Grapes of wrath must be raisins. They're angry for being ripped of left to dry out in the sun instead of being consumed directly or enhanced into wine. Grapes are sweet and delicious not wrathful. That right there is an oxymoron.
As to the Civil war, the grapes of wrath must be the angry raisins of the recalcitrant South whose period of slavery, its vintage, is stomped out.
How does that sound to you? Frankly, I don't comprehend that f'k'n line, and I never did. It's just one of those things that goes zoop right over my head.
What does Steinbeck mean by grapes of wrath? Maybe he can me make sense of this biblical oxymoron.
First, though, before the song, before the book, the phrase appears in the Bible in the book of Revelations. And that's the totally bogus ending the early collators added to scare the piss out of people to coerce them to behave. That's the book I ripped out of my copies and tossed for being pure shit. And you can tell it's pure shit because the guy made up the words for Jesus speaking. And you can tell he's putting his own words into Jesus' mouth because we already know what Jesus sounds like. We know his voice. We know how he speaks. We know what he taught, and then, BLAM! Revelations has Jesus speaking entirely differently. It's horse shit plain and simple. And biblical scholars, so-called, who put so much energy into analyzing Revelations are just flat full of horse shit.
It pisses me off.
They take a beautiful thing like that and turn it all to shit. Horse shit.
Nevertheless, that's where the phrase originates.
Vintage is a thing's period of time of existence. Since grapes are mentioned, then, it means the period of those wrathful grapes.
And "stored" doesn't make any sense at all. Grapes don't last. Even with refrigeration, their time is limited. In fact, that's why there's wine. And it's how there's wine. You must do something with those grapes at the time of their harvest. You must get out there and pick them.
As it turns out, while picking and putting the grapes in a basket, the grapes on the bottom get smashed, the juice touches the outside surface of the grapes where yeast has collected and boom you get wine fermenting even before you can get all the grapes in from the field! The process begins very quickly. That's how wine was discovered. The people eating the smashed grapes became tipsy and said to their fellow grape pickers, "You know, we can do something with this."
In Revelations, then, the angel of death is depicted cutting down grapevines at the end of the world. All the people that God is cross with are put into a winepress and their blood squeezed out of them.
What a pathetic metaphor! Wine is delicious and its vintages actually delirious. Squeezed out blood has no wine corollary. Metaphor FAIL!
I told you the whole book is horse shit and it is. This is just another example of one of the Johns being a prick. It's blamed on John the Apostle, John Zebedee, and again, we KNOW what John the Apostle sound like and he DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT!
Pier ee ud.
John wrote a gospel and he also wrote a letter. We know the voice of John Zebedee. We KNOW what he sounds like. Anyone who can read, and in any language you like, will know what what John sounds like when he speaks. And Revelations IS NOT IT!
What a horrible hoax. He can't even get a metaphor straight.
No wonder the phrase is fucked up.
Now I'm cross all over again just thinking about about what the early collators did to people's comprehension of the teaching of Jesus.
Forever!
It was some other John who came much later, found power in the early church and fucked up the gospel, the good news, and turned it into bad news that's left biblical scholars jacked ever since.
That's my conclusion about that, and I'm sticking with it.
And there goes my PHD in theology, just like that.
Joke!
Never cared for any such thing.
After all that, what does John Steinbeck say in his book, "Grapes of Wrath?" Why did Steinbeck choose such a lousy metaphor from such a piss poor source as Revelations for the title of his excellent book?
Explain yourself, Steinbeck.
Chapter 25:
“There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate—died of malnutrition—because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.
The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; 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.”
Oh. Okay then.
I understand that.
Tonight Trump was asked if he'd honor the results of the election. This is a dramatic question because there are so many accusations of voter fraud being denied by all parties down to the very last Democrat voter, even as proof of such, and on a massive scale, accumulates in torrent to great piles. (I have 75 links to voter fraud reports and videos myself, and I'm just a regular bloke.) So Trump's answer: "I'll wait and see" did not satisfy Democrats and alarmed them. So we're treated by Democrats to the history of our enduring republic over and over, tautologically, all ignoring their own very serious participation in the cultivation and the harvesting of those disregarded voters, those angry raisins, those otherwise sweet tasting, moist and delicious grapes now grown sour to intense Civil War level wrath. You cannot keep pulling all that fraud at so many levels and so many places over and over and over to the precision of high expertise and expect there be no repercussions. It's good they are alarmed. They very well should be alarmed. Families are already divided. They're toying, not just with civil unrest, rather, with actual civil war.
Up to the Civil War Americans thought of themselves primarily as Virginia people or Massachusetts people. The Union? Was it really worth it to die for The Union? Of course my people wouldn't have had a place to escape to if there wasn't a United States. Hmmmmm.
I have a lot of problems with my feet. Plus I can't get the callus and corns cut because I would bleed out with my blood thinners. So having them soaked and treated and filed off really worked out great. I can walk normally.
10 comments:
What about that weird eyebrow thing you did before the cable show on the store? That was totally gay.
Can't blame you -- we knew who was in charge.
You know, men liking what women like is not gay
~ Said who?
Grapes of wrath must be raisins. They're angry for being ripped of left to dry out in the sun instead of being consumed directly or enhanced into wine. Grapes are sweet and delicious not wrathful. That right there is an oxymoron.
As to the Civil war, the grapes of wrath must be the angry raisins of the recalcitrant South whose period of slavery, its vintage, is stomped out.
How does that sound to you? Frankly, I don't comprehend that f'k'n line, and I never did. It's just one of those things that goes zoop right over my head.
What does Steinbeck mean by grapes of wrath? Maybe he can me make sense of this biblical oxymoron.
First, though, before the song, before the book, the phrase appears in the Bible in the book of Revelations. And that's the totally bogus ending the early collators added to scare the piss out of people to coerce them to behave. That's the book I ripped out of my copies and tossed for being pure shit. And you can tell it's pure shit because the guy made up the words for Jesus speaking. And you can tell he's putting his own words into Jesus' mouth because we already know what Jesus sounds like. We know his voice. We know how he speaks. We know what he taught, and then, BLAM! Revelations has Jesus speaking entirely differently. It's horse shit plain and simple. And biblical scholars, so-called, who put so much energy into analyzing Revelations are just flat full of horse shit.
It pisses me off.
They take a beautiful thing like that and turn it all to shit. Horse shit.
Nevertheless, that's where the phrase originates.
Vintage is a thing's period of time of existence. Since grapes are mentioned, then, it means the period of those wrathful grapes.
And "stored" doesn't make any sense at all. Grapes don't last. Even with refrigeration, their time is limited. In fact, that's why there's wine. And it's how there's wine. You must do something with those grapes at the time of their harvest. You must get out there and pick them.
As it turns out, while picking and putting the grapes in a basket, the grapes on the bottom get smashed, the juice touches the outside surface of the grapes where yeast has collected and boom you get wine fermenting even before you can get all the grapes in from the field! The process begins very quickly. That's how wine was discovered. The people eating the smashed grapes became tipsy and said to their fellow grape pickers, "You know, we can do something with this."
In Revelations, then, the angel of death is depicted cutting down grapevines at the end of the world. All the people that God is cross with are put into a winepress and their blood squeezed out of them.
What a pathetic metaphor! Wine is delicious and its vintages actually delirious. Squeezed out blood has no wine corollary. Metaphor FAIL!
I told you the whole book is horse shit and it is. This is just another example of one of the Johns being a prick. It's blamed on John the Apostle, John Zebedee, and again, we KNOW what John the Apostle sound like and he DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT!
Pier ee ud.
John wrote a gospel and he also wrote a letter. We know the voice of John Zebedee. We KNOW what he sounds like. Anyone who can read, and in any language you like, will know what what John sounds like when he speaks. And Revelations IS NOT IT!
What a horrible hoax. He can't even get a metaphor straight.
No wonder the phrase is fucked up.
Now I'm cross all over again just thinking about about what the early collators did to people's comprehension of the teaching of Jesus.
Forever!
It was some other John who came much later, found power in the early church and fucked up the gospel, the good news, and turned it into bad news that's left biblical scholars jacked ever since.
That's my conclusion about that, and I'm sticking with it.
And there goes my PHD in theology, just like that.
Joke!
Never cared for any such thing.
After all that, what does John Steinbeck say in his book, "Grapes of Wrath?" Why did Steinbeck choose such a lousy metaphor from such a piss poor source as Revelations for the title of his excellent book?
Explain yourself, Steinbeck.
Chapter 25:
“There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate—died of malnutrition—because the food must rot, must be forced to rot.
The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; 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.”
Oh. Okay then.
I understand that.
Tonight Trump was asked if he'd honor the results of the election. This is a dramatic question because there are so many accusations of voter fraud being denied by all parties down to the very last Democrat voter, even as proof of such, and on a massive scale, accumulates in torrent to great piles. (I have 75 links to voter fraud reports and videos myself, and I'm just a regular bloke.) So Trump's answer: "I'll wait and see" did not satisfy Democrats and alarmed them. So we're treated by Democrats to the history of our enduring republic over and over, tautologically, all ignoring their own very serious participation in the cultivation and the harvesting of those disregarded voters, those angry raisins, those otherwise sweet tasting, moist and delicious grapes now grown sour to intense Civil War level wrath. You cannot keep pulling all that fraud at so many levels and so many places over and over and over to the precision of high expertise and expect there be no repercussions. It's good they are alarmed. They very well should be alarmed. Families are already divided. They're toying, not just with civil unrest, rather, with actual civil war.
I liked Ray Massey in The Fountainhead too.
Chip, don't hold back on Steinbeck!
Pedicure, Troop?
Love Peddies.
You go girl!
Up to the Civil War Americans thought of themselves primarily as Virginia people or Massachusetts people. The Union? Was it really worth it to die for The Union? Of course my people wouldn't have had a place to escape to if there wasn't a United States. Hmmmmm.
Thanks Titus.
I have a lot of problems with my feet. Plus I can't get the callus and corns cut because I would bleed out with my blood thinners. So having them soaked and treated and filed off really worked out great. I can walk normally.
Post a Comment