Kierkegaard, Not Steinbeck

If you take the time to look at the info on my facebook, you'll notice that one of my favorite quotes is one from John Steinbeck. The book: The Grapes of Wrath. The quote: "Fear the time when the bombers stop bombing while the bombers live. For every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died", which is the climax of the chapter. The chapter, unfortunately, I do not have memorized. But the chapter is exactly what I wanted to share with you today. I do not own the book however. (I don't own many books) So I went ot Barnes & Noble to borrow The Grapes of Wrath, but lo, NO GRAPES OF WRATH! Every other Steinbeck novel, short story, and poem was there, but not the one I wanted.
The truth is I didn't feel like saying anything myself to today, but I felt like saying something. I have this Kierkegaard book in front of me, so I have decided to quote him. (Or should I say, I have decided to quote Climacus?)
"With regard to the dissenting conception of what it isto communicate, I sometimes wonder whether this matter of indirect communication could not be directly communicated. For example, I see that Socrates, who ordinarily held so strictly to asking and answering (which is an indirect method), because the long speech, the didactic discourse, and reciting by rote lead only to confusion, at times himself speaks at length and the states as the reason that the person with whom he is speaking needs and elucidation before the conversation can begin. This he does in Gorgias, for example. But this seems to me an inconsistency, an impatience that fears it will take too long before they come to a mutual understanding, because through the indirect method is must still be possible to achieve the same thing, only more slowly. But haste is utterly worthless in understanding when inwardness is the understanding. To me it seems better truly to come to a mutual understanding separately in inwardness, even though this occurs slowly. Yes, even if it never did happen because time went by and the communicator was forgotten without ever being understood by anyone, it seems to me to be more consistent on the part of the communicator not to have made the slightest adaptation in order to ahve someone understand him, and first and last to watch himself lest he become important in relation to others, which far from being inwardness, is external, noisy conduct. If he does that, he will have consolation in the judgment when the god judges that he has made no concession to himself in order to win anyone but to the upmost of his capability has worked in vain, leaving it to the god whether it should have any significance or not. And this will not doubt please the god more than if the go-getter were to say to him, 'I have gained ten thousand adherents for you'... That subjectivity is truth is my thesis, I have tried to show... which at its maximum is Christianity. That is is possible to exist with inwardness also outside Christianity, the Greeks among others have adequately shown, but in our day things seem actually to have gone so far that although we are all Christians and knowledgeable about Christianity, it is already a rarity to encounter a person who has even as much existing inwardness as a pagan philosopher. No wonder that people are so quickly finished with Christianity when they begin by putting themselves in a state in which receiving an ever so little impression of Christianity is entirely out of the question. One becomes objective, one wants to consider objectively--that the god was crucified--an event that, when it occurred, did not permit even the temple to be objective, for its curtain tore, did not even permit the dead to remain objective, for they rose up from their graves. Thus what is able to make even the inanimate and the dead subjective is now considered objectively by Messrs. Objective"
Good enough.