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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post reminded me of a earlier group discussion in class after reading the first section of the novel. My group was assigned to discuss possible reasoning for the format of the novel; the alternating chapter pattern. During our discussion, we mentioned that a "nature chapter" proceeds a "people chapter" and spoke about how this could be Steinbeck's establishment of the importance of nature in the story. Although the first chapter is extremely broad and some may even consider it boring, it clearly establishes nature as an important "figure" in the story. Steinbeck quickly introduces nature as an authoritative "main character" that is going to dictate the Joad family's actions and decisions. After reading the first chapter of the novel, it is evident to the reader that nature, and more specifically, the Dust Bowl, is in control.
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity used in this chapter can be explained in two ways. First, the fact that the Joad family is not introduced in the first chapter communicates to the reader that although this novel is about a specific family, it is not only about that family. The Joads are not the only people being controlled and manipulated by nature. In fact, they are only a representation of thousands of others. This fact also reestablishes nature's power as not only is nature so drastically affecting this one family's movement, but it is doing the same to thousands of others as well.
The second reason for the ambiguity that Steinbeck uses in the first chapter of his novel is that the reader is left with uncertainty and confusion, much like the people in the story. Like the Joads and so many others, the reader is left waiting, pondering, and unsure of what is going on or what is going to happen next. Just as the people in the story are controlled by nature, the reader is essentially controlled by Steinbeck as he waits until the second chapter to zero in on the Joad family.
After enduring the ambiguous first chapter and "boring" beginning of this novel, we, as the readers, are hooked. We are left sitting, waiting, hoping for the best, hoping that the Joads manage to outrun this powerful nature "character." We are left rooting for them, wishing with them that their lives pan out the way they want them to, as we realize that these people have no control-they are being controlled by nature.
Kudos to both Josh and Danielle for returning us to the nature theme. Nature indeed is a hostile force, though one that has become so partly in response to human abuse (the landowners that don't work on the land anymore, use it for profit and let things rot rather than sharing them with others). The flood at the end, though--which is in direct relation with the dryness of the beginning--seems to have a very ambiguous meaning. It is a terrible force, comparable to what happens at the end of Hurston's novel--but it also purifies the characters, instigating an act of pure compassion coming from one of the most selfish characters in the novel. It's Noah's flood, in a sense, the barn becoming a perverse ark of survival....
ReplyDelete