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).