Hi everyone,
So far, we have read two very different types of Steinbeck's fiction. This is really a wonderful and varied work of non-fiction that provides wonderful insight into Steinbeck and his relationship with Ed Ricketts. Here are some questions to think about while reading and poke around in discussion.
- Much of the book focuses on marine biology and naturalist observations. Did you like these parts? What do they contribute to the text? How well does the interplay between science and narrative work?
- What can we learn of Steinbeck's construction of humanity's relationship (either present or how it ought to be) with the environment?
- What do you think of their "non-teleological" thinking? Feel free to expand, critique, question, or provide your own thoughts there...
We have a guest lecture coming who is an expert about this voyage and book. Do check out this link about the project:
http://www.seaofcortez.org/
See you all Monday!
-Bill and Clay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"What do you think of their "non-teleological" thinking? Feel free to expand, critique, question, or provide your own thoughts there." I'm pretty sure I don't need to say much about this.
ReplyDeleteI think you can see many parallels between what steinbeck says explicitly in Log and implicitly in Tortilla Flat. But rather than going on another rant about taoism I will just introduce the following quotes:
"We knew that what seemed to us true could be only relatively true anyway. There is no other kind of observation....let us..not be betrayed by this myth of permanent objective reality. If it exists at all, it is only available in pickled tatters or in distorted flashes."p.2-3
"everything is potentially everywhere- the body is potentially cancerous, phthisic, strong to resist or weak to receive. In one swing of the balance the waiting life pounces in and stkaes possession and grows strong while our own individual chemistry is distorted past the point wehre it can maintain its balance. This we call dying, and by the process we do not give nor offer but are taken by a multiform life and used for its proliferation. These things are balanced.... This is the way he is - one factor in a surge of striving. And he continues to ask "why" without first admitting to himself his cosmic identity." p.136
"The whole is necessarily everything, the whole world of fact and fancy, body and psyche, physical fact and spiritual truth, individual and collective, life and death, macrocosm and microcosm (the greatest quanta here, the greatest synapse between these two), conscious and unconscious, subject and object. The whole picture is portrayed by is, the deepest word of deep ultimate reality, not shallow or partial as reasons are, but deeper and participating, possibly encompassing the Oriental concept of being."
I really liked the naturalist observations. As Rachel said, it really makes a commentary on Steinbeck's own beliefs, both social and natural. It is much more direct in its social commentary and a refreshing change from the character sketches of our last few book selections. There is such a vividness here that isn't derived from exact description necessarily (color, size, shape, etc) but from interactions within nature. I think this sets his log apart from other authors attempting to contemplate the human-nature relationship.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of man's relationship with nature. I really appreciated his musing on the need for the Old Man in the Sea and the evolution of the the lunar grip on tide pools. He really ties our own evolution with that of the ocean creatures they intend to explore and there are a reliance and fear/ awe there that is really something to ponder.
I also enjoyed the naturalist observations and it seems to be pretty clear that Steinbeck is constantly making comparisons between the marine life he is observing and the various crew members as well some of the other men they encounter like the military officials they run into in San Diego. These observations also directly correlate to the chapter on Easter Sunday, where non-teological thinking is fully explained. Most of Steinbeck's observations are constructed so that they a piece of a larger pattern.
ReplyDeleteAs far as whether of not I agree with non-teological thinking, I agree to the extent that all things, particularly in science, are interrelated. However, I do not agree that there is never an absolute answer to everything - for instance to say that the explosions at the mine did not occur because the warning whistle was blown and to instead say that the whistle merely came before the explosions is not much of a conclusion. Rather the difference between these two statements is the difference between an observation and an inference, and so often science requires us to make inferences from our observations in order to come to reliable conclusions and theories.
While at first, I simply ignored much of the naturalist observations (as the writing about society interested me more), I found myself drawn to these sections as used to augment the societal conversations. These could not stand alone, and within the context of biology, they are more pointed. Also, they give the reader a break from an intense journey into Steinbeck's mind.
ReplyDeletePersonally, in the limited time I've had to ponder non-teleogical thinking, I believe it be be good in theory, and flawed in practice. While completely understanding an issue (or at least trying too) is ideal for any issue, it is not actually practical for individuals to grasp the nuances to every issue. Even experts on an issue do not "know" everything about an issue, and thus in practice non-teleogical thinking is flawed so much as it is used in order to explain things.
Many things in the world can not be broken down to a-e components such as the examples Steinbeck uses. Trying to understand, weight, and conclude on issues/ideas/functions that are a-zz are in practice almost impossible. That is the value of opinion on an issue.
This is quite late, so I doubt anyone will read it. I just wanted to point out a detail that I still have not managed to get around. It says in the intro that Steinbeck's wife at the time went on the trip with them. What? Your kidding. Nowhere do I see any mention of her. In fact, the whole atmosphere that I feel Steinbeck creates is of a rugged trip of all male members communing with the Sea of Cortez. The inclusion of his wife into the story would completely change the feeling for me. What is Steinbeck doing? Is it just because he and his wife broke up shortly after the trip that he excludes her? Why is the picture that Steinbeck paints in the book so different from the actual trip?
ReplyDelete