Assignment: Post comments to the following questions and reply to classmate responses. Check out what was added to our past discussions!
1. Discuss the ending of the novel. Does it fit aesthetically with the rest of the book? Is it believable for Rose of Sharon to assume the role of a transcendent giver of life? Does the ending effectively embody thematic trends within the novel’s development? Does it provide hope, or does it leave the reader unsettled?
2. What are some possible biblical allusions in the novel and what connections can you make? (Consider: The Book of Job, Noah and the Flood, the Promised Land, Jesus and Casy, Tom and the apostles, Rose of Sharon)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1.I think the end of the book was really fitting for the story. As I said in class it just proved that poor people would do whatever they could to help others despite their own situation. That message was repeated many times throughout the book since the residents of CA were not very generous or forgiving towards the Okies.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how I feel about Rose of Sharon being given such an important role. I felt like before that she had broken down and her fear of being alone overpowered her. It feels like a weak character like her shouldn't be that pillar of support for another's survival. But maybe that's the whole reason why she was given that role. She might have needed to take care of that man as badly as that man needed to be taken care of. She may have needed to learn that she can be someone important without a husband or a child and she has the capability to stand alone. Mainly I think that the Joads helping others helped them in the end.
I honestly didn't feel that unsettled in the ending of the book, it does leave a lot of cliffhangars in the fate of the Joads, but I think that ending scene was just a sign that they were strong and could find their way through any situation, and it definitely shows hope for the future. Their fellow Okies had not lost their sense of responsibility towards eachother, so I think as long as the Joads help others, other people will help the Joads.
2. For the Book of Job, I think that the Joads, along with any other Okie are being tested. Maybe not by God, but by the world in general. They needed to find a way to retain their sense of self in desparate times, and overcome obstacle and obstacle and still be able to keep moving forward without dwelling on the past. The Joads except for Uncle John definitly demonstrated this because after someone died they showed slight grief for a couple of paragraphs and they moved on with their journey because that was their priority.
Jesus and Casy also have similarities because Casy wanted to fight for everyone's sake, and was killed without his resistance. Just for trying to be a leader he was condemned, which can be related to what Jesus went through according to the Bible.
I think that the ending fit well with the book, it displayed many themes of the book like unity, how the poor are the only ones who help ohers, and it symbolizes the Joad's new beggining.
ReplyDeleteI think that Rose of Sharon was given this role because throughout the book she was incapable of really doing anything and needed a lot of help because she was pregnant. I think her pregnancy represents the families past and troubles and when it was born they got rid of that and Rose of Sharon was free of the burden. I think that the ending provides hope for the reader because when the water settles th family will go back to thier camper and come up with a new plan. Also Tom went away and this could leave the reader unsettled but i think he is going to the government camp to rally the people there ad revolt.
The book of Job befinatly connects to the book because just like Job the Joads are constantly being put in bad situatuions and being put down both morally and economically, but through it all they stand strong and are faithful to themsleves. Noah and the flood is in the book at the end when it is raining. The flood and rain represent a cleansing and a new hope just like God did when he cleansed the earth with the flood. Jim Casy has the same initials as Jesus Christ and they were both selfless and sacrificed themselves for others who were wronged and deserved a second chance.
The ending of the novel i thought was akward but i thought that it demonstrated the meaning of the novel well. With everyone taking their paths, it showed that each person represented something. Tradition, Unity, the Common man, and even hope. The ending proved that no matter what someone's social standing is, everyone will try and help each other out. Yet it leaves you to wonder how the family ended up. With everyone leaving and taking their place in society, does the Joad family line continue with the children? It just makes me wonder what would have happened if there was a second book to this novel.
ReplyDeleteRose being the giver of life to me was not a fitting part. I feel that she was too easily influenced by others. She did do a great thing by helping the starving man. It was very brave of her.
I really didnt make connections from this novel to the bible until classmates of mine started talking about it. Casy does resemble jesus a lot. Casy was a precher which is someone who spread the word of god and then it connected to me that they were similar. The Book of Job just makes me think of the whole society who had to move. Along the way to cali, everyone was being tested. How long someone could last before leaving, how to survive with no money and fighting for jobs, how to unite together if possible. Noah and the flood took place at the end of the novel with the non stop raining for days and the people flood the bank. This reminds me of a start of a new life. Flooding the bank was their way of uniting back together and how they were going to start a new life. This book had a lot of biblical background now that i think about it.
1) I think the ending of the book was great, Steinbeck stuck the theme of reality. Rose of Sharon was a very important character in the prediction of the family, even thought she was pregnant and could not do anything important she was still a sense of hope for the family. The point of having a new baby would mean the family would survive another generation. But when the baby dies it depletes all hope in the family, yet the ending of the story contradicts it. The ending shows that even thought the baby died she still has milk that can save another person life, and maybe the family can still survive.
ReplyDelete2. Through out the book the family pursue of happiness was the promise land. The shrived for it and tried to do anything to get to California. Casy, the former preacher takes on the life of a "normal person" but yet he is still able to spread the word of god trough his thoughts and actions. He knows morally what is right from wrong still, and it leads us to think is he really a normal person? are normal people selfish and obscure, like the bank or are they like the Joad family who helped others as much as they can?
I feel that the end of the novel provides hope for the reader, because like you mentioned, Rose of Sharon assumes the role of a giver of life at the very end of the novel, and that seems to point towards a new, better future. At first I was dissatisfied with the ending, but the more I think about it, the more I start to like it.I thought it sort of left the reader hanging, but I'm starting to realize that it was a hopeful ending, and I like that.About whether or not it fit the rest of the book aesthetically, it seemed to stand out from the rest of the book. It seemed somehow unusual, but I can't figure out why. I don't mind though, because it was probably intended to wrap up the entire novel, which is supposedly pretty difficult.I feel that it agreed with the themes in the novel very well.
ReplyDeleteRegarding possible religious connections, I talked about them in my latest blog entry, but I related the rain that cleansed to the Noah's Ark story, and Tom's martyrdom to the story of Jesus' martyrdom. I go into more detail in my last blog entry...
I feel like the ending does fit aesthetically with the book. Sure, everyhing was explained in tremendous detail mostly, but not when family members would seperate, not when single people went off on their own. So there are senses of cliffhangers throughout the story already. So, yes, the ending does embody thematic trends. I think it is alright for Rose of Sharon to assume the role of the transcedent giver of life, because she didn't give birth to her baby, now she makes up for not prevailing in that aspect. I think this is unsettling, because now her purpose is fulfilled, what is there left to do? It seems they've given away their last cup of water, and have literally nothing left.
ReplyDeleteMost of the biblical allusions I know come from our Socratic circles, we discussed how Ruthie has the same name as Ruth in the Bible, Tom is like Moses, or the still born baby is like baby Moses because Moses also got sent down a river in the Bible when he was a newborn. California is called the Promised Land by both songs we listened to in class. The last one I can think of is the family being kicked off of their farm in the beginning of the story like Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden in the beginning, in Genesis.
Good connection Nicola with Adam and Eve!
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the novel is not what I was expecting. In my opinion I thought that the ending didn't really fit well with what the rest of the novel was leading up to. I honestly thought that Tom was going to come back and help the family out. The ending of the novel shows how no matter how desperate the Joad family is they will always try to help others in need. Rosasharn became a nurturer if though her baby didnt make it. She was given the opportunity to help save someones life and she basically didn't think twice about it.
ReplyDelete2. One Biblical connection that I made in the novel is with the stillborn baby and Uncle John. The baby sort of represents Moses when he was sent down the Nile River to deliver his "message" and save his people. The baby was supposed to bring hope to the Joad family and because of that Uncle John wanted the baby to deliver his own message to their people.
The ending of the novel wasn't really what I was expecting either but it kind of fits with the entire novel. Throughout the novel families from all over the country, not just from Oklahoma are always on the go. The Joad family was always on the go with hope that maybe one day they will all be happy and stress free. I think that Steinbeck made the ending the way he did so that readers still know that the family isn't going to end up rich and snooty. They will always be good people because at one point in the book he stated that you can always depend on those who are poor to help others since they know how it feels to struggle. I don't know why but the ending reminds me of Candide, when their unusual adventure had ended they all became bored.
ReplyDeleteOne biblical connection I can make is with what someone said in one of the Socratic circle. The thought of Casey and Tom representing Moses and Jesus Christ. Jim Casey and Tom was were both willing to do anything for their people. Especially Casey since he sacrificed his life trying to get people to go against the deputies. The promise land was indeed California because California promised so a fresh start in life to many people. The flood goes back to Noah when the flood occurred, it represented the cleansing of the family's past and opened doors to a new beginning.
I think the ending of the book, though it wasn't what I was expecting, was aesthetically fitting. The Grapes of Wrath wasn't written to tell a nice story about a family who went through hardships. Though I may have wanted him to, if Steinbeck were to end the book with everyone happy, and everything all better it just wouldn't fit. Though the Joad family was fictional, they represent many families of the time, and many families of the time were left with nothing. So leaving the family stranded, and questioning what they were going to do next was the perfect ending, I think. As for Rose of Sharon being the transcendent giver of life, I can see that being her role. Despite her baby dying, she was still producing milk, which could save others.
ReplyDeleteAll of the biblical references we've talked about, and mentioned here are the ones I thought of. I'm not very familiar with the Bible, so I didn't make any abstract connections.