No offense to Thomas Hart Benton...

While I was thinking of different aspects of The Grapes of Wrath, I looked through different photos from the Great Depression, especially those of Dorethea Lange.  These photos not only provide us with historical information, but also give a face to citizens in the 1930s.    Looking at these images gave me a better mental image of Joads and the people that they meet along their way.  Of course, the film gives a general image of these people, but I liked being able to let the characters develop in my mind.

 

            I vaguely remember watching the film of The Grapes of Wrath in my high school American History class after discussing the novel.  I feel like the portrayals of the characters were accurate to Steinbeck’s writing, especially the portrayal of grandpa and Tom.  While I think that the film is somewhat accurate, I feel like the images of this time convey the message of the text better.  For instance, take the photo “Migrant Mother” by Dorothea Lange: 

 

http://americahurrah.com/PhotoShow/migrantmother.jpg

 

            In my opinion, this brings more emotion than can be conveyed in a two hour film.  The emotion on the mother’s face truly shows how difficult this time period was for everyone.  She looks horrified of the unknown.  The children cling to her in desperation.  The absence of the children’s faces makes this even more moving. 

 

            Nothing against Thomas Hart Benton’s illustrated version of The Grapes of Wrath, but I think that a version with photos from different photographers of the Great Depression would have been compelling.  It may not display characters as well, but I feel like it would give a piece of history, both written and captured in photos, so that the Great Depression is kept alive in future education.  I’m sure with careful searching of archives, it wouldn’t be difficult to personify the characters throughout these different photos.  

-Allison McDermid

Control

Control is a theme seen through out the entire novel. It affects the development of every character in different ways. Through out the novel the Joads lose every constant that they have held onto during their lives. The characters deal with this issue very differently, especially the two main female roles. There is a stark contrast between the way the two characters approach this life change.

Rose of Sharon handles the changes in her life the worst, in my opinion. She refuses to acknowledge major events during the move. When the family sees the dog dead on the road, all she can think about is her self and her baby. This is the first example of random tragedies in the novel, and Rose of Sharon chooses to focus on a part of her life she still has control over, rather than accept this random sad occurance. Also when Connie leaves her, she still holds onto the belief that she will be taken care of and provided for. The whole time they are at camp, she does not take the time to insure her family’s safety. She goes off and meets other men rather than look for work, again exerting the only kind of control she has. She does not seem in denial, just completely way too immature to handle the seriousness of her current situation.

Ma Joad made an astonishing transition into her new life. When we first meet Ma in the beginning of the novel, she is a very stereotypical mother. She is cooking and overjoyed that her son is home. However during the trip, we see her fighting to keep her family together on several occasions. She has always been in charge of the family and keeping it fed and nourished with love. While it appears that Ma is stepping into a male role in the family, I believe she is just holding onto the one aspect of her life she can control; her family. We see this when she doesn’t let the family split up in the cars, the scene with the jack handle, and when Grandma dies. She holds the family together and keeps a level head. She knows that family is the only thing they have left, and she so fights hard to keep it together. Ma just strengthened her role in the family and holds control over the only thing the characters have left.

Religion in Grapes of Wrath

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

~ Mahatma Ghandi

In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck presents and criticizes various forms of religion and ritual, and in an ironic twist, turns the most outwardly secular character, Jim Casy into a Christ-figure.

Along their journey, and even within the confines of their own family, the Joads encounter various manifestations and degrees of religious worship. Grandma Joad represents a sort of compulsory ritual-worship without introspection. Early on in the novel Tom Joad explains to Casy an incident in which Grandma sent him a Christmas card when he was still in prison. The card is meant for a child and contains a religious poem and pretty decorations. “I guess Granma never read it. Prob’ly got it from a drummer an’ picked out the one with the mos’ shiny stuff on it. The guys in my cell block goddamn near died laughin’…Granma never meant it funny; she jus’ figgered it was so purty she wouldn’ bother to read it.” (35) This incident parallels Grandma Joad’s further displays of religion. She focuses on the ritual of religion, insisting on grace at the dinner table and saying ‘Amen’ after anything the ex-preacher Casy says, regardless of its lack of resemblance to any normal grace. “So many years she had times her responses to the pauses. And it was so many years since she had listened to or wondered at the words used.” (110)

Sairy Wilson uses religion for the feeling of closeness and humanity that it provides for her. One her deathbed she implores Casy to say a prayer for her, despite his claims that “I got no God.” (298) Sairy tells him “I wanted to feel that clostness, oncet more. It’s the same thing, singin’ an’ prayin’, jus’ the same thing.” (298)

Possibly the most striking criticism of religion comes in the form of Lisbeth Sandry in the Weedpatch government camp. She is a ferociously God-fearing woman who attempts to spread her fear among the rest of the members of the camp. It is not good enough for her if the Joads are religious, they must have the same zest and fear that she does. She fights with the manager, who has a Casy-like view of things: “He don’ believe in sin. Tol’ me hisself. Says the sin is bein’ hungry. Says the sin is bein’ cold.” (423) The manager has an accepting view of Lisbeth, saying “She’s a good woman, but she makes people unhappy.” Through the manager, Steinbeck is commenting on the paradox of religious worship like that of Lisbeth Sandry’s. She has good intentions, and seems to genuinely believe that she is helping people, but ultimately she only causes them hurt and suffering, like when she causes Rosasharn unnecessary stress with her lectures. Through her attempts at helping, she is only causing harm. It is also very telling that, while she considers the government camp the paragon of sin, she is clearly comfortable and doesn’t leave.

The most ironic and striking religious commentary comes in the form of the ex-preacher, Jim Casy. Casy outwardly claims to have no God. He resents his preaching career and refuses to pray unless outright begged to do so. He doesn’t believe in sin, but when he was a preacher and did believe in it, he engaged in sin quite often. Despite his outwardly agnostic tendencies, Jim Casy shares far more with the biblical figure of Jesus Christ than just his initials. Casy travels with people to learn from them and talk to them. He even experiences his own sacrifice and resurrection. Casy represents the clear distinction between claiming Christian-ness and actually being Christ-like.

Futility in "Grapes"

When our class discussed the concluding chapters from Grapes of Wrath, we hit on Ma Joad and her need to stay with her recently deceased mother’s body. I made a few notes that I would like to reassess in this third entry. One possible theme of this text is futility and Ma Joad’s staying with her mother exemplifies this. The method behind her madness was to sustain the morale of the family long enough to get to one of the checkpoints. She convinced her family that Gramma Joad had merely fallen asleep and that she was doing “okay.” This was not the case obviously, but Ma’s ploy to keep her family’s spirits up was a temporary success.
There is also very evident irony here as during Ma’s temporary covert behavior, she and the rest of the family see various families heading back. These other “Okies” had been forced to head back to their already abandoned homes to eke out a living that was apparently better than California. Imagine the sense of futility in having to return home and being, sometimes, forcefully evicted and then having to resort to returning from a place promised to have better circumstances. Despite this harsh reality, Ma Joad endures for the sake of her family.
The novel wraps up with a man needing aid from the Joads who have survived their endeavors. Meeting the small boy and the scene in which his father is suckled by Rose of Sharon is the epitome of futility in a sense. In the same sense, it is reassuring because despite the fact that the Dust Bowl has nearly ruined their lives, the family is reminded that they still have their bodies to sustain them. The man gave up his own nourishment so that his son could live and Ma, in a somewhat similar manner, put Rose of Sharon in an odd predicament by giving up her daughter so that she could save the man in the barn.
Another possible theme that this last scene provides is that of no man or woman being beyond the aid of another human being. Throughout Steinbeck’s piece, gender roles are reversed and male dignity is put aside. A man being nursed back to health is quite epitomal, not the proper adjective form of the word I realize, of gender reversal of that time and no one being beyond aid even further. The people did what they had to survive and animalistic and maternal/ paternal traits, from Ma and Rose of Sharon, surface in such dire times.

Rosasharn and Selfishness

Let’s face it: Rosasharn, as interesting as her name may be, is one of the least consequential yet most annoying characters in The Grapes of Wrath. In a way she’s a foil for Ma, that strong, almost paternal presence whose morality sometimes surpasses even Tom’s. Rosasharn is subdued, uncertain, and entirely dependent, providing fodder for the novel’s occasional but potent sexism. In short, she’s every stereotype I hate to see projected onto my gender.

Her greatest crime, however, is that she is unabashedly selfish. Everything she does (which isn’t much) is either in her best interest or in the best interest of her child – but only because having “a freak” (393) would reflect poorly on her, arguably.

She constantly whines about needing milk, and even though Winfield also needs milk, she eyes it jealously until Ma sneaks a small cup of it to her. Worse still, she blames Tom (and, earlier, the deaths of both Grandpa and the dog) for ruining her child, seeing as she herself never sinned, and “didn’ dance no hug-dance” (394). (Remarkably, she never seems willing to hate on Connie, the only character who ever did anything directly to her or her child: abandonment and neglect.) But she admits this not only in a holier-than-thou sense, bragging about her morality, but rather with regret. As her child is already screwed up, she might as well have had some fun at the government camp.

I might be acting a little unfairly toward Rosarsharn, of course. In a sense, she was proven right in the end – her child was stillborn. Whether this was a result of all the sin and depravity she witnessed (as she would like to believe), or merely the malnutrition and poor living conditions they experienced, or the stress and emotional damage from losing Connie and other family members, or just fate itself, Steinbeck never reveals. He leaves things complicated.

But regardless of what caused her child’s death, the fact remains that it changed her in a way that none of their previous troubles could. Everyone else grows over the course of the novel, but it’s not until the very end that Rosasharn finally gets over herself and sheds her selfishness entirely, giving her milk to a total stranger. It’s all she has left to give. As the book implies throughout and states directly multiple times, the poor are the most charitable. And while Rosasharn was always poor, it's not until she has experienced one of life's greatest losses that she takes on this maxim. Her charity in the final pages matches the tragedy of her loss.

Tom Joad and Anger

I would like to add to Andy's argument about the catalyst of anger in The Grapes of Wrath. While it is true that most men are motivated by anger, they lack the ability to find a way to focus their anger into action. At first this seems based largely upon intellectual capacity and the ability to understand what's at stake. Tom and Jim Casey are the smartest characters of the novel, and both men understand the larger picture. There is something more complex though that seems to drive men to action.

Several men are angry throughout the novel, and several even seem to understand what is driving down wages. Several different characters explain to the Joads why life is so difficult in California. These men are angry, on the verge of giving up, or on their way home. They see that if men were able to organize, wages might stop going down. These men, however, seem to lack the morality that drives Tom and Jim Casey. Largely they seem to see the problem in simple terms.

Ma tells Tom "Everthing you do is more'n you" and while it is okay for her to make Pa angry she has to "lean" on Tom (353). She recognizes that anger can be valuable both because it reaffirms gender roles and because it incites men to continue moving forward. Pa, and the men like Pa, must become angry because anger gives them a sense of purpose and meaning. They have been taken out of their normal environment, and they can no longer fulfill their usual duties (work, support the family, etc.). In many cases this seems to have an emasculating effect, and anger helps to counteract this. Tom needs to be "leaned" on because he understands himself as a part of a larger context and tends to think things through with this in mind.

The common thread between Jim Casey and Tom, which other men seem to lack is the time each had for reflection. Although Tom is naturally given to think about things in a larger context, he struggles with what he should actually do about the injustices he sees. After he kills the man who killed Jim Casey, he puts his family in danger an must go into hiding. This period of hiding allows him to focus inward in a way which Jim Casey had done in the wilderness before him. It is only after this period of reflection, that he is driven to work toward social change.

The Importance of Anger

In Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath a common theme of motivating force seems to reoccur: anger. Throughout the novel men are motivated by their anger, they are motivated to preserve their dignity and to institute change in the world around them, and at several points in the novel the reader is shown the “fruits” from this inspiring wrath. By emphasizing the motivational force of anger in his novel, Steinbeck seems to be guiding the reader to the belief that anger is, not only a productive and appropriate response, but also one that is capable of bringing about significant change.

As the novel progresses the reader is reminded time and again that an angry man is not a broken man. Ma Joad voices this realization to Tom in one passage saying “Take a man, he can get worried an’ worried, an’ it eats out his liver, an’ purty soon he’ll jus’ lay down and die with his heart et out. But if you can take an’ make ‘im mad, why, he’ll be awright.” (p352). This realization relies on the fact that an angry man is motivated by the attacks on his dignity; he is motivated to institute change.

This motivation, when considered an isolated incident such as one man being motivated to try his luck again at finding a job despite the bleakness of the odds, is not such a powerful thing, in terms of instituting change. But when this anger becomes widespread enough, and centered around a similar cause, that is when the products of this wrath can become larger and more powerful than just single man. Take for instance Casey’s anecdote of the prison riot that gave him the idea for the strike he was organizing. Casey attempts to explain it to Tom, but the lesson is lost on him. Here Steinbeck seems to be arguing that if enough people had brought their anger together and centered it around the common cause for access to property or wealth that perhaps a change could have brought about.

It is important to note, however, that Steinbeck complicates this simple black and white picture of anger producing the solution for injustice. The moral centers of the novel, Tom, Ma, and Casey, never seem to act on anger- they feel it, such as Tom’s reaction to the vigilantes who burn down the Hooverville, but they never act on it. This complication shows that although Steinbeck acknowledges the power of anger in brining about change, that this anger must be tempered and guided. Steinbeck wants the reader to realize that real change, social change, does not come from a simple catalyst to a reaction, such as anger, but that it requires an agent that can see the larger picture. This kind of change comes from someone like Tom, as Ma tells Tom and the reader that he is different from most people because he sees the big picture. At first Tom disregards the comment, but later in the novel, he proves his mother right when he talks about going out to bring the angry people together and to “Throw out the cops that ain’t our people” (p419) in order to allow themselves a chance to succeed.

For some readers, this message has seemed to smack of Communism, but disregarding the labels and mixed messages of materialism that are complicated and sprinkled throughout the novel- this revelation that Tom has seems to be more about simply reacquiring the dignity that these migrants have lost and been denied. It is this sort of “fruit” or result that Steinbeck seems to urging his readers to grasp from the vine of wrath; not simple a reaction to an unfavorable circumstance, but a motivation and reaction centered around an ideal that is larger than simply one man to bring about a real and lasting change.

Strong Women

In the final chapters of the Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck performs a number of odd literary moves. Throughout the bulk of the novel Tom Joad appears to be the primary character. Tom is first person the reader gets to know well and, for the most part, the novel centers around him with Casy and the rest of the Joad family serving as secondary characters. However, this setup falls apart in chapter 28. In this chapter Ma informs Tom that Ruthie blabbed about the murders and Tom realizes that he must leave the area for the good of the family. At this point, not only does Tom leave his family but he also leaves the novel. As Ma emerges from Tom’s nest in the woods, she takes on the role of primary character and guides the reader through the rest of the narrative.

While Ma slowly builds power throughout the novel allowing the reader to accept the change she undergoes near the end of the story, it is Rose of Sharon’s role in the work that is most complex. Throughout the story Rose of Sharon is a relatively flat character whose roles include helping Ma and worrying about her pregnancy. While her child and future dreams with Connie hint at a new beginning for the Joad family, as a character she adds little to the progression of the narrative.

At the end of the novel everything appears to have fallen apart. Rose of Sharon loses the baby and all hopes of seeing Connie again. Tom and Al have left the family leaving Pa, Ma, Uncle John, Rose of Sharon and the children to weather the storm alone. In the final pages of the work, when the Joad family deserts their belonging and seeks shelter in the barn, they have nothing. Their dreams of a better life appear to have ended. And yet in the barn the Joad’s once again meet a family who is less stable then themselves. It is in this scene that Steinbeck allows Rose of Sharon, the seemingly insignificant character, to pull to the forefront and once again provide a glimmer of hope. While she lost her baby she can still nurture and care for another human being. In the last chapters of the book Ma and Rose of Sharon emerge as the family stronghold and suggest that as long as they keep moving forward, doing what is necessary, and not dwelling on the direness of the situation the family will survive.

Broken Religion Renewed Love

Casy, the ex-preacher, has what one might call broken religion.  Once a man of the “Holy Sperit,” Casy decides he doesn’t know Jesus, only “a bunch of stories” (23).  In The Grapes of Wrath, the reader only hears about Casy’s preacher days from Casy’s reflections; the only thing we actually know of Casy is his life after he abandons the church.  This new Casy, this “re-born” Casy, seems in many ways to be more biblical than Preacher-Casy.  He constantly reflects on his life, and tells Tom that he’s still got a lot to “puzzle with” (60).  The ways in which Casy describes his days as a preacher seem to be very sick and perverted, especially given that he would get his congregation excited about the Holy Spirit, and then have sex with one of the girls in the grass outside the church.  Paradoxically, as the reader witnesses the transformation of the un-religious Casy, he seems to become a more Christ-like character.  Casy rejects hypocrisy in his life as he insists that he “ain’t a preacher no more” when the Joads repeatedly ask him to pray before their meal, but agrees to just be “glad to be here” and be “thankful for people that’s kind and generous” (60).  He also fights for the rights of the helpless by going on strike to protest against unfair wages, defending a biblical cause: “Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed” (Psalm 82:3). 

To a preacher, the possibility that one could reach his true purpose and find life’s meaning outside of the church would be entirely impossible.  But it seems that Casy discovered many biblical principles after he shed all of the labels and legalism, and left them behind.  He admits to Tom that he didn’t think he ever knew God the way he was supposed to, explaining that he discovered he didn’t “know nobody name’ Jesus.  I know a bunch of stories, but I only love people” (23).  Casy becomes less “religious” and more “spiritual.”  He figures, “maybe it’s all men an’ all women we love; maybe that’s the Holy Sperit—the human sperit—the whole shebang.  Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of” (24). 

I think it’s really interesting to consider Casy’s newfound outlook on life that involves completely sacrificing himself for the cause of others.  In the event that (indirectly) eventually leads to his death, Casy sacrifices himself to preserve the unity of the Joad family, understanding that their unity was their reason and means of survival.  In a way, although the Joad family ends up in a less than ideal situation, Casy was the savior that gave them a chance at staying together, and a bit of prolonged happiness.  

The Name Game

This semester, I am also taking a 17th Century British Poetry class. Through our discussions, we have learned the importance of knowing and understanding name origins. As readers of that time period were overly familiar with the meanings behind given names, authors often used specific names to give extra meaning to their work. Therefore, as a bit of an experiment, I decided to look up the meanings of the names behind the characters in Grapes of Wrath, and I've found (what I believe to be) some interesting connections.

The name "James" (which Jim is short for) means "supplanter" (see various baby name sites). In the novel, Jim Casy offers alternative perspectives to religion, sex and the true meaning of humanity. His final days are spent bringing the migrant workers together in an attempt to reestablish a sense of control (and hope) in their dire situation. Therefore, his role is to supplant or displace/alter the norms.

Sharon means "flat clearing" or the "plains." Throughout the novel, Rose of Sharon is often seen as fragile due to her pregnancy and the precarious circumstances that she and her family are continuously subjected to. Yet at the end of the novel, Rose of Sharon becomes the ultimate symbol of hope. Therefore, it is interesting to consider the imagery of her name. Rose (which simply means rose) of the plains; a single, solitary flower amid an expanse of grass and dirt. For weary travelers, such a sight would be a beacon of hope, or at least, a kind of temporary relief. This is what Rose of Sharon gives to the dying man.

Interestingly, two of the novel's central characters are never truly associated with names at all but are simply called Ma and Pa. This, I believe, is because Steinbeck wanted his readers to rely on conventional associations. Ma: mother, feminine, loving, soft, comforting. Pa: father, masculine, driven, tough, reliable. This makes the breakdown of these gender roles much more poignant; as the novel evolves, so do its characters and eventually the traditional ideas of what makes a "Ma" and "Pa" are abandoned altogether.

The last, and in my opinion, most interesting name-text association I'd like to point out is Tom, whose name means "twin." In light of the conversation where Ma calls the rest of the family strangers, I find this name association to be very compelling. The hardships faced by the family have robbed each character (in his or her own way) of little bits of their humanity. Therefore, by the end of the novel, everyone has ultimately been stripped down to dealing with life rather than living it. This makes Ma's disassociation with the rest of the family easier to understand; it is through their coping methods (or the way they deal with their situation) that Ma and Tom are able to relate. With little else left to define their humanity (or their family, as the traditional roles have begun to break down), Ma and Tom essentially become twins.

Sweet Fruit

I love the book; but don’t quite get the title.

For a writer of Steinbeck’s caliber, it must be assumed that few decisions – much less the title of the book – would be made without great consideration.

But throughout the course of the novel, that purpose wasn’t always clear.

Of course there’s the historical significance of the phrase, which originated in the abolitionist ballad, The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Yes, we’d discussed Julia Ward Howe’s lyrics in class and Steinbecks intention to have those words inscribed in the cover of the first edition, but such reasoning hardly seemed fully sufficient to explain the title of the work.

In my own research, I discovered that the tune for the famed hymn was composed in 1855 and sung around campfires with many different sets of lyrics. I can’t help but imagine that the populist sentiment of this composition would be admired by Steinbeck. Surely, he would love the communal ownership of the melody.

It seemed, however, that there must be support within the text itself for Steinbeck’s choice.

Of course, the promise of grapes in California caused many families, including the Joads, to leave their homes in search of work and stability. Dreaming of the future, Grandpa Joad said he was “gonna pick […] a wash tub full a grapes, an’ […] set in ‘em, an’ scrooge aroun’, an’ let the juice run down [his] pants” (93). However, as we saw, when the patriarch was removed from his familiar home, from the fields and farm, he died. The dream of a land rich with prospect, of greener grapes beyond the mountains, lead to his demise.

Perhaps the dream is better than reality; the grapes of promise turning to the grapes of wrath.

It should also be noted that those who completed the journey to California were not greeted with jobs and chance, but with resentment. After the fruit ripened, the hungry workers witnessed the destruction of the crop because it would not be profitable for the owners. They watched as oranges were sprayed with kerosene, potatoes thrown in the river, and pigs slaughtered and buried in quicklime.
In our final section, the title phrase is explicitly mentioned in the context of this destruction of the fruit: “In the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage” (349).

Like the grapes that grew and decayed on the vine, the relationship between the poor, migrant laborers and the affluent, greedy owners has deteriorated. While their children starve, ashamed fathers watch the fruits of their labor go to waste.
Like the narrator asserts, “The smell of rot fills the country” (349).

The seeds of uprising, which had been planted by businessmen slashing wages and dehumanizing workers, are beginning to mature and take root. Now men are willing to strike, to demand higher wages, proper treatment, and dignity.

To Steinbeck, such action is sweet fruit.

Morality and Religion

The central theme of The Grapes of Wrath is one of collective good, promoting unity and hard work to obtain what most benefits the whole of a society. The story of the Joad family takes us through a series of sacrificial acts by the characters to benefit the family as a unit. However, no character displays what would conventionally be considered a perfect set of morals. On the contrary, the most morally sound acts come from characters with a criminal history. In this way Steinbeck asserts moral principles that are based not on the character of the person that represents them, but on the actions they carry through to benefit others. He uses this principle also to dispel the establishment of religion and conventionally-founded morals.

Interestingly, Steinbeck uses religious allegory in the novel in an almost satirical light, with the most self-sacrificial character being the retired Preacher and sinner Jim Casey. In the beginning of the novel, we learn Casey once was a preacher who used his position to sin and sleep with women haphazardly. However, as Casey and the Joad family make their journey west and lose family members and friends along the way, Casey’s character develops into a moral figure for the family. He is seen throughout as the preacher, and the person who members of the Joad family seek for advice and prayer. The culmination of this character development occurs in the end of the novel, when Casey “dodged down into the swing” of a blow from a policeman. It is arguable whether this was an accident or if Casey did this to protect Tom. It would only make sense that Casey did this to protect Tom from being hit by the club, since the entire novel establishes themes of self sacrifice for the greater good. In this instance, religious references are made in the very language describing his death. Right after Casey falls to the side, one of the policy officers exclaims, “Jesus, George. I think you killed him.” I do not think it was a mistake that Jesus is referenced in the quote right after his death. In subsequent paragraphs Casey is referred to again as a preacher, reminding the reader of religious underpinnings.

The character development of Casey is another swipe at the establishment of religion, in that although Casey did not personify the perfect Christian according to convention, his actions were Christ-like in the end of the novel. Tom goes on to act as Casey’s disciple, when he makes the decision to leave his family he references Casey’s thoughts.

After the Storm

In both Their Eyes Were Watching God and Grapes of Wrath, the novels end in similar and dramatic ways. A storm comes through, wipes away everything, and it acts as the height of action within the plot. For Janie, it could be argued that the hurricane “ruins” her life – she is forced to uproot because of it; the storm is very chaotic and destructive, and it ultimately contributes Tea Cake’s demise. However, for the Joads, the storm at the end of the novel might not be a horrible act of nature that threatens their already meager existence, but instead, a “washing away” of sorts that ushers in a better life – or a hope for a better life.
I can’t help but think of Noah’s Ark when I read the final chapters about the storm. The language describing the storm isn’t necessarily violent, but instead Steinbeck focuses on the constant showers, and how “the rain beat on steadily”(432). The consequences of the storm are awful – it ruins crop, puts people out of work, causes illness and hunger, and wipes out the migrants already-desperate lives. However, there are indications of a silver lining within it all, as Chapter 29 ends: “Tiny points of grass came through the earth, and in a few days the hills were pale green with the beginning year”(435) – a rare moment signifying renewal in the novel.
The storm also functions as a fitting background to another violent act of nature – Rose of Sharon giving birth. Her torturous labor filled with “fierce pains”(441) also ends with something awful, as her baby is a stillborn, a “blue shriveled little mummy”(444). But the silver lining of this “storm” of labor is her saving the hungry man with her breast milk, and the uplifting final image where she “smiled mysteriously”(455). I don’t know if it’s too simplistic to say the new, growing grass at the end of the storm, and Rose of Sharon’s final act are similar to the white dove of hope at the end of Noah’s Ark, but Steinbeck does not give much insight into the next part of the Joads’ journey, but he does end the novel in a hopeful way, as all is not lost. What’s left of the the Joads will continue on, and as Ma said, “Woman looks at it like that. We ain’t gonna die out. People is goin’ on – changin’ a little, maybe, but goin’ right on”(423).

The Joads' Odyssey

In our first class discussion on The Grapes of Wrath, someone (and I apologize for not remembering who it was) mentioned the Odyssey as a basis of comparison for the Joad family's archetypal quest. As I read the rest of the book, I could hardly keep from thinking about the Odyssey.

The Grapes of Wrath and the Odyssey are both stories about long, dangerous journeys. The lead character in both stories is initially characterized by a testing time in his past: Odysseus fought in the Trojan War for a decade, and Tom Joad spent four years in prison. Both stories are structured episodically, with the heroes facing a series of challenges, like the Sirens and the sea monsters for Odysseus and his crew or the continuing car troubles for the Joads. Interesting, the heroes meet a one-eyed figure in both stories, and although the attendant at the car lot is less menacing than the Odyssey's Cyclops, both encounters provide an opportunity for the lead character to show his strength and intelligence. In both stories, the episodic chapters dealing with the journey are so complete and self-contained that they could be rearranged or sometimes even removed without greatly affecting the story as a whole. The groups in both stories diminish in size as the journeys progress, though the loss of each ot the Joads' family members is always a harsher blow than the loss of the interchangeable sailors on Odysseus's crew.

Odysseus and the Joads reach their destinations (Ithaca and California) with plenty of pages left in their respective books. In both cases, reaching the destination is not the resolution of the story because the situation they find is not whay they had hoped. In California, living conditions and job prospects are poor and the residents and law enforcement are hostile to newcomers. Ithaca is overrun with rowdy suirots for Odysseus's wife. In both cases, the main character kills someone (or many someones) who threatens what the main character sees as his right - the right to a fair wage for Tom, or the right to his kingdom and wife for Odysseus.

While the Odyssey and The Grapes of Wrath have these elements in common, and certainly plenty of others (pig farmers, frequent religious references, extreme weather, and many I've missed), I will not go so far as to say that The Grapes of Wrath was directly inspired by the Odyssey. I am more inclined to believe that the common elements appear in these two enduring works (a classic Greek epic and a possible contender for the title of the Great American Novel) because they communicate some universal hopes or fears that resonate with readers across time and cultures.

Guthrie and The Dust Bowl Ballads

The story of the migrant people, the displaced farmers of the great plains who were dusted out or tractored out is preserved in a set of texts--literary, photographic, artistic, musical--which interact. We've already seen how Steinbeck's work was informed by a photographer (Bristol). Benton's illustrations combined with The Grapes of Wrath created a hybrid text, incorporating two independently authentic yet intertwined works of art. Later we'll see a non-fiction writer (Agee) and a photographer (Evans) produce in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. In this post, I'd like to expand on the contributions of Woody Guthrie, an songwriter whose musical texts add another dimension to the richness of this narrative, and how he too interacts with the texts we've seen.

In class, we listened to the song "Tom Joad," a ballad which re-tells the Steinbeck story with a slant toward the political angle. However, like Thomas Hart Benton, Guthrie's contribution to the corpus of texts surrounding the Dust Bowl extends beyond this one instance directly related to The Grapes of Wrath. In fact, by 1940, Guthrie had written so many songs about this story that he released an entire album titled "Dust Bowl Ballads." The video below is a recording of "Dust Bowl Refugee" one of the tracks from that album:

Lyrics

This song tells the same story as The Grapes of Wrath, except from the perspective of a "dust bowl refugee." In the interview at the end of the video, Guthrie explains that he felt this moniker did not do justice to the dignity or the hardship the migrants went through. Its function is similar to that of the label "Okies" in The Grapes of Wrath.

I'd also like to mention that Guthrie did more than just write songs. He was a graphomaniac and among his many writings is his autobiography Bound for Glory, which tells his story of growing up in Oklahoma and his bumming and wandering across the country. (Jessica has very nice close reading comparison of the Jungles from this book and the Hoovervilles of The Grapes of Wrath.) Guthrie also did some drawings--the pen and ink images in the beginning of the video are some of his illustrations of the "whirlwinds," a motif of Bound for Glory which is a symbol of the boom and bust of oil towns that he lived in as a child as well as the mental state of his mother, who suffered from Huntington's disease. The motif arises too in "Dust Bowl Refugee":

"Yes, we wander and we work

In your crops and in your fruit,
Like the whirlwinds on the desert
That's the dust bowl refugees."

This wind appears over an over again with Guthrie: the dust storms seem to haunt him. He often uses that metaphor for his own wanderings across the country. (This motif by the way was picked up by Bob Dylan in "Blowin' in the Wind," another song with a social conscience).

Many of Guthrie's songs resonate with other themes of The Grapes of Wrath. He makes a direct allusion to "Preacher Casy" in "Vigilante Man," and the constant presence of the deputies in the later chapters of the novel is akin to the repetition in that song of the lyric "Have you seen that vigilante man? I've heard his name all over this land." The major theme of The Grapes of Wrath comes across in "Do-re-mi." In this song, he warns migrants of the disappointment to expect upon arriving in the Promised Land:

"California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;

But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi."

Guthrie's work is one more piece of this network of texts which arose in response to the environmental calamity of the Dust Bowl. His songs enter into a conversation with The Grapes of Wrath, but they are different in their point of view. They express the anguish of the migrants as told in first person, in the voice of someone who lived with them, who bummed all over the country singing songs for working folks.

(You can find all the tracks and lyrics for "Dust Bowl Ballads here

Jungles

            I wish we had done more with Woodie Guthrie and especially Bound For Glory.  There’s a scene in Guthrie’s story that strongly correlates to the arrival of the Joads at their very first Hooverville (241). The look of both camps are strikingly similar: rusted, metal tin roofs and houses, scrapped together with paper stuffed in holes, open fires, boxes for chairs, thatch. However, what I found most interesting was that the camp the Joads arrive at lacked the nice communal feel that pops up everywhere in “The Jungles” (Guthrie’s nickname for the Hooverville) of Bound For Glory. The men in the Joad’s camp have been pushed around for too long, have been burnt by peach farms and other callous companies, and have lost or just conveniently forgotten how to be pleasant and function as a solid community. When Pa first speaks to the Mayor, asking if the family can camp, the Mayor responds in half nonsense and half sarcasm and then goes back to his business. The lack of community continues with the young man, who, though willing to talk, is neither kind nor invested in anything but his own woes.

            This is a far cry from the Hoovervilles in Bound For Glory. People seem to be more thoroughly invested in one another than what Steinback expressed. The sense of strong connection and community exuded in Guthrie’s definition of the Jungles actually reminds me of the diner scene in Grapes of Wrath when the waitress’ kindness with the candy leads to her getting a fat tip from the truck driver. When Guthrie arrives, he notices the dirt and the muck and the bugs—everything dismal about his situation. But the people are all rooting for one another. There is a woman feeding anyone who needs feeding from a large stew pot. There is a community shack set up where the men relax, smoke, and gamble.  Guthrie sums it up pretty well, “If you’d go looking for social problems, you’d find just a good friendly bunch of people getting a lot of laughing and talking done, and some of it pretty good sense” (249).  It’s interesting that Guthrie would devote an entire chapter to the kindness in his camp and Steinback would choose to portray the same sort of kindness in the diner scene. Those who still have their jobs have the capacity for compassion, but those who have been downtrodden for too long just seem a little…detached. 

Innocence Gone

I would like to take a moment to examine the purpose Ruthie and Winfield Joad in the novel. In class, we discussed the main characters of Ma, Pa, Tom, Casy, and even Rose of Sharon, but Ruthie and Winfield are there throughout the novel. In a book where so many characters are adopted and disappear, the two youngest characters must be of importance.

The most important thing the two children do for the novel and the farming community beyond the novel is show the lack of childhood forced upon the migrant workers. By being removed from their home, Ruthie and Winfield do not get to spend their time playing games or learning the trades of the gender and station. Before the Joad family leaves Uncle John’s place, the whole family is involved in the preparations, and while trying to be awake while the adults were working, the two children fall asleep on the porch. The scene of the two kids falling asleep seems so simple it goes rather unnoticed, but the underlying idea is this moment is the last real moment for Winfield and Ruthie to sleep in comfort at home. Perhaps, the role of the children here is to set up a last shred of normalcy and childhood concerns against the packing and burning of bridges by the adults.

Later, while attempting to be as adult as the situation demands and as adult as those around him, Winfield endeavors to make light of the dog being hit by a car saying, “’His guts was just strowed all over—all over’” only to throw up in disgust (132). The moment the dog is hit seems to be the end of the innocence for Ruthie and Winfield by reestablishing how the world and “progress” must move forward no matter what/who is in the way.

The touching final moment of the novel where Rose of Sharon allows the man to suckle on her breast is the moment I believe the two children may have most felt included in the adults. At that moment, Winfield and Ruthie were not being asked to leave the barn because they were too young to see what was to come but to allow privacy—the same as John, Pa, and even Ma did. In the final moments of the book, Winfield and Ruthie no longer have to be seen as the children because they were forced into an adulthood more uncertain than any.

Broken Gender

In this novel as we talked about in class, we concluded that Ma Joad becomes the family’s strength as Pa begins to decrease as an effective leader. What happened here? At the beginning of the book we are told that the women look to the men for support by way of seeing if the men “break” when something goes wrong. If the men have not broken, than everything is alright, supposedly. But what do they men when they say “break”? I believe that breaking is the point where someone says "well...this is too hard for me...I give up," or just not thinking about anyone else but yourself, Which is kind of what Pa does, along with most of the other men in Grapes. For example, Noah just kind of runs off and decides that he is better off on his own in a forest. Wow, can you say family abandonment??

It is apparent to me by the end of the book that Pa Joad has definitely been broken when the hardships the family has gone through prove to be too much for him, but when this happens, Ma steps up and tells him (when he becomes even less effective after he cannot find work) that he has lost sight of his responsibility to the family. After he was unable to keep the family’s shelter from flooding it is as though now Pa has lost all hope in himself, and follows Ma like a defenseless child.

When I began to think of how Ma, a female, is taking over as the family’s back bone, I began to think of other ways in which the gender roles may have changed since they moved to California. It seemed important to me because, like I said before, the beginning of the book says that the women look to the men for support, but it is pretty clear that the women aren’t looking anywhere but inside themselves for whatever kind of support they need, and the men are abandoning the thought of any output of support.

Even Rose of Sharon steps up to the plate at the very end of the book when SHE helps a starving MAN. She has just given birth to a stillborn baby and somehow she finds the strength and will inside herself to help this man.

The only male figure that I see who blossoms in this situation and does not give up or “break” by the end of the book is of course, Tom. But when we look at Tom, we notice that he is very feminine in the novel; He is much more like his mother than his father or uncle. At one point he says that he wishes he could take on the persona his father has put on. This idea of Tom not being quite masculine enough might hint to the idea that women are the ones who’s character’s are built through hardships, whereas men are more likely to diminish because they (men) have always been looked up to for hope and leadership-when they cannot accomplish things, they give up on themselves-whereas the females (or the female persona/role) who have been in the background most of the time can step up and, by thinking of the family and not themselves, can take on the leadership and provider role.

Blog 3

I have been trying to come up the proper choice of words to a recent string of thought concerning nature and its relation to the novel. When looking at how the Joads and the many others just like them are only connected to the major organizations that set all the migrants problems in motion, there is a long chain of links going from national to local like the bank branch people, the CAT drivers, the sheriffs and deputies, the local mobs, and the landowners in California (no specific order) I realized that even though the actions taken by all these groups are from a subjective stand point "evil" or cruel to increase suspense and drama, Steinbeck almost glosses over an invisible sadistic being: nature itself. Throughout the book, nature plays a cat and mouse type game with the Joads in that they are tortured and hurt by the obstacles put in front of as they go across the country to California such as the destruction of the farmland, the heat and cold of outside living, the desert and mountain they cross, but also the river where they rest by and find some enjoyment from, the families they meet and bond with along the way (to say that the migrants are more a part of nature than all others), and just the first sight of California and its possible promise of better days (Thank you Goo Goo Dolls).

But what I see as a key difference between what the people do and what nature does are actions based on response and desire, respectively. The people are doing what is both necessary and advantageous to survive. Their deeds are part of a real and literary mindset based in a capitalist society that condones those deeds while at the same time can find pity for the migrants whom it affects. There is dual response to people while nature hands out small victories only to set the Joads up for a greater defeat later on. But we see no response from anywhere in anyway since nature is a force beyond recognition. But if that is true, why aren't the top human organizations not in that same position? Or are they? Or can nature be broken down into a similar chain of groups to hold some responsibility? I think in some ways it can.

What If Hurston Went Another Route?

In response to Jeff’s post, from a couple of weeks ago that is, I would like to further look at the following line from his post: “Although Janie can be viewed as a man-eater, her naivety and her constant renewal keeps the reader on her side and behind her throughout the novel's entirety.” More importantly I am concerned with the latter part of this line where Jeff talks about Hurston keeping her audience of the side of Janie throughout the novel’s entirety.
Janie’s romantic affairs always put her “in the right,” even in a society where spousal relationships were almost always dominated by the husband. Obviously, times have changed for the better in this regard, but what makes Janie so much different from any other wife during their time in this era? Her attractive features probably help with this and Hurston utilizes this consciously.
Her hard-working nature also helps the readers connect with Janie. Her strict routine in the town shop before Tea Cake, as well as the time that she takes on in the fields simply to spend more time with Tea Cake also evidence how she does not mind getting her elbows dirty.
Finally, when Janie has to “put Tea Cake down,” and the main reason why I chose to comment on Jeff’s post, we as readers are so connected with the protagonist at this point that when she blows Tea Cake away, we, and fortunately her jurors, both side with Janie. In all actuality, if we had not had the details of Janie’s final ordeal with Tea Cake, we probably would not have advocated for her as readers. She has however gone through much all on her own, which speaks volumes about the strength that novelists like Hurston and others can manifest. Hurston sets up her readers to side with Janie throughout the novel in comparatively small-scale matters until the end when she takes care of Tea Cake. If she would have set up those relatively small-scale situations with readers’ advocacy not for Janie, we would most certainly have a different ending and more than likely a different novel altogether. Critics over sixty years later would still agree that she made the right choices for her protagonist though I am sure.

Comparing the Texts So Far

For my first blog entry, I would like to analyze and connect both novels we have covered in class: The Grapes of Wrath and Their Eyes Were Watching God. Particularly, I will discuss the notion of futility between both novels’ protagonists, Janie and Tom.
Janie seeks love and her own niche in a society mostly dominated by men and where her newly-blossoming sexual inquiries do not have a place. When she ultimately finds love in Tea Cake, love in a manner that she acknowledges for herself, he is brutally removed from the plot by her own hands. Aspects of Shakespearean tragedy could also be connected, but such will be saved for another blog perhaps.
Tom Joad on the other hand, yet on a similar parallel with Janie, meets his own series of setbacks as he and his family try to find their niche too but this time in the West. Both his grandparents die, he is subject to the brutal death of the dog, whether it affected him greatly or not, and also just the general way that he and his family see their fellow “Okies” heading back to their land are all futile aspects of the horrid conditions of the Great Dust Bowl.
Both protagonists also have the ever-surmounting responsibilities to both themselves and their families. Janie has to run the store after her husband dies, even though she in set free in a way. Tom eventually ends up being the head of his family, despite his young age and goes on to lead a revolution with his fellow poverty-stricken Dust Bowlers.
Certain perspectives of New Criticism convey the need to read one text solely by itself, with no other texts to relate to nor the taking of societal and culturally relevant issues into consideration. This would be my advice to readers of both Grapes and Their Eyes for two reasons: both texts were revolutionary in their own sense and also simply because both pieces are quite depressing when read so closely together.

The Plot Contradicts the Moralsthe Novel Sets to Establish

In The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck argues for a communist-like revolution in America, advocating community and the collective good with the depiction of the Joad family’s struggle against capitalist America. However, the story does not argue the point it is trying to make clearly enough with its characters and plotline, and does not adhere to the moral rules it sets to establish.

One theme that continuously occurs throughout the novel is that collective value and rights is the most moral method of living. As the Joads make their journey to California, Steinbeck describes the new mindset they adopt, in which families that meet together in a given campground share a mutual understanding of collectivism and community. In describing the “rich” families that had the luxury of canned peaches and packaged bread, Steinbeck wrote, “…but they ate secretly, in their tents, for it would not have been good to eat such fine things openly” (270).

Though he does argue that rich families should only eat fine food in the open if they can share, he does not support that notion clearly enough with the examples provided, failing to address the point that those families may not have enough healthy food to share with everyone on the campground, and may need the sustenance of such food rather than larger quantities of unhealthy, inexpensive food. Additionally, he fails to address that the “rich” families chose to reside in the campgrounds that poorer families stayed on, possibly making the move to California their neighbors were attempting. Regardless, these families are shunned and ostracized from the campgrounds the poorer families crafted into communities. Essentially, the act of envying those that could afford finer food causes their community ideal to break down, leaving a divide between the rich and the poor which the novel argues against.

Another confusing point frequently visited throughout the novel is that of property. In chapter nineteen, Steinbeck argues that a man should be able to plant a crop in the ground and cultivate it, and therefore claim the land as his own. Additionally he argues that since Grandparents stole the land from Native Americans their families owned it. In other words, property is not a right which should be granted to one person because they are most able to buy, but because they are the most capable to take it. The same point is discussed earlier in the novel, when the bank sends a tractor to level the Joads’ land and home. However, it is in this nature that the plot itself contradicts the morals it sets to establish. By Steinbeck’s argument, the Joads owned the land because they cultivated it. But by his same set of rules, the bank had the right to take the land as its property since it was more capable to steal it, just as the Grandparents of the "Okies" took the land from the Natives.

In this way the novel establishes a moral set of rules and then contradicts it, leaving a sense of confusion to anyone that attempts to challenge the novel's central arguments.

Observation

Briefly discussed in class was the idea of seeing vs. telling, and with the observation that Tom and Casy are the most observant characters in the narrative chapters of The Grapes of Wrath. Personally, I find Tom and Casy being as observant as they are rather interesting considering they are the two characters with the most interesting background stories. Tom is a paroled murderer, and Casy is a preacher who seems to have lost his faith. I will briefly explore the possibility that the recent troubled pasts of Tom and Casy are what lead them to take in more of the surroundings than others.

When left with the Wilson’s car, Tom and Casy talk, and Tom says, “I done it at Mac for four years, jus’ marchin’ in cell an’ out cell an’ in mess an’ out mess. Jesus Christ, I thought it’d be somepin different when I come out! Couldn’t think a nothin’ in there, else you go stir happy, an’ now can’t think a nothin’” (173) It seems to me Tom is able to see all the things going on in the family because he has been in an environment where seeing and thinking is not just discouraged but prevented. Tom’s time in the penitentiary has forced him to be a part of the government system, and with the banks owning the land and forcing his family to move, Tom has had a new system forced upon him. Tom’s time spent in the system has given him the skills to better see the workings of the new system affecting his life.

Casy’s time as a preacher gave him the skills to learn how to read people. Casy was responsible for scrubbing clean the souls of people while examining the almighty; though, the inner turmoil he experienced while contemplating the cosmos has affected his view. Casy understands more than any member of the family when Grampa dies. When discussing Grampa’s death, Casy says, “He knowed it. You fellas can make some kinda new life, but Grampa, his life was over an’ he knowed it. An’ Grampa didn’ die tonight. He died the minute you took ‘im off the place” (146). Casy understands when someone loses the spirit that drives him or her because Casy was supposed to have been driven by faith. Casy’s lost faith doesn’t seem to be his undoing, but his loss of faith causes him to search for a new driving force. It seems Casy’s search for his own driving force gives him insight into the changing lives of people around him.

Let's break for an essay

I must admit, my first love has always been the essay.

Described by Aldous Huxley as the, “device for saying almost everything about almost anything,” I’ve long valued the concise depth that characterizes the form.

So it should come as no surprise that upon my reading of The Grapes of Wrath, I would be particularly drawn to Chapter 14.

A description of the transforming American west, Chapter 14 cannot help but be seen as unique, even in this most unusual novel. Standing out from the other intermediate chapters of the work, it makes no use of unattributed quotation and is spoken from one specific, consistent perspective – void of the fluid switches of voice that characterize the majority of the book.

This consistent voice lends Chapter 14 extra authority, as does its use of cadence.
The chapter is crafted from a series of lengthy periodic sentences, with clause upon clause of added description serving not only to lend extra credibility to the piece, but also to add a rhythm reminiscent of sermons and speeches.

From this ‘pulpit,’ the speaker outlines an argument for the rising wave of discontent resulting in the westward migration, ultimately noting that the root cause of motion and change is hunger in a belly and the desire to rise up through ones work. These visceral symbols of humanity – the stomach and the products of one’s physical labor – serve to ground the speaker’s argument in relatable reality.

It is through this emphasis on similarity that the speaker’s intent to comment on mankind as a whole is revealed. Indeed, this is further evidenced as the writer speaks of “Manself,” broadly and confidently.

This chapter, unlike other intermediary chapters, is not included to bridge a gap or to introduce the theme for the following pages – both of which, it must be noted, are still noble tasks. But Chapter 14, uniquely crafted and structured, serves as the thesis statement for the entire work – appearing after an extended exposition, and setting up a lengthy resolution. It distills the intellectual framework upon which the plot is based, and explicitly reveals what Steinbeck sees as the logical end to continued capitalization and marginalization of the common man: revolt.

Eating Dust: Movement in The Grapes of Wrath

For this post I would like to look at Steinbeck's use of movement to shape The Grapes of Wrath. Much like the winds swept away families, homes and crops in the Dust Bowl-- Steinbeck uses interchapters and a quick pace to keep the narrative engaging. "The wind grew stronger, whisked under stones, carried up straws and old leaves [...] marking its course as it sailed across the fields" (TGoW 2). From the very beginning the reader gets a sense that this novel is about transition. A move from something solid, marked-out, and understood to something much darker and unknown.

In chapter two the reader gains his first look at who will become the main character- Tom Joad. However his appearance is skewed by two things. The first is that we must perceive him through the eyes of the truck driver who delivers him. Secondly, it is hard to gain a sense of who Tom is because, not surprisingly, he is in transition-- returning home from prison. These two obstructions act as a barrier to the reader, setting up boundaries. Furthermore they keep the tone of the novel somewhat transitory. Before we truly understand the depth of Tom's character he jumps from the semi and walks away down the dirt road, back facing the reader.

From here the reader is thrown back into an interchapter. This motion, the interchapter to Joad and vice versa, further heightens the novel's momentum. Right when we begin to get the flow of a chapter it is cut off and re-directed. As soon as the Joad's arrive somewhere and settle they must pack up and depart.

Steinbeck's constant unpacking and packing of the novel is a key part of its overall effectiveness. The winds pushed the crops out of existence and the frantic pace the characters in The Grapes of Wrath must keep mirrors that. "There was a rush to go. And when the sun arose, the camping place was vacant, only a little litter left by the people. And the camping place was ready for a new world in a new night" (TGoW 200).

Food (or gum) for thought.

After spending his break chatting with the local waitress, the truck driver must eventually return to the road, but before he goes, he "peel[s] the wrapper from a piece of gum" and while "holding the stick of gum in front of his lips" suggests that the waitress shouldn't do anything (sexually) that she wouldn't want him to find out about.

The peeling of the wrapping paper is clearly suggestive of the peeling off of a woman's clothing and holding the gum before his mouth is implicit of temptation and delayed gratification (emotions that a truck driver would be well-acquainted with).

After he leaves the diner, the driver is temporarily alone with his thoughts before meeting up with Tom Joad. It can be assumed that his thoughts are still on the waitress as he "gnawed down on the stick of gum slowly, opening his jaws and lips wide with each bite. He shaped the gum in his mouth, rolled it under his tongue..." This kind of language is useful in describing the breaking-in of a new piece of gum, but when read within the context of the surrounding paragraphs, it is easy to see the sexually-charged nature of Steinbeck's carefully worded phrases.

After Joad climbs into the truck, the driver examines him before striking up a conversation, simultaneously chewing his gum. "He chewed as though thoughts and impressions were being sorted and arranged by his jaws before they were finally filed away in his brain." Later, the driver experiences a moment of awkward anxiousness after he fears he has offended Joad. "The driver chewed as rythmically, as thoughtfully, as a cow. He wanted to let the whole emphasis of the preceeding passage disappear and be forgotten."

Rather than blatantly explaining his characters' thoughts, John Steinbeck has chosen a more roundabout technique. By portraying thoughts through actions (the gum), Steinbeck is being expressively implicit and creating a stronger narrative; one that is uninterrupted by the all-too-obvious "Joad thought" or "the driver secretly hoped."

The Turntable

Throughout The Grapes of Wrath Steinbeck continually incorporates long passages of exposition that include dense descriptions of machines, their parts, and how they work. The reader is continually berated with mechanical lingo and vivid descriptions such as how the tractors and their “shining disks” rape the earth (36). These passages are vital because they clue the reader into the importance of the machine throughout the work and the ways in which machines affect peoples lives. One of the most interesting descriptions occurs in chapter 15 when the narrator carefully describes the inner workings of a turntable and the movement of a nickel as it falls through the mechanism.

This passage is seemingly innocuous. It falls in the middles of an odd numbered chapter that depicts life in a diner rather than following the Joad family. In this passage the narrator states, “The nickel, which has caused all this mechanism to work, has caused Crosby to sing and an orchestra to play-this nickel drops from between the contact points into the box where the profits go. This nickel, unlike most money, has actually done a job of work, has been physically responsible for a reaction” (158). These two sentences address the major themes of the book. They point to the importance of machines, movement, and work, but most importantly they suggest that money puts things in motion. The Joad family was thrown off their land because they could not make a prophet and pay back the bank. Thousands of families who lost their farms move west in search of jobs and therefore money. This nickel is different however because it actually performs a function. It is tangible and is able to become a physical being that creates work rather than simply a representation of five cents.

These few sentences not only address the major themes of the work but also suggest the futility of money. Money, like the bank, is an intangible entity and yet they controls these people’s lives completely. Money is nothing more than medium of exchanged used to purchase goods and yet because it is seemingly unattainable for many of these families it becomes their lifeblood .

Years Beneath the Surface

The depth and emotion John Steinbeck engraves in his interchapters of The Grapes of Wrath is stunning. There is little need for dialogue in these chapters to really flesh out a wide scale of human emotion and vivid imagery. Instead of a standard narration, Steinbeck opts for digging below the surface to give his readers insight to meaning behind what goes on in his story.

Chapter nine in particular secured my fascination. As the family attempts to sell its household belongings, Steinbeck uses this chapter to give us a sense of the impact the move is having on the characters. His narration "recalls" the memories that are tied with each item for sale, and how painful the sales are when they are cut way below what the owner values of them. It is not just plow they are selling; it's a plow that farmed the land their family was born on, grew up on, and lived on for generations. When the buyer walks away with the plow for a deal close to robbery, he takes with him some bitterness of the soul that remains with it (Steinbeck, 86).

The quote about the two horses and the wagon being sold as a package is my favorite of the chapter, as it really transports one into the world of the Dust Bowl, with an image as vivid as if it was one of our own memories. "You're buying a little girl plaiting the forelocks, taking off her hair ribbon to make bows, standing back, head cocked, rubbing the soft noses with her cheek," (Steinbeck, 87). How often have I myself felt like a part of myself was leaving with things I gave away, or sold at a yard sale? Perhaps parts of our souls really do remain in those former possessions.

Steinbeck's descriptions create a whole new depth to his story and characters. Instead of just reading about their personalities and adventure, we are treated to an inside look to the roots of the old American families' sense of belonging and value, giving us a deeper understanding of their pride.

Death Ritual in The Grapes of Wrath

In Chapter 13 of The Grapes of Wrath, Grampa dies and the Joad family spends a considerable amount of time discussing the burial procedures.  Although they worry that Grampa won’t be buried in a way that is honorable, they eventually decide to bury him themselves. I began to consider the extravagant burial rituals that take place throughout the world today for the loved ones of the living. Often, the lavishness of a funeral and/or burial does not even represent the value of the deceased, but rather, they are status symbols that demonstrate the wealth of the deceased’s family.   

I thought that the method of burial for Grampa was perfect and truly reflected the family’s care for him, while taking into consideration their future needs.  It would have been foolish to spend the forty dollars on a proper burial when the family knew that they would never make it to California without that money.  It is amazing how in today’s society, families feel the need to spend abundant amounts of money and resources to commemorate the dead, when those resources could be much better suited towards future generations.  I have heard it said that one of the most selfish things a person can wish for upon his or her death is to take up a permanent space on the earth.  I can’t say I disagree with this.  At some point, the earth will run out of space for graveyards and cemeteries, and even then, they won’t last forever.            

I think that, even though they may not have realized it, the Joad’s reflected upon the life of Grampa in a way that was honorable but unselfish.  While they made sure that his body wouldn’t be found right away, they knew that it was an eventual possibility.  They identified him and buried him with Scripture, which represents a value of the family, and then moved on with their life.  They didn’t waste time reflecting on what could not be changed.  I think contemporary culture could learn a lesson from the Joad’s and their temporal attitude towards death.  

The Sin of Disconnection

As the Joad’s journey onward to the west, in Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath, characters, religions, and varying moral compasses seem to come into brief focus, are given a quick examination, and pass on as the story continues- like an object being viewed from a passing car. In such a way the readers are shown several different thoughts on what constitutes a sin or an immoral practice, but in the end, it seems that Steinbeck pushes the reader to believe that the only real sin in this novel is the “sin” of disconnection. The characters and institutions that Steinbeck portrays negatively are those that have lost touch with men and the reality of the situation. Inversely, the saviors or heroes of the novel all seem to be extremely grounded in the times and the people and situations around them.

Take for instance, the ex-preacher, Jim Casy. Previously Casy had sermonized on salvation and the dangers of sin, but when times change so to does Casy. He begins to modify his thoughts on what is holy and what constitutes a sin and after his metamorphosis he comes to a very realistic and practical definition for both terms. With these new definitions for religion, Casy proceeds to spread his wisdom bringing, if not necessarily joy or happiness, contentment or a sense of ease to those around him. With his words he eases the suffering of those around him, leaving it up to them to decide what burdens or sins they choose to carry so as to not increase the hardships his companions are forced to face. Such as his treatment of Uncle John, when he asks Casy what constitutes a sin, the preacher tells him a sin is only a sin if he believes it to be one- leaving it up to John to decide if he would bear that burden or not. As a contrast, the reader is introduced to Lisbeth Sandry who follows a harsh and demanding religion that is extremely disconnected from the times around her. Her preaching and accusations of sin only increase the suffering of those around her. Lisabeth is extremely disconnected from those around her, as she attends an off-camp church that denounces and demonizes her fellow campers. By portraying this very religious character in such a disconnected and tragic way, Steinbeck is able to reinforce the importance of religion being connected to the people and situation.

Another example of this disconnection as an immoral trait comes from Steinbeck’s condemnation of the banks, the rich men, and their tractors. These institutions and forces in the story are some of the worst or most demonized in Steinbeck’s work. Steinbeck continually reminds the readers how the rich men and their tractors are no longer connected to the land and the farming process, similar to how banks seem to be disconnected from the men who are supposed to control them. As the most heartless forces the reader encounters in this book, the one common and most striking trait they all carry is that of being disconnected.

This theme of disconnection as sin overrides and weaves its way through most of the characters, institutions, and religions in Steinbeck’s novel. The thrust of this idea points to the importance of unity and community between men during trying times such as the ones presented in the novel. It seems that Steinbeck wants the reader to realize that community is what brings men through hard times, it is this unity that allows them to prevail- but it is a unity that is only possible when the main point on character’s moral compass points to connection and as a result portrays disconnection as one of the cardinal sins.

Anonymity in the novel

Through out the novel, there are several characters that seem to have little importance. They appear sporadically and disappear from the story forever, many times not even leaving a name. They give snapshots of humanity at the time through their minor interactions with main characters.

Steinbeck traveled with a famous photographer all across the dust bowl, taking pictures and learning about the state of people's lives. While he did back down on his offer to write a book with the photographer, I think these small snippets of humanity we get with these faceless, nameless characters are a just like a photograph. In a photograph, you may see a man behind the counter in a store. You can infer how much money he has, how happy, and what he does for a living; but that is all you have, just inferences.

The novel first opens with a truck driver. We learn so much about him, his life, and his life goals, but never learn his name. Again, just like a photograph. Next we have the used car salesman. We learn livelihood and a little about him, but no name. The same pattern is repeated again and again. The question is, does it matter that we never learn their name? We still get a different perspective on life in the dust bowl. In the chapter with the turtle, we never learn the names of the different drivers that nearly end the turtle's life. The impact they potentially could have on the life of this animal is huge, and we never even learn about them.

I believe the theme of anonymity reflects the impact these farmers and migrants had on the country and how they are hardly remembered or realized. They become part of the earth of our country and it's history, then quietly fade into the past, just like a photo.

Organized Chaos

Throughout Grapes of Wrath, there is an interesting focus on familiar and social organization. In Chapter 17, Steinbeck describes, in detail, the social organization that emerges amongst the families moving west. Uprooted from their former lives and communities, the immigrants find a new social norm amongst their fellow travelers and each evening “a new unit was formed”(197). “In the long hot light, they were silent in the cars moving slowly westward; but at night they integrated with any group they found. Thus they changed their social life—changed as in the whole universe only man can change. They were not farm men any more, bit migrant men”(196). The families discovered new social rules, rights, laws, conduct government, and they created these mini-communities every night, and then dismantled them in the morning. The process seems it would be exhausting for the characters, but perhaps this is a way to create order and classification within a life situation that is rife with upheaval, movement and uncertainty. Or, this means of social organization is a natural progression from the importance placed on hierarchy within the family. Steinbeck puts a lot of emphasis on each family member’s “role”, and the characters, so far, don’t seem to push those boundaries. Each character knows their place, and the Joads organize themselves very naturally, automatically, and without much discussion: “And without any signal, the family gathered by the truck, and the congress, the family government went into session”(99). Before they leave for their trip they convene to discuss their journey, and in a very literal moment, the family place themselves physically to mirror their position within the family hierarchy. Pa, Uncle John and Grampa form “the nucleus;” Tom, Connie, and Noah form around them; the women stand behind them with their hands on their hips; and the children quietly play around in the background. This set family structure is a apparent and set – but whether it will uphold or shift during the journey to California is yet to be determined.
- ANS

Interchapter Style: Description and Discourse

While all the interchapters of Grapes of Wrath share the generalized and musing tone which lifts them out of the Joad narrative, most can be further categorized as "description" or "discourse" chapters.

About half of the interchapters (specifically 1,3,11,14,21,25,29) are description chapters. They employ general terms such as "the land, the migrants, the women." Some are just portraits of some piece of the landscape--a vacant house, a migrant turtle. Others give an outline of actions people take, but without specifics.

The other interchapters (5,7,9,12,15,23,27) are what I term "discourse" chapters because they are dominated by speech related to us in the form of indirect discourse. The narrator temporarily shifts without warning into the voice of some person. Quotation marks are almost never used, and for good reason. Even though these chapters give a sense of the presence of personalities, only a few are actually about specific characters. We get names occasionally, for example in chapter 15 with Mae and Al's diner, and in chapter 7 the boss car salesman refers to a co-worker named Joe. But overall, these interchapters could still be about any migrant, any car salesman, any diner. The reader is still supposed to generalize from these vignettes, even if the language is not explicitly so general as "the men squatted on their hams."

Chapters 17 and 19 are hybrids. They begin with a description and shift to discourse halfway through. The shift is a good place to see the contrast between the two modes. In Chapter 17 it occurs with a long dash on page 196 of the Penguin edition. Everything before the dash talks about "the families" and "the migrant people." After the dash, however, most of the rest of the chapter is discourse (in dialect) without attribution to a speaker. At the very end, description comes back with the sentence: "The families ate quickly, and the dishes were dipped and wiped." In Chapter 19, the shift occurs on page 234. The narrator has already changed from talking about collective nouns such as "Okies" and "Californians" to a specific "homeless, hungry man." But the shift in style comes in the following paragraph: "He drove his old car into a town. He scoured the farms for work. Where can we sleep tonight?"

Throughout the novel, interchapters alternate with Joad chapters with two exceptions: chapters 11 and 12 as well as chapters 14 and 15 are pairs of back-to-back interchapters. The reason Steinbeck can pull off the pairs and not seem to disturb the oscillatory rhythm of his narrative is precisely that he has paired a description and a discourse chapter together. Chapter 11 is a short description of the dialpidated house. Chapter 12 gives a vignette of a migrant family trying to buy a used tire. While chapter 12 contains some description (including the famous passage about Route 66), it is dominated by speech. Likewise, chapter 14 is the description of how the collective "we" is a result, not a cause. Chapter 15, however, is the most narrative of all the interchapters--the scene in Mae and Al's diner. It contains much dialogue, and even quotation marks (though they only begin several pages into the chapter).

The two types of interchapters give another, lower frequency, oscillation to the narrative structure of The Grapes of Wrath which is superimposed on the first sinusoidal pattern we identified in class as well as the linear trend of the Joad quest journey.

Community spirit

Community plays a large role in Steinbeck’s, “The grapes of Wrath.” Originally the Joad family was apart of a tightly knit community where families have spent generations on one plot of land. The Joad family wasn’t ready to remove their roots, but they were not willing to stay and become as obsessed like Muley who can’t seem to let go.
Even before the Joad family sets off for California they allow Casy to go with them, showing how the family already recognizes that it isn’t just blood that matters to a group of people. Through out the endless miles the Joad family crossed, the Joad’s remained courteous and nice, never accepting charity or hand-outs, refusing to be seen as bums. This can be seen at various points, such as the fake Shell gas station. The Joad’s made sure to pay for their supplies. Another example is when Tom is speaking with the one eyed man. While he was harsh with the man Tom still encouraged the man to move, to try and get to a better station in life.
Then there is the Wilsons, fellow travelers of the road. Both the Joad’s and the Wilson’s were in the same situation, in desperate need of help. Without the two families help, neither family would have gotten far, as the Joad’s car could have very well broken down in the mountains or how much care the Wilson’s gave to the Joad’s by allowing Granpa Joad to be buried in the Wilson’s tent. Before the families have the unfortunate misfortune to split paths the two families seem as one.
If there is one moment to summarize the families view on community, it can be seen when Casy and Tom first meet. Casy is speaking of the time he spent in the wilderness when he says, “Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of.” This simple statement shows how the government camp functioned without any trouble, or why the Joad family always lends a helping hand to any one in need. By the time the journey is over, no longer is the family concerned about themselves, but for everyone.

Blog 2

Even though it is obvious of Steinbeck's bias or at least implied bias of people in The Grapes of Wrath, I still don't see why he only alludes to the highest and most powerful people or organizations as something straight out of myth. This has left me with a bad taste in my mouth since all that is left for him to grossly over ridicule is the smaller and local groups such as the car salesmen, the banks, and the police and townspeople the Joads encounter as they head to California. It is easy to vilify them when they are seen in a solely archetypal structure. But however simple it was to see these traits when Steinbeck was traveling with Horace Bristol, I find it insulting to both groups in that the migrant workers could only be pitiful and the local populations could only be cruel and judgemental (with one exception in the truck stop scene so far). My question is whether or not Steinbeck did this on purpose to further any statement or goal he was trying to reach with the book. In sacrificing dignity and humanity of certain groups, could a real change or even a hard look at their circumstances be done in order to improve anything? However, when looking at the group most likely to read the novel thoughtfully (the upper class and intellectual do-gooders of the time) wouldn't it simply be seen as an attack on their own position (as many called him a communist and the book "red propaganda") and thus be left as a piece of writing and a call to arms in a shock value kind of way? What I see is Steinbeck either writing this his own way for more heartwarming and retching story or doing it to inflame public opinion and glorify his work and ability (attention for attention's sake).