Book review
Absolutely brilliant! I am ordering the hardcover version! What can I say that hasn’t been mentioned before? This book explores the experience of the ‘Okies’ (even though there were not just people from Oklahoma) during the great depression. They were forced to leave their land due to years of drought and dust storms. The story has some elements that are unique to the US, but in general, it is not difficult to find similarities between the Okies and other migrant groups all around the world; ergo, the message of the book is timeless. Oh, and in this book, not only humans are the protagonists, Nature is also one. What makes this book unique when there are other books that explore similar cases? The absence of clichés, the beautiful lyric prose in the descriptions, the realism of the dialogues, and the depth of its characters. The book is not verbose, not a single page was wasted. Please, if you are not a native English speaker but can read English reasonably well I encourage you to read Grapes of Wrath in English and also in your native language, because some of the subtleties of the book will be lost in translation, as it is usually the case with all translated books. Below I am expanding my views of this book.
I would like to start emphasising that I am not a very political person. I am an independent thinker. I am happy to criticise and/or applaud any party/ideology if I feel they deserve it. I can see some value in almost all perspectives. That is probably why I admire this book. Steinbeck doesn’t push a political agenda, he scrutinises society; the subtle message of this book is that all the people in this book [‘good’ or ‘bad’] have limited choices. He attacks the system that puts people in that position, and that is why his book was banned in the US.
We follow the Joad family, but like the Joads, there are many people; some families are doing slightly better than the Joads, but most families are probably doing far worse than the Joads. The story is beautifully told, yet it is raw in its core. The characters are nuanced, imperfectly rich, some are interesting, some are dull, as it is the case of people in real life. In this book, there are not two characters alike. Without giving much away: Tom, the main character, has good intentions, but also an irascible temperament. Ex-reverend Casy, is in a personal search, he is a just person but lacks direction. Even ‘Ma’, as strong and loving as she is, can be exceedingly cold; she is not a cliché character. Our protagonists are human beings who experience inner conflicts, so we can emphatise with them. They are not ‘saints’.
On the the lucky side we have the Californians: the civilians, the guards, the police, the contractors, etc, they can be ruthless, obviously, the readers are meant to see them as ‘the bad ones’ yet, Steinbeck implies that although malicious deeds have no justification whatsoever, certain type of behaviour is reproachable but somehow understandable, for due to the crisis, all of them are experiencing high, at times irrational, levels of fear; the locals distrust the migrants and vice versa, and the media takes advantage of this, hence it fuels this lack of trust by negatively stereotyping the migrants. I am not trying to say that there is a good justification for their appalling behaviour but what I am suggesting is just as psychologist try to ascertain what causes violence, dysfunctional behaviour in people, those who examine society need to look at the whole picture not just part of it. Clearly, in extreme situations, emotions take over and people can be easily manipulated. Steinbeck’s words in chapter 21 support this:
‘In the West there was panic when the migrants multiplied on the highways. Men of property were terrified for their property. Men who had never been hungry saw the eyes of the hungry. Men who had never wanted anything very much saw the flare of want in the eyes of the migrants. And the men of the towns and the soft suburban country gathered to defend themselves; and they assured themselves that they were good and the invaders bad, as a man must do before he fights’ –
This is a the perfect representation of what Cohen established as the creation of Evil Folks and Moral Panics. In the end, there are many questions for us to answer, and I will let the reader answer them, who is right? Who is wrong? what pushes people to do what they do? When is abuse justified? (to me, never), When is killing justified? Is good will enough to help others? Who truly decides what a worker should be paid: the market, the big corporations, the middle man, the forces of Nature, or all of them at various degrees? You must answer that after reading this book. Even the Media may see its duty to ‘disclose facts’, but their ‘duty’ has interests behind, that cannot be overlooked.
In the story narrated in the Grapes of Wrath, all characters are doing what they believe is in the best interest of their society and themselves, and those views can be radically different because they have different motivations, different experiences, and different levels of power. When humans experience irrational fear and feel threatened it is easy to justify our lack of empathy. Creating ‘The Other’ is a coping mechanism and the media exploits this, but we, humans, seem to be happy to play along because it makes us feel better. We do it, all the time, in a way or other; but in a smaller scale. We humans tend to justify our selfish, cruel acts even when there is no good justification. Have we learnt much? Have we changed much since Steinbeck’s time?
The Grapes of Wrath can be analysed through many philosophical and sociological lenses, that is one of its beauties. For instance, people who lean ‘left’ may see a Marxist message there, whereas moderate people may feel that this book highlights the importance of values and solidarity to maintain society in equilibrium, this is one of the theories established by Emile Durkheim. For those of you who don’t know who Emile Durkheim is, let me tell you: Emile Durkheim was a French scholar, he is considered the father of Sociology and also the founder of Functionalism, which some believe stands in opposition to Marxism. Critics of functionalism consider this paradigm as too optimistic and some unfairly claim that Functionalists supporter the Status Quo, yet this is far from the truth. Functionalism, unlike Conflict theory, doesn’t focus on dissent and competition of resources (although it exaimines it); instead, Functionalism stresses the importance of solidarity as a way to attain dynamic equilibrium. Society, functionalists maintain, works like a living organism: all the parts must work together to achieve a common goal for the benefit of all society; thus, absence or low levels of solidarity result in chaos and conflict, and societies may collapse. Durkheim explains that when there are period of great distress and upheaval, societies fall in a state of Anomie: a normless, society in which corruption reigns, and in which people find themselves without direction, questioning their motives and values, when there is anomie there is misery, despair and suicide rates increase, this is known as Anomic suicide. The effects of anomie are explored from the beginning to the end of the Grapes of Wrath, and for the sociology enthusiast there are other sociological concepts that this book also explores and come from different school of thought/sociological paradigms. Nowadays this book is still relevant for social scientists and all people in general, because similar things are still happening everywhere and we need to find effective ways to address the problem and prevent it.
And here I finish my review, because I have written too much and my post is probably difficult to follow but I have edited it thrice (while multitasking) and I am so tired, that I don’t want to edit it a fourth time, so please ignore my errors…If you haven’t read The Grapes of Wrath, please do yourself a favour and give it a go. Don’t give up early, wait until page 120 before you make up your mind.
- Goodreads rating – 3.99
- SUMMARY – Regina Andreassen