The Grapes of Wrath
The family at the story’s center is the Joads, one of many Oklahoman families who lose their farms and head west toward the promised land of California, where jobs allegedly await these families if they can handle the trek across the southwest. The chapters alternate between those focusing on the Joads’ plight and general scene-setting chapters that provide background for the core plot and give Steinbeck a chance to wax poetically, as on the subject of Route 66:
66 is the path of a people in flight, refugees from dust and shrinking land, from the thunder of tractors and shrinking ownership, from the desert’s slow northward invasion, from the twisting winds that howl up out of Texas, from the floods that bring no richness to the land and steal what little richness is there. From all of these the people are in flight, and they come into 66 from the tributary side roads, from the wagon tracks and the rutted country roads. 66 is the mother road, the road of flight.
The Joads reach California but not entirely intact, and end up in a “government camp,” a squatter’s paradise with real buildings, clean sanitary facilities, and a fair but strong system of self-government that enforces cooperative behavior through social pressure and the rarely-used threat of ouster. The system works perfectly, and even an attempted coup by outsiders is quickly thwarted through teamwork. It is the idyllic view of communism common to much literature of the interwar era, although to be fair to Steinbeck, the camp was not a unit or system of economic production but a social safety net for the unfortunates swept aside by capitalist greed during the Depression. The Joads aren’t in the camp for very long, but the idea of a self-enforcing system like this one operating without a whiff of corruption among those in power is incredibly naive. Steinbeck’s commentary isn’t just limited to the scene-setting chapters, and one major criticism of the novel is that he puts his opinions into the dialogue, making characters sometimes seem like mouthpieces for his political views, like Uncle John’s comments on rampant consumerism:
Funny thing, I wanta buy stuff. Stuff I don’t need … Stuff settin’ out there, you jus’ feel like buyin’ it whether you need it or not.
Steinbeck’s prose didn’t seem bombastic to me, nor was I troubled by slightly preachy dialogue; perhaps the 70 years since the book’s publication have seen such widespread degradation in prose writing that what was overbearing in 1939 seems fresh and clever today. Most impressive to me, however, was the book’s pacing. The Joads lose their farm, travel west over sparse land, and end up in a Hardy-esque series of big and small calamities in California that leave the reader afraid to hope for anything, yet Steinbeck focuses on little details like repair work on the family’s car to keep the text moving even when the family isn’t. There’s also a clear faith in the goodness of man – at least, of poor man – encapsulated not just in the jarring final scene but in many small sacrifices made by and for the Joads earlier in the book.
I wondered on Twitter last week if Cormac McCarthy had any of this book in mind when writing The Road, a similarly what-the-hell-can-go-wrong-next story that also focuses on a parent trying to keep a family together against impossible odds. The Joads know the name of their destination on the desolate road, but don’t know what it holds; the Man doesn’t know the name of his destination, but has a similarly vague sense of what might be there to go with the strong sense that he must take the Boy there. Both books show the best and worst of humanity in horrible situations. Both authors put substantial focus on food – not just the search for the next source, but on the consumption of it. And perhaps the father and son in the barn at the end of Grapes inspired McCarthy to build a novel around a boy and his father.
I may have more to say on Grapes of Wrath, since it, like The Road, inspires so much thought after the first reading, but in the meantime, I’ve moved on to Arthur Conan Doyle’s Exploits and Adventures of Brigadier Gerard
When did I defend bull fighting? Talk about straw men. Killing for pleasure is killing for pleasure. The fact that bull fighting or fox hunting has a glorious upper-class history is meaningless.
Saying someone who tortured and killed dogs doesn’t deserve forgiveness is hateful? GMAFB. What standard are you using – a university speech code?
From someone who abhors bull fighting, likening it to dog fighting is ridiculous. Bull fighting pits a man against the animal, making it a sport. The bull is treated royally until the time of the fight. The dead bull is given to the city’s poor for consumption. The only explanations for dog enjoying dog fighting are pure sadism, or greed, or creating an image of some tough guy.
If the obvious and rational differences don’t do it for you, consider it this way:
How would you FEEL if you saw a dog starved and tortured to make him aggressive? How would you FEEL watching that dog fight another dog to the death? How would you FEEL seeing a dog that couldn’t fight anymore taken to the woods and hanged? If you are having trouble seeing the distinction between dog fighting and bull fighting, at least recognize that it sure FEELS worse.
“Finally saying someone doesn’t deserve forgiveness or a 2nd chance is really hateful.”
I don’t get your obsession with people having to forgive Vick and your labeling it hateful not to. Does a well-crafted PR release really erase the crimes he committed (and the mentality it takes to commit those crimes) or is it just a basic belief that anyone who asks for forgiveness must be forgiven and that those who won’t forgive should be counter-vilified?
(A longer winded way of saying “who gives a shit if Keith, myself, Obo or anyone else forgives Vick for killing dogs. I’m sure he doesn’t care.)
A longer winded way of saying “who gives a shit if Keith, myself, Obo or anyone else forgives Vick for killing dogs. I’m sure he doesn’t care.
And if he does care, he’ll go out and strangle a few Rottweilers to make himself feel better!
I’m going to change my name to The Escalator.
I am here not to defend any stance in particular, I just want people to use proper analogies and rational arguments. It’s poor arguments like, ‘dog fighting is no different than bull fighting,’ that allow people to continue to deny evolution and global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
To clarify my point, I was simply surprised that Keith seemed to make such a personal attack on Vick. I considered the attack personal not because I felt it was inaccurate (it was), but because it seemed designed to insult. (You wouldn’t call an obese person fat, even if it was true, unless you intended to insult them). I didn’t realize Keith’s choice of words were intended to be more of a comment on the media obsession with Vick than necessarily a commentary on Vick’s actions themselves (which he later offered). I realize there is a range of opinions on Vick’s actions and what the consequences should be. My primary objection to much of what I have heard has been the hypocrisy demonstrated by many, particularly with how it generally breaks down along lines of class and race.
I don’t agree that refusing Vick a second-chance or forgiveness is hateful, as long as it is motivated by something other than hate. Disagreement does not inherently equate to hatred.
My personal feelings? What Vick did was wrong, but I don’t know that it was any worse than many other treatments of animals that we as a society accept. To be honest, I’m not a huge animal rights person; I’m more concerned with matters relating to humanity than I am to the animal kingdom (call me a speciesist, if you must). Without being inside his head or interacting with him personally, I can’t say that his actions were any more sadistic than the things I used to do to the wasps I captured in my backyard. That being said, he did break the law, served his time, and if the NFL sees fit to have him back, good for him. If not, so be it. I have no issue with a suspension, though I personally have a lot of issues with the way Goodell has handled these “player conduct” situations in the pass, seemingly more interested in flexing his own muscles than anything else.
(You wouldn’t call an obese person fat, even if it was true, unless you intended to insult them)
And you wouldn’t walk up to women who are with their children in public and say “you’ve had unprotected sex”. That has nothing to do with labeling Vick based on a *crime* he committed with *victims*, be them human or not. Again, use more care with your analogies.
“My primary objection to much of what I have heard has been the hypocrisy demonstrated by many, particularly with how it generally breaks down along lines of class and race.”
I would be just as unforgiving of Peyton Manning. Or Eli.
“I don’t agree that refusing Vick a second-chance or forgiveness is hateful, as long as it is motivated by something other than hate.”
My lack of forgiveness is motivated by hate, both of the actions and the type of person who would commit those actions.
“… I personally have a lot of issues with the way Goodell has handled these “player conduct” situations …”
Totally agree. His lack of consistency, Jared Allen being a shining example, leaves a ton to be desired.
It was never stated you defended bull fighting, but rather the question was just posed: what is the elemental difference between bull fighting and dog fighting? I am not sure that has been addressed but again, Strawman. The Escalator did suggest that the difference was a machisimo issue and the treatment of the animal right before killing it for pleasure, but nevertheless, the core issue seems about the same to me. Or perhaps during a bull fight I FEEL different about it?
Hate: your position, and much of puritianical american sentamentality at that, is that people who commit crimes don’t deserve second chances or forgiveness. They become social pariahs without hope of redemption in society. It is just that hate you speak about that is so damn harmful to people. Someone serves their time, they deserve to move on. Just because someone did something criminal doesn’t give another a right to degrade their humanity. If someone went up to Vick and said, “Hey Dogkiller you don’t deserve a second chance and no one will forgive you for what you’ve done.” That is hateful.
What is a university speech code?
Dave-
My point with the analogies was not that the obese person and Vick were similar. Rather, saying something truthful to someone does not guarantee it is not personal.
Regarding race/class, perhaps you would be, and many others. Rather, I was talking to the larger issue, where dog fighting is reprehensible, but eating foi gras is classy. To me, there is not a huge difference between the treatment of the animals in question.
Regarding hate, if you do hate Vick, or what he did, spit all the hate you want. Power to you. I just don’t think we should assume that the denial of a 2nd chance is inherently motivated by hatred, when there are other reasons why someone might object.
Re: Foie Gras
I realize there are methods of production that don’t utilize the feeding-tube. I was speaking specifically to manufacturers who do, and also to the consumer of foie gras who have no idea where it comes from and respond with a shrug of the shoulders when given a possible explanation.
And before someone says, “Well, foie gras is a food”, it is not an essential part of any diet and is a pretty big luxury, simply a specialized form of entertainment.
As far as I’m concerned, force-feeding an animal to fatten it up in order to make it’s liver tastier is no different than what Michael Vick did. Obviously, you can argue otherwise, but to me, it’s the same. And I have the same reaction to both: wrong, but in the grand scheme of things, not something I can consume to much time with. The consumer of foie gras I would liken to spectators at a dog fight: not necessarily directly involved in the treatment of the animals, but benefiting from it and encouraging it’s existence.
Here is the right way to side with Vick:
The amount of attention paid to Michael Vick and the treatment of him by the NFL is absurd and unfair. Consider that Jason Kidd pleads guilty to spouse abuse and receives no sanction from the NBA, Mike Tyson serves a prison sentence for rape and gets title fights when released, Shawn Merriman simultaneously cheats at his sport and breaks the law by taking steroids and receives a Pro Bowl selection that same year, and Ray Lewis was implicit in a murder and received a $250k fine with no suspension after serving a 1 year prison sentence.
We must allow ex-convicts the opportunity to reenter the workforce or else we are encouraging them to turn back to crime. I spent my adult life training to be a physicist, if I served a prison sentence and was subsequently released, nobody would dream of telling me I couldn’t practice physics. That Vick’s chosen profession, for which he trained his entire life, is public and lucrative is irrelevant. You don’t like him or his actions? Don’t buy his jersey, use him as an example to teach your kids right and wrong, be outspoken about his crimes, but don’t hinder his ability to earn a living honestly.
I haven’t/won’t eat foie gras because the thought of what it is grosses me out. Weird that where I was raised apparently is quite well known for it; in both Boston and New Orleans I’ve seen Hudson Valley foie gras.
Regarding your last Vick comments: I don’t think anyone disagrees. We don’t want him banned from the NFL, we just don’t want to be chastised for outwardly rooting against him.
Killing wasps is different from killing dogs precisely because of your alleged speciesism. A wasp is much further away on the genetic tree from humans than a dog and shows much less higher brain function (awk). Torturing a human for pleasure is the worst, a monkey would be worse than a dog, a dog worse than a fish, a fish worse than an insect, and any animal worse than a tree. Why do you think methods of fishing tuna that killed dolphins aren’t cool anymore but we are going to fish swordfish until they are extinct? It’s because dolphins are mammals and have demonstrated intelligence.
“Anyone that lambasts the foie gras industry has not eaten foie gras,” he said while smacking his lips.
Obo-
I understand that line of thinking. I just don’t necessarily agree with it. I think that intentionally harming animals for no good reason (reliable food source = good reason; fun = bad reason) is bad. I just don’t think it’s bad enough for *me* to get all high-and-mighty when there are greater atrocities done to humans on a daily basis. I also don’t think that every person who harms an animal for no good reason is a sociopath (I’m pretty sure I’m not, despite the many wasp incidents).
To your other point, I believe you are spot on. Part of the difficulty is the way sports works. The NFL can argue, “We’re not saying he can’t play football. He just can’t play football for US.” That is tantamount to saying “No football for you”, given that the NFL is the only *real* game in town. Vick has already been invited to join the UFL, which is yet to play a game. The monopoly that the sports leagues have basically gives them the power to determine whether or not an individual can continue to partake in their chosen profession. And, as we’ve seen, this power is used widely and, as you pointed out, inconsistently.
Dave-
Many people DO disagree and want to see Vick banned for life. Not necessarily on this board, but it is a very common mantra right now. It is unclear from KLaw’s “No second chances” Tweet if he is among those in favor of such an approach.
The only person during this whole discussion that has backed up any stance with peer-reviewed research is Keith. He gave us a link showing a statistically significant link between animal torture and being a serial killer. That study shows that a humanist (assuming serial killers are bad for humans) must care about animal torture.
P.S. w00t w00t! SF gains Garko and Sanchez! The great thing about having a shitty lineup is that it is easy to improve!
Obo-
I’m not sure why peer-reviewed research is necessary for us to form and express our individual opinions. I don’t think anything I said expressed a complete lack of concern about animal abuse and those who perpetrate it. My point was that given an opportunity to put my emotional and physical energy towards a situation that directly impacts humans or towards a situation that directly impacts animals and might indirectly impact humans, I’d work on the former. I’m not saying that animal abuse is a good thing; just that I don’t know that it’s as *bad* a thing as the sanctimonious media is making it out to be in this specific case, in which Vick has been compared to Hitler and killing a dog has been called worse than killing a human. I realize that is not necessarily the common sentiment, but it is those reactions that have bothered me the most.
As for the study Keith links to, my primary question would be how they define “animal cruelty”. Would my “experiments” with wasps have been considered animal cruelty? Were hunters considered as part of the study? What about people who work in the circus? Based on the definition of cruelty listed elsewhere on the that site, it seems as if all those situations should be (as well as many more), but from the numbers, I doubt that that is the case. The cases listed seemed to deal with people who have demonstrated a pattern of asocial and violent behavior. From reading the results of that study and other information on the site, it is my guess that the abuse they were documenting was a symptom of a potentially violent person, not necessarily a cause. Given that, up to this point, Vick hasn’t demonstrated any of the other indicators that would signal he is on the path to becoming a serial killer, I don’t know that it’s fair to draw that conclusion and think of him and treat him like he is a serial killer.
If Keith’s point in linking to the study was to demonstrate that the mindset that animal cruelty is “no big deal” is wrong, I can agree with that. If it’s to paint a wide brush and declare everyone who demonstrates cruelty towards animals is a sociopath and likely to become a serial killer, I can’t get on board with that and it seems to just be fanning the flames. He seemed to be using it to demonstrate why animal cruelty should be viewed in a dim light, so I’d assume he was suggesting the former. Obo, why did you choose to bring it up now?
Wow, not quite sure how we got from The Grapes of Wrath to Michael Vick. In any event, I heard an interview with Arlo Guthrie about his Dad’s song Tom Joad. Arlo said that after the song was released, his dad got a brief letter from Steinbeck that started with “You little bastard.” I can’t remember exactly what Arlo said the letter said next, but it was something along the lines “You took the story that I slaved over for months and that it took me x pages to tell, and told it all in 6 minutes.”