. Spinning .

Perhaps I have found some reason, some justification for my thoughts on the moral of this fable:

Everything that loved water came to these few shallow places.  The cats took their prey there, and strewed feathers and lapped water through their bloody teeth.  The little pools were places of life because of the water, and places of killing because of the water, too.  (p. 104)

How different really is the water from the wondrous pearl?  Needed for survival, it is a blessed thing, yet draws by instinct those that would take advantage of the opportunity to steal the blessing and even the very life of those who use it.  Because they seek survival as well and have not the morals or the intellect to hunt hard within the brush.

I do like the book, but I’m not getting the underlying theme perhaps of wealth being evil–unless I’m misunderstanding the lesson, being of different mind.  It is human nature that can be evil.

Once again, Juana, sure that the pearl is the source (rather than her thievin’ neighbors) of the trouble, takes it and steals away into the night and tries to destroy it:

Quietly he tracked her, and his brain was red with anger.  She burst clear of the brush line and stumbled over the little boulders toward the water, and then she heard him coming and she broke into a run.  Her arm was up to throw when he leaped at her and caught her arm and wrenched the pearl from her.  He struck her in the face with his clenched fist and she fell among the boulders, and he kicked her in the side.  (p. 76)

Of course Kino is angry–through there is no excuse for his hitting and kicking her.  The doctor, the priest, someone who has entered his house to steal the pearl, the pearl buyers–all are screwing him royally, and now his wife wants to throw the pearl away.  It is human nature that is evil; the nature of those who feel for some reason that they should have what Kino has, deserve a portion of it.  Kino’s response to protect it, in my mind, cannot be called evil or greedy.  He is dirt poor and has found a pearl that will provide something better for his family.  But the pearl is blamed for what is happening to them. 

My closest friend just sold their house in MA for $695,000.  I’m enjoying helping her find a new one, looking at the MLS listings in NH where they’ll be moving–they have a lake cottage there already but want a regular home as well–listening to her tell me about what she’s seen. 

Kino and Juana need to sell that pearl and move to a place where they can be among people who understand that what they have is theirs, and who are willing to celebrate the good fortune of others instead of claiming it.

Steinbeck’s The Pearl is a fable, therefore a moral of some sort is a part of the deal, and one that reflects human nature in its struggle between good and evil.

The pearl that Kino, the protagonist, finds is of awesome beauty and size.  He and his wife, Juana are extremely poor and when their baby is bitten by a scorpion, even the upperclass doctor will not come to help because he knows he will not be paid.  The pearl is found on Kino’s first dive after the child has been bitten and is doing well because Juana has managed to suck out the poison.

But the problem here is that while so far in the story it would appear that the thrust of the argument is that money (the pearl) is evil, I feel that rather it brings evil in the form of the greed and envy of the others rather than in Kino, who has good and simple plans: a replacement for a lost harpoon, a rifle, a wedding for him and Juana, new clothes, and an education for their son.

So the priest shows up, the neighbors show up, the doctor shows up and though Kino is suspicious, allows the doctor to hoodwink him into "curing" the baby from the scorpion poison.  The only one who seems to be genuinely happy for them is Kino’s brother (aside, I should be so lucky).  Despite the obvious, Kino and Juana are fearful and angry and Juana even suggests that they throw away the pearl.

I realize that these are simple folk and that this is a moralistic tale, but what about the alternative:  find better and more decent friends?

Torn between McCarthy and Toni Morrison, I seek out John Steinbeck’s The Pearl as my next selection.  It is mainly because it’s a short novel, Steinbeck is easy reading, and with the burden of Hypertext 3.0, Patchwork Girl, and Ethics on my plate it seems like it will fit in without taking attention away from the others.

I’m also trying to slip in a story or two of my own among the copyediting I’m doing on sixteen short stories for a good friend.  While I’ve learned to read for story and technique as well as proof at the same time, I think editing mode is reestablished with the need, and I’m more likely to be objective about my own work when it is slid in there as part of the scheme. 

Perfect trio:  Reading and writing and rain.