NPR has a great story on the controversies that Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath inspired . This story chronicles how the book was banned and burned in a number of places, including Kern County, California (the endpoint of the Joad family's migration). Listen to or read the story here. The NPR page also features Rick Wartzman's book Obscene in the Extreme: The Burning and Banning of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, which covers this history in greater detail.
And, as I mentioned in class, here's the link for Bruce Springsteen's "The Ghost of Tom Joad," which underscores the popular resonance of Steinbeck's tale.
We talked briefly Wednesday about Chapter 25 about the rot of the fruit. I love this imagery, and the vicious symbolism of decay. It is crucial, I think, that the fruit is made to rot, forced into it out of a drive for profit, to feed the banks and companies. Here, more than any other chapter, Steinbeck forces us to consider, on at least a basic level, that there is something wrong with a system that forces children to starve in order to make money. The loss of home and security is one thing, but it is truly monstrous to needlessly destroy food to drive up prices, which is exactly Steinbeck's point here; there is something wrong with this. It is of no surprise that this novel has seen a rise in popularity in recent months, when vicious critique of corruption in big business is such a major theme.
ReplyDeleteThis book exemplifies what literature is about. It needs to affect people in the emotional, in the gut reaction, whether that is one of admiration, strenght or in the case of the California's farmer owners fear. It also shows how little America has changed through out the years and how this text is easily applied to our time and others. Big corporations (Wal-Mart etc) push out smaller business, putting people out of their income and independence. If another book came out today about these corporations, they would probably claim libel and lies like the people of Kern county, trying to cite only the good side. But this is simply more fear, that a group of people may become enraged, gather strength and rebel. That's what the bosses in California were scared of and recruited a worker truly ignorant of _The Grapes of Wrath_ to protest it and burn it. They continued to prey on the migrant workers.
ReplyDeleteAs for the end, in anyone else's hands (Agee perhaps) what happens between Rose of Sharon and the man could have been truly disturbing. But it was hopeful on some level. Out of this stillbirth this depression, sustinence is found and it will nourish them back to health from their starvation.
One part of this novel that seems so relevant to our current economic crisis and political debate is the part in Weedpatch when the women talk about charity being degrading. A few others have mentioned this scene in their comments, but I just wanted to add my two (or three... or four...) cents.
ReplyDeleteToday, nearly everyone, regardless of political affiliation, agrees that we should help the needy, but there are very different ideas of how we should go about it. Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, often argue that charity is the best way to help the poor, because it ennobles the giver to give freely, in imitation of Christ. They oppose the tax-and-distribute system of "spreading the wealth around", believing that such a system robs from the hard workers to feed the undeserving.
We see the other side of charity, though, in the Grapes of Wrath. The suffering families in this novel see charity as degrading, because it reinforces the rich/poor hierarchy and underscores their powerlessness. The tax-and-distribute system makes more sense to them because it allows everyone to contribute and benefit according to ability and need, and it leaves no one person beholden to another. The system is something they have all paid into, and so they all may benefit from it.
Even though these two perspectives seem pretty far apart, I am often surprised at how people might look at the exact same scene and come to very different conclusions. (For the record, I'm totally okay with this difference of opinions! I just happen to hold one of them!) For instance, Rose of Sharon's feeding of the stranger might be viewed by some as charity, par excellence. After all, this man is a total stranger, who has done absolutely nothing to "earn" this gift that she gives. She is not coerced or "taxed" or anything. She just gives.
On the other hand, I think the scene could also be read as representing the kind of socialism that Weedpatch was all about. Rose of Sharon has not received any payment from THIS man, but she has benefited all through the novel from the kindness of other strangers and neighbors. And this man has given everything that he has to his son. Because of Ma's (and the novel's) universalist ethic, this stranger is a part of their community, simply because they are in a similar situation. Therefore, Rose of Sharon's gift to him is her way of paying her community back, without any of the "noblesse oblige" that comes with charitable giving.
This was the first time for me to ever read _Native Son_, and I. Loved. It.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the first two sections.
What I really appreciate about this book is that Wright is not trying to make us feel sorry for Bigger; rather, he is intent on exposing everyone's participation in a system that leads to crimes like Bigger's. Last semester, as I was doing research for a paper on _Frankenstein_, I came across this quotation by David Marshall, based on his reading of Rousseau: “only the recognition of fellow feeling can save people from monsters: save them from turning others into monsters, save them from becoming monsters." I think this applies really well to Bigger's situation, because when Jan and Mr. Max treated Bigger like a human, he felt like a human, instead of like a monster.
It's so easy to justify our fear and hatred of oppressed groups by pointing to the crimes they have committed, but in doing so, we ignore the role that we play in that oppression.