The Grapes of Wrath won John Steinbeck a Pulitzer Prize. It oozes five star ratings, glowing accolades and awards. This book is on virtually every high school reading list and list of "classic" books. Who am I to criticize this novel? Yet, criticize, I must.
Ask almost anyone what The Grapes of Wrath is about, and they will answer, "The Great Depression," "the Dust Bowl Days" or the like. Yet, Steinbeck had two hit-em-over-the-head, not at all subtle agendas:
- To totally discredit Christians and Christianity and
- Secondarily, to promote collective action among the poor, most notably, unionization.
Most disturbing to me was the relentless and cynical story line, painting "Jesus Lovers," without exception, as mean-spirited, uncompassionate, judgmental, weird, conniving, wildly hypocritical, greedy, self-righteous people, out to ruin the little pleasure that poor migrants can muster. The only person whose spiritual perspective we are expected to admire is Casey, a former preacher, who recognizes the "folly" of his former belief system, and who speaks of that folly, frequently and at great length. Stripped, then, of any remaining Judeo-Christan belief, Casey leads readers young and old to a vague universalist ether in which each person's soul is a part of the larger cosmic consciousness.
Immorality (most notably illicit sex and murder) is rampant, accepted and even admired in this book. Regular sexual encounters are observed and expected of any child of a certain age (about 14-16, from the examples given), and avoiding pregnancy is the only parental concern. Crude commentary is frequent. Tom Joad commits two murders, without remorse, after which family aids his escape from the law.
I find the use of profanity utterly exhausting. Tom Joad, along with many other characters, seems unable to string together more than two words without interjecting a :god d-mn," "son of a b-tch," or the like. Fitting, perhaps, on Steinbeck's quest to damn God as less than useless in the face of troubles.
If there is a thin thread of hope or a hint of redemption in this tale, its substance escapes my detection. From the grandparents' deaths en route to California, to the daughter's stillbirth near the end, sorrow heaps upon sorrow without resolution, change or hope of change. Ma is strong and resourceful, if without much in the way of a moral compass. Through trying circumstances, the Joad family employs immoral means to preserve a measure of personal dignity. While this family shows amazing determination and lack of self-pity through endless obstacles and sorrow, I find otherwise little to admire in any character, major or minor.
While the writing has its merits, much of the dialog is ponderous, seems unlikely, and some of the characterizations are flat. The story at times moves painfully slowly.
The book's final act is given great import and is perhaps the only non-futile action in the book: Rose of Sharon, not long after delivering a stillborn baby, nurses a starving man to give him needed nourishment. Yet even this powerful picture of giving in the midst of one's own need portrays a woman baring her breast for an adult man to suckle. Is this the image most parents would choose for young readers?
It took awhile for me to spy even a glimpse of why The Grapes of Wrath is on so many lists of classics. Roughly the first half of the book is without redeeming value, in my eyes. The second half improves, which isn't saying a lot. A picture finally emerges of life for migrant workers in the dust bowl days. The reader learns about conditions in various types of settlements, comparing life in "Hoovervilles," government run camps, unorganized camps by the sides of roads and facilities provided by farm owners. The reader clearly understands the conditions leading to hopeless and sometimes angry families desperately seeking work – work they are often unable to find or paying such low wages coupled with exorbitant prices at the company store that even hard workers are left without enough money for a decent meal.
The author examines the causes behind the suffering, asking and answering from his viewpoint the classic questions about land ownership, the use of power, government's role, the nature of justice and the morality of capitalism. He clearly advocates the lower classes working collectively through unions and using violence if "necessary." He points a condemning finger at wealthy property owners for shortsighted policies meant to maximize profit while forcing laborers to work for less than subsistence wages. These views, in themselves, will be controversial and warrant thought and discussion.
Yet surely there are better ways for youngsters to learn about this tragic period in history than marched through the muck and propaganda of this protrayal. The ordeal is simply, in my opinion, not worth the benefit. The author philosophizes much, and not much of his philosophy is what I'd want packed into my children's heads. For adults, there may be enough merit to warrant the trip. THIS adult, however, wearied quickly of the endless cynical, immoral presentation. THIS adult is very happy to be done with the book and this review, eager to read a story of redemption to clean the heavy, acid taste of The Grapes of Wrath out of my mind.
Some hail The Grapes of Wrath as THE great American masterpiece. Many will likely disagree with my assessment of this book (which is meant for parents to use in determining suitability for their children), and I welcome registered BookAngles users to voice those viewpoints in the comments section on this page.