement of thousands and the struggles of a nation as a whole. For example, “As the day went forward the sun became less red. It flared down on the dust-blanketed land. The men sat in the doorways of their houses…the men sat still-thinking-figuring” (7). Steinbeck uses the Joads as a representation of all American families. Readers emphasize with the Joads, and see a more personal representation of a family’s struggles during this time period. By seeing their personal story, they understand the difficulties of America during this time. As a family, the Joads attempt to maintain unity and strength, but as Larissa mentioned, it is difficult when family members such as Granpa, Granma, and Noah are lost. You mention that each time a decision is made, it is for the benefit of the entire family. Is Noah being left behind beneficial to the entire family? He claims no one would miss him, but is that true? I also think it’s an interesting point that all of people lost from the family seemed to never truly fit in the first place. By people such as Noah and Casy leaving, is the family stronger because it is more closely knit? Or does the elimination of these people increase the fitness of the family and their ability to survive?
Also, imagery contributes to the argument by creating emphasis and evoking emotion in the reader, using the pathos appeal. By seeing an in depth and emotional side of a situation, readers further understand the conflict, and pursue the meaning of the argument. For example, “The tractors came over the roads and into the fields, great crawlers moving like insects, having the incredible strength of insects…they thundered when they moved, and then settled down to a droning roar…” (44). This shows the impact the tractors destroying peoples homes had on thousands of lives, which contributes to the rhetoric of the piece. It supports the idea that the people’s needs were disregarded due to an individualistic approach of society’s problems.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument Steinbeck makes is an argument to explore. Readers do not necessarily take action on the situation, but awareness and contemplation is initiated of the matter. “Exploratory arguments may be deeply personal … or the exploration may be aimed at addressing serious problems in society” (Lunsford, 9). Steinbeck uses a combination of personal implements through imagery and the close following of the Joad family, and addresses society’s issues. This raises awareness in readers of hardship and struggle among Americans, allowing readers to see his point.
Well first of all, I'm going to completely disagree with Larissa at the fact that Ma has become stronger over the course of this trip (won’t go into that now since it has nothing to do with the bulk of my essay or even with the point that Larissa and Kaare were trying to make), but will fully agree with Kaare and Larissa with their idea of unity being one of Steinbeck's main points.
ReplyDeleteAlthough one of Steinbeck's main points within the novel, I personally do not believe it to be Steinbeck’s main ARGUMENT. After reading “Everything is an Argument” and reading about all the different types of arguments I realized that Steinbeck “argues” to inform, convince, and explore the Depression era. Turning away from the previous thought of family and unity being the novels main argument “The Grapes of Wrath” has been accused of being “communist, immoral, degrading, warped, and untruthful”(Steinbeck, xl). It is within these accusations that we realize that Steinbeck may be saying much more than just telling us to stick together.
Throughout the novel thus far Steinbeck has presented us “a tale of dashed illusions, thwarted desires, inhuman suffering, and betrayed promises—all strung on a shimmering thread of hope” (xliv). These are the things that defined many lives of Americans during the Depression and it is in Steinbeck’s novel that these lives are shown. Throughout the novel the reader travels alongside the Joads on their journey, and it is in this journey that Steinbeck shows the experience many people went through during this era of time in the US. He uses the testimony of many, including his own (“The Grapes of Wrath’s communal vision began in the fire of Steinbeck’s own labor”(xvii)) to “re-create what can be known about events that have already occurred” (Everything’s an Argument, 13) and argue his point. (However, although I do say “argue” that’s not really what I’m saying. As “Everything’s an Argument” points out, I believe Steinbeck does not aim to “win over another person or group but to invite others to enter a space of mutual regard and exploration”(Everything’s an Argument, 6).) Through his depiction of a family traveling he invites us to observe the journey’s people endured as well as argue their relevance to today. Although Steinbeck never went on a journey like this of his own, he was able to connect with the story just from simply living and working in the US. As the introduction points out “once his name became inseparably linked with the title of his most famous novel, Steinbeck could never escape the influence of his earlier life, but thankfully neither can we.”(xliii) Steinbeck points out to us the past of our country which defines our present and the future.
Steinbeck achieves this goal by lots of imagery. Through picturing the events on the journey, Steinbeck allows his audience to fully experience what previous Americans went through, the lies they were told, the things they had lost, and the things they had gained. Steinbeck also is able to increase this effect by, as Nicole points out, personalization. We are able to connect fully with the Joads and their experience and as a result, Steinbeck’s point is strengthened.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to make my point clearer I believe Steinbeck’s argument is to, by approaching his audience in a nonthreatening way, blatantly inform us of our country's past and argue our strong connection to one another as Americans.
Thoughtful responses so far--to those of you who have not yet responded, please be sure to read and address your classmates' points (not necessarily every student's, but at least some of what has been said) so that we are not merely repeating what these brave early commenters have said.
ReplyDeleteOn that note--I invite someone to reconsider this idea of "forensic" arguments...
To clarify: be sure to READ what every student has said, but not necessarily to address what every student has said.
ReplyDeleteI think that it all depends on what one wants to define as an argument. On the one hand, there is Emma’s idea that an argument is used not for making points, but instead something that has the ability to “inform, convince, and explore” a topic or subject in detail. On the other hand, there’s Kaare’s and Larissa’s point that arguments are made to explore and take a stand on a singular issue or point; “all language has an argumentative edge that aims to make a point,” (Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 6). Personally, I’m inclined more towards the latter, but there definitely exists arguments (heh heh) for both and grey area in between.
ReplyDeleteMy response, for the most part, is going to attempt to delve into a little more of the common ground in between the two interpretations, thus melding together the above arguments in what I hope is a coherent way by talking about Steinbeck’s work as an argument for what the American Identity might be; candidates include (thus far up to pg. 326) the ideas of family, friendship, fear of large corporations, self-preservation, and going your own way.
Family, as evidenced above, is a very obvious point that Steinbeck makes, whether its Ma saying, “‘the fambly hadda get acrost,’” (Steinbeck, 312) or Noah’s lamenting that his family didn’t love him; “‘You know how it is, Tom. You know how the folks are nice to me. But they don’t really care for me,” (284). Family is of course a big part of American tradition. In no other country is it absolutely necessary to gather distant relations and people you don’t even like for no other reason than to have a family reunion and talk about arbitrary topics.
Similarly, friendship is spoken of highly as well, but perhaps not as often or sometimes mixed with family. Nevertheless, Steinbeck’s point is still emphasized in the form of the Wilson’s or Reverend Casy. “He knew the government of families, and he knew he had been taken into the family. Indeed his position was eminent,” (140) or “‘We ain’t a-gonna [leave]. We got almost a kin bond. Grampa, he died in your tent,’” (227). Friendship of course, plays a huge part in American life, ever since the land was founded by Native Americans, wherein allies were formed and trading routes were established. This is one part of the American identity that has probably been around literally forever.
The fear of large corporations is obvious in the monster metaphor, “We can’t depend on it. The bank- the monster has to have profits all the time. It can’t wait. It’ll die. No, taxes go on. When the monster stops growing, it dies. It can’t stay one size,” (44). Whether this means that the bank-monster is something that can never be stopped by anything other than a full backing-out of all customers, or that the monster is simply something to be feared and should be headed off before it grows to an uncontrollable size, either way it is a depressing image of bank corporations and corporations in general. Even today, this fear is present in many people around the nation (see: The Recession of 2000s).
Self-preservation is another obvious one that Steinbeck alludes to, in the very scenario of the book where the Joads are going to California to escape and start anew. But even beyond this, we see it in the various references to people just trying to make a living and provide for the family. Whether that be the poor family coming into the hamburger stand saying, “‘we got to make a dime do all of us…we ain’t got but a little,’” (217) or the one-eyed mechanic who incessantly complains, “‘Ain’t so easy to get a job-not for a one-eye’ man,’” (244). Despite the various characters that are given the lines and the different way they say them, the common theme is still one of asking them the question, “how do I get through the day and come home able to feed my family?”
Conclusion:
ReplyDeleteBut what is the significance of all of this? In the end, The Grapes of Wrath seems to be a broad examination of what the average American is like, what he does and what his mentality is. This is why we have such a broad spectrum of main characters. First, we have the jailbird, Tom, we have the parents, the young kids who’ve nothing better to do but to follow the family, the religious (Reverend Casy), the insane (Noah), and the elderly. By using all these characters, Steinbeck is given the liberty to explore what the “average” American might do given a set of circumstances, and even establish parts of the American identity that have never been realized before.
I agree with Emma’s point that she thinks that Steinbeck's approaches his audience in a non-threatening way, and that he "blatantly informs us of our country's past and argues our strong connection to one another as Americans".
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Steinbeck argues our strong connection to one another as American's goes hand in hand with Kaare, Larissa, and Nicole's ideas that group solution triumphs individual approaches- that is, not only in the time of the Great Depression, but throughout the course of history and modern day. In the time period of Steinbeck's novel, farming- then a traditional way of life is undergoing a transition as a result of technology and science. An ongoing conflict is one that exists in the power of human versus the machine. Throughout the novel this transition is explored both through personalization (portrayed through the Joad Family - as Nicole and Emma discussed) and also through Steinbeck's descriptions (about every other chapter or so) of the universal struggle of the Great Depression and the lives of people as a whole. This in itself is a way of making an argument because it is, as Emma said, "non- threatening" because Steinbeck is making an argument using two different perspectives.
To be more specific, these excerpts from the novel are found in the chapters that are impersonal (about the condition of human struggle as a whole during the great depression) and address the man vs. machine conflict. This is making an argument/point from a broader perspective:
"Is a tractor bad? Is the power that turns the long furrows wrong?" (Steinbeck, 205).
"[machines] this is easy and efficient. So easy that the wonder goes out of work, so efficient that the wonder goes out of land and the working of it, and with the wonder the deep understanding and the relation. And in the tractor man there grows the contempt that comes only to a stranger who has little understanding and no relation.... the land is so much more than its analysis. The man who is more than his chemistry, walking on the earth, turning his plow point for a stone, dropping his handles to slide over an outcropping, kneeling in the earth to eat his lunch; that man who is more than his elements knows the land that is more than its analysis. But the machine man, driving a dead tractor on land he does not know and love, understands only chemistry; and he is contemptuous of the land and of himself. When the corrugated iron doors are shut, he goes home, and his home is not the land". (Steinbeck, 158)
These quotes, on the other hand, address the man vs. machine theme in the mode of personalization (as the conflict is relevant to Mulley and later the Joad's):
Mulley first explains the conflict to Tom Joad: "Well, you know I ain't a fool. I know this land ain't much good'cept for grazin'. Never should a broke her up. An' now she's cottoned damn near to death. If on'y they didn't tell me I got to get off, why, I'd prob'y be in California right now a-eatin' grapes an' pickin' an orange when I wanted. But them sons-a-bitches says I got to get off- an', Jesus Christ a man can't, when he's tol' to!...Well, the guy that come aroun' talked nice as pie. 'You got to get off. It ain't my fault.' 'Well,' I says, 'whose fault is it? I'll go an' I'll nut the fella.' 'It's the Shawnee Lan' an' Cattle Company?' 'It ain't nobody. It's a company.' Got a fella crazy. There wasn't nobody you could lay for. Lot a the folks jus' got tired out lookin' for somepin to be mad at- but not me. I'm mad at all of it. I'm stayin'." (Steinbeck 64, 65)
[When Grandpa refuses to leave with the family to go to CA]: "'I ain't sayin' for you to stay,' said Grampa. 'You go right on along. Me- I'm stayin...This here's my country. I b'long here. An'I don't give a goddamn if they's oranges an' grapes crowdin' a fella outa bed even. i ain't a-going'. This country ain't no good, but it's my country. No you all go ahead. I'll jus' stay right here where I b'long'" (Steinbeck, 152).
Wouldn't let me post any more ,here is the rest...
ReplyDeleteAnd those are only a couple examples of how the two perspectives that Steinbeck argues from relate and coexist; the entire book is full of them. Perhaps these two different perspectives that Steinbeck uses to make a point and to argue by approaching his audience in a "non-threatening way" is partly like what it says in Everything's an Argument: "An argument of evaluation advances by presenting criteria and then by measuring individual people, ideas, or things against those standards. Both the standards and the measurement can be explored argumentatively. And that's an important way to think of arguments-- as ways to expand what is known, not just to settle differences" (20). Going off of this, maybe the “standard” that Steinbeck uses is what is going on in the novel historically in terms of the time period- how a whole universal movement is playing out and struggling as thousands deal with similar struggles during the Great Depression (every-other chapter that is broad and relevant to a whole people, the entire nation). Furthermore, Steinbeck’s “Individual people, ideas, or things against those standards” are what is happening to the Joad’s and the people and families who they encounter on their journey.
To deepen the understanding of the role that personalization plays in the novel to strengthen arguments/ points (as Nicole and Emma explored), here is this quote that I found interesting and relevant to this discussion from the novel's introduction:
ReplyDelete"From the outset, in creating the Joad family to occupy the narrative chapters of The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck endowed his novel with a specific human context, a felt emotional quality, and a dramatic dimension his earlier versions lacked: 'Begin the detailed description of the family I am to live with. Must take time in the description, detail, detail, looks, clothes, gestures...We have to know these people. Know their looks and their nature,' he reminded himself on June 17. By conceiving the Joad's as 'an over-essence of people,' Seteinbeck elevated the entire history of the migrant struggle into the realm of art, and he joined the mythic western journey with latently heroic characters..." (Introduction, xxxii- xxxiii)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing... I think I rambled, so here's a clarification:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma in that I don't think that family and the notion of unity can be said to encompass the entirety of the novel's so- called "argument". Rather, I think that the notions of family (but don't get me wrong, I do think this is one of Steinbeck's largest and most important points, as unity and the function of family is very prevalent in almost every chapter), friendship, & self- preservation (thank you George I just read your comments), man vs. machine, are points that are made under the umbrella of what Emma said - that Steinbeck “argues” to inform, convince, and explore the Depression era (as I talked about before- he does this partly by writing from two different perspectives, which lends to strengthening his exploration of the Depression era and also "non-violently" approaching his audience and making his "argument" thus more effective).
I also agree that unity is not the focus of Steinbeck's message. The main point is society's error in approach to solve issues, especially during the Depression era. Although people tend to unify in times of struggle, that is not always enough to overcome obstacles.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the idea of forensic arguments, I'm not sure if Grapes of Wrath is a forensic argument. Forensic arguments are supported by evidence from the past. Since the book was published in 1939, and the Great Depression lasted until around 1939, it is debatable whether Steinbeck's information is based on the past or present at the time. In addition, forensic arguments are characterized as debates. Debates generally aim towards persuasion or proving something right, and Grapes of Wrath does not really attempt to persuade. Its more along the lines of an argument to explore or inform, because it means to raise awareness, and allows the audience to make a conclusion for themselves.
Ya know, it really ain't nice of y'all to start a'talkin' 'fore I got here. Y'all took 'vantage of my bein' at work to steal all them easy arguments. Beat'em 'alf to death too. I could go a'talkin bout those same thangs, maybe add someting to what y'all said. But there'd be no point ta that. It'd be lake some idiot dawg chasin' it's tail roun'n'roun. Rather, I'm gonna' go play devil's advocate. Talk 'bout dat there turtle. The one tryin' ta climb dat embankment. Yup, da one dat stupid drivah tried ta kill. Ah figah he got sumtin' ta say too.
ReplyDeleteSo...Y'all used them obvious arguments. "Those that make a claim and present evidence to support it" (Evertin be arguments 6). Ya used the fambly and their stickin' togetha. Sure, dat works. 'cept dat them all start going diffrent ways n' all. But ah'll let ya have that as the truth. So what if dat Steinbeck character be tryin' ta tell ya fambly is good. Dat ain't da only ting' he be sayin'.
Sure, "many arguments are aimed at winning" (Evertin be arguments 6) but dat don't include all da arguments. Argument can be used for anytin' at'all.
OK, no more of the accent. That is really hard to type in.
We can all agree that Steibeck's work is a forensic argument, though it is more exploratory and open ended than reliant on evidence and testimony (though Steinbeck did spend years researching and gathering that evidence to be able to write this book). We all know what happened (Great Depression and migrant workers). It is the nature, quality, and actions to be taken that we disagree on.
Steinbeck's central argument could be to inform readers of the Great Depression and of migrant workers. After all, the entire book is about migrant families and their experiences during the Great Depression. He talks about the dismal conditions, both emotionally (characters) and physically (landscape) or the time. The imagery he uses - "men and women...tied handkerchiefs over their noses when they went out, and wore goggles to protect their eyes" (Steinbeck 5) - shows just how terrible the climate became. It wasn't just a dusty place, where nothing grew - it was a tumultuous sandstorm. You can all but see family members armoring themselves before walking out the door, just to be blown back inside by the fury of the storm outside. This incredible depiction of their desperate situation summons up an powerful emotional response in the reader, which connects them, irrevocable with the time period.
ReplyDeleteOr to convince reader's of the seriousness of the Great Depression. Sure, we all know the Great Depression was bad. No money, no food, yadda yadda yadda. Who cares? Well, for one the Joads care. After all, they're the ones suffering. They are the ones who had to leave their house because they couldn't afford to live there. They're the ones who sold almost all thier worldly possessions for a chance, nay, the shadow of a chance at a successful life. Ma says, "I wonder - that is, if we all get jobs an' all work - maybe we can get one of them little white houses" (Steinbeck 124). The order of details here puts the reality of their situation into crystal clear focus. Its not that they can get a house like the adds show, but that maybe, just maybe, if all turns out well, they can. And that, is a powerful argument towards the realities of the time period; an argument which leaves the reader relating fully to their situation.
Or like my argument, it could be to explore the topic at hand, and all the various tangents it follows. This seems likely, for Steinbeck wrote countless pieces on migrant workers before he wrote the Grapes of Wrath. With each piece he explored a different angle of the situation, took a different perspective. Steinbeck does not present a solution for the migrant problem (at least not at the point I am at), but he does explore the problem that the industrialization of agriculture creates. "Can't sell a hand plow any more. Fifty cents for the weight of the metal. Disks and tractors, that's the stuff now" (Steinbeck 117). The old ways are just that, old, and the whole country is in a state of transition between new and old. The diction of the quote really shows this, as well as the ordering of words. It starts off old, with hand plows, and progresses to the disks and tractors of now. This progression is what will end up occurring in the United States. Metal is valued over human emotion. Efficiency and reason before equality and kindness.
Steinbeck explores all of these an more in his book, not just those arguments you state above. You could turn to any page in the book and find a different argument than any posted before. In fact, you could say that by saying this, or by you looking for an argument, and argument is created. Anything and everything can, and will become and argument, if it hasn't become one already (not to Parrish: this is foreshadowing of the time-space continuum talk to come).
I agree with Taylor's ideas, and in fact all of the above ideas. But, for the sake of argument, I feel that I'm going to have to elaborate upon Taylor's last paragraph, and attempt to bring it into another direction.
ReplyDeleteDISCLAIMER:
The following is an attempt to vent my frustrations at the many years of English class that we have all taken.
While surely the author of "Everything's an Argument" points out that most to everything in the world involve giving one an argument, I fail to see WHY everything must give an argument of some kind. Why can't a story just be a story? Why can't the red apple just be a red apple? Why must it necessarily represent the power of love or the Devil? I understand that an social argument of some kind is supposed to strengthen a work of art and make it more powerful to the reader, but beyond that, why can I not just enjoy a story for being a story? I remarked the other day to one of my friends during a run (hopefully Parrish heard), "Grapes of Wrath is a pretty good book. I mean, I would actually enjoy reading it, like, on my own if I didn't have to take notes." Shouldn't the most powerful interpretation come from oneself wherein nothing is debated but the story further enjoyed?
I feel that this is a crucial point to my understanding and further enjoyment of books. Sorry.
I agree with you point. It seems that English class consisted of (past tense on purpose) teachers shoving interpretations of literature down our throat. But as the chapter points out, not all arguments are intentional. It is very well possible that the author intended their story as a story. However, that is impossible, for in the very act of writing, we are expressing our ideas, which is in itself an argument.
ReplyDeleteIt is this leveled aspect to literature that we were not allowed to consider in English. At the surface, it's just a story, and if that's all you want... fine. But, they are always deeper meaning to find. Hell, if you want, you can get yourself lost while spelunking. But that is up to you.
Your interpretation is your interpretation, and you can take from it what you want.
*impossible that there is no argument, not that it is impossible to not intend to have an argument
ReplyDeleteGeorge, look at Jung's theories of archetypes for a (I think valid, but ultimately it is up to you to assess) for an explanation of how even things that aren't deliberate are still subconsciously arguments.
ReplyDeleteThanks. To be honest, I really didn't much care about my above question that much, I just wanted to know. Plus, I thought it would spark some conversation of some kind. Apparently, my powers of prediction have gotten rusty.
ReplyDeleteGeorge has fallen out of the future!
ReplyDeleteNo more time space continuum for you!
After reading all the responses made so far, I am going to attempt to synthesize the ideas of unity, imagery in the story, and the personification of the "average American" during the depression.
ReplyDeleteSteinbeck makes a forensic arguement to support his beliefs about the future. His arguement being that a Communist government is ideal.
To go back to Larissa's claim that the novel is a forensic argument, there are various "finger-points" as to who's fault the severe job loss is. " 'But for your three dollars a day fifteen or twenty families can't eat at all. Nearly a hundred people have to go out and wander on the roads for your three dollars a day. Is that alright?' " (Steinbeck 50). "It's not us, it's the bank. A bank isn't like a man. Or an owner with fifty thousand acres, he isn't like a man either. That's the monster." (Steinbeck 45). In the first example we see the tenant harassing the driver, accusing him of starving families as a result of his tractoring. In the second, we see metonomy used to blame the bank. While a decision as to a specific source of the turmoil is not determined, these explorations of probable causes create Steinbeck's forensic argument. These accusations also work to encourage the idea of unity. The driver is singled out and used as an example against other starving families. The man vs. machine idea that Grace and George talked about plays a strong role in these accusations. Human's are not only against machines (such as the bank and the tractor) but are against the humans that side with the machines. Men who do so are regarded as contributors to the problem of unemployment.
George's conclusion reminded me of Shakespear's "Seven Ages of Man". Steinbeck's creation of an assortment of unique characters who all share the same fears works to convey the message that all peoples are affected by the Depression. When I started thinking about the attributes of each character, i began to relate them to the seven ages. Steinbeck clearly depicts all seven stages in the story. Infancy is portrayed in the hopelessness of the in-coming generations. "Ruthie looked once more at the gray reptile eggs in her hand, and then she threw them away." (178-179). Childhood is represented in Ruthie and Winfield. The Lover is depicted in Connie and Rose of Sharon. Al Joad represents the soldier. Tom Joad represents the Justice. Old Tom represents Old Age and Mental health and Dementia is seen in the Granparents. It is apparent that Steinbeck used these archetypes to represent a broad spectrum of ages and types of people and work to personify the "average American", embodying the idea in multiple characters.
These aspects of the story work together to encourage the ideas of communism. During the 1940's, Communism was on the rise in America. In fact, on the contrary to the "man vs. machine" idea, farmers were working to create unions in the exponentially increasing industrialist methods of work. While Steinbeck does not quite elude to this act of farmers investing in industry, he does elude to the unions of communist Americans by using the theme of hospitality amongst all those going west. This hospitality is expressed in the Wilsons: "'Why, sure, come on off the road. Proud to have ya." and he called, "Sairy, there's some folks goin' ta stay with us. Come on out an' say how d'ya do." (183), the one-eyed worker in the scrap yard: " 'Mind if we look?' 'Hell, no! Take any goddamn thing you want.' " (243), and in other campers: " The smell of the cooking beans beans was strong and fine. ' Like to have a plate a them,' Tom said politely as they went by. The woman smiled. 'They ain't done or you'd be welcome,' she said. 'Come aroun' in the daybreak.' (262).
The idea of unity is used to represent the most literal sense of the word. All the farmers endorse "all for one and one for all" mentalities, and Steinbeck uses the portrayl of a close family such as the Joad's to convey the the same quota.
As for the basis of an argument, i don;t think it can be defined with one definition. Arguments, as we read in the first chapter of Everything Is An Argument, have many different types and definitions to be associated with the term "argument", such as exploring, making a point, convincing another reader of your own point, to try to better understand a subject, to persuade and so forth. I don't think we have to pick a certain definition all together for argument but narrow down which one fits into Steinbeck's novel.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the majority of everyone else that Steinbeck focuses his argument on unity. As George states, it isn't solely the unity of family but a broader unity, with strangers, acquaintances, friends and family. He introduces this argument early, and frequently throughout the novel. In the early chapters when Tom hitches a ride with the truck driver, finds Casy and brings him along to his parents house, and when they find Muley. Muley helps Tom and Casy, and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves, there is no abandonment in Steinbeck's novel so far. When Casy asks Muley if he will share Muley feels that he has no other choice, "I ain't got no choice in the matter" (66). The people in his novel do not believe in letting others fend for themselves or being individualistic as Nicole and Larissa stated. Steinbeck is using forensic argument to convey the importance of unity in the past and explain that perhaps it is needed in the present and future.
So Grace and I are sitting at the computer together reading all this... sooo. This response is for both of us. Just letting you know. Okay? Okay.
ReplyDeleteWell. To start off, we sort of agree with George and this whole always looking for an argument this is annoying and we just want to enjoy the book as it is. But of course, as always, Ms. Parrish has a point. Due to human nature, we always subconsciously have an argument we are trying to make. As "Everything's an Argument" points out, "in a world where argument is as abundant as fast food, everyone has a role to play in shaping and responding to arguments" (24). Maybe Steinbeck didn't really start out with an argument but unknowingly made one. As Taylor says,you can easily turn to a random page and find a new argument . To back this up, the introduction of "The Grapes of Wrath" argues that the novel could be viewed from a variety from different perspectives; "social, historical, linguistic, formal, political, ecological, psychological, mythic, metaphysical, religious lens" (xli). If we went back and explored the book through each of these different lenses we would surely find multiple arguments for each lens.
HOWEVER. The introduction also points out "'I don't think the Grapes of Wrath is obscure in what it tries to say,' [Steinbeck] claimed in 1955. 'Its structure is very carefully worked out... Just read it, don't count it!'" (xli) That one's for George. Maybe it's some message for us not to try and overanalyze his work.
I especially like Taylor's paragraph in which he states "We can all agree that Steibeck's work is a forensic argument, though it is more exploratory and open ended than reliant on evidence and testimony (though Steinbeck did spend years researching and gathering that evidence to be able to write this book). We all know what happened (Great Depression and migrant workers). It is the nature, quality, and actions to be taken that we disagree on." Steinbeck appeals to our emotions and explores the events that occurred rather than backing up with evidence. He does not take literal facts of one life but rather takes the adventures he has heard and put it into literature form, but rather combines everyones experience to form one novel.
p.s. WE STRONGLY DISAGREE with the idea that this entire novel, all 619 pages, are all about proving the importance of unity and staying together as a nice family. What is the point of that? We would personally not like to waste our time reading 619 pages just to find out in discussion that families are of the utmost importance.
ReplyDeleteYou guys all have good points but do you really think a man who got divorced 3 times is going to make a novel completely based on the function of family? Although a major point stressed within his work, we still believe that Steinbeck's major purpose and argument is to encompass numerous themes, arguments, and messages to simply explore and convey the Great Depression from both a personified and historical standpoint. The past that Steinbeck is able to capture is a point in time that will always be relevant to today. And according to T.S Eliot, it would be this aspect that makes Steinbeck's novel immortal in that“the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past”.
Very true, i don't think the entire novel is to argue unity, but possibly it is linked to the greater argument he is trying to convey?
ReplyDeleteor not convey but also explore
ReplyDeleteYeah, i don't think the book is about the unity of families either. however, unity plays an extremely important role in relation to the workforce. All the farmers are unified (they are literally forming a union) and this idea lends a reason for their hospitality towards one another.
ReplyDeleteWow that took a long time to read....but maybe it's just because i'm a slow reader (miss parrish knows this because my mom told her- thanks mom). Anyway,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first chapter of "Everything is an Argument," I realize that in "The Grapes of Wrath," the most prominent "argument" or more realistically, topic which Steinbeck intended to explore, was, as Emma and Grace i believe stated, a forensic argument of the past. In this case regarding the Great Depression.
From the reading i have done thus far in GOW, i have this impression of the author's goal to be about exploring the past because i feel that this is what his focus is most clearly regarding throughout the novel. For instance, the imagery used so beautifully and so often are usually, if not always in order to describe a scene that has caused or contributed to the depression or has directly been influenced by the depression. For example when Tom Joad encounters Muley Graves as he returns to the home he grew up in before prison, Steinbeck describes Muley, "His blue jeans were pale at knee and seat, and he wore an old black suit coat, stained and spotted, the sleeves torn loose from the shoulders in back, and ragged holes worn through at thh elbows. His black hat was as stained as his coat, and the band, torn half free, flopped up and down as he walked." (Steinbeck 61). The imagery Steinbeck uses to describe the tattered old clothing of Tom's old friend, suggests that this is not the look that Tom remembers him having. Clearly, the depression has caused Muley to be unable to afford new clothing that does not even have holes in it. This image alone that the author describes for us, exhibits the detrimental affects of the Depression. This is just one example,and these instances of description of poor looking or dust-filled scenery or people are continuous throughout the book. Obviously then, Steinbecks "argument" was to portray the affects of the great Depression in this novel.
I disagree with what Larissa said earlier, that the most significant argument in the novel is unity, and that Ma's goal was to keep the family together, making it stronger. My reason for disagreeing with this, is because of the imagery and details of the novel. I feel that if Steineck's most prominent goal was in fact to portray a sense of family, unity and togetherness, he would have used description to do give a better picture of this, rather than of the depression. Not to say that Steinbeck is not trying to argue that unity and family is important, as clearly he is trying to articulate this, however, his literary devices, mostly imagery and his repetition of the description of the desolate and barren country during the depression, suggests that more importantly, his argument was forensic, trying to explore the past, during the depression.
Also, Steinbeck's success in his attempt to "argue" this past event is clear. He does an accurate job of explaining in detail the lives of this family during the Great Depression, which represents the lives of the countless families who really did go through this experience during these terrible times. Because of Steinbeck's ability to encorperate this actual even from the past into a novel,also shows that his goal was in fact to explain and explore the Great Depression.
I agree that unity plays an important role in the novel, but it is definitely not the basis of it. I feel that Steinbeck truly was just trying to write about the past of the Great Depression. As George said, why can't he just write to write? He chose to write about the great depression and maybe that's it! Maybe he just wanted to explore what the lives of a family going through this time went through. In doing so, perhaps he "argued" different ideas unintentionally.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to being "overstaffed" like Emma and Grace so luckily are, I am actually lacking the packet all together. This being the case, I feel like i have a pretty good grasp of it's contents thanks to everyones thorough responses.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, I agree with the basic thoughts that Grace and Emma present. The idea that everyone always has a subconcious argument to me is completely right, but unlike George, I dont think that it is avoidable. In order to explain this, I feel like I first must explain my theory on how arguments are created. You see, the first time we see something we immediatly develope an opinion about it. This may not blossem into an argument, but the longer we consider it the more likely it is that it will. The longer we study anything, whether it is a book or an apple, the more details we aquire and therefor we have more basis for refuting or agreeing with it.
So George, this is for you. The reason arguments will always exist is because we will always look at things through an interested lense. Until the day where everything is bland, and we dont care to understand our surroundings anymore we will have arguments.
After reading "Everything is an argument" it became clear to me that Steinbeck uses several arguments throughout 'The Grapes of Wrath' to portray his central theme. In 'The Grapes of Wrath,' I believe that Steinbeck’s main argument is the conflict between man and technology. I agree with Grace, that this conflict between man and machine is very prominent throughout this book, but I believe that technology in general created a large dispute throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me throughout the first portion of the book, that technology would impact the experience of the Joad’s and the other families traveling across to California. While currently living in the technology age, I think that it is important to recognize Steinbeck’s strong opposition to the advance of technology. Throughout ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ Steinbeck includes information about technology faults. Never once, did I hear about the positive side of technology.
For example, Ivy Wilson tells the story about his brother Will Wilson and how they both, “’sol’ ever’ thing” (Steinbeck 146), in order to invest in a car. They planned their trip so that this car could be used to cut down time spent on the road. However after investing in the car, uncle Will crashed his, and Ivy has spent 10 weeks in one spot, because of Syria’s disease and the malfunctioning car. As Ivy explains, “’he jus’ won’t run. Starts an’ farts an’ stops. In a minute she’’ start again, an’ then ‘fore you can git her goin’, she peters out again’ “ (Steinbeck 147). As Grace included, Steinbeck also highlights the technology advances in the field, due to the tractor that took the roof from over their heads and sent the families off of their land to fend for themselves and create a new life.
I would also like to agree with Emma’s idea that Steinbeck did not write ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ in order to argue the importance of family. As Emma points out, Steinbeck was divorced three times, signifying that his familial relationships were not very strong. This leads me to believe that Steinbeck is rather arguing the importance of a prominent relationship with yourself. Throughout the novel, we read about experiences of how the Joads got kicked off their land, or how Tom was put in jail for merely defending himself. Tom Joad is consistently being exposed into the unreliable world around him. For example, Tom joins his family on their journey to California, however throughout the trip, several of his family members do not make it across. For example, his brother Noah chose to suddenly leave the family and stay by the waterside and not continue on the trip. Being Tom’s brother, Noah was a very important companion throughout the journey to California. After hearing Noah’s decision, Tom responds surprised, “what you mean?” (Steinbeck 208).
ReplyDeleteTom recognizes that the only person that he can rely on, is himself. Through the final pages and chapters of the book, I expect to see more evidence of the importance of confidence and trust in Tom, in order to complete his long journey to California.
There is an quote that I refer to frequently, “A human being is only interesting if he's in contact with himself. I learned you have to trust yourself, be what you are, and do what you ought to do the way you should do it. You have got to discover you, what you do, and trust it.
Barbra Streisand (1942 - )
I view this quote on the fact that Tom needs to understand his plan, and accomplish it before anyone can come between him and his goals.
I think “Everything is an Argument” is a very informative and useful essay, but looking back, I feel the entire piece is an argument to persuade people that everything is an argument. The author creates a distinction between persuasion and argument, introducing the idea that “the point of an argument is to discover some version of truth, using evidence and reasons” (7). Persuasion, on the other hand, “is to change a point of view or to move other from conviction to action. In other words; writers or speakers argue to find some truth; they persuade when they think they already know it.” (7). Based on these definitions, I definitely feel that Steinbeck explores many arguments in his novel but does not try to persuade his audience to agree with his position. I agree with Anna when she says that The Grapes of Wrath is most definitely a forensic argument about the Great Depression. However, I also believe Steinbeck argues to show the importance of family through America’ Industrialization. Eric says, “Unity plays an extremely important role in relation to the workforce. All the farmers are unified (they are literally forming a union) and this idea lends a reason for their hospitality towards one another.” Steinbeck attempts to tell his audience the importance of balance between family and material goods, as America embarks in a new revolution, one that changes the form of our country forever. The deaths of Granma and Gramps signify the consequences of the Industrialization period, because the family is so focused on achieving their goal of finding (scarce) work in the promised land of California, and not taking the time to give Granma and Grampa the attention they so righty deserve. Ma keeps Granma’s death a secret until the Joads actually reach California, in order to keep their hopes up and their dream alive. Finally, she admits Granma’s death, “Ma raised her eyes and looked over the valley. ‘Granma’s dead.’” I find it interesting that Steinbeck offsets this tragedy with a phrase about the California valley, keeping the thoughts of industrialization and technology in the reader’s minds. Brooke brings up a similar point in her response, talking about man vs technology, which is very pertinent through the entire novel.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I agree completely with George’s point. I really do enjoy reading, but the notes and essays give the potentially good books a bad reputation in my mind. For anyone who was in Ms Parrish’s book chat, we had a similar discussion, and came to a consensus that reading is very worthwhile, but a balance between written essays, discussions, and reading plainly for enjoyment are all valuable in high school and beyond.
Also, in accordance to my ideas, I wanted to include that Steinbeck uses literary devices such as, diction and order of details to portray this idea. Tom shares this idea that people have very slight influence on his lifestyle, when he states, "'Funny thing is- losin' Grampa ain't made me feel no different than I done before. I ain't no sadder than i was'" (Steinbeck 146).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Rhetoric devices and strategies that were used by Steinbeck include, mainly focuses on logos. He uses the logic and common sense, to prove his thesis. His ideas are somewhat hidden throughout the novel, and the supporting evidence is what is used to maintain his central theme and thesis. Steinbeck's rhetorical methods are very successful in expressing his ideas to his audience. After completing a portion of the novel, I feel as though I truly understand Steinbeck's message that he is sending out to his reader.
i just want to say that while i do enjoy reading a story for just the story, the reason why i love literature is because of the many subtleties and nuances that close reading and dissecting of it entails. To me, reading a story about a man on a boat that's just about a man on a boat is just like looking at a painting of a barn or a field. While both might be "nice" or "good", the lack of a deeper meaning creates limitations in how a work can be viewed and enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteWell, not only do I not have the packet (as you know, Ms. Parrish) but this is also the second time I am writing this, because my internet crashed halfway through writing my post. I guess computers in general just really, really hate me. Anyways, I have read through the many ideas that have been presented on this blog and I see that you guys have successfully exhausted many ideas, so I will attempt to create something original based off of what I have read and go back to some opinions that have been previously stated.
ReplyDeleteFor one, I see a constant recurrence of the idea of arguments, and since I have not read the packet, I may not know as much about this notion as the rest of you, but I do have an opinion. I believe that it is true that everything can be argued and re-argued. That is what keeps ideas alive. If an idea isn't argued, what does it become? It is stagnant, unnoticed and unappreciated. Only by arguing something may that thing be truly recognized as an individual idea, or something unique. Everything is an argument simply because everything is forced to be an argument; progress would be lost without the questioning of ideas.
As for the book itself, one thing in particular that I noticed many of you mentioned was the idea of unity of family being a central theme to GOW, and that one of Steinbeck's biggest points to the book was in expressing this notion. However, I disagree with this. I think that when Steinbeck wrote this book, his goal was simply: write a book about the Great Depression that emotionally impacts the reader. He wasn't focusing on messages; he wanted to write about something that he felt important, and he wanted to do so, as I think Nicole said, without it being over analyzed. That is not to say that the message of unity cannot be derived from GOW, rather, that it is not the reason for GOW. When people analyze literature in excess, they tend to focus on aspects that are less prominent in the text. Often, however, they are less prominent for a reason; they are not supposed to be central to the story. While family unity is indeed an idea that is mentioned in GOW, it is not necessarily the focal point of the story.
One last thing I wanted to point out. Like many of you, the one thing that stands out in this book so much in my eyes is the intense and vivid imagery portrayed by Steinbeck. He is a master of creating images in texts, and his incredible descriptions make the reader feel like they are part of the story itself. One example of this, "And the sun flashed on the windows of the house. The weathered boards were bright. Two red chickens on the ground flamed with reflected light" (Steinbeck, 95). This is just one of many examples of exquisite visual utilized by Steinbeck in GOW, and I feel that this imagery, if anything, could be seen as a central point to the story; the usage of emotions and images to strike the reader (Pathos).
That's all I have to say, as my clock is now exactly 10. However, constructive criticism would still be appreciated.
Ok, not sure if anyone will check this before school tomorrow, BUT:
ReplyDelete1. What do you all understand the term "forensic argument" to mean? Should we discuss this tomorrow?
2. Perhaps the connection is very clear, which is why no one has said anything, but what about Eric's point about communism overlaps with what has been said about family? Think about family for a microcosm of society... as Eric suggested, these characters can (and I would argue, should) be read as larger than individual players in a "story"--it is certainly not an accident that Jim Casey's initials are JC, that Rose of Sharon is named after a flower, that Tom and his dad share a name, etc. I say this not to denegrate Steinbeck's craft, but simply as a reiteration of most criticism on the topic--Steinbeck is NOT subtle, he is almost heavy handed and I think his prose, much more so than, say, a Dan Brown novel, invites us to read allegory, allusion, archetype, etc. in the "story" or plot itself.
3. Even if, for the sake of argument, Steinbeck did not mean to allude to The Battle Hymn of the Republic, or Robinson did not mean to allude to The Book of Ruth, they DID, and those "texts" are undoubtedly part of our "collective unconscious" as Jung calls it.... to me this seems very connected to T. S. Eliot's ideas about tradition.
See you all tomorrow!
For those of you missing copies... they are in the basket labeled "AP" in my classroom (white paper) and the pastoral packets are in there as well (colored paper, totally bothering my OCD brain just thinking about that colored paper in my filing cabinet)