The Last Peer Review Day

The peer review day made me look at my paper with a critical eye. I caught several grammatical and sentence structures mistakes when I revised the paper in class than I did when I revised it at home. As I was sat fixing my paper, I also realized that I had introduced two topics in one paragraph. To fix this error, I simply started a new paragraph; furthermore, I also added additional information and quotes from the novel. As for the other paragraphs, I was happy to see that I had not repeated that mistake. My main topic in each paragraphs were not only clearly stated but were also easy to identify. Other mistake that I failed to notice was using passive voice instead of active. However, I now know that to achieve an active voice, the main idea should be introduced first in a sentence. When my peers read my paper, they all marked the “yes” column, which meant that I did not have any mistakes. It also meant that my paper was not only fully constructed, but it also had a hook, transitional words, a smooth flow, and an effective hook. Their comments also stated that I had a well-written paper. This was highly comforting because it meant that my hard work and endless drafting had finally paid off. 

Learning, Learning, Learned

The literature we studied this semester was interesting. The book that I enjoyed the most was Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, and the novel that I enjoyed the least and the one that failed to make it on my “Best Books Ever!” list was In Dubious Battle by John Steinbeck. In addition, the papers that we had to write after finishing the novels helped me expand my knowledge on how to write properly. Another thing that I also learned was that one cannot have two topics in one paragraph. Before this course, I would sometimes introduce two topics in one paragraph instead of separating them. However, now I know that if I have two or more topics in one paragraph, I should start a new paragraph by introducing a new topic sentence. I also learned about new theories, such as the reader-response criticism, formalist criticism, gender criticism, biographical criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, and new historicism.   I had never heard of them before I took this class. I found these theories extremely helpful when constructing a paper because it kept my thoughts organized. In addition, these theories will also help me in my future classes because I will be able to read novels and write papers while applying these theories. I also learned about the struggles of the laborers and the workers. Before I read In Dubious Battle, I did not know what they had  faced and are still facing. I also did not know that UFW are working day and night towards stopping the government from adding pesticides in various kinds of fruits.  

Paritcipation: Jim and the Growers

Jim went from a man who did not know the purpose of his life to someone who wanted to fight for the laborers and the workers’ right. The strikers were united in a way that they all suffered from similar things and had some issues. Furthermore, they not only worked under the unfair bosses, but they also worked together. When Jim came, he also became part of their community. He worked under the unfair growers all day and came back tired. He felt the pain that the strikers were feeling and was angered. He helped the strikers by joining them to beat up the “scabs.” I believe that that event brought him closer to them and their  fight against the growers. At the end of the novel, he became just as greedy as them; however, in different way. The growers kept decreasing the wages to increase their profit. Jim became greedy and frantic because he wanted the strike to succeed and wanted the strikers to get their rights.

Revised Rough Draft

Even though In Dubious Battle by John Steinbeck dealt with a honest, but controversial subject matter, it received a positive reception when it was first published (“Contemporary Reviews...”). Some reviewers deemed the novel as “a work of fine craftsmanship and secondly a strong proletarian outcry" (“Contemporary Reviews...”), while other reviewers dubbed it as a "one of the most courageous and desperately honest books that has appeared in a long time” (March, BR7). Fred March, a reviewer for New York Times, even compared Steinbeck to Upton Sinclair, the greatest author of his time. Steinbeck brought light upon many issues that were not being emphasized enough in the thirties. His novel not only showed the struggles of the workers and the laborers, but it also helped many activists and union workers with their cause. Steinbeck also illustrated the gender roles in the book; however, the roles were not portrayed correctly. Throughout the chapters, Steinbeck provided many different roles for the males to play, but he only gave one role for the women. In addition, he gave his readers a taste of an unfortunate part of the workers and laborers’ history; however, he only presented the men’s contribution and not the women, even though many women had contributed greatly to the workers’ cause.

            In Dubious Battle not only illustrates the hardship of an era, but it also shows the woes of a man. Many males in this book have either been beaten down by “the system” or have been given the urge to revolt. For instance, Jim’s father was “slugged so much in labor trouble that he went punch-drunk” (13). The father acquired a drinking problem because of the police force and the situation he was forced into. In effect, because Jim’s father became an alcoholic, he was not able to provide his family with basic necessities of life. He spent his whole life hating the police force and rebelling against them rather than helping his family lead a better life. In this instance, the male gender can be seen as a slave of the government. However, if Jim’s father was beaten down by the upper class, Mac’s rebellious side was awakened when some ex-soldiers “licked [him] unconscious” and “jumped on [him] and broke [his] right arm” because he gave a speech about starvation (32). The hatred that appeared in Mac would not have been awakened if he was not beaten for exercising his freedom of speech. In effect, if he was not beaten up, he would have never become a quick-witted organizer that brought havoc for some bosses. The male gender, thereby, has played a role of a poor labor that has been abused and cheated, and they have played a role of a rebellious person who has been driven into revolt. Unfortunately, they have played another role—a role that has costed the women.

            The men in this tale are mostly workers and laborers who did not get treated properly by their bosses. In effect, they seem to use their leftover power to dominate the women, for they cannot dominate their bosses. The book showcases the women gender as weak. They women do not have much power or a voice in their family decision- making process or the cause for which the men are working towards. For example, Jim’s mother “was a Catholic (14),” but his father would not “let her go to the churches (14)” because “he hated churches (14).” Even though Jim’s mother was religious, she could not practice her own beliefs because her husband did not allow her. Because she was weak and did not hold much importance in the decision- making process, she allowed her husband to rule her life. Besides Jim’s mother, Misses Dakin is another character that did not hold any significant amount of power in the family. In chapter four, when Misses Dakin stares “questioningly at her husband (85),” Mister Dakin does not respond to her gaze but stares back with cold eyes. “His long white hands [also] twitched at his side (85),” which caused Misses Dakin to forget her question and act as though nothing was amiss. This passage gives a subtle hint about the role of a woman. It shows that women are not allowed to question their husbands because they might get abused, thereby making them weak. The women are also seen as objects. Some men only use them for sexual reason rather than for marriage purposes (261). Jim, the protagonist, is one of the men who is scared of commitment, for he does not want to end up like his parents—“two room flat and a wood stove” (804). Meanwhile, Mac sees women as object that could please a man. This scenario was seen when Mac told Burton, the doctor, that he needs to see a woman to lift up his spirits (262). The role that the female gender plays in this novel is therefore not only of a weak person, but also of an object used by males for their pleasure.

            Gender plays a significant role in this book. It guides the reader through the mindset of the male characters and shows the dominance of male over the females. The male gender is seen throughout the book—in bosses and in the poor laborers. However, the men are not always portrayed innocent. Few men in this book are depicted as selfish being who are so passionate about the cause that they are willing to use anything—even their friend’s death. Mac is one of the devious characters who stops at nothing when it comes to organizing strikes and manipulating the strikers’ emotions. When his longtime friend, Joy, died, Mac organized a funeral and used his body to steam up the crowd and gain public’s sympathy (192). Furthermore, he performed the same act when Jim, whom he was close to, got murdered. Instead of mourning for his friends, he used them for his own gain. According to him, nothing is more important than the strike. Moreover, he also does not care about a human life. After delivering a baby for the first time in his life, he stated to Jim that “even if it killed [the girl], we’ve got to use anything (66)”. This goes to show the disregard he has for a woman’s life. The male, thereby, not only plays a role of a dictator, but he also plays the role of a self-centered man.

            In Dubious Battle has given male genders many roles. Some men played the role of a weakened soul while some played the role of a rebellious individual. Furthermore, there are some that played the role of an egotistical person. On the other hand, women have only been given a role of a weak person lingering in the shadows. Throughout the novel, there has only been one female character that has been mentioned more than once—Lisa. Although she does not play a heavy role nor is she involved in the decision- making process, she is seen  as a helper throughout the novel. Although the novel showcases the female gender as weak, in real life the women were not weak. Many individuals believe that the character of Lisa may have been based on the Pixley Cotton Strike leader and Communist organizer, Caroline Decker (“In Dubious Battle…”). Caroline Decker, by no means, sat in the background during the movement. On the contrary, she was an active woman. In California, she organized the migrants in camps and took part in several pickers’ strikes (“Biographical History”).  Furthermore, she also organized “a national 30-day training school” that taught workers and Communist Party members about agricultural organizing (“Biographical History”). Steinbeck may have created Lisa based on Decker, but Lisa was nothing like Decker, for she did not have a strong role. Another woman who made a difference in the society was Dolores Huerta. She was a fearless lobbyist activist, an organizer, and the founder of Agricultural Workers Association (“Dolores Huerta Biography”). In addition to the AWA, she also co-founded National Farm Workers Association with Cesar Chavez, which is a predecessor of United Farm Workers (“Dolores Huerta Biography”). It is hard to imagine as to why Steinbeck chose to give the female gender a weak role when in reality, the women were just as strong as the men.

            Men and women have worked tirelessly on many issues. They have sometimes worked side by side to achieve a goal, such as Caesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, or alone. However, many women’s contributions do not get portrayed as much as the men’s work. Many females have worked day and night to earn the laborers and the workers their rights in the thirties and in the present. A score of ladies have contributed greatly to the Occupy Wall Street protest by doing short term acts such as running meetings and acquiring food to long term work, such as analyzing structure for the protestors’ safety and building solidarity (Seltzer). Even though many of these women have experienced various kind of offensive behavior, such as “unwanted touching or use of casually misogynist language within the movement,” they have not given up (Seltzer).  Unfortunately, many journalists, like Steinbeck, have not take the time to write about women’s contribution and struggles for a cause.   

            The gender has played an important role in the novel. The male gender thought the novel has been given several characteristics, while the female gender has only been given one. The men in the book are aggressive and have a certain amount of power and dominance over the women. They control the events in the novel, organize strikes, raid, murder, and make decisions, whereas the women only do one thing: follow their men around and stay in the background. Steinbeck also did not show the power that women really held in actuality. Even though the female gender is nearly non-existent in the book, the women in during the labor movement were anything but fictional. During the labor movement, many women stood their ground with the men for a certain cause. However, Steinbeck failed to portray that in this great novel, In Dubious Battle.

Rough Draft for "In Dubious Battle"

            It was once said that the “man endures pain as an undeserved punishment; woman accepts it as a natural heritage.” Throughout the history, many authors have written book about the struggles of a man against the government, the laws, and the upper class. They did not write about the struggles of a woman nor about her role in helping the man win the battle, for it may have been considered her duty. Likewise, John Steinbeck emphasized the male gender more than the women gender in his book, In Dubious Battle. Throughout the chapters, Steinbeck provides many different roles for male gender to play, but only provides one role for the women. In addition, he gives his readers with a taste of an unfortunate part of workers and laborers’ history; however, he only presents the male side even though many women also participated in that part of the history.

            In Dubious Battle not only illustrates the hardship of an era, but it also shows the hardships of a man. Many males in this book have either been beaten down by “the system” or have been given the urge to revolt. For instance, Jim’s father was “slugged so much in labor trouble that he went punch-drunk” (13). The father acquired a drinking problem because of the police force and the situation he was forced into. In effect, because Jim’s father became an alcoholic, he was not able to provide his family with basic necessities of life. He spent his whole life hating the police force and rebelling against them rather than helping his family lead a better life. In this instance, the male gender can be seen as a slave of the government. However, if Jim’s father was beaten down by the upper class, Mac’s rebellious side was awakened when some ex-soldiers “licked [him] unconscious” and “jumped on [him] and broke [his] right arm” because he gave a speech about starvation (32). The hatred that appeared in Mac would not have been awakened if he was not beaten for exercising his freedom of speech. In effect, if he was not beaten up, he would have never become a quick-witted organizer that brought havoc for some bosses. The male gender, thereby, has played a role of a poor labor that has been abused and cheated, and they have played a role of a rebellious person who has been driven into revolt. Unfortunately, they have played another role—a role that has costed the women.

            The men in this tale are mostly workers and laborers who did not get treated properly by their bosses. In effect, they seem to use their leftover power to dominate the women, for they cannot dominate their bosses. The book showcases the women gender as weak. They women do not have much power or a voice in their family decision- making process or the cause for which the men are working towards. For example, Jim’s mother “was a Catholic (14),” but his father would not “let her go to the churches (14)” because “he hated churches (14).” Even though Jim’s mother was religious, she could not practice her own beliefs because her husband did not allow her. Because she was weak and did not hold much importance in the decision- making process, she allowed her husband to rule her life. Besides Jim’s mother, Misses Dakin is another character that did not hold any significant amount of power in the family. In chapter four, when Misses Dakin stares “questioningly at her husband (85),” Mister Dakin does not respond to her gaze but stares back with cold eyes. “His long white hands [also] twitched at his side (85),” which caused Misses Dakin to forget her question and act as though nothing was amiss. This passage gives a subtle hint about the role of a woman. It shows that women are not allowed to question their husbands because they might get abused, thereby making them weak. The women are also seen as objects. Some men only use them for sexual reason rather than for marriage purposes (261). Jim, the protagonist, is one of the men who is scared of commitment, for he does not want to end up like his parents—“two room flat and a wood stove” (804). Meanwhile, Mac sees women as object that could please a man. This scenario was seen when Mac told Burton, the doctor, that he needs to see a woman to lift up his spirits (262). The role that the femal gender plays in this novel is therefore not only of a weak person, but also of an object used by males for their pleasure.

            Gender plays a significant role in this book. It guides the reader through the mindset of the male characters and shows the dominance of male over the females. The male gender is seen throughout the book—in bosses and in the poor laborers. However, the men are not always portrayed innocent. Few men in this book are depicted as selfish being who are so passionate about the cause that they are willing to use anything—even their friend’s death. Mac is one of the devious characters who stops at nothing when it comes to organizing strikes and manipulating the strikers’ emotions. When his longtime friend, Joy, died, Mac organized a funeral and used his body to steam up the crowd and gain public’s sympathy (192). Furthermore, he performed the same act when Jim, whom he was close to, got murdered. Instead of mourning for his friends, he used them for his own gain. According to him, nothing is more important than the strike. Moreover, he also does not care about a human life. After delivering a baby for the first time in his life, he stated to Jim that “even if it killed [the girl], we’ve got to use anything (66)”. This goes to show the disregard he has for a woman’s life. The male, thereby, not only plays a role of a dictator, but he also plays the role of a self-centered man.

            In Dubious Battle has given male genders many roles. Some men played the role of a weakened soul while some played the role of a rebellious individual. Furthermore, there are some that played the role of an egotistical person. On the other hand, women have only been given a role of a weak person lingering in the shadows. Throughout the novel, there has only been one female character that has been mentioned more than once—Lisa. Although she does not play a heavy role nor is she involved in the decision- making process, she is seen  as a helper throughout the novel. Although the novel showcases the female gender as weak, in real life the women were not weak. Many individuals believe that the character of Lisa may have been based on the Pixley Cotton Strike leader and Communist organizer, Caroline Decker (“In Dubious Battle…”). Caroline Decker, by no means, sat in the background during the movement. On the contrary, she was an active woman. In California, she organized the migrants in camps and took part in several pickers’ strikes (“Biographical History”).  Furthermore, she also organized “a national 30-day training school” that taught workers and Communist Party members about agricultural organizing (“Biographical History”). Steinbeck may have created Lisa based on Decker, but Lisa was nothing like Decker, for she did not have a strong role. Another woman who made a difference in the society was Dolores Huerta. She was a fearless lobbyist activist, an organizer, and the founder of Agricultural Workers Association (“Dolores Huerta Biography”). In addition to the AWA, she also co-founded National Farm Workers Association with Cesar Chavez, which is a predecessor of United Farm Workers (“Dolores Huerta Biography”). It is hard to imagine as to why Steinbeck chose to give the female gender a weak role when in reality, the women were just as strong as the men.

            The gender has played an important role in the novel. The male gender thought the novel has been given several characteristics, while the female gender has only been given one. The men in the book are aggressive and have a certain amount of power and dominance over the women. They control the events in the novel, organize strikes, raid, murder, and make decisions, whereas the women only do one thing: follow their men around and stay in the background. Steinbeck also did not show the power that women really held in actuality. Even though the female gender is nearly non-existent in the book, the women in during the labor movement were anything but fictional. During the labor movement, many women stood their ground with the men for a certain cause. However, Steinbeck failed to portray that in this great novel, In Dubious Battle.

Difficulty

In Dubious Battle by John Steinbeck is a tale about the struggles of farmers and the working class. It was written in the 30s, and therefore I found it hard to relate to it because I could not grasp the woes and the difficulties the working class had to face. Although I did not find the book to hard of a read, there were some instances where I had re-read to fully grasp what the characters were saying and what he or she had meant. Because the slangs that were used in the book are hardly used today, I did not know what the characters were referring to. He also showed that these people had a very little education through their language. The character that was most hard to grasp was Mac. Some of his phrases, such as “I’ll admit she’s got an eighteen-year-old can, but I’m doing no fifty years (80),” left me wondering what he was trying to say. I came to the conclusion that he was talking about a girl’s beauty but was not willing to go to the jail or her or marry her. To move past this difficulty, I re-read the section that I was having problems with until I comprehended it. I also searched some of the words to see their meaning. Steinbeck did a good job at using some certain phrases to show the personalities and the class of the characters. Another thing that I had a hard time with was the way the people were used for the cause. Mac was willing to use anything to push the strike forward. He even stated to Jim, the protagonist, that, “Course it was nice to help the girl, but hell, even if it killed her—we’ve got to use anything” (66.) I do not know whether this was the reality for many people back then, or whether Steinbeck was using it to appeal to his reader’s pathos. I also had difficulty with the subject matter.  Even though I sympathize with the farmers ‘struggles and understand that they were treated like machines then human beings, I still cannot find this book interesting.  It was hard for me to imagine that the farmers were willing to break their backs all day just for few cents. I do not understand why somebody was not watching over the bosses, who not only made the farmers work from the dawn to dusk, but they also did not provide then with sanitary lodging or quality food. But then again, when it comes to making money, even some people with morals get seduced by the greed. Because In Dubious Battle was written in a different time frame and about a subject that was not appealing to me, I found this book at bit hard to read/ However, I moved past the difficulties by re-reading, searching some of the words that are not common today, and visiting the UFW website for further knowledge.

Reader Response

 The United Farm Workers are currently working against banning methyl iodide on a 5-acre farm outside the town of Santa Maria on California’s central coast. Besides causing cancer, the methyl iodide may also cause late-term miscarriages and permanent neurological damage. According to some scientists, it is the most venomous chemical on earth. Although the Santa Clara County has approved the application of this chemical, it has been postponed by the authorities. Unfortunately, since the postponement is temporary, the use of this chemical can be permitted at anytime. The farmers are in danger the most because they are exposed twice to methyl iodide during the fumigation process. The neighboring communities and children are also at risk, for the pesticide is airborne and can drift to other places. I am a bit shocked that the application to use this pesticide even got approved to begin with. The board was given the list of hazards by the state’s own independent Scientific Review Committee that this pesticide is not a safe product, and yet they did not even showed any signs of hesitation before allowing the farmers to use the venom in strawberries. Do they really care about money so much that they are willing to risk the lives of many individuals? Throughout history, we have seen many people and their families pay the price for another man’s decision. It is besides me that people cannot take a lesson from the past and work towards making the lives of others better. Fruits are supposed to enrich with antioxidants that prevent cancer, not pesticides that cause cancer. Jerry Brown, the California’s governor, also has the power to ban this chemical. In fact, he even promised that he would “take a fresh look” at the Schwarzenegger Administration’s controversial decision to allow the pesticide for agricultural use upon entering the office.  Many people are urging the governor to ban this pesticide for the well-being of community. I would be truly be sickened and appalled if this chemical is permitted. It seems like as the technology and science grows, more pesticides are born and permitted, which gives rise to other form of diseases. The foods that were once considered “healthy” may now be a death sentence—especially if pesticides are used to grow them. However out of all this chaos, it is nice to see that UFW is working towards banning this chemical by urging Governor Brown to take an action and make a difference. When it comes to health, the cost should not matter; nobody can replace the value of a human being.