"Boileau said that Kings, Gods, Heroes only were fit subjects for literature. The writer can only write about what he admires. Present day Kings aren't very inspiring, the Gods have taken a vacation, and about the only heroes left are the scientists and the poor.... And since our race admires gallantry, the writer will deal with it where he finds it. He finds it in the struggling poor now." -John Steinbeck in a 1939 radio interview
Approaching the work of John Steinbeck is fairly difficult, seeing as there are wide-ranging opinions of his writing. But I think that most will agree with me when I say that whether you love or hate The Grapes of Wrath, it's pretty hard not to be opinionated about it. With this in mind, I think it's easy to see Steinbeck as a visionary, whose work speeks to us throughout the ages, despite his rather dry style of writing. Steinbeck approaches the two themes mentioned above throughout this novel, and I find them to be the centerpieces of the book. Heroes and Gallantry are what Steinbeck is investigating, and he does this in one of the most unique fashions ever displayed throughout the course of American literature.
Gallantry is indeed something that we admire. Gallant men and women hold a society together, are held in high esteem, and are supposed to have decent values. Though it is perhaps hard to see at first, Tom Joad is a gallant man. He sticks to his morals throughout this terrible plight, and unflinchingly stands by his family. Tom is a man who refuses to give in to the fate that so many others willingly suffer. I say willingly suffer, because Tom does not accept fate. Rather, he emerges as a sort of gallant victor, unlike Grampa and Granma Joad, who give up hope and die. I think the style of writing Steinbeck uses is reflective of one who has no one with which to share his passions and his inner demons. Steinbeck is literally conversing with the page in front of him, and the result is characters who embody his inner demons and passions. Perhaps Steinbeck is debating why he shouldn't just give up, and considering the circumstances it doesn't sound like a bad idea. But inside, an inner Tom Joad screams for life.
In the end, John Steinbeck concludes that the best decision is perseverance. He resolves to preserve his values, not just for his own benefit, but for the benefit of his fellow beings. John Steinbeck wants us to listen to our inner hero, and preserve decency so that the next Kings will be inspiring, the Gods will return from their extended vacation, and so that everyone may be a Hero. He presents us with hope and the overpowering will of a God. I feel that we should all be willing to become Gods in our own time. It is hard, but it is also possible to display these God-like qualities of gallantry and perseverance.
On a different note, I wish this book would have been assigned immediately after Gatsby. I feel that it give both books a greater impact when they are in chronological order. I was also reminded of the words of Neil Peart when reading this book and Gatsby at nearly the same time.
"Guide the future by the past/long ago the mold was cast/ for they marched up to bastille day/ the guillotine qlaimed her bloddy prize/ sing, o choirs of cacophony/ power isn't all that money buys"
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Great Hopelessness
In pursuit of happiness. Everyone in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic “The Scarlet Letter” is pursuing happiness in their own way. Hawthorne presents the two great themes of Happiness and Love in this work, and manages also to touch on the question of what is pure. I think this book matched all of my personal requirements for a “Great Work”.
1. It is written in noble language (flowing, poetic old English)
2. It touches upon subjects that are eternal (Happiness, Love and what is pure)
3. It has the ability to speak to us through the ages.
Firstly, Hawthorne raises to us the question of what is pure and good. Very often we see the “man-made” contentment of a structured community in this book. But I constantly was reminded of the image of a certain rosebush presented in the very first chapter of this book. Hawthorne makes mention to the rosebush’s “sweet moral blossom”. I think this is to say that what is wild, and perhaps created by God or nature alone is pure. Humankind cannot create a pure thing, or make a Godly code in their own image. Also, Hawthorne constructs a powerful scene in which Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale find a moment of happiness in the forest. Again, this pure moment is found away from the community, and in a “natural, wild” place. Pearl might also be considered wild, and perhaps this is why we never see her do anything wrong or questionable like other characters. She has yet to be corrupted by the world removed from the most basic nature.
Happiness is essential for all of these characters. But none of the main characters ever appear to get what they want. I was strongly reminded of Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” when reading about the individual pursuits of happiness here. Sisyphus, the Greek immortal, was condemned to a life of futility by the Gods. It seems as though the characters here are doomed to the same fate. They have dreams and desires, but the world is indifferent to those desires. Roger Chillingworth is a man who cannot accept this absurd relationship between himself and the world, and so his every action is in resentment of this. He represents the first possibility for our response to the absurd. Rev. Dimmesdale attempts to deny the existence of the absurd, and so he runs from it. But this is also an exercise in futility. It is similar to the three-year old child who keeps asking “why” to his parent. The parent is always bound to run out of answers before the child runs out of “whys”. The same happens to poor Arthur. He is unable to run any longer. Hester finally gives us hope for dealing with the absurd relationship between ourselves and the world. She returns to her punishment after years of freedom. This is because, as Camus suggests, life is purposeless. But this makes life all the more enjoyable. And so Hester throws herself into her work and we must imagine her as happy.
By far, I preferred Pearl to all the other characters in this book. She is a beautiful example of one who simply makes the best of a bad situation. I imagine Pearl as a heroine who has overcome the absurd in her life, or at least has accepted it.
As to love, I listened to a particular song in Italian while reading this book. It is called “Che Coss`e L`amor”. The lyrics reminded me of the hopelessness Hawthorne sees in love and hate.
“What is love?
It is like a pebble in your shoe
That stings with each lazy step
Of the bolero.”
I don’t know why I thought of this song, but it works.
I found this to be one of my favorite books thus far. The language spoke to me and enveloped my whole being in the intricate web of lies, love and tragedy.
1. It is written in noble language (flowing, poetic old English)
2. It touches upon subjects that are eternal (Happiness, Love and what is pure)
3. It has the ability to speak to us through the ages.
Firstly, Hawthorne raises to us the question of what is pure and good. Very often we see the “man-made” contentment of a structured community in this book. But I constantly was reminded of the image of a certain rosebush presented in the very first chapter of this book. Hawthorne makes mention to the rosebush’s “sweet moral blossom”. I think this is to say that what is wild, and perhaps created by God or nature alone is pure. Humankind cannot create a pure thing, or make a Godly code in their own image. Also, Hawthorne constructs a powerful scene in which Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale find a moment of happiness in the forest. Again, this pure moment is found away from the community, and in a “natural, wild” place. Pearl might also be considered wild, and perhaps this is why we never see her do anything wrong or questionable like other characters. She has yet to be corrupted by the world removed from the most basic nature.
Happiness is essential for all of these characters. But none of the main characters ever appear to get what they want. I was strongly reminded of Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” when reading about the individual pursuits of happiness here. Sisyphus, the Greek immortal, was condemned to a life of futility by the Gods. It seems as though the characters here are doomed to the same fate. They have dreams and desires, but the world is indifferent to those desires. Roger Chillingworth is a man who cannot accept this absurd relationship between himself and the world, and so his every action is in resentment of this. He represents the first possibility for our response to the absurd. Rev. Dimmesdale attempts to deny the existence of the absurd, and so he runs from it. But this is also an exercise in futility. It is similar to the three-year old child who keeps asking “why” to his parent. The parent is always bound to run out of answers before the child runs out of “whys”. The same happens to poor Arthur. He is unable to run any longer. Hester finally gives us hope for dealing with the absurd relationship between ourselves and the world. She returns to her punishment after years of freedom. This is because, as Camus suggests, life is purposeless. But this makes life all the more enjoyable. And so Hester throws herself into her work and we must imagine her as happy.
By far, I preferred Pearl to all the other characters in this book. She is a beautiful example of one who simply makes the best of a bad situation. I imagine Pearl as a heroine who has overcome the absurd in her life, or at least has accepted it.
As to love, I listened to a particular song in Italian while reading this book. It is called “Che Coss`e L`amor”. The lyrics reminded me of the hopelessness Hawthorne sees in love and hate.
“What is love?
It is like a pebble in your shoe
That stings with each lazy step
Of the bolero.”
I don’t know why I thought of this song, but it works.
I found this to be one of my favorite books thus far. The language spoke to me and enveloped my whole being in the intricate web of lies, love and tragedy.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Great Gatsby
I found this book to be, at its core, one of great profundity, and a work that speaks to us throughout the ages. I detectedtwo significant messages from Fitzgerald here: the first being a sort of analysis of love and hate, and the second being a warning against our many illusions and false notions.
Tom Buchanan is a man blinded by the opulent illusion of superiority. He does not rightly know what superiority is, and so he uses his hulking mass to push others around. Tom is unable to distinguish right from wrong, and cheats on his wife simply because he feels that his "superiority" justifies it. In all likelihood, Tom cares even less for his mistress than he does for his wife. But when confronted by Gatsby, Tom is faced with the harsh reality that there are those to which he is not superior. This is altogether too scary for him, and so instead of accepting it he lashes out at the one man whom he can find responsible: Jay Gatsby. Tom is willing to cause Gatsby's death out of pure malice simply because he is still running from the notion that he is not the "Atlas" he thinks he is. This is the first example given to us of how our innermost lies are self-destructive.
The case of Jordan Baker is also one that deeply explores our want to escape reality. Jordan is obviously a woman who is capable of great things on and off the golf course. But ever since a slight accusation of cheating she has slipped into the world of her own illusions, attending extravagant parties and adopting a reckless personality simply so that she does not have to acknowledge the real world. Though we never see this illusion crash as dramatically as Tom's, Fitzgerald makes magnificent use of a simple car ride to foreshadow what will inevitably come to Miss Baker. Jordan is destined to meet another "reckless driver", and will no longer be capable of hiding behind her false notions of the World.
Jay Gatsby seems to be a man in control of his own destiny. A self-made success, he is at first impression a man who we would all like to become. But upon closer examination Gatsby is a man haunted by his own illusions as well. He creates a veil of lies over his true self, claiming wild achievements such as having been to Oxford. Gatsby hides from the truth and makes himself mystical so that others mary not see his true motrives. But Gatsby's grandiose illusions are destined to come crashing down. Dauisy has loved Tom and is not going to return to the new Jay Gatsby. She doesn't even care to send flowers for his funeral. gatsby feeols quite powerful, and perhaps superior. He feels that he can always relive the past. Jay Gatsby dies with his false notions, while still having failed to see the truth.
Later in the course of these course books Nathaniel Hawthorne shall tell s that love and hate are essentially the same emotions. I think that a parallel can be drawn between this statement and the outbursts of Tom and Gatsby in cahpter seven. Gatsby, so stricken with lost love, alllows his love to manifest itself in the only way available to him. This manifestation is a consuming hatred of Tom Buchannan. Tom, on the other hand, allows his utter hatred for Gatsby to manifest itself in loving comments towards Daisy. The result is an example of the earlier comment by Hawthorne.
When reading this book, I was reminded of the attitudes people had before and during the "Great Depression," especially the people living on the east coast who were once wealthy. During the year this book was first published (1925) people were living the "high-life" in places like New York. Just yeares later, the depression crippled America. Once the stock market crashed, men and women alike were forced to give up the illusion of affluence, wealth and superiority in order to survive. Either they did this, or they died like Jay Gatsby. Given the time this book was written, and the theme of illusions which is present throughout, it seems almost as if Fitzgerald is predictin the hard times to come.
In my opinion, any work of literature which we call "great" must speak throught he ages. Certainly this book does that and more. The illusions of greedy business owners and wealthy stock owner have thrust us into an economic recession. Perhaps we should have listened to the litherature of history an d"faced the music."
Tom Buchanan is a man blinded by the opulent illusion of superiority. He does not rightly know what superiority is, and so he uses his hulking mass to push others around. Tom is unable to distinguish right from wrong, and cheats on his wife simply because he feels that his "superiority" justifies it. In all likelihood, Tom cares even less for his mistress than he does for his wife. But when confronted by Gatsby, Tom is faced with the harsh reality that there are those to which he is not superior. This is altogether too scary for him, and so instead of accepting it he lashes out at the one man whom he can find responsible: Jay Gatsby. Tom is willing to cause Gatsby's death out of pure malice simply because he is still running from the notion that he is not the "Atlas" he thinks he is. This is the first example given to us of how our innermost lies are self-destructive.
The case of Jordan Baker is also one that deeply explores our want to escape reality. Jordan is obviously a woman who is capable of great things on and off the golf course. But ever since a slight accusation of cheating she has slipped into the world of her own illusions, attending extravagant parties and adopting a reckless personality simply so that she does not have to acknowledge the real world. Though we never see this illusion crash as dramatically as Tom's, Fitzgerald makes magnificent use of a simple car ride to foreshadow what will inevitably come to Miss Baker. Jordan is destined to meet another "reckless driver", and will no longer be capable of hiding behind her false notions of the World.
Jay Gatsby seems to be a man in control of his own destiny. A self-made success, he is at first impression a man who we would all like to become. But upon closer examination Gatsby is a man haunted by his own illusions as well. He creates a veil of lies over his true self, claiming wild achievements such as having been to Oxford. Gatsby hides from the truth and makes himself mystical so that others mary not see his true motrives. But Gatsby's grandiose illusions are destined to come crashing down. Dauisy has loved Tom and is not going to return to the new Jay Gatsby. She doesn't even care to send flowers for his funeral. gatsby feeols quite powerful, and perhaps superior. He feels that he can always relive the past. Jay Gatsby dies with his false notions, while still having failed to see the truth.
Later in the course of these course books Nathaniel Hawthorne shall tell s that love and hate are essentially the same emotions. I think that a parallel can be drawn between this statement and the outbursts of Tom and Gatsby in cahpter seven. Gatsby, so stricken with lost love, alllows his love to manifest itself in the only way available to him. This manifestation is a consuming hatred of Tom Buchannan. Tom, on the other hand, allows his utter hatred for Gatsby to manifest itself in loving comments towards Daisy. The result is an example of the earlier comment by Hawthorne.
When reading this book, I was reminded of the attitudes people had before and during the "Great Depression," especially the people living on the east coast who were once wealthy. During the year this book was first published (1925) people were living the "high-life" in places like New York. Just yeares later, the depression crippled America. Once the stock market crashed, men and women alike were forced to give up the illusion of affluence, wealth and superiority in order to survive. Either they did this, or they died like Jay Gatsby. Given the time this book was written, and the theme of illusions which is present throughout, it seems almost as if Fitzgerald is predictin the hard times to come.
In my opinion, any work of literature which we call "great" must speak throught he ages. Certainly this book does that and more. The illusions of greedy business owners and wealthy stock owner have thrust us into an economic recession. Perhaps we should have listened to the litherature of history an d"faced the music."
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Huckleberry Finn
At the beginning of Huck Finn’s adventures, the reader is warned not to try and extract a moral, motive or plot from the narrative. There is something to be said for this, I think, in relation to the narrator’s own innocence. Huck Finn never once moralizes with the reader. He never has a definite motive for doing what he does. Plots are meaningless to Huck because his life can’t be organized on a chart. And so I believe that what Twain is trying to do is make us read the book as children. The innocent child, such as Huckleberry Finn, does not see the moral argument behind Abolition. He probably can’t even spell Abolition! But his own conscience tells him when something is wrong.
For a moment, I’d like to talk about Mark Twain. Mark Twain was certainly not comparable to Huckleberry Finn. He wrote opinionated, strong literature such as Letters from the Earth which denounces the very foundations of Christianity. Literature with plots, motives and morals. He was educated, highly intelligent and witty. So why should we judge his view from such a “narrow” perspective as Huck Finn’s? Is Twain trying to be deceptive?
The argument for Huck’s perspective as preferable to Mark Twain’s is found in the narrative itself. If we read as the simplest of children, then we allow our conscience to take over. Through the eyes of a child, slavery is wrong: not immoral, but simply wrong. And so the simple child Huck allows his conscience to take over and does what he feels must be done. Huck sees things around him which he is annoyed by. He doesn’t exactly think about them, but rather just says and does what’s on his mind. Therefore, the theories of an educated man (Twain) are confirmed through the beautiful innocence of a child.
In a sense, Mark Twain and Huckleberry Finn lead similar lives. The life I refer to is that of a Rebel. Huck, for whatever reasons, leads his own small rebellion against society by helping a runaway slave. In effect, he puts Twain’s words and theories into practical use. If this were really to happen, the general Southern populace would have been shocked. Twain gives a voice and a meaning to Huck’s actions. He knows that once we read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that we will moralize with ourselves. He is rebelling against the ignorant society which he so despises by cleverly using the children of that society to prove his point. To simply take this book at face value is to squander an opportunity to welcome pure innocence and the pure conscience into our hearts.
For a moment, I’d like to talk about Mark Twain. Mark Twain was certainly not comparable to Huckleberry Finn. He wrote opinionated, strong literature such as Letters from the Earth which denounces the very foundations of Christianity. Literature with plots, motives and morals. He was educated, highly intelligent and witty. So why should we judge his view from such a “narrow” perspective as Huck Finn’s? Is Twain trying to be deceptive?
The argument for Huck’s perspective as preferable to Mark Twain’s is found in the narrative itself. If we read as the simplest of children, then we allow our conscience to take over. Through the eyes of a child, slavery is wrong: not immoral, but simply wrong. And so the simple child Huck allows his conscience to take over and does what he feels must be done. Huck sees things around him which he is annoyed by. He doesn’t exactly think about them, but rather just says and does what’s on his mind. Therefore, the theories of an educated man (Twain) are confirmed through the beautiful innocence of a child.
In a sense, Mark Twain and Huckleberry Finn lead similar lives. The life I refer to is that of a Rebel. Huck, for whatever reasons, leads his own small rebellion against society by helping a runaway slave. In effect, he puts Twain’s words and theories into practical use. If this were really to happen, the general Southern populace would have been shocked. Twain gives a voice and a meaning to Huck’s actions. He knows that once we read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that we will moralize with ourselves. He is rebelling against the ignorant society which he so despises by cleverly using the children of that society to prove his point. To simply take this book at face value is to squander an opportunity to welcome pure innocence and the pure conscience into our hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)