upon finishing the text, i think my takeaway is that it should be viewed solely as an attempted historical reconstruction. the politics presented are meant to document those that existed amongst the migrant workers, and amongst the people the migrant workers met. if i was reading the text looking for some deep insight into the political forces that caused the migrants' struggle, it is because i fundamentally misunderstood the mandate of the text. if they themselves did not understand the causes of their struggles, how could the author demonstrate those causes and still narrate their story fairly, without mocking them?
in fact, there's some evidence of mocking. the fruit seems to make them sick, and they seem not to understand that the probable cause is that it's been sprayed. did that "medicine" kill grandpa? there's actually a lot of examples of this, but the narrative seems to be left choppy on purpose, to prevent intruding into their story.
if steinbeck were to delve into a deeper understanding of causes, he would have intellectually segregated himself from his characters, and literally lost the plot.
this may have been a part of the reason that the reverend was left underdeveloped. it seems clear that steinbeck wanted to use the reverend as a sounding board, but he was shut down early in the text. steinbeck scolds himself by pointing out how quiet the reverend has been, whenever he's reintroduced. then he takes him out of the story at a point where he could have been louder, only to reintroduce him in order to kill him off completely. but, see, there's a point where john says that he expects to see the reverend again - once again indicating that steinbeck intended to use this character to speak.
was the reverend silenced so as to not interfere with the story of the migrants? and, if so, is there an unedited version with deeper dialogue?
i would post the essay here, but he wants it done by hand. he says we'll spend enough time typing when we're older, and that we're still young enough that we should be practicing handwriting.
Sunday, December 8, 1996
demo #15 - permission
this is a new song that i wrote this week, after being told i should be studying instead of recording. i think i can determine my own schedule, thank you. i mean, i appreciate the concern, but i'm on top of it, it's fine. i'm really more frustrated by the kid gloves, and reacting by mocking the concern - it's really more of a twisted joke than a denunciation of authority.
i've never been a very rebellious kid. no, honestly, i haven't been. i've gotten in my share of trouble, but it's never been out of rebellion. i'm more of a practical joker that just likes to shit disturb and mess with people's heads, for the fun of it. i guess that in order to rebel against an authority, you first have to acknowledge the legitimacy of that authority, and that's something that i've only ever done intellectually. when i've broken rules, it's always been that i've just sort of not cared that a rule exists and never to flaunt some rule maker. for me, it's really never a question of rebelling against authority because the mere idea of authority has always been clearly preposterous. if it's preposterous, it is right that it be ridiculed and laughed at and made fun of, right?
it is possible that i would rebel a little harder if i had stricter boundaries, but my parents have set boundaries for me that are wide enough to be almost inarguable. in the rare circumstances that they try to be authoritative, i almost always agree with them, anyways. so, i've spent most of my life interpreting authority as a set of rational, and at times obvious, suggestions to contemplate in making a decision.
when i was done, i brought my little sister in on backing vocals for the track, because i wanted to show the result to my parents - i thought that this would be comical, that they'd take the mocking lightheartedly. i decided against this, in the end.
well, now i do need to get to doing some school work. i have to finish reading the grapes of wrath by tomorrow, which should be easy, and then get to working on that essay, which needs to be done - by hand - by wednesday.
i've never been a very rebellious kid. no, honestly, i haven't been. i've gotten in my share of trouble, but it's never been out of rebellion. i'm more of a practical joker that just likes to shit disturb and mess with people's heads, for the fun of it. i guess that in order to rebel against an authority, you first have to acknowledge the legitimacy of that authority, and that's something that i've only ever done intellectually. when i've broken rules, it's always been that i've just sort of not cared that a rule exists and never to flaunt some rule maker. for me, it's really never a question of rebelling against authority because the mere idea of authority has always been clearly preposterous. if it's preposterous, it is right that it be ridiculed and laughed at and made fun of, right?
it is possible that i would rebel a little harder if i had stricter boundaries, but my parents have set boundaries for me that are wide enough to be almost inarguable. in the rare circumstances that they try to be authoritative, i almost always agree with them, anyways. so, i've spent most of my life interpreting authority as a set of rational, and at times obvious, suggestions to contemplate in making a decision.
when i was done, i brought my little sister in on backing vocals for the track, because i wanted to show the result to my parents - i thought that this would be comical, that they'd take the mocking lightheartedly. i decided against this, in the end.
well, now i do need to get to doing some school work. i have to finish reading the grapes of wrath by tomorrow, which should be easy, and then get to working on that essay, which needs to be done - by hand - by wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)