Final Assessment for The Things They Carried

As the United States progresses further into the current war in Iraq, the similarities between this war and the U.S involvement in Vietnam have become increasingly predominant. From our reasons for action, to the way the war is being fought, these two wars are turning out to be shockingly similar. This could prove to be very problematic for the U.S, seeing as we lost the Vietnam War. Ideally, we would find a solution to this problem, and end our involvement as soon as possible. The war in Iraq can be compared to the Vietnam War very easily and in a multitude of ways, which is the primary reason that we should remove ourselves from Iraq in the quickest way possible, so as to prevent history from repeating itself.

The similarities between the War in Iraq and the Vietnam War are vast, but one very important aspect of both wars is the strong opposition by American citizens. Throughout the Vietnam war, many large protests were held, and it was the general concensus that the U.S. should not continue to involve themselves in Vietnam. Although the opposition to the Iraq War is not as strong as it was in the Vietnam War, it is still very present. Protestors of both wars believe that the lives of both soldiers and citizens are being lost for no reason, which is an accusation that is believed by many to be correct. This is because both wars were entered by the United States under false pretenses. The Veitnam War was entered because the U.S. saught to prevent the spread of communism throughout Asia. The communist parts of Veitnam were trying to take control of the non-communist regions, and we were worried that if one country was to fall to communism, then others would fall to communism shortly after. This was called the domino effect, and we believed that it posed a threat to America. This was later proved not to be the case, yet American troops remained in Vietnam, instead of withdrawing ourselves and minding our own business. This is similar to why we entered Iraq. At the start of the war, President Bush, contrary to what experts told him, believed that Iraq was in posession of “weapons of mass destruction.” This was viewed as a threat to America because Iraq was not on friendly terms with America, and if they posessed such weapons, things could become deadly very quickly. After a short period of being in Iraq, it was determined that there were no weapons capable of harming America. At this point, it would have been ideal to just leave, but we decided to stay and try to help Iraq build a new government, similar to what we did in Vietnam. These things combined turned many other countries against America. Throughout the world, the United States had very little support from other countries regarding involvement in Vietnam, and it is very similar with the War in Iraq. They believe that we are overstepping our boundries, and that it is none of our business what goes on in other countries, as long as it isn’t a direct threat to Americans.

There are also similarities between the two wars regarding the actual fighting. In both of these wars, the United States is not fighting against a specific country, rather specific groups of people within a country. This makes it extremely difficult for U.S. soldiers to identify the enemy in certan situations. Also, the fighting style exhibited by the opposing forces are not similar to the other wars that the U.S is accustomed to fighting in. In both Vietnam and Iraq, the enemy uses guerilla warfare tactics, meaning that they do small random bouts of fighting, rather than there being a battlefield that the two opposing sides fight on. This type of warfare gives both of the enemies what could be considered a “home-team advantage” because they know the area much better than the American soldiers who have not been stationed there for long peroids of time.

Another key problem in the Veitnam War was that there was no plan to resolve the fighting. There was no resolution proposed, other than just withdrawing our troops, which is what was eventually done. Similar to this scenario, there is currently no plan for ending the War in Iraq. Ending the War as quickly as possible would be ideal, because there is no resolution in sight, and we will continue to lose American soldiers until we are out of Iraq. When looking at the similarities between these two wars, it seems unlikely that we will come out victorious, which is why we should stop the fighting sooner rather than later. But this is easier said than done, because we are far enough into the war that just pulling out all of our troops would leave the country that we are trying to help in chaos. What I propose is that we begin slowly withdrawing ourselves from the country. By gradually removing ourselves, it will be a slow transition into being a government that does not need to rely on America. By doing this we would both be able to end the war, while doing the best that we could to help another country.

As you can see, the amount of similarities between the Veitnam War and the War in Iraq is vast. Both wars had little support from both the citizens of each country, and from other countries. Both wars were entered under false pretenses, and were not ended when the opportunity arose. The fighting styles in the two wars is very similar, both giving the U.S. a strong disadvantage. When looking at all of these things, one can only conclude that if the War in Iraq is continued, the outlook can be nothing other than grim.This is why we should begin to pull out of Iraq. By doing this we are to both save our American troops, and do the best that we can to help our fellow man.

On the Road: Reading Assignment #3

One important thing that I noticed about this section of the book was how much time the author spent talking about Dean, and trying to emphasize how strongly Sal looked up to him. In my opinion, he spent almost too much time trying to emphasize it. I began to become less interested in Sal the more I got to know about the character, because he became predictable. He is always doing something hip.

Another thing that I picked up on was the importance of the scene where Dean wants to watch Sal make love to Marylou, but when it comes time to, Sal refuses to do it. This in my opinion is conveying a message about being pressured into doing things that you are not comfortable, and being able to stand up for what you believe in. While reading this, I recalled in class when we were talking about Kerouac's life and it was mentioned how he left the military because he wasn't able to shoot a gun. I just was curious if there could be a connection between the two.

A connection that I made between this book and both The Grapes of Wrath and Candide was that they all had a similar philosophical leader within the story. In Candide it was Pangloss, in Grapes it was the Preacher, and in this book, particularly at the beginning of part 2, Dean seems to set him self as the philosophical leader of the novel. So far it was the only aspect of this novel that I began to think was deep at all. And that brings me to another point, which is that this novel doesn't seem deep at all. When reading Grapes, something about the way it is written makes it seem deep and full of emotion, unlike this book, which in my opinion is dull due to its lack of emotion. Other than that, I haven't got any complaints about the book. I find a lot to complain about, but I still enjoy reading it. I find his adventures exciting and peculiar, making them fairly interesting. I look forward to continuing the book.

On The Road : Reading 2

For some reason, this book is particularly hard to blog about. The authors writing style makes it extremely difficult to make a prediction about what is going to occur within the novel, due to his lack of a strong plot. The author is just explaining a series of events that take place, rather than having a conflict or a long term goal for the protagonist. It is a unique way of writing, but in my opinion, it does not add to the book. It's lack of conflict makes it so that the reader has no character to side with. It weakens the potential connections that can be made with the characters. Because there is no real bad guy, there is nothing that can make me want to be on the characters side. Author Kurt Vonnegut wrote that "good societies can be built only by pitting good against evil" and in my opinion the same rule can be applied to books. With that in mind, how can the average reader be captivated by such a book? If the reader doesn't care about what will happen to the character, what is their incentive to continue reading the book? It seems to me that the authors forget that one of the main goals of a book is to interest readers.

I've noticed that this style of writing seemed to be fairly popular with the writers of that time period. One in particular that I'm thinking of is Hubert Selby Jr. He wrote in a similar manner, which was very interesting and powerful, yet failed to prompt the reader to continue reading. I understand that it was the literary movement of the time, and it takes a whole new approach to writing novels, but for me it just gets old fast. It also doesn't leave much to talk about. There seems to be little or no symbolism within this sort of novel, no strong underlying themes or messages, and fairly basic word choice. There is no imagery that stands out like in Thousand Cranes or Grapes of Wrath. It is fairly plain.

With all that negative talk, it would seem as though I really hate this book, which is certainly not the case. So far I have greatly enjoyed reading it, and find it very entertaining. It has a lot of interesting quotes, which is something that I tend to look for in a book. It is intriguing to see the adventures that Sal goes on, in his semi-vagrant lifestyle. It's a decently fun read. One thing that I've noticed is that the characters created by Kerouac don't seem to be of very great importance to the story. Something about them seems almost as if they're disposable. Although, I suppose it adds to the idea about how Sal is constantly moving from one place to the other. Other than that, I haven't got much else to say about the book. It is unusual, and even though I've got a lot of complaints about it, I'm still enjoying it, and am looking forward to continuing on with it.

Grapes of Wrath Assignment 5: Chapters 27-End

Even though it should probably be covered at the end of the entry, I want to talk about how the book ended first. Although it was expertly written, I can't help but be a little disappointed with the ending. From the very beginning of the book, I considered Tom to be the main character, and although Ma tells him to leave, the book never tells what actually ends up happening to him. I feel like a book should show what happens to each character. I will never be able to know, and that is disappointing. There was also no real resolution to the entire dilemma that the Joad family was facing. In class, when we went over the Grapes of Wrath powerpoint, I, for some reason, thought that it was going to have a terribly sad/disastrous ending, which is not what happened at all. Well, I guess it is a sad ending, seeing as they never resolve their problems, but it wasn't the type of sadness i was expecting. As I said before, I was expecting something big to happen. I don't really consider them being flooded out a big disaster either. They whole ending just left me hanging, which in all honesty, annoys me. I spent a great deal of time connecting with these characters, and then just nothing. No epilogue. Not even a hint at what happens after? Come on.

Throughout the book, the characters seemed to slowly leave the group, and it progressively kept getting smaller and smaller. When it turned out that Rose of Sharon's baby was not alive, I couldn't help but wonder if that was yet another character who had left the group. The baby, although unborn, was talked about, and can easily be regarded as part of the group. By being dead, it was removed from the group, along with all the other characters who had left. I am positive that this is symbolic, but I can't place exactly what it symbolizes. It is probably to show how the mass migration destroyed once stable families, but again I'm not sure. Maybe its something we could discuss in a Socratic Circle.

It has been brought up that there could be religious connections within the book, and I was thinking about potential connections, and I noticed that there may be a connection between the story about Noah's Ark, and the rain, and the rain at the end of the book. In the Bible, God brought the rain upon the Earth because it was corrupt, and the rain would drown the humans, and cleanse the Earth from its filth. This rain in California, sort of cleansed California, because it caused many of the migrant workers, who were considered dirty and corrupt, to leave and find other places to go. This connection might be kind of a stretch, but it was the only one that I picked up. Actually, there may have been a connection about how Tom gave up himself and left the family towards the end, to protect them, which could be similar to the story of Jesus dying on the cross to save the human race. They're both stories of martyrdom.

Other than that, I haven't really got much else to say. Nothing new seemed to be brought up in these final chapters. They essentially just seemed to be summing up what was going on, and drawing it to some sort of end. Overall, I am extremely happy with the book. I have become a huge fan of Steinbeck's writing style. I found it to be a beautifully written masterpiece and I intend to read some of his other works in the very near future.

Grapes of Wrath Assignment 3: Chapters 17-20

"If he needs a million acres to make him feel rich, seems to me he needs it 'cause he feels awful poor inside hisself, and if he's poor in hisself, there ain't no million acres gonna make feel rich, an' maybe he's disappointed that nothin' he can do'll make him feel rich" -Casy (The Preacher) p. 207.
That is by far my favorite quote from the book so far, and it is something that I agree with strongly. He is talking about people looking for happiness in material items, and is saying that happiness isn't found in the things we own.

As I've read this book, I find myself often relating the Preacher in this story to Pangloss from Voltaire's Candide. Not that what the Preacher says is particularly Panglossian (vocab!), but in the sense that he seems to be the philosophical leader in the story. Both of these characters brought philosophical aspects into the story, and put them in the forefront of what was going on. The more I think of it, the less they seem to have in common, but it was a recurring connection that I was making, so I thought I should mention it.

Another portion of the reading that I found particularly interesting was the entirety of chapter 19. Chapter 19 was a short chapter that was intended to show the harsh treatment of the people who had migrated into the state, and very thoroughly and powerfully described the anger that was building inside all of these people. It talks about uprisings, and explains how people cannot live in the state that they are forever. This chapter is beautifully written, and is in my opinion the most powerful chapter in the novel so far. It starts off slow, and throughout the course of it's ten pages, builds in intensity, showing how the repeated wrongdoings of the land owners are slowly adding up, and how the people can't take this sort of treatment forever. It makes the reader side with the people and against the sheriffs and landowners, who are the cause for all the trouble. At one point it says " 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." This quote in particular hints towards a potential revolution. A potential violent struggle. It may be foreshadowing something later in the book, but I'm not exactly sure yet.

Speaking of foreshadowing, in the last chapter Tom talks about losing it and killing a cop. He mentions going mad, and this isn't the first time that this has been brought up in the book. I am wondering if being in prison actually did make him mad, and he just is trying not to show it to his family. Thinking back, he was unusually hostile with the truck driver in the very beginning of the book, and has shown some hostility toward authority figures. Also, when Al asks him about prison, Tom avoids the question. I'm starting to think that Tom has suffered some sort of emotional damage while in prison, and I predict that this will become more prevalent as he deals with more authority figures later in the novel. I think that he will end up doing something terrible, and ending up back in prison. Could this be the violent struggle that was foreshadowed in chapter 19? I am very eager to find out.

Another turning point in this chapter; Granma's death. Well, I wouldn't exactly describe it as a turning point, but it deserves to be mentioned. I honestly was not surprised by this death at all. I actually had a feeling back when Granpa died that Granma would follow shortly after. Even though it wasn't shown in the novel, I feel that they loved each other greatly, and once Granpa died, she simply lost her will to survive. This, combined with the physical stresses of the constant traveling, are what I think actually killed her.

Chapter 20 was also very important to the storyline of the novel. In this chapter, they arrived in their first "Hooversville", which is a camp where all of the jobless migrants live. In this chapter the Joads get their first taste at what life is actually like in California. Not too much happens other than a fight with the sheriff, an altercation with locals, and some examples of what life is like for the people who have been in the camp for awhile. Although not much happens, I believe this is a turning point in the story. At this point in the book, it shifts from them trying to get to California, to them trying to survive now that they are in California. It is almost like the story could have been split into two parts, and now I feel we have started the second part. I'm very excited to see what happens next.

Grapes of Wrath Assignment 2: Chapters 15-16

I'll start this entry off by answering your question as to whether or not I read until chapter 16. Last night I stayed up late finishing the reading, and towards the end of the night I started to feel really gross. When I woke up this morning, I still felt terrible, and decided that it would be best to not go to school, and I didn't get around to writing this entry until just now.

I've got a few questions regarding chapter 15 and it's significance to the story. It was another chapter not talking specifically about the Joad family. After I thought about it for awhile, I recalled in the Socratic circle the other day how we talked about whether or not Steinbeck was being biased in his portrayal of the entire situation. We seemed to agree that he was remaining unbiased and just telling the reader what was going on. I feel that this chapter was intended to show the reader how this whole situation was affecting affecting all of the other people in the country. It showed a variety of opinions from different people. For example, some of the truckers in the diner seemed to have a strong dislike for all of the people who were migrating, while Al, the cook in the diner, seemed to be sympathetic for them, even giving them things that they couldn't fully pay for. This author was just trying to show how the people who weren't forced off of their land were affected.

An idea that has seemed to be recurring throughout the book is that there won't actually be any work out in California, and that people will not be able to succeed or even survive. Throughout the book people have been bringing it up, questioning it's legitimacy, but there were no first hand accounts of what it was actually like. Just people speculating and worrying. In this portion of the reading, a man talks to Pa and the other men and tells them of how horrible it is out in California. He talks about the numbers of people all heading West, and about how there isn't enough work for them all. He claims to have seen it himself. What I find interesting is how at the end of Chapter 16, Pa starts to inform Ma about what the man said regarding California, and Tom stops him. I can't figure out as to why he did this. I'm thinking that he did it because just didn't want her to worry. He probably assumed that it was best if she didn't worry, because they wouldn't be able to go someplace else anyway. I'm taking all of these hints and making the prediction that these people are not going to find anything they had hoped for in California. On the back of the book, it is described as "tragic,"and I feel that that will be what makes it so tragic. The author has put a huge amount of emphasis on all the dreams and aspirations of the Joad family and the people accompanying them. By doing this he creates a strong emotional connection with the characters, and when it turns out that they have nothing and no place to go, it will leave a stronger impact on the reader.

Another thing that the author puts a noticeable amount of emphasis on is how fragile the cars that everybody is driving out to California are. This is done to show the readers how desperate the people are to get to California. These people are forced to stop often, and they seem to be slowly be making their way towards what they think is going to be a new future. The variety of troubles that they face along the way shows how strong and determined to find a better life they are and again build sympathy for them. Another tactic of the author that works surprisingly well.

One last thing I'd like to mention before the end of this post is the man with one eye. I remember Mrs. Libertucci mentioning how Steinbeck tries to have every type of person represented in the book, and I've been trying with little avail to figure out what he could represent. He seems to be a kind of person who makes things seem worse then they are and who entangels himself in a web of self loathing. What this could all be representing I'm not sure, but his character added an interesting aspect to that particular aspect of the story. Again, I'm still happy with this book, and I am greatly looking forward to the fischbowl tomorrow in class.

Grapes of Wrath Homework 2: Chapters 13-14

I just finished chapter 14, and I still an thoroughly satisfied with the book. One aspect of the book that I find to be particularly interesting are the chapters in which Steinbeck doesn't talk about the Joad family. Earlier in the book, he had the chapter regarding the turtle and a few chapters intended to show the reader what was going on throughout the entire country, but in this reading, these chapters are a comment on society and the human race as a whole. Specifically chapter 14, he is making a huge statement about the human spirit, and what separates us from all other species. He comments on humans bonding in times of need, so that they together may become stronger. This adds to the story immensly, and brings into the readers mind that this story is not just an entertaining tale and that it is a commentary on the state of the country and society as a whole. This message becomes more and more clear with every chapter. That, combined with his beautiful and talented writing style, leaves no question as to why it is regarded as one of the best works of literature in American history.

One aspect of the book that I picked up on was how kind the people who the Joad family encounters are. It is inspiring how they are able to find people on the road, and after having only known them for a few hours, be able to plan the rest of their trips so that they can make it easier for the both of them. Another example of this profound kindness is when Grampa is sick, the family that the Joads were camped next to offered to take him into their bed without any thought or remorse. There just seems to be kindhearted-ness everywhere. What I really find interesting is that when this book was written, it wasn't intended to say anything about the kind-ness of the average person. Back then, it was just accepted that people would have helped each other out if they were able to. It wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Having been raised in today's world, I find this to be unusual. It shows how society has changed and become much more self centered than it used to be. People today often will not help somebody else if it has any substantial cost for themselves. This book shows how back then, it was commonplace. It is very intriguing how as society changes, the messages that a book conveys also change, due to the social norms that we are accustomed to.

In these recent chapters, Grampa suffers a stroke, and dies while on the road. At first I considered this to be a turning point in the story, and that it was going to be very important to the story. But after they buried him, things didn't seem to be much different than they were before, and this sort of caught me off guard. I expected it to have a greater impact on the characters, but when I began to think about, I realized that Grampa was simply a background character in the story. I was sure that his death was symbolic of something, but I honestly couldn't figure out what it was. It may have been just done to add something interesting to the story, but the chances of that are slim. Maybe as the book progresses it will become more clear.

Other than that, I haven't got much else to comment on. I still find it amazing how Steinbeck is able to capture the emotion of a moment and convey it so expertly to the reader, and I am very excited to continue the reading.