The Grapes of Wrath
The family at the story’s center is the Joads, one of many Oklahoman families who lose their farms and head west toward the promised land of California, where jobs allegedly await these families if they can handle the trek across the southwest. The chapters alternate between those focusing on the Joads’ plight and general scene-setting chapters that provide background for the core plot and give Steinbeck a chance to wax poetically, as on the subject of Route 66:
66 is the path of a people in flight, refugees from dust and shrinking land, from the thunder of tractors and shrinking ownership, from the desert’s slow northward invasion, from the twisting winds that howl up out of Texas, from the floods that bring no richness to the land and steal what little richness is there. From all of these the people are in flight, and they come into 66 from the tributary side roads, from the wagon tracks and the rutted country roads. 66 is the mother road, the road of flight.
The Joads reach California but not entirely intact, and end up in a “government camp,” a squatter’s paradise with real buildings, clean sanitary facilities, and a fair but strong system of self-government that enforces cooperative behavior through social pressure and the rarely-used threat of ouster. The system works perfectly, and even an attempted coup by outsiders is quickly thwarted through teamwork. It is the idyllic view of communism common to much literature of the interwar era, although to be fair to Steinbeck, the camp was not a unit or system of economic production but a social safety net for the unfortunates swept aside by capitalist greed during the Depression. The Joads aren’t in the camp for very long, but the idea of a self-enforcing system like this one operating without a whiff of corruption among those in power is incredibly naive. Steinbeck’s commentary isn’t just limited to the scene-setting chapters, and one major criticism of the novel is that he puts his opinions into the dialogue, making characters sometimes seem like mouthpieces for his political views, like Uncle John’s comments on rampant consumerism:
Funny thing, I wanta buy stuff. Stuff I don’t need … Stuff settin’ out there, you jus’ feel like buyin’ it whether you need it or not.
Steinbeck’s prose didn’t seem bombastic to me, nor was I troubled by slightly preachy dialogue; perhaps the 70 years since the book’s publication have seen such widespread degradation in prose writing that what was overbearing in 1939 seems fresh and clever today. Most impressive to me, however, was the book’s pacing. The Joads lose their farm, travel west over sparse land, and end up in a Hardy-esque series of big and small calamities in California that leave the reader afraid to hope for anything, yet Steinbeck focuses on little details like repair work on the family’s car to keep the text moving even when the family isn’t. There’s also a clear faith in the goodness of man – at least, of poor man – encapsulated not just in the jarring final scene but in many small sacrifices made by and for the Joads earlier in the book.
I wondered on Twitter last week if Cormac McCarthy had any of this book in mind when writing The Road, a similarly what-the-hell-can-go-wrong-next story that also focuses on a parent trying to keep a family together against impossible odds. The Joads know the name of their destination on the desolate road, but don’t know what it holds; the Man doesn’t know the name of his destination, but has a similarly vague sense of what might be there to go with the strong sense that he must take the Boy there. Both books show the best and worst of humanity in horrible situations. Both authors put substantial focus on food – not just the search for the next source, but on the consumption of it. And perhaps the father and son in the barn at the end of Grapes inspired McCarthy to build a novel around a boy and his father.
I may have more to say on Grapes of Wrath, since it, like The Road, inspires so much thought after the first reading, but in the meantime, I’ve moved on to Arthur Conan Doyle’s Exploits and Adventures of Brigadier Gerard
The turtle crossing the street is just like the Joads going to California.
Thanks for the book review. I always enjoy reading another person’s opinion on one of my favorite novels. The John Ford film is also one of the best films ever made. Although it steers clear of the book’s controversial ending, it still packs an emotional punch, especially when Tom (Henry Fonda) gives his “I’ll be there. . .” monologue to his mother (Jane Darwell).
I find it interesting how Steinbeck predicted the impending rise of women in leadership roles. Remember, in that era men made decisions and women were largely obedient, as was the case when the novel begins.
But by the end of the novel, the family structure has undergone a revolution, in which the woman figure, traditionally powerless, has taken control, while the male figure, Pa, traditionally in the leadership role, has retreated. He makes threats to beat her into submission but everyone knows they were empty threats.
Can you explain how an author who writes their opinions into a story (in this case class/labor) is a criticism? If you agreed with Steinbeck would that be a criticism or praise? Doesn’t the author have the right to place what he/she wants into his book?
See: Zola, London, Sinclair, Gorky, More, Norris etc etc etc.
Keith, Do you (or anyone else on here) have any recommendations for books on tape? I’m having LASIK surgery Thurs and could use some blind entertainment for the weekend.
Jordan,
When I had LASIK a few months ago, I listened to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, and the time just flew by.
Good luck with the procedure, it was the best decision of my life, and I’m sure you’ll love the results.
Jordan: The Ballad of the Whiskey Robber. Can’t recommend it highly enough. And good luck with the surgery. See if they can give you X-ray vision – I understand that’s part of the options package.
Keith-
Was this the first time you read Grapes of Wrath? I didn’t know anyone got through high school without reading it. Anyway, I’m adding it to my list of “books I probably read too young”. I’m realizing more and more than most middle school and high school curricula base literary decisions more on readability and less on the ability of the reader to actually make sense of the text. I remember reading (and hating) GoW in 10th grade, mainly because I didn’t have the social/historical frame of reference to really get at the deeper themes of the book. I just recently reread Mockingbird, realizing how little I got the first time I read it (9th grade), and how much I’m probably STILL missing in it.
If you had read it before, I’d be curious to hear about how your reactions compared/contrasted now and then.
Yes, first time. Never assigned it in any class.
brian: I think the complaint was that Steinbeck used his characters to advance his views to the detriment of character development. Even that seems a bit spurious to me in this case – Tom, his mother, and Casy are all pretty well fleshed out, at the least.
Keith, off-topic, but in your latest chat you respond to the question of “Did you find decent food in St. Louis?” by saying “Nope. That might be the worst MLB downtown after Detroit.”
I thought you had said before that you absolutely hated Chicago food? I recall that because I’m from Chicago.
Keith – loved the comparison to The Road. Have you ever read or seen the movie version of No Country for Old Men? It’s probably the only book I know of where the movie is BETTER (and it’s still a great book) – the most poetic film I’ve seen since 8 1/2, dating back four decades.
Also, quick question from a current Rutgers student and New Jersey native: what’s your opinion of Todd Frazier of the Reds? He seems to be doing well as a hitter in Double-A, but I recall hearing that he’s a defensive liability at both SS and 3B (and obviously a little old for his league).
I would appreciate additional thoughts on this. Less focus on why critics were obtuse but rather on interesting gifts this book has.
A Juxtaposition of the road and this would be an interesting pursuit. Or social themes then (and in the book) versus today and whether they differ in scope or just location. This book is too good to dismiss so quickly.
brian-
Who is dismissing GoW?
hmm…dismiss = move on from
There was no malice intended. I just encouraged this: “I may have more to say on Grapes of Wrath, since it, like The Road, inspires so much thought after the first reading, but in the meantime….”
I guess I just took that to mean Keith was saying he expects to have more to say given time to more deeply consider that. But, until then, he’s got other fish to fry. Have you read it recently, brian? If so, I think other critiques/reviews/thoughts would be welcome, if you want to continue dialogue.
I read it ten years ago but remember it vividly. Steinbeck has a piercing style that permeates all of his novels (of mice…, pearl, red pony etc.) creating a lasting impression.
Character
I am never sure what Character development means, but rather I care about a connection with the character and often books that seem to lack that development end up being powerful. To stick with this The Road is a great example where characters aren’t deep, but powerful. The end speech of this particular novel is moving and anyone who reads the novel will find inspiration amongst a world where hardships loom.
Socialism/Capitalism
A lot of modern scholarship often looks back upon this style of novel with capitalistic contempt and that’s never fair. Sure socialism is pie in the sky, yet so is capitalism. There is a reason our politicians are beholden to everyone’s interests except ours – the lay people. I’m still waiting to hear it called a failure, yet we as a society are placated with absurd TV shows and other silliness.
Application of Today
As our country struggled out of these times described, we as a society, it can be argued, have foisted the same awful conditions upon other nations. We submit countries to unfair practices in the name of free markets and call it progress. As globalization flows and information is incredibly ready, we begin to look around and see these atrocities. We’re no better than mongers in the book it could be argued.
That’s a quick and dirty discussion starter — with incendiary view points thrown in for more fun fodder.
I’m going to mix in a baseball question . . .
“My gut reaction is that without a bat, the Braves can’t win this division. The deficit is 8 games in the loss column, behind a clearly superior Phillies team that — if anything — has some upside (e.g., Hamels and Rollins should be better in the second half). That’s a lot to overcome.” -KL
Regarding Rollins . . . isn’t he really just a league average player? If he has an exceptional second half, perhaps one that raises his OPS+ from the 70s to league average than that would be great for Philly. But ultimately I can’t see how he is any kind of advantage or ever has been.
Oh and he has certainly played less but I would argue (you might say I am wrong!) that Yunel is a better player. It is still probably not enough, but it should also be noted that the Braves have 40 games left in their division, including 13 left against the Marlins, 9 against the Nationals and 9 against the newly minted AAA franchise NY Mets!
brian-
Thanks for that. I’m planning to re-read the book and appreciate thoughts like that as “things to look for”. I prefer not TOO many details, so as not to ruin the book or to prejudice my thinking, but I know I often miss things, so knowing that maybe they are there allows me to at least keep an eye out for them.
John-
I think you completely missed KLaw’s point. Regardless of where Rollins falls relative to the league average or Escobar, if he plays better in the 2nd half than he did in the first half, than, all other things being equal, the Phillies will be a better team. And, history tells us that Rollins SHOULD play better, based both on his uncharacteristically bad 1st half and his 2nd half splits (which I know some people put no stock in).
Obviously, saying “all things being equal” is absurd, since a million things will change in the second half. But the Phillies have two of their better players (Hamels and Rollins) who are likely to play better in the 2nd half. Do the Braves have any internal improvement that can be reasonably expected?
To (loosely) quote Bart Simpson: We’re going to catch up with the regular kids by going slower?
Jeremy – I would also like to add that LASIK was the best thing I ever did.
Although, I got my surgery 3 years ago and no one said anything about the x-ray vision package. It looks like I should have waited.
Jordan – listen when they tell you about the eye-drops after the surgery. I had to carry around those little disposable vials for about 3-4 months after because my eyes would get unbelievably dry (although I imagine the West Texas wind didn’t help).
BSK – well, the Braves have gotten 3 big holes out of their lineup who saw significant playing time in the first half (Francoeur, Schafer, and Johnson), and Hanson is an improvement in the staff; plus, they added McLouth. I don’t think it’s enough to overtake the Phillies, but I think there’s just as much potential improvement there; I have a feeling they’ll make the wild card race very tight, and if they can add another productive outfield bat I’d call them the favorites.
Jordan, you might want to check out librivox.org – it’s volunteer recordings of public domain books that are free for download (think Project Gutenberg for audio books). There are a few very good early Wodehouse books, for example. The recordings tend to be good quality – they’re checked for mistakes before being posted – although the voices at times can be hit or miss, and it might be a little disconcerting for some to change narrators mid book (not the case with all the recordings, but many of them have multiple narrators in the interests of getting them recorded more quickly and easily).
I would watch out for the Mets in the NL East race.
If you don’t think the bats of Reed, Cora and Schneider are a threat to your pitching staff, Tony Bernazard will take off his shirt and fight you.
BSK, perhaps I should not have included the last paragraph at all.
My point, or lack of one, was simply that I don’t believe Rollins is any kind of difference maker. I think is, and has been his whole career, a league average player. Let’s say he has an outstanding second half, which I think is not likely, but let’s say he does, then the Phillies cannot be beat. If he plays like he has been or a bit better than I can’t see why KL would have sited that as any kind of advantage for them. I didn’t mention Hamels, because KL is of course right about him.
In reference to the Braves, who I think are the only real competition for the Phils in the East, they will be getting back Tim Hudson and Omar Infante which could mean something. In my earlier post I mentioned the number of games they have left in their own division. And Preston mentioned the changes in the lineup. All of those things may amount to the Braves being able to compete for the Wild Card and nothing else. Or it could mean they give Philly a run.
Thanks for the clarification. FWIW, I am not a Phillies fan (or a fan of anyone else in the NL East), I was just trying to clarify what I believed Keith’s point to be. We could argue back and forth over how good Rollins has been in his career, but I would say the odds are that he’s better than .238/.291/.374. I don’t know the other team well enough to know if they have similar candidates for bounce-back, but I took Keith’s point to be that the Phillies have a huge league, have a few key pieces expected to perform better in the 2nd half, and absent a big move, this combination makes the Phillies the odds-on favorites to win the East.
Though, if the Mets have shown us anything, how safe is an 8 game really?
I didn’t feel like ponying up for the x-ray package. The night vision option, however, is quite the bargain.
The Ballad of the Whiskey Robber is actually on my to-read list right now. Thanks everyone for the suggestions/comments.
Keith:
Re Your most recent Twitter update.
As of this morning, ESPN.com was promoting baseball chats with Keith Law and Steve Phillips today (sad company, I know). They have since deleted your name from the chat roster, but they did not scrub today’s scheduled chat from your archives:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/archive/_/id/14/name/keith-law
On another note, I get a kick out hearing that your Mike & Mike spots are sponsored by Subway. Under what circumstances would Keith Law pay his own money to eat at a Subway?
Mozeliak is insane.
Keith,
Gammons mentioned in passing in his article today that Selig and Co. have threatened the Royals with taking away the 2012 ASG if they follow through with a couple of deals they have with ’09 draft picks (presumably overslot for Crow and one of two others). Have you heard anything along these lines? Is this attempted use of leverage more common than we hear?
I’ve never been a fan of Bud, but didn’t realize he was into blackmail.
Thanks.
I’d guess Wil Myers (3rd rounder) would be the other.
It’s Myers and Dwyer. Neither deal is done, but both are getting close. I have not heard anything about threatening the loss of the ASG, but I do know the Commissioner’s Office threatened the Jays with the loss of the “currency equalization fund” payouts after they started spending money in free agency.
Are the Phillies really refusing to part with Happ, Drabek, and Brown for Roy Hallady? … That can’t be correct, right? They must also be asking for Hamels or something
Keith-
Do you really think it’s fair to refer to Michael Vick as “Dog Killer”? I won’t get into the arguments over what he did, but that seems a bit excessive. Yes, he is someone who killed dogs, but is that all he ever did in his life? I don’t think those regrettable acts define him as a person, especially since I have never seen you use such animosity unprovoked against someone before. Honestly, it read as if you were bitter for getting bumped over a topic you didn’t think deserved it and took a cheap shot at Vick. Maybe that wasn’t your intention, but that is how it seemed. It just seemed out of character to make such a statement.
BSK: “Dog Killer-Torturer and Sadist” put me over the 140 character limit.
He’s a (freaking) sick SOB. If you take pleasure in causing pain or death to any living creature, you are demented, and probably sociopathic.
And I don’t even particularly like dogs.
keith-
I don’t deny much of that. I don’t know that it’s as simple as you laid it out right there, but that is not the point of my post. I guess, as I said, it just seemed out of character for you. You never seemed to make the ad hominem attacks on individuals unprovoked. In my recollection, you never threw around the stupid nicknames like Baroid or A-Roid or whathaveyou. Perhaps this is just in a different class for you in terms of the level of offense (I wouldn’t argue otherwise), but it just stood out and I think that was what inspired Jade’s response. I can’t think of another instance where you did something similar.
My job doesn’t often call for me to comment on murders, rapists, or animal torturers.
Fair enough, though I don’t know that that comment was called upon by your job, either, to be fair.
Just because Vick is getting a 2nd chance in the NFL (which is fine with me) doesn’t mean that people have to forgive or forget or ignore what he did. That’s not how life works; you don’t just get do-overs because you’re famous. Don’t murder dogs, don’t get called dog murderer.
(And really, I don’t even like the DUI parallel. As reprehensible as driving drunk is, there’s a different mindset behind it and its likely safe to say most DUI offenders would never choose to run someone over in their car on purpose. Sort of willful negligence rather than the sadism it takes to drown a domesticated animal. Vick is far more Rae Carruth than Donte Stallworth as far as I’m concerned.)
I agree that Vick is more Rae Carruth than Donte Stallworth, but how does he compare to hunters? Or people who eat foie gras? People want to make arbitrary distinctions between actions that are essentially the same based on the animal in question and the cultural norms. While I understand that intent and purpose make a difference (killing for sport vs killing for food), there is still plenty of killing for sport that is not only tolerated, but legal and sanctioned as sporting events. Why is the same outrage and name calling not reserved for these individuals? Again, I’m not excusing what Vick did, but the outrage seems inconsistent based on other accepted forms of cruelty to animals.
Domesticated versus non-domesticated is not an arbitrary distinction.
I agree with BSK here in the distinction between dog fighting and cock fighting or even bull fights is marginal at best. The sensational aspect of his crime -DUI has been done to death and is no longer interesting on the media cycle- is what makes him so heinous. Even PETA issued a statement suggesting they think he’s served his time and are willing to give him a second chance.
Having a media figure preach hate speech is pretty awful in itself. Yeah…hippy speak but nonetheless, punishment in the name of society is not working.
Dave-
I would argue that it is. First off, most of the food you eat falls under the category of “domesticated”. Secondly, you are likely referring more to the “pet vs non-pet” distinction, which I would still argue is arbitrary.
Please note, I am not the hugest animal rights guy. I just get frustrated with hypocrisy. brian makes a great point, that a lot of the outrage has to do with the novelty of this situation. No one minds killing ants, rabbits, horses, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, moose, foxes, fish, etc. But killing dogs is somehow untouchable?
And I know that the torturing aspect will be brought up. But look at how circus animals are treated, or racing animals, or even the slaughter house industry, and tell me that these are not torture.
But he did it for sport? What is prize hunting? Bass fishing contests? Fox-and-hound exhibitions?
When a dog couldn’t fight anymore (meaning nobody would bet on him) he didn’t retire. He didn’t get sent to the old folks home. He got taken out to the woods and hung from a tree by Michael Vick. This isn’t killing for sport and it’s not killing for food. It’s killing for money.
Who’s preaching hate speech?
This is not about “killing dogs.” Fighting dogs are injured, tortured, and killed as a matter of routine. It’s sadistic – and that is my real problem with Dog Killer. Taking pleasure in causing pain and suffering in a sentient creature is a symptom of sociopathy.
Relevant recent tweet
@Jade2020 His behavior was sociopathic. He’s fulfilled his legal obligations, but he doesn’t deserve forgiveness or a 2nd chance
Facilitating Dog fighting is such a vile act it doesn’t warrant a second chance or forgiveness? What exactly is a rightful penalty for dog dogfight? Cock fighting? Or serial adultery? That is a symptom of being an asshole. What exactly is the hierarchy of depravity where 2nd chances no longer apply?
I’m still just put off by the fact that you refuse to call him by his name. As Jade said initially, he has a name, and I doubt his actions were so depraved that he should not be called by his real name by a member of the media. I’m not saying you can’t deplore his actions or comment on his situation, but at least call him by his name. He’s still a human being and still deserves that.
On the forgiveness angle, people have spoken about this quite often, but, does our forgiveness matter? Which of us have been personally harmed by Vick’s actions? I understand the idea of giving him or not giving him a 2nd chance, but I don’t remember him asking for my forgiveness (or anyone else’s), so why do people keep talking about it as if it is a gift they can bestow unilaterally?
Sure, he has a name. So did every one of the dogs he killed for pleasure or sport (or perhaps, as Obo said, for money).
No, he doesn’t need my forgiveness. But I find the media’s obsession with him – a 29-year-old quarterback, three years removed from his last snap, who was never that good to begin with – sickening.
brian: You’re mis-stating Dog Killer’s crimes, repeatedly, which convinces me you’re not interested in a serious discussion. It is not dog fighting per se that disturbs me, but the “training” of the dogs and the murder of them when they were no longer viable. And considering the link between animal cruelty and violence against people, I see animal cruelty in a dim light.
Ad Hominem AND Strawman.
The issues aren’t over his crime, we agree that was pretty dispicable. The concern is over hateful speech and second chances.
A. Do you as a public media member get to speak hatefully towards another human being? Would you say those things to his face?
B. Does someone who has served penalty for an action deserve a second chance? Which crimes deserve second chances and which don’t?
A. And, if not Keith, is it out of fear that Vick might try to kill you?
B. He deserves a second chance at a job; no one here is arguing he should get a lifetime ban from the NFL (or any other profession). He doesn’t need a second chance for respect or athlete-as-hero-worship from animal lovers or baseball reporters. And this second chance debate only matters because he can throw a football and run fast; if he’s Mike Vick, that guy down the street who bred and murdered dogs, would you give him a nice warm reception back to the neighborhood to kickoff (football pun) his second chance on your block?
I’m still not clear on who is using “hateful speech.” I called him Dog Killer, which is an accurate description of his actions. And if I met him face to face, yes, I would call him Dog Killer.
I have also never voiced opposition to the NFL reinstating him. My objection is to the media giving extra attention to a sick human being. My protest is to avoid using his name.
I also don’t see why you’re saying ad hominem and strawman … neither of those apply here.
KL TWEET: No forgiveness or second chance.
KL Response: never voices opposition to NFL restating him.
ME: Confused. Isn’t the NFL restating him a second chance? please clarify your position.
You said I wasn’t interested in a serious discussiong (ad hominem) which I clearly am.
And then you still haven’t address BSK’s original proposition (which I hope is correct) that the crucial difference between dog fighting and something like bull fighting is minimal. Strawman in you state killing for pleasure is bad which skirts BSK’s point entirely.
Finally saying someone doesn’t deserve forgiveness or a 2nd chance is really hateful. The fact that the other person responding on twitter, myself and BSK all questioned you on it suggests that it is.