How we cite our quotes: (Paragraph)
Quote #1
When the wind was in the north you could hear them, the horses and the breath of the horses and the horses' hooves that were shod in rawhide and the rattle of lances and the constant drag of the travois poles in the sand like the passing of some enormous serpent and the young boys naked on wild horses jaunty as circus riders and hazing wild horses before them and the dogs trotting with their tongues aloll and foot-slaves following half naked and sorely burdened and above all the low chant of their traveling song which the riders sang as they rode, nation and ghost of nation passing in a soft chorale across that mineral waste to darkness bearing lost to all history and all remembrance like a grail the sum of their secular and transitory and violent lives. (18)
The ghosts of the Comanches remain part of the land, in such impossible detail that they seem almost still present despite being "lost to all history." What sort of tone does this set for the opening of the novel? How can you relate the history of the Comanches to what happens?
Quote #2
The house was built in eighteen seventy-two. Seventy-seven years later his grandfather was still the first man to die in it. […] His grandfather was the oldest of eight boys and the only one to live past the age of twenty-five. They were drowned, shot, kicked by horses. They perished in fires. They seemed to fear only dying in bed. (23, 25)
There's a parallel between the Grady boys the Comanche nation with their short, violent lives. But there also seems to be an element of decision here, with the motivating fear of dying in bed. (In other words, not dying in bed is the so-called manly choice.)
Quote #3
Son, not everbody thinks that life on a cattle ranch in west Texas is the second best thing to dyin and goin to heaven. She dont want to live out there, that's all. If it was a payin proposition that'd be one thing. But it aint. (214)
What are the contrasting priorities revealed here in Lawyer Franklin's statement to John regarding his mother's decision to sell the ranch? Why might John want to keep the ranch, and why is his mother seemingly so dismissive—a feeling Franklin also seems to understand?
Quote #4
The last thing his father said was that the country would never be the same.
People dont feel safe no more, he said. We're like the Comanches was two hundred years ago. We don't know what's goin to show up here come daylight. We dont even know what color they'll be. (329-30)
John's father compares their situation to that of the Comanches, but clearly no one is actually going to come slaughter the Gradys. Why this comparison—who or what is the "they" that's coming for the country?
Quote #5
They listened with great attention as John Grady answered their questions and they nodded solemnly and they were careful of their demeanor that they not be thought to have opinions on what they heard for like most men skilled at their work they were scornful of any least suggestion of knowing anything not learned at first hand. (1436)
Why would the skilled cowboys (vaqueros) be scornful of knowledge not gained through experience? What might that mean for the idea of "tradition" or "custom"?
Quote #6
La Purísima was one of very few ranches in that part of Mexico retaining the full complement of six square leagues of land allotted by the colonizing legislation of eighteen twenty-four and the owner Don Héctor Rocha y Villareal was one of the few hacendados who actually lived on the land he claimed, land which had been in his family for one hundred and seventy years. He was forty-seven years old and he was the first male heir in all that new world lineage to attain such an age. (1459)
La Purísima's long lineage doesn't seem to remove it from trouble altogether, as Don Héctor is the first man to reach his late forties (which is kind of like the new "late thirties") in all that time. Given that he is one of the few hacendados (ranch heads) that lives on his land, how might he be different from other men of his class and station?
Quote #7
[John] claimed that cowsense could be bred for. The hacendado was less sure. But there were two things they agreed upon wholly and that were never spoken and that was that God had put horses on earth to work cattle and that other than cattle there was no wealth proper to a man. (1862)
Although John and Don Héctor come from very different backgrounds, they seem to share a common interest in cattle: does tradition, as a series of ideals and lifestyles passed down over time, trump custom (i.e. cultural habits) here? Why might the religious context mentioned, whereas John seems indifferent to religion elsewhere?
Quote #8
What Alejandra dismisses as a matter of mere appearance or outmoded custom…
She made a whisking motion with her imperfect hand that was both a dismissal and a summation. She composed her hands again and looked at him.
Even though you are younger than she it is not proper for you to be seen riding in the campo together without supervision. (1949)
Alfonsa appeals very directly to tradition and custom here in order to prevent John from seeing Alejandra, despite the way in which such customs wounded Alfonsa in the past. Why hurt John with the same traditions that hurt her? What does she stand to gain (or lose)?
Quote #9
This was the chapel as you see. You are not superstitious?
No sir. I dont think so.
It is supposed to be made unsacred. The priest comes and says some words. Alfonsa knows about these matters. But of course the [billiards] table has been there for years now and the chapel has yet to be whatever the word is. To have the priest come and make it be no longer a chapel. Personally I question whether such a thing can be done at all. What is sacred is sacred. The powers of the priest are more limited than people suppose. (2058)
Can you make any connections between Don Héctor's notion that something can't be "made unsacred" with an idea of tradition? Why might an individual priest be powerless in the face of his own religious tradition?
Quote #10
In history there are no control groups. There is no one to tell us what might have been. There never was. It is supposed to be true that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I dont believe that knowing can save us. What is constant in history is greed and foolishness and a love of blood and this is a thing that even God—who knows all that can be known—seems powerless to change. (3421)
Alfonsa here seems to think that we can't learn how history might be different, and yet there are constants or patterns—is there a contradiction between claiming to know what is always the case in history and being unable to have a method for knowing how it might be different? How might we know what the patterns are, and what might we be unable to see?