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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)