The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.

—By Hannah Levintova

| Thu Jun. 19, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

Original link:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

"To the framers, that phrase 'a well-regulated militia' was really critical," says Michael Waldman. The Shelby Star/Jeff Melton/AP

Less than a month after the December 2012 Newtown massacre, the National Rifle Association's then-president, David Keene, warned that the new White House task force on gun violence would "do everything they can to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, to essentially make the Second Amendment meaningless." Three weeks ago, after a killer shot three people and wounded eight near Santa Barbara, California, conservative activist "Joe the Plumber" posted an open letter to the victims' families. "Your dead kids," he wrote, "don't trump my Constitutional rights."*

As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.

In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.

This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. "We're not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do," he says. "How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America."

Mother Jones: What inspired you to write this book?

Michael Waldman: I started the book after Newtown. There was such anguish about gun violence and we were debating, once again, what to do about it. But this was the first time we were having that conversation in the context of a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects individual rights of gun owners. And now every time people debated guns, every time people talked about Newtown, they talked about the Second Amendment. I wanted to see what the real story was: What the amendment had meant over the years, and what we could learn from that.

MJ: What preconceived notions about the Second Amendment did the history that you uncovered confirm or debunk?

MW: There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.

 

"You can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection."

MJ: You point out that the NRA has the Second Amendment inscribed in their lobby, but with the militia clause removed.

MW: Yes. That was first reported in an article in Mother Jones in the '90s. But I didn't want to rely on just that, so one of my colleagues went out to the NRA headquarters to look at the lobby. And she had her picture taken in front of the sign so we could confirm that it was actually still there!

MJ: Based on the history you've uncovered, do you think the founders understood there to be an unwritten individual right to arms that they didn't include in the Constitution?

MW: Yes. And that might be noteworthy for some. There were plenty of guns. There was the right to defend yourself, which was part of English common law handed down from England. But there were also gun restrictions at the same time. There were many. There were limits, for example, on where you could store gunpowder. You couldn't have a loaded gun in your house in Boston. There were lots of limits on who could own guns for all different kinds of reasons. There was an expectation that you should be able to own a gun. But they didn't think they were writing that expectation into the Constitution with the Second Amendment.

MJ: So then why focus on the Second Amendment and not the English Bill of Rights or other things the framers drew on that more clearly address individual gun ownership?

MW: We are not governed today, in 2014, by British common law. Law evolved, the country evolved. It was a very rural place. There were no cities. There were no police forces. It was a completely different way of living. So gun rights activists turned this into a constitutional crusade. Those who want more guns and fewer restrictions realized they could gain some higher ground if they claimed the Constitution.

MJ: You write that throughout most of the 20th century, the courts stayed out of the gun laws debate. What changed that led them back in?

MW: What changed was the NRA. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Berger said that the idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership was "a fraud" on the public. That was the consensus, that was the conventional wisdom.

 

"Those who want more guns and fewer restrictions realized they could gain some higher ground if they claimed the Constitution."

The NRA has been around for a long time. It used to be an organization that focused on hunters and on training. In 1977, at the NRA's annual meeting, activists pushed out the leadership and installed new leaders who were very intense, very dogmatic, and very focused on the Second Amendment as their cause. It was called the "Revolt at Cincinnati." From there, the NRA and its allies waged a 30-year legal campaign to change the way the courts and the country saw the Second Amendment. And they started with scholarship. They supported a lot of scholars and law professors. They elected politicians. They changed the positions of agencies of government. They got the Justice Department to reverse its position on what the amendment meant. And then and only then did they go to court. So by the time the Supreme Court ruled, it sort of felt like a ripe apple from the tree.

They also moved public opinion. Now it's a pretty widely held view that it's an individual right. It's funny, I was just on a panel with Alan Gura, who argued the Heller case. And, you know, I gave him credit for being part of a really significant effort that changed the way we see the Constitution. What's funny is that he and other gun rights people deny it! They say, "No, this is what everyone thought all along, for 200-plus years."

MJ: What was the impact of the NRA's sponsorship of Second Amendment legal scholarship?

MW: They certainly supported a lot of it. The way it works in constitutional law is that legal scholarship plays a pretty big role. So there became a rather deafening roar of the pro-individual gun ownership model: They were publishing and reinforcing each other. Some of it was very useful, and I cite it in the book. And some of it, when you look at some of the claims, they are easily punctured. It reminded me of the people who write movie posters, in terms of pulling quotes out of context. Like this Thomas Jefferson quote—"One loves to possess arms." It is in serious law review articles. It's presented as proof of what the founders really meant. But what happened was Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington, saying, "Remember I sent you a bunch of those letters from when I was Secretary of State? Could you send them back to me? I think I'm going to get attacked for this position I made. I want to be able to defend myself: 'One loves to possess arms,' even though one hopes not to use them." It's a metaphor! But it's in these law review articles. It's funny! When you go to the NRA website, it's still there. You can buy a T-shirt that has the quote!

Yours for $17.99 Amazon

MJ: How is it that such questionable scholarship went so far—all the way to the Supreme Court?

MW: You'll have to ask the Supreme Court. The thing about the Heller decision that was especially concerning to me was that Justice Scalia said this was the "vindication" of his approach of originalism. But when it actually came time to doing the history, he skipped over the actual writing and purpose of the Second Amendment. Out of 64 pages [in the decision], only 2 deal with the militias. Which is what the founders thought they were talking about. One of the things that I hope people take away from this is that the original meaning is always important, but it is not the only way to interpret the Constitution.

MJ: What are your thoughts on the historical argument that the Second Amendment is a civil right protected under the 14th Amendment?

MW: After the Civil War, there were a lot of freed slaves who were terrorized by white vigilantes. One of the purposes of some of the framers of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that they get guns. Now, the Reconstruction government that enforced the 14th Amendment also had very strong gun laws, such as prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. Just like the colonial period and the early revolutionary period, it was a very different time. What you had in the South was low-grade guerrilla warfare between the races. It's hard to draw the lesson of what we should do now, in our urban society where assault weapons are available for sale, from the Reconstruction era.

MJ: You write that in Heller, there was a big shift in how the case was argued: There were many references to colonial America, and very little about current gun laws and current patterns of violence. Is this the new normal for gun cases?

MW: This is the triumph, in some ways, of originalism—Justice Scalia's intellectual triumph in changing the way people make arguments in front of the Supreme Court. And yes, there are some other cases where it's been pretty common. What's interesting is that since Heller, there have been dozens of cases in lower courts. Heller said: Yes, there is an individual right, but it can be limited. And the extent of the limits wasn't really clear. Well, dozens of judges have ruled since then, and overwhelmingly, they have upheld district gun laws. They've said, "Yes, there's an individual right, but society, too, has a right to protect itself." So maybe Heller's importance is not so great. And as this judicial consensus has developed across the country to uphold gun laws, we haven't yet heard from the Supreme Court one more time. So I think the Supreme Court isn't done yet.

The Grapes of Wrath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Grapes of Wrath

First edition cover
Author	John Steinbeck
Cover artist	Elmer Hader
Country	United States
Genre	Novel
Publisher	The Viking Press-James Lloyd
Publication date	April 14, 1939[1]
OCLC	289946

The Grapes of Wrath is an American realist novel written by John Steinbeck and published in 1939. The book won the National Book Award^[2] and Pulitzer Prize^[3] for fiction, and it was cited prominently when Steinbeck won the Nobel Prize in 1962.^[4]

Set during the Great Depression, the novel focuses on the Joads, a poor family of tenant farmers driven from their Oklahoma home by drought, economic hardship, agricultural industry changes and bank foreclosures forcing tenant farmers out of work. Due to their nearly hopeless situation, and in part because they were trapped in the Dust Bowl, the Joads set out for California. Along with thousands of other "Okies", they sought jobs, land, dignity, and a future.

The Grapes of Wrath is frequently read in American high school and college literature classes due to its historical context and enduring legacy.^[5][6][7] A celebrated Hollywood film version, starring Henry Fonda and directed by John Ford, was made in 1940.

Plot

The narrative begins just after Tom Joad is paroled from McAlester prison for homicide. On his journey to his home near Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Tom meets former preacher Jim Casy, whom he remembers from his childhood, and the two travel together. When they arrive at Tom's childhood farm home, they find it deserted. Disconcerted and confused, Tom and Casy meet their old neighbor, Muley Graves, who tells them the family has gone to stay at Uncle John Joad's home nearby. Graves goes on to tell them that the banks have evicted all the farmers off their land, but he refuses to leave the area.

Tom and Casy get up the next morning to go to Uncle John's. There, Tom finds his family loading a converted Hudson truck with what remains of their possessions; the crops were destroyed in the Dust Bowl and, as a result, the family had to default on their loans. With their farm repossessed, the Joads cling to hope, mostly in the form of handbills distributed everywhere in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, describing the fruitful state of California and the high pay to be had there. The Joads are seduced by this advertising and invest everything they have into the journey. Although leaving Oklahoma would be breaking parole, Tom decides it is a risk worth taking. Casy is invited to join the family as well.

Going west on Route 66, the Joad family discovers the road is saturated with other families making the same trek, ensnared by the same promise. In makeshift camps, they hear many stories from others, some coming back from California, and are forced to confront the possibility that their prospects may not be what they hoped. Along the road, Granpa dies and is buried in a field; Granma dies close to the California state line, both Noah (the eldest Joad son) and Connie Rivers (the husband of the pregnant Joad daughter, Rose of Sharon) split from the family; the remaining members, led by Ma, realize they have no choice but to go on, as there is nothing remaining for them in Oklahoma.

Upon arrival, they find little hope of making a decent wage, as there is an oversupply of labor, a lack of laborers' rights, and the big corporate farmers are in collusion, while smaller farmers are suffering from collapsing prices. A gleam of hope is presented at Weedpatch Camp, one of the clean, utility-supplied camps operated by the Resettlement Administration, a New Deal agency that has been established to help the migrants, but there is not enough money and space to care for all of the needy. As a Federal facility, the camp is also off-limits to California deputies who constantly harass and provoke the newcomers.

“	How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him – he has known a fear beyond every other.	”
— Chapter 19

In response to the exploitation of laborers, there are people who attempt to organize the workers to join a labor union, including Casy, who had gone to jail after taking the blame for attacking a rogue deputy. The remaining Joads work as strikebreakers on a peach orchard where Casy is involved in a strike that eventually turns violent. Tom Joad witnesses Casy's fatal beating and kills the attacker, becoming a fugitive. The Joads later leave the orchard for a cotton farm, where Tom is at risk of being identified for the homicide he committed.

He bids farewell to his mother, promising that no matter where he runs, he will be a tireless advocate for the oppressed. Rose of Sharon's baby is stillborn; however, Ma Joad remains steadfast and forces the family through the bereavement. When the rains arrive, the Joads' dwelling is flooded, and they move to higher ground. In the final chapter of the book the family take shelter from the flood in an old barn, where inside they find a young boy and his father who is dying of starvation. Rose of Sharon takes pity on the man and offers him her breast to feed off and save him from dying. This final act is significant as it is the only action taken by a member of the Joad family that is not futile.

Characters

• Tom Joad – Protagonist of the story; the Joad family's second son, named after his father. Later on, Tom takes leadership of the family even though he is young.

• Ma Joad – matriarch. Practical and warm-spirited, she tries to hold the family together. Her given name is never learned; it is suggested that her maiden name was Hazlett.

• Pa Joad – patriarch, also named Tom, age 50. Hardworking sharecropper and family man. Pa becomes a broken man upon losing his livelihood and means of supporting his family, forcing Ma to assume leadership.

• Uncle John Joad – Older brother of Pa Joad (Tom describes him as "a fella about 60", but in narrative he is described as 50), feels responsible for the death of his young wife years before when he ignored her pleas for a doctor because he thought she just had a stomachache, when she actually had a burst appendix. Filled with guilt, he is prone to binges involving alcohol and prostitutes, yet tries to repent for his sins and guilt by giving away "about ever'thing he's got".

• Jim Casy – A former preacher who lost his faith after fornicating with willing members of his church numerous times, and from his perception that religion has no solace or answer for the difficulties the people are experiencing. He is a Christ-like figure and is based on Ed Ricketts.

• Al Joad – The second youngest son, a "smart-aleck sixteen-year-older" who cares mainly for cars and girls; looks up to Tom, but begins to find his own way.

• Rose of Sharon Joad Rivers – Childish and dreamy teenage daughter (18) who develops as the novel progresses to become a mature woman. She symbolizes regrowth when she helps the starving stranger (see also Roman Charity, works of art based on the legend of a daughter as wet nurse to her dying father). Pregnant in the beginning of the novel, she delivers a stillborn baby, probably as a result of malnutrition. Her name is pronounced "Rosasharn" by the family.

• Connie Rivers – Rose of Sharon's husband. Young and naïve, filled with dreams of owning a radio shop, he is overwhelmed by the responsibilities of marriage and impending fatherhood, and abandons her shortly after arriving in California. He is stated to be 19 years old upon his and Tom's first encounter before leaving for California.

• Noah Joad – The oldest son who is the first to willingly leave the family, choosing to stay by the Colorado river and survive by fishing. Injured at birth, described as "strange", he may have slight learning difficulties.

• Grampa Joad – Tom's grandfather, who expresses his strong desire to stay in Oklahoma. His full name is given as William James Joad. Grampa is drugged by his family with "soothin' syrup" to force him to leave, but dies in the evening of the first day on the road; Casy attributes his death to a stroke, but also says that Grampa is "jus' stayin' with the lan'. He couldn' leave it."

• Granma Joad – The religious wife of Grampa Joad, she seems to lose the will to live after her husband's death, and dies while crossing the desert, possibly as a result of exposure to the heat in New Mexico and Arizona.

• Ruthie Joad – The youngest daughter, age twelve. In a quarrel with another child, she gives away Tom's presence, saying that "our brother's a-hidin' right now from killin' a fella".

• Winfield Joad – The youngest male in the family, age ten, "kid-wild and calfish". He and Ruthie are often at odds but rarely have other children to play with.

• Jim Rawley – Manages the camp at Weedpatch, he shows the Joads surprising favor.

• Muley Graves – A neighbor of the Joads, he is invited to come along to California with them but refuses. Two of the family dogs are left in his care, while the third goes along with the family and is killed by a car on the road when they stop for gas.

• Ivy and Sairy Wilson – Kansas folks in a similar predicament, who help attend the death of Grampa and subsequently share the traveling with the Joads as far as the California state line. It is implied Sairy is too ill to carry on.

• Mr. Wainwright – The father of Aggie Wainwright and husband of Mrs. Wainwright. Worries over his daughter who is sixteen and in his words "growed up".

• Mrs. Wainwright – Mother to Aggie Wainwright and wife to Mr. Wainwright. She helps deliver Rose of Sharon's stillborn baby with Ma.

• Aggie Wainwright – Sixteen years of age. Daughter to Mr. and Mrs. Wainwright. Intends to marry Al. Aggie takes care of Ruthie and Winfield when Rose of Sharon goes into labor. She has limited interactions with the other characters. Her real name is Agnes.

• Floyd Knowles – the man at the Hooverville who urges Tom and Casy to join labor organizations. He agitates the police and this results in Casy going to jail.

• Joe/Mike – A deputy who is hit by Floyd, tripped by Tom and knocked out by Casy at the Hooverville. He claims that Casy did not hit him (as he did not see it) but Casy convinces him he did. He is called Joe by the man with whom he arrives at the Hooverville to ask for peach pickers, but strangely the other deputies refer to him as Mike.

• George – A guard at the peach orchard. He kills Casy, and is then attacked by Tom.

• Al – A cook at a restaurant who orders Mae to give bread to a poor migrant family.

• Mae – A waitress at a restaurant who is ordered to give bread to a migrant family. She later gives them two pieces of candy for one cent, when it is later revealed that the candy was a nickel apiece. She is then given an extra-large tip by truckers who ate lunch there, perhaps to compensate for the loss of income for under-pricing the candies.

• Big Bill – A trucker who eats lunch at the restaurant where Al and Mae work. He and his friend, another trucker, leave a sizable tip and then leave the restaurant.

Development

“	This is the beginning—from "I" to "we". If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know that Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into "I", and cuts you off forever from the "we".	”
	— Chapter 14

The novel developed from "The Harvest Gypsies", a series of seven articles that ran in the San Francisco News, from October 5 to 12, 1936. The newspaper commissioned that work on migrant workers from the Midwest in California's agriculture industry. (It was later compiled and published separately.^[8])^[9]

Title

While writing the novel at his home, 16250 Greenwood Lane, in what is now Monte Sereno, California, Steinbeck had unusual difficulty devising a title. "The Grapes of Wrath", suggested by his wife, Carol Steinbeck,^[10] was deemed more suitable than anything the author could come up with.
The title is a reference to lyrics from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", by Julia Ward Howe:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

These lyrics refer, in turn, to the biblical passage Revelation 14:19–20, an apocalyptic appeal to divine justice and deliverance from oppression in the final judgment.

And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

The phrase also appears at the end of chapter 25 in The Grapes of Wrath which describes the purposeful destruction of food to keep the price high:

and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

As might be expected, the image invoked by the title serves as a crucial symbol in the development of both the plot and the novel's greater thematic concerns: from the terrible winepress of Dust Bowl oppression will come terrible wrath but also the deliverance of workers through their cooperation, which is hinted at but does not materialize within the novel.

Author's note

When preparing to write the novel, Steinbeck wrote: "I want to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this [the Great Depression and its effects]." He famously said, "I've done my damndest to rip a reader's nerves to rags," and this work won a large following among the working class due to Steinbeck's sympathy to the workers' movement and his accessible prose style.^[11]

Critical reception

Steinbeck scholar John Timmerman sums up the book's impact: "The Grapes of Wrath may well be the most thoroughly discussed novel – in criticism, reviews, and college classrooms – of 20th century American literature."^[9] The Grapes of Wrath is referred to as a Great American Novel.^[12][13]

At the time of publication, Steinbeck's novel "was a phenomenon on the scale of a national event. It was publicly banned and burned by citizens, it was debated on national talk radio; but above all, it was read."^[14] According to The New York Times it was the best-selling book of 1939 and 430,000 copies had been printed by February 1940.^[2] In that month it won the National Book Award, favorite fiction book of 1939, voted by members of the American Booksellers Association.^[2] Soon it won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.^[3]

Part of its impact stemmed from its passionate depiction of the plight of the poor, and in fact, many of Steinbeck's contemporaries attacked his social and political views. Bryan Cordyack writes, "Steinbeck was attacked as a propagandist and a socialist from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The most fervent of these attacks came from the Associated Farmers of California; they were displeased with the book's depiction of California farmers' attitudes and conduct toward the migrants. They denounced the book as a 'pack of lies' and labeled it 'communist propaganda'.^[9] Some accused Steinbeck of exaggerating camp conditions to make a political point. Steinbeck had visited the camps well before publication of the novel^[15] and argued their inhumane nature destroyed the settlers' spirit.

In 1962, the Nobel Prize committee cited Grapes of Wrath as a "great work" and as one of the committee's main reasons for granting Steinbeck the Nobel Prize for Literature.^[4] Time magazine included the novel in its "TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005".^[16] In 2009, The Daily Telegraph also included the novel in its "100 novels everyone should read".^[17] In 1998, the Modern Library ranked The Grapes of Wrath tenth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. In 1999, French newspaper Le Monde of Paris ranked The Grapes of Wrath seventh on its list of the 100 best books of the 20th century. In the UK, it was listed at number 29 of the "nation's best loved novel" on the BBC's 2003 survey The Big Read.^[18]

Adaptations

In film

The book was quickly made into a famed, 1940 Hollywood movie of the same name directed by John Ford and starring Henry Fonda as Tom Joad. The first part of the film version follows the book fairly accurately. However, the second half and the ending in particular are significantly different from the book.

It was revealed in the 2009 documentary American: The Bill Hicks Story that The Grapes of Wrath was the favorite novel of the comedian Bill Hicks, who was such a fan that he based his famous last words on Tom Joad's final speech: "I left in love, in laughter, and in truth, and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit."

In July 2013 Steven Spielberg announced his plans to direct a remake of The Grapes of Wrath for DreamWorks.^[19][20]

In music

Woody Guthrie's song, "The Ballad of Tom Joad" from the album Dust Bowl Ballads (1940), focuses mainly on the main character's life since he was paroled from "the old McAlester Pen" and follows the book quite closely.^{[citation needed]}

American rock singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen named his eleventh studio album The Ghost of Tom Joad (1995), after the character. The first track on the album is also called "The Ghost of Tom Joad". The song – and to a lesser extent, the other songs on the album – draws comparisons between the Dust Bowl and modern times.^[21]

The song Dust Bowl Dance by Mumford & Sons is based on the novel.

Bad Religion have a song entitled "Grains of Wraith" on their 2007 album, New Maps of Hell. Bad Religion lead vocalist, Greg Graffin is a fan of Steinbeck's.^{[22][better source needed][not in citation given]}

An opera based on the novel was co-produced by the Minnesota Opera and Utah Symphony and Opera, with music by Ricky Ian Gordon and libretto by Michael Korie. The world premiere performance of the opera was given in February 2007, to favorable local reviews.^[23]

In television

On April 16, 2008, the television series South Park aired an episode entitled "Over Logging". Written and directed by Trey Parker, this episode parodies Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, as the Marsh family heads to California to find more Internet.^[24]

In theatre

The Steppenwolf Theatre Company produced a stage version of the book, adapted by Frank Galati.
Gary Sinise played Tom Joad for its entire run of 188 performances on Broadway in 1990.^[25] One of these performances was shown on PBS the following year.

In 1990, the Illegitimate Players theater company in Chicago produced Of Grapes and Nuts, an original, satirical mash-up of The Grapes of Wrath and Steinbeck's acclaimed novella Of Mice and Men.^[26]

Of Mice and Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of Mice and Men

First edition cover
Author	John Steinbeck
Cover artist	Ross MacDonald
Country	United States
Language	English
Publisher	Covici Friede
Publication date	1937
Pages	187pp.

Of Mice and Men is a novella^[1][2] written by Nobel Prize-winning author John Steinbeck. Published in 1937, it tells the story of George Milton and Lennie Small, two displaced migrant ranch workers, who move from place to place in search of new job opportunities during the Great Depression in California, United States.

Based on Steinbeck's own experiences as a bindlestiff in the 1920s (before the arrival of the Okies he would vividly describe in The Grapes of Wrath), the title is taken from Robert Burns' poem "To a Mouse", which read: "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley." (The best laid schemes of mice and men / Often go awry.)

Required reading in many schools,^[3] Of Mice and Men has been a frequent target of censors for vulgarity and what some consider offensive and racist language; consequently, it appears on the American Library Association's list of the Most Challenged Books of 21st Century.^[4]

Plot summary

Two migrant field workers in California on their plantation during the Great Depression—George Milton, an intelligent but uneducated man, and Lennie Small, a man of large stature and great strength but limited mental abilities—are on their way to another part of California in Soledad. They hope to one day attain their shared dream of settling down on their own piece of land. Lennie's part of the dream is merely to tend to (and touch) soft rabbits on the farm. This dream is one of Lennie's favorite stories, which George constantly retells. They are fleeing from their previous employment in Weed, California, where they were run out of town after Lennie's love of stroking soft things resulted in an accusation of attempted rape, when he touched a young woman's dress, and would not let go. It soon becomes clear that the two are close friends and George is Lennie's protector. The theme of friendship is a constant throughout the story.

At the ranch, the situation appears to be menacing and dangerous, especially when the pair are confronted by Curley — The Boss's small-statured, aggressive son with an inferiority complex who dislikes larger men — leaving the gentle giant Lennie potentially vulnerable. Curley's flirtatious and provocative wife, to whom Lennie is instantly attracted, poses a problem as well. In sharp contrast to these two characters, the pair also meets Slim, the kind, intelligent and intuitive jerkline-skinner whose dog has recently had a litter of puppies. Slim gives a puppy to Lennie.

In spite of the potential problems on the ranch, their dream leaps towards reality when Candy, the aged, one-handed ranch hand, offers to pitch in with George and Lennie so that they can buy a farm at the end of the month, in return for permission to live with them on it. The trio are ecstatic, but their joy is overshadowed when Curley attacks Lennie. In response, Lennie, urged on by George, catches Curley's fist and crushes it, reminding the group there are still obstacles to overcome before their goal is reached.

Nevertheless, George feels more relaxed, since the dream seems just within their grasp, to the extent that he even leaves Lennie behind on the ranch while he goes into town with the other ranch hands. Lennie wanders into the stable, and chats with Crooks, the bitter, yet educated stable buck, who is isolated from the other workers because he is black. Candy finds them and they discuss their plans for the farm with Crooks, who cannot resist asking them if he can hoe a garden patch on the farm, despite scorning the possibility of achieving the dream. Curley's wife makes another appearance and flirts with the men, especially Lennie. However, her spiteful side is shown when she belittles them and is especially harsh towards Crooks because of his race, threatening to have him lynched.

Lennie accidentally kills his puppy while stroking it. Curley's wife enters the barn and tries to speak to Lennie, admitting that she is lonely and how her dreams of becoming a movie star are crushed, revealing the reason she flirts with the ranch hands. After finding out that Lennie loves stroking soft things, she offers to let him stroke her hair, but panics and begins to scream when she feels his strength. Lennie becomes frightened, and in the scuffle, unintentionally breaks her neck. When the other ranch hands find the corpse, George unhappily realizes that their dream is at an end. George hurries away to find Lennie, hoping he will be at the meeting place they designated at the start of the novella in case Lennie got into trouble, knowing that there is only one thing he can do to save Lennie from the painful death that Curley's lynch mob intends to deliver.

George meets Lennie at the designated place, the same spot they camped in the night before they came to the ranch. The two sit together and George retells the beloved story of the bright future together that they will have, knowing it is something they will never share. He then shoots Lennie in the back of the head, so that his death will be painless and happy. Curley, Slim, and Carlson find George seconds after the shooting. Only Slim realizes that George killed Lennie out of love, and gently and consolingly leads him away, while Curley and Carlson look on, unable to comprehend the subdued mood of the two men.

Characters

I was a bindlestiff myself for quite a spell. I worked in the same country that the story is laid in. The characters are composites to a certain extent. Lennie was a real person. He's in an insane asylum in California right now. I worked alongside him for many weeks. He didn't kill a girl. He killed a ranch foreman. Got sore because the boss had fired his pal and stuck a pitchfork right through his stomach. I hate to tell you how many times I saw him do it. We couldn't stop him until it was too late.

John Steinbeck, interview by The New York Times, 1937^[5][6]

• George Milton: A quick-witted man who is Lennie's guardian and best friend. His friendship with Lennie helps sustain his dream of a better future.

• Lennie Small: A mentally disabled, but physically strong man who travels with George and is his constant companion.^[6] He dreams of "living off the fatta' the lan'" and being able to tend to rabbits. His love for soft things conspires against him, mostly because he does not know his own strength, and eventually becomes his undoing.

• Candy: An aging ranch handyman, Candy lost his hand in an accident and worries about his future on the ranch. Fearing that his age is making him useless, he seizes on George’s description of the farm he and Lennie will have, offering his life’s savings if he can join George and Lennie in owning the land. The fate of Candy’s ancient dog, which Carlson shoots in the back of the head in an alleged act of mercy, foreshadows the manner of Lennie’s death.

• Slim: A "jerkline skinner," the main driver of a mule team and the "prince of the ranch". Slim is greatly respected by many of the characters and is the only character whom Curley treats with respect. His insight, intuition, kindness and natural authority draw the other ranch hands automatically towards him, and he is significantly the only character to fully understand the bond between George and Lennie.

• Curley: The Boss' son, a young, pugnacious character, once a semi-professional boxer. He is described by others, with some irony, as "handy", partly because he likes to keep a glove filled with vaseline on his left hand, and partly because of Steinbeck's use of foreshadowing. He is very jealous and protective of his wife and immediately develops a dislike toward Lennie. At one point, Curley loses his temper after he sees Lennie appear to laugh at him, and ends up with his hand horribly damaged after Lennie fights back against him.

• Curley's wife: A young, pretty woman, who is mistrusted by her husband. The other characters refer to her only as "Curley's wife". This lack of personal definition underscores this character's purpose in the story: Steinbeck explained that she is "not a person, she's a symbol. She has no function, except to be a foil – and a danger to Lennie."^[6] Curley's wife's preoccupation with her own beauty eventually helps precipitate her death: She allows Lennie to stroke her hair as an apparently harmless indulgence, only for her to upset Lennie when she yells at him to stop him 'mussing it'. Lennie tries to stop her yelling and eventually, and accidentally, kills her by recklessly breaking her neck.

• Crooks: Crooks, the black stable-hand, gets his name from his crooked back. Proud, bitter, and cynical, he is isolated from the other men because of the color of his skin. Despite himself, Crooks becomes fond of Lennie, and though he claims to have seen countless men following empty dreams of buying their own land, he asks Lennie if he can go with them and hoe in the garden.

• Candy's dog: A blind dog who is described as "old", "stinky", and "crippled", and is killed by Carlson. The death of Candy's dog foreshadows Lennie's fate.

• Carlson: A "thick bodied" ranch hand, he kills Candy's dog with little sympathy.

• Whit: A "young laboring man" who works on the ranch.

• Whitey: A blacksmith; "hell of a nice fella and as clean a guy as you want to meet." He has left the ranch prior to the start of the action, and does not otherwise enter into the story.

• The Boss: Curley's father, the superintendent of the ranch. The ranch is owned by "a big land company" according to Candy.

• Aunt Clara: Lennie's Aunt, who raised Lennie; she is recently deceased. She appears in Lennie's head after he kills Curley's wife, scolding him.

• The Girl in Weed: Since Lennie likes patting soft things, he patted her dress a little too hard and she screamed, declaring it as rape. George and Lennie then ran out of Weed to Soledad in search of a new job.

Themes

In every bit of honest writing in the world there is a base theme. Try to understand men, if you understand each other you will be kind to each other. Knowing a man well never leads to hate and nearly always leads to love. There are shorter means, many of them. There is writing promoting social change, writing punishing injustice, writing in celebration of heroism, but always that base theme. Try to understand each other.

— John Steinbeck in his 1938 journal entry^[7]

Steinbeck emphasizes dreams throughout the book. George aspires to independence, to be his own boss, to have a homestead, and most importantly to be "somebody". Lennie aspires to be with George on his independent homestead, and to quench his fixation on soft objects. Candy aspires to reassert his responsibility lost with the death of his dog, and for security for his old age — on George's homestead. Crooks aspires to a small homestead where he can express self-respect, security, and most of all, acceptance. Curley's wife dreams to be an actress, to satisfy her desire for fame lost when she married Curley, and an end to her loneliness.

Loneliness is a significant factor in several characters' lives. Candy is lonely after his dog is gone. Curley's wife is lonely because her husband is not the friend she hoped for —- she deals with her loneliness by flirting with the men on the ranch, which causes Curley to increase his abusiveness and jealousy. The companionship of George and Lennie is the result of loneliness. Crooks states the theme candidly as "A guy goes nuts if he ain't got anybody. Don't make any difference who the guy is, long's he's with you."^[8] The author further reinforces this theme through subtle methods by situating the story near the town of Soledad, which means "solitude" in Spanish.^[9]

Despite the need for companionship, Steinbeck emphasizes how loneliness is sustained through the barriers established from acting inhuman to one another. The loneliness of Curley's wife is upheld by Curley's jealousy, which causes all the ranch hands to avoid her. Crooks's barrier results from being barred from the bunkhouse by restraining him to the stable; his bitterness is partially broken, however, through Lennie's ignorance.

Steinbeck's characters are often powerless, due to intellectual, economic, and social circumstances. Lennie possesses the greatest physical strength of any character, which should therefore establish a sense of respect as he is employed as a ranch hand. However, his intellectual handicap undercuts this and results in his powerlessness. Economic powerlessness is established as many of the ranch hands are victims of the Great Depression. As George, Candy and Crooks are positive, action- oriented characters, they wish to purchase a homestead, but because of the Depression, they are unable to generate enough money. Lennie is the only one who is basically unable to take care of himself, but the other characters would do this in the improved circumstances they seek. Since they cannot do so, the real danger of Lennie's mental handicap comes to the fore.

Regarding human interaction, evil of oppression and abuse is a theme that is illustrated through Curley and Curley's wife. Curley uses his aggressive nature and superior position in an attempt to take control of his father's farm. He constantly reprimands the farm hands and accuses some of fooling around with his wife. Curley's Napoleon complex is evidenced by his threatening of the farm hands for minuscule incidents. Curley's wife, on the other hand, is not physically but verbally manipulative. She uses her sex appeal to gain some attention, flirting with the farm hands. According to the Penguin Teacher's Guide for Of Mice and Men, Curley and Curley's wife represent evil in that both oppress and abuse the migrants in different ways.^[10]

Fate is felt most heavily as the characters' aspirations are destroyed when George is unable to protect Lennie (who is a real danger). Steinbeck presents this as "something that happened" or as his friend coined for him "non-teleological thinking" or "is thinking", which postulates a non-judgmental point of view.^[7]

Animal imagery

Of Mice and Men was noted to be a great example of the use of animal imagery. Throughout the course of the novella Steinbeck often uses animal imagery to emphasise the key themes of mental disability, racism and the inevitable tragedy of the ending.

Development

Of Mice and Men was Steinbeck's first attempt at writing in the form of novel-play termed a "play-novelette" by one critic. Structured in three acts of two chapters each, it is intended to be both a novella and a script for a play. He wanted to write a novel that could be played from its lines, or a play that could be read like a novel.^[11]

Steinbeck originally titled it Something That Happened (referring to the events of the book as "something that happened" because nobody can be really blamed for the tragedy that unfolds in the story), however, he changed the title after reading Robert Burns's poem To a Mouse.^[12] Burns's poem tells of the regret the narrator feels for having destroyed the home of a mouse while plowing his field.^[13]

Steinbeck wrote this book and The Grapes of Wrath in what is now Monte Sereno, California. An early draft of the novel was eaten by Steinbeck's dog, named Max.^[14]

Reception

Attaining the greatest positive response of any of his works up to that time, Steinbeck's novella was chosen as a Book of the Month Club selection before it was published. Praise for the work came from many notable critics, including Maxine Garrard (Enquirer-Sun),^[15] Christopher Morley, and Harry Thornton Moore (New Republic).^[16] New York Times critic Ralph Thompson described the novella as a "grand little book, for all its ultimate melodrama."^[17][18]

The novella has been banned from various US public and school libraries or curricula for allegedly "promoting euthanasia", "condoning racial slurs", being "anti-business", containing profanity, and generally containing "vulgar" and "offensive language".^[19] Many of the bans and restrictions have been lifted and it remains required reading in many other American, Australian, Irish, British, New Zealand and Canadian high schools. As a result of being a frequent target of censors, Of Mice and Men appears on the American Library Association's list of the Most Challenged Books of 21st Century (number 4).^[20] In the UK, it was listed at number 52 of the "nation's best loved novel" on the BBC's 2003 survey The Big Read.^[21]

Although this book is widely popular there are many controversies surrounding its content that have led Of Mice and Men to become censored in school districts around the country. Of Mice and Men has been challenged 54 times since it was published in 1936.^[22] However, scholars like Thomas Scarseth have fought to protect the book by citing its literary value. According to Scarseth "in true great literature the pain of Life is transmuted into the beauty of Art",^[23] thus it is through the controversy that people can begin to appreciate.

Adaptations

Poster for the 1939 film

Cinema

Of Mice and Men was adapted for the screen several times.

The first adaptation was in 1939, two years after the publication of the novella, and starred Lon Chaney Jr. as Lennie, with Burgess Meredith as George, and was directed by Lewis Milestone.^[24] It was nominated for four Oscars.^[24]

A TV version, produced by David Susskind in 1968, starred George Segal as George, Nicol Williamson as Lennie, Will Geer as Candy, Moses Gunn as Crooks, and Don Gordon and Joey Heatherton as Curley and his wife.^[25]

A 1972 Iranian film, Topoli, directed by Reza Mirlohi was adapted from and dedicated to John Steinbeck and his story.

In 1981 a TV movie version was made, starring Randy Quaid as Lennie, and Robert Blake as George, and directed by Reza Badiyi.^[26]

Another theatrical film version was made in 1992, directed by Gary Sinise, who was nominated for the Palme d'Or at Cannes.^[27] Sinise also played George in the film, and the role of Lennie was played by John Malkovich. For this adaptation, both men reprised their roles from the 1980 Steppenwolf Theatre Company production.^[28]

Stage

The first stage production was written by Steinbeck, produced by Sam H. Harris and directed by George S. Kaufman. It opened on November 23, 1937, in the Music Box Theatre on Broadway.^[29]
Running for 207 performances, it starred Wallace Ford as George and Broderick Crawford as Lennie.^[29] The role of Crooks was performed by Leigh Whipper, the first African-American member of the Actors' Equity Association.^[30] Whipper repeated this role in the 1939 film version.^[24]

The production was chosen as Best Play in 1938 by the New York Drama Critics' Circle.^[31]
In 1939 the production was moved to Los Angeles, still with Wallace Ford in the role of George, but with Lon Chaney, Jr., taking on the role of Lennie. Chaney's performance in the role resulted in his casting in the movie.

The play was revived in a 1974 Broadway production in the Brooks Atkinson Theatre starring Kevin Conway as George and James Earl Jones as Lennie.^[32] Noted stage actress Pamela Blair played Curley's Wife in this production.

In 1970 Carlisle Floyd wrote an opera based on this novella. One departure between Steinbeck's book and Floyd's opera is that the opera features The Ballad Singer, a character not found in the book.^[33]

A new version of the play is opening on Broadway at The Longacre Theater on March 19, 2014 for a limited 18-week engagement, starring James Franco, Chris O'Dowd, Leighton Meester and Jim Norton .^[34][35]

Radio

Of Mice and Men was adapted by Donna Franceschild as a radio play directed by Kirsty Williams starring David Tennant broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 7 March 2010.^[36]

Other references

Numerous works have referred to or parodied aspects of the book, perhaps most notably the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons, which often had one character asking another, à la Lon Chaney's characterization of Lennie, "which way did he go, George; which way did he go?"^[37]

The Old Man and the Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Old Man and the Sea

Author	Ernest Hemingway
Country	United States
Language	English
Genre	Novel[1]
Publisher	Charles Scribner's Sons
Publication date	1952
Media type	Print (hardcover and paperback)
Pages	127
ISBN	0-684-80122-1

The Old Man and the Sea is a novel^[2] written by the American author Ernest Hemingway in 1951 in Cuba, and published in 1952. It was the last major work of fiction to be produced by Hemingway and published in his lifetime. One of his most famous works, it centers upon Santiago, an aging fisherman who struggles with a giant marlin far out in the Gulf Stream.^[3] The Old Man and the Sea was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1953 and was cited by the Nobel Committee as contributing to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Hemingway in 1954.

Plot summary

The Old Man and the Sea is the story of a battle between an old, experienced fisherman and a large marlin. The novel opens with the explanation that the fisherman, who is named Santiago, has gone 84 days without catching a fish. Santiago is considered "salao", the worst form of unluckiness. In fact, he is so unlucky that his young apprentice, Manolin, has been forbidden by his parents to sail with the old man and been ordered to fish with more successful fishermen. Still dedicated to the old man, however, the boy visits Santiago's shack each night, hauling back his fishing gear, getting him food and discussing American baseball and his favorite player Joe DiMaggio. Santiago tells Manolin that on the next day, he will venture far out into the Gulf Stream, north of Cuba in the Straits of Florida to fish, confident that his unlucky streak is near its end.

Thus on the eighty-fifth day, Santiago sets out alone, taking his skiff far onto the Gulf Stream. He sets his lines and, by noon of the first day, a big fish that he is sure is a marlin takes his bait. Unable to pull in the great marlin, Santiago instead finds the fish pulling his skiff. Two days and two nights pass in this manner, during which the old man bears the tension of the line with his body. Though he is wounded by the struggle and in pain, Santiago expresses a compassionate appreciation for his adversary, often referring to him as a brother. He also determines that because of the fish's great dignity, no one will be worthy of eating the marlin. On the third day of the ordeal, the fish begins to circle the skiff, indicating his tiredness to the old man. Santiago, now completely worn out and almost in delirium, uses all the strength he has left in him to pull the fish onto its side and stab the marlin with a harpoon, ending the long battle between the old man and the tenacious fish. Santiago straps the marlin to the side of his skiff and heads home, thinking about the high price the fish will bring him at the market and how many people he will feed.

While Santiago continues his journey back to the shore, sharks are attracted to the trail of blood left by the marlin in the water. The first, a great mako shark, Santiago kills with his harpoon, losing that weapon in the process. He makes a new harpoon by strapping his knife to the end of an oar to help ward off the next line of sharks; in total, five sharks are slain and many others are driven away. But the sharks keep coming, and by nightfall the sharks have almost devoured the marlin's entire carcass, leaving a skeleton consisting mostly of its backbone, its tail and its head. Finally reaching the shore before dawn on the next day, Santiago struggles on the way to his shack, carrying the heavy mast on his shoulder. Once home, he slumps onto his bed and falls into a deep sleep.

A group of fishermen gather the next day around the boat where the fish's skeleton is still attached. One of the fishermen measures it to be 18 feet (5.5 m) from nose to tail. Tourists at the nearby café mistakenly take it for a shark. Manolin, worried during the old man's endeavor, cries upon finding him safe asleep. The boy brings him newspapers and coffee. When the old man wakes, they promise to fish together once again. Upon his return to sleep, Santiago dreams of his youth—of lions on an African beach.

Background and publication

Written in 1951, and published in 1952, The Old Man and the Sea is Hemingway's final work published during his lifetime. The book, dedicated to Hemingway's literary editor Maxwell Perkins,^[4] was featured in Life magazine on September 1, 1952, and five million copies of the magazine were sold in two days.^[5] The Old Man and the Sea also became a Book of the Month Club selection, and made Hemingway a celebrity.^[6] Published in book form on September 1, 1952, the first edition print run was 50,000 copies.^[7] The illustrated edition featured black and white illustrations by Charles Tunnicliffe and Raymond Sheppard. The novel received the Pulitzer Prize in May, 1953,^[8] and was specifically cited when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954.^[9][10] The success of The Old Man and the Sea made Hemingway an international celebrity.^[6] The Old Man and the Sea is taught at schools around the world and continues to earn foreign royalties.^[11]

No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in. ... I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things.

Ernest Hemingway in 1954^[12]

Hemingway wanted to use the story of the old man, Santiago, to show the honor in struggle and to draw biblical parallels to life in his modern world. Possibly based on the character of Gregorio Fuentes, Hemingway had initially planned to use Santiago's story, which became The Old Man and the Sea, as part of an intimacy between mother and son and also the fact of relationships that cover most of the book relate to the Bible, which he referred to as "The Sea Book." (He also referred to the Bible as the "Sea of Knowledge" and other such things.) Some aspects of it did appear in the posthumously published Islands in the Stream. Hemingway mentions the real life experience of an old fisherman almost identical to that of Santiago and his marlin in On the Blue Water: A Gulf Stream Letter (Esquire, April 1936).^[13][14]

Literary significance and criticism

The Old Man and the Sea served to reinvigorate Hemingway's literary reputation and prompted a reexamination of his entire body of work. The novel was initially received with much popularity; it restored many readers' confidence in Hemingway's capability as an author. Its publisher, Scribner's, on an early dust jacket, called the novel a "new classic," and many critics favorably compared it with such works as William Faulkner's "The Bear" and Herman Melville's Moby-Dick.

Santiago as a Spaniard

"'Eyes the Same Color of the Sea': Santiago's Expatriation from Spain and Ethnic Otherness in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea"^[15] focuses on the old man's national identity. Using baseball references, the article points out that Santiago was at least 22 years old when he moved from Spain to Cuba. "Born in Spain’s Canary Islands, Santiago moved to Cuba as a young man; this circumstance has a significant impact on his social condition."^[16] Santiago was old enough to have a Spanish identity when he immigrated, and the article examined how being a foreigner (and from a country that colonized Cuba) would influence his life on the island. Because Santiago was too poor to move back to Spain—many Spaniards moved to Cuba and then back to Spain at that time—he adopted Cuban culture like religious ceremonies, Cuban Spanish, and fishing in skiffs in order to acculturate in the new country.

Gregorio Fuentes, who many critics believe was an inspiration for Santiago, was a blue-eyed man born on Lanzarote in the Canary Islands. After going to sea at age ten on ships that called in African ports, he migrated permanently to Cuba when he was 22. After 82 years in Cuba, Fuentes attempted to reclaim his Spanish citizenship in 2001.^[17]

Religion as a motif

Joseph Waldmeir's essay "Confiteor Hominem: Ernest Hemingway's Religion of Man" is a favorable critical reading of the novel—and one which has defined analytical considerations since. Perhaps the most memorable claim therein is Waldmeir's answer to the question—What is the book's message?

"The answer assumes a third level on which The Old Man and the Sea must be read—as a sort of allegorical commentary on all his previous work, by means of which it may be established that the religious overtones of The Old Man and the Sea are not peculiar to that book among Hemingway's works, and that Hemingway has finally taken the decisive step in elevating what might be called his philosophy of Manhood to the level of a religion."^[18]

Waldmeir was one of the most prominent critics to wholly consider the function of the novel's Christian imagery, made most evident through Hemingway's obvious reference to the crucifixion of Christ following Santiago's sighting of the sharks that reads:

"‘Ay,′ he said aloud. There is no translation for this word and perhaps it is just a noise such as a man might make, involuntarily, feeling the nail go through his hands and into the wood."^[19]

An unrealistic novel

Ernest Hemingway and Henry ("Mike") Strater with the remaining 500 lbs of an estimated 1000 lb marlin that was half-eaten by sharks before it could be landed in the Bahamas in 1935. See Pilar for details of this episode.

One of the most outspoken critics of The Old Man and the Sea is Robert P. Weeks. His 1962 piece "Fakery in The Old Man and the Sea" presents his claim that the novel is a weak and unexpected divergence from the typical, realistic Hemingway (referring to the rest of Hemingway's body of work as "earlier glories").^[20] In juxtaposing this novel against Hemingway's previous works, Weeks contends:

"The difference, however, in the effectiveness with which Hemingway employs this characteristic device in his best work and in The Old Man and the Sea is illuminating. The work of fiction in which Hemingway devoted the most attention to natural objects, The Old Man and the Sea, is pieced out with an extraordinary quantity of fakery, extraordinary because one would expect to find no inexactness, no romanticizing of natural objects in a writer who loathed W.H. Hudson, could not read Thoreau, deplored Melville's rhetoric in Moby Dick, and who was himself criticized by other writers, notably Faulkner, for his devotion to the facts and his unwillingness to 'invent.'"^[20]

Some critics suggest "The Old Man and the Sea" was Hemingway's reaction towards the criticism of his most recent work, Across the River and into the Trees.^[21] The negative reviews for Across the River and into the Trees distressed him, and may have been a catalyst to his writing of The Old Man and the Sea.