Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This quote is often attributed to Farmer, but a little historical research shows that it is erroneous. First of all, the Farmers did not own chickens; they were pig farmers, and the quote probably reflects that. Second, the word "dead" was misunderstood because of the heavy accept of Mr. Farmer. He actually said "dad," not "dead." The context ("Pa" being references) proves this. Finally, a persistent myth over the years is that Mr. Farmer suffered from bad grammatical skills, when in fact his verb conjugation was impeccable.
So, after careful correction, Mr. Farmer's quote should read, "The pigs are dad's, Pa" ("Pa" here is a reference to his grandfather). Mr. Farmer was simply pointing out to his grandfather that the swine he was overseeing, in fact, did belong to his own father. One wonders at how many lives have been ruined over the years because of the careless handling of this quotation.
And he is especially notorious in his support for NPP (the New Perspective on Pork).
The three-fold mention of fatherhood implicit in the quote (his father, his grandfather, and the pig are all fathers) is being contrasted with his own lack of fatherhood.
The three-fold mention of fatherhood implicit in the quote (his father, his grandfather, and the pig are all fathers) is being contrasted with his own lack of fatherhood.
But are the pigs merely a poetic device, to teach us about fatherhood, or are they literal, historical pigs? And is the young man's form of address to his grandfather to be understood in the context of suzerainty treaties? I see strong parallels in this passage with ancient near Eastern pig rites . . . .
The three-fold mention of fatherhood implicit in the quote (his father, his grandfather, and the pig are all fathers) is being contrasted with his own lack of fatherhood.
But are the pigs merely a poetic device, to teach us about fatherhood, or are they literal, historical pigs? And is the young man's form of address to his grandfather to be understood in the context of suzerainty treaties? I see strong parallels in this passage with ancient near Eastern pig rites . . . .
The original context is lost to us and we should abandon the quest to reconstruct authorial intent. Instead, the text's true importance lies in my experience of Farmer's statement. I find myself empathizing with the fierce defiance of the speaker in the face of fowl death, determined to rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The original context is lost to us and we should abandon the quest to reconstruct authorial intent. Instead, the text's true importance lies in my experience of Farmer's statement. I find myself empathizing with the fierce defiance of the speaker in the face of fowl death, determined to rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The three-fold mention of fatherhood implicit in the quote (his father, his grandfather, and the pig are all fathers) is being contrasted with his own lack of fatherhood.
But are the pigs merely a poetic device, to teach us about fatherhood, or are they literal, historical pigs? And is the young man's form of address to his grandfather to be understood in the context of suzerainty treaties? I see strong parallels in this passage with ancient near Eastern pig rites . . . .
The original context is lost to us and we should abandon the quest to reconstruct authorial intent. Instead, the text's true importance lies in my experience of Farmer's statement. I find myself empathizing with the fierce defiance of the speaker in the face of fowl death, determined to rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wow.
I find myself wondering if I put the teabags away in the refrigerator. It's similar to what you describe, only I don't feel so much rage -- more acceptance. Someday, someone will open that fridge and see those teabags . . . and there will be this moment of connection between us where they too, wonder, what I was thinking.
Another inimitable epithet of legendary yore.
Brother, can you spare a rib? . . . That's true for you, but stew for me.
"O brother, where art stew?"
The three-fold mention of fatherhood implicit in the quote (his father, his grandfather, and the pig are all fathers) is being contrasted with his own lack of fatherhood.
But are the pigs merely a poetic device, to teach us about fatherhood, or are they literal, historical pigs? And is the young man's form of address to his grandfather to be understood in the context of suzerainty treaties? I see strong parallels in this passage with ancient near Eastern pig rites . . . .
The original context is lost to us and we should abandon the quest to reconstruct authorial intent. Instead, the text's true importance lies in my experience of Farmer's statement. I find myself empathizing with the fierce defiance of the speaker in the face of fowl death, determined to rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wow.
I find myself wondering if I put the teabags away in the refrigerator. It's similar to what you describe, only I don't feel so much rage -- more acceptance. Someday, someone will open that fridge and see those teabags . . . and there will be this moment of connection between us where they too, wonder, what I was thinking.
Heidi, I am bowled over by your brilliant connections: Dylan Thomas meets Huis Clos.
"O brother, where art stew?"