-

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

He did say 'dad', not 'dead', but the pigs themselves in this instance are to be understood in the prevailing context of fatherhood. Given the misplacement of his apostrophes and the scratchiness of his handwriting, I believe he was simply pointing to out to his grandfather that the swine he was overseeing, was in fact, a father -- 'The pig's a dad, Pa.'
 
"Head for the roundhouse, Ma! They cain't corner ya there."

Another inimitable epithet of legendary yore.
 
I will retract my earlier statement and go with Heidi's brilliant analysis.

In the end, though, this is a sad commentary on Mr. Farmer and demonstrates the reasons behind his cantankerous character. 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. He was known in his lecturing days to take this out on his students. He was also known for singling out students who came from large families.
 
Mr. Farmer was also responsible for this episode (note the "fatherhood" theme in the video):

[video=youtube_share;uplUSXMX98w]http://youtu.be/uplUSXMX98w[/video]
 
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.
 
After consulting the works of the great theologian Bullman, I have concluded that this passage must be striped on its mythological elements before we can determine the real historical meaning. In contrast, the dogged theologian Barkth states that such trivialities are unimportant, as all that matters is that the porcine product becomes bacon in the mouth of the taster.
 
On this subject, this man's word is final:

tn2_kevin_bacon_1.jpg
 
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.
 
I fear that in our final analysis of this important event, we may have milked the cow, beaten a dead horse, and listened to the rooster crow its last.
 
Brother, can you spare a rib?

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.

That's true for you, but stew for me.
 
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.
 
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.

The only light in the universe after light dies is the light when someone else opens the refrigerator.
 
Don't forget "How's my hair?" which was used more often than the "bag of hammers " therefore making it more weighty.
 
Apparently, in the US of A, Christmas fruitcake is still made with alcohol. LOTS of alcohol. And eaten in copious amounts on Christmas eve.
 
Just saw this hilarious romp! What fun!

But brother. Wayne Sparkman, you, of all people (being a historian and what-not), know that, though you may mention, I suppose, stew(s), you cannot keep them (WLC 139) or for that matter allow, tolerate, or resort to them.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top