Ambiguity In The Golden State

The concept of ambiguity had not been prevalent in society until the inception of the 20th century. Its presence has always been subtle, but its impact can lead students and scholars down to roads of new ideologies and even result in challenging the current standards of society. Ambiguity is the “quality of being open to more than one interpretation,” and thus, it forces us to remain open-minded. Authors and artists such as Steinbeck, Didion, Kingston, Thiebaud, Shepard, and everyone else we have encountered incorporate ambiguity as a way to provoke the reader and open up conversations regarding the current state of California. Despite all the opportunities available in The Golden State, it is indisputable that it is a placed filled with uncertainties.

This, in turn, opens the conversation regarding who the main protagonist in the story is. The ambiguity of the ending can be broken down into two parts: the characters themselves, and the overall plot. Jim and Mac intertwined themselves in this plan to spread their communist views, and during a time where farmworkers were so vulnerable, they found their opportunity to share their beliefs. There is this sense that Steinbeck saw a piece of himself in both Mac and Jim. His purpose in ensuring that it was never clear whom the central character of the story was to maintain a balance between both Mac and Jim. The uncertain nature surrounding the protagonist of the story connects back to the overall ambiguity of the ending. The book concludes with Mac giving a speech regarding Jim to his comrades, stating how “Jim didn’t want nothing for himself –" (Steinbeck, 269). In the final scene, Mac is seen leading everyone, and further gives the last impression that he is the protagonist. But then the story abruptly ends. There is no mention whether the strike prevails or if it is shut down. This ambiguity directly connects with what Steinbeck may feel about communism and its motives. It furthers the conversation regarding whether the efforts of farmworkers during The Great Depression as even worth their blood, sweat, and tears. He may have left the ending open not to take a side. In some

The central idea of the play derives from the concept of business and its clash of the arts. Shepard carries this fundamental idea, using it as a metaphor for the current state of California and how society is facing this overall ambiguous battle of whether having the unmitigated business skill can be a substitute for the arts. Moreover, Shepard unearthed the consequences of the clash between culture and counterculture by characterizing Austin, and Lee as extremes of the two. Boundaries or borders did not confound Lee. Counterculture helped Lee escape life and the responsibilities that accompanied it. By the end of the play, Austin desired the same. Lee’s business mentality when he first approaches Sal exposes how he had no concern for the artistic skill it takes to create a screenplay. Oriented towards helping the old man, Lee made it his primary goal to help his father in any capacity, and he found the perfect business opportunity to do so (Shepard, 53). This draws out elements of empathy. However, it is juxtaposed by how Lee was unapologetic when he gambled away his brother’s script for his own needs. Austin consistently showed throughout the story how he was passionate about his job as a screenplay writer. But, the influences of his brother’s business and uncultured attitude influenced him to the point where his sole goal is escaping by “goin' to the desert” (62). A business like