I know this book isn't the happiest of books to read, but it is crucial to read in order to try to understand what so many Joad families suffered and continue to suffer today.
Inequality seems to be a topic that dominates the story. This inequality stems from social, cultural, and economic circumstances. The landowners and banks control California and its jobs. These 'rich folks' begin to observe the migration and influx of people wanting jobs and start to feel threatened. When one group out numbers another group, a power shift begins; and the landowners didn't want to lose power, so they treated the migrant workers like animals in order to keep control. I was reminded of the Ludlow Massacre in 1914 in southern Colorado when the steel and mine workers were forced to live and work in unlivable and unworkable conditions (If you are not familiar with this event, I recommend you research it a little bit). The unfair treatment of laborers is the reason unions began to form. Money, education, and sometimes family name/background (if not a combination of all three) allow people to move ahead and become successful; however, during the Dust Bowl, not many people had any of these things and were left to struggle to feed a family much like the Joads. Therefore, I think a major theme in this novel is the division among people socially, culturally, and economically causes the evils of inequality and inhumanity to take over the human race. Survival of the fittest, or the richest, is what drives the behavior of many of the characters; nobody seems to look at his or her fellow man or woman as a fellow man or woman.
An example of inequality is when the Joads stop to fill up the gas tank in chapter 13. The attendant is constantly asking "What's this country commin' to?" and refers back to the economic hardships of people who stop and trade just for a gallon of gas. "Them big new cars" don't stop at his station because "they go on to them yella-painted company stations in town." This is only one example of how big companies control the economy. This control is historical and is what causes small businesses and many farms to go out of business. The gas station attendant at one time was probably a very popular man because he was either the only gas station or he was friendly to customers or both. But once the big corporations come to town, things definitely change. Although, the attendant is obviously a good man because he does trade for gas. He has been taken advantage of and is upset about it, but he still helps the people. The ironic twist, though, is if he didn't help the people, he would go out of business and not be able to survive. It is a vicious cycle and sometimes we never know what people's motives are for helping others.
When the Joads finally arrive in California, they are faced with the harsh reality of the lack of milk and honey in the land of sour grapes. The inequalities continue as they move from camp to camp and hardship is around every corner. But, through the hardships, the family, specifically Tom, realizes how important it is to work for everyone, for the collective, in order to survive. When this book ended, I immediately thought of Ayn Rand's Anthem and the idea that in order for a society to be successful, individuality must be compromised for the greater good. What you do for yourself must also benefit your fellow human beings; gaining personal fame and fortune benefits nobody but yourself. This is a good idea when the situation is as desperate as the Joads and other families like them; it could bring a more peaceful and happy lifestyle, but can it go too far? Even though The Grapes of Wrath is far from a Utopian society, the theory is very Utopian. Do you agree?
This book is a tough emotional read only because it is based on historical events. Even though the Joad family wasn't real, many Joad families existed. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was a fun book to read, but I think we are far removed from the history and reality of it. The Grapes of Wrath, on the other hand, is an event that some people today, like our grandparents or great grandparents, remember because they lived through it. I know this book makes me thankful for what I have (an education, money, a family, a house, food, cars, the list can go on). I have these things, though, because I worked very hard for them. The 1930's were tough years for many people, even for the landowners and banks. It is difficult to sympathize with the wealthy people in the book, but look at the events of the 1930's and how it might have affected them. They were trying to survive as well. It really is survival of the fittest...hmm, I think I said that about Huck Finn too.
I have to say this was not one of my favorite books to read although I agree it was good. I really thought the book was confusing and not "user friendly" or in this case reader friendly. It was a complicated read and I think more people would be compelled to read it if it was not so confusing. About your Utopian theory, I have to agree, when I watch movies, even T.V. shows, I always realize that people make situations more complicated, than they need to be. In reality, we see related situations, and don't understand why they can't be solved the easy way. There is always something wrong or different that gets in the way. Like The Grapes of Wrath, something is in the way of solving the problem. The people of California don't want to give up their job opportunities, and the landowners are money hungry. Without these problems, movers would get jobs, keep them, and survive. I am not sure if that is understandable.:)
ReplyDelete-Cool Beans?:)
I think that the Utopian theory you have is basically saying that we should spread the wealth. Spreading the wealth, I feel, could create less starvation. Although I think that this could never happen because of all the greedy people in the world. In The Grapes of Wrath the land owners and banks are the greedy people.
ReplyDeleteIt does sound very Utopian, but you are right in saying that it is far from a Utopian society. A Utopian society is supposed to be perfect. This is why Utopian communities did not last because people were seeking the impossible, perfection. California back then was far from perfect. I believe that the people did benefit from each other, though. Just like the Joads' benefitted from the Wilsons' and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think that today's society could be just like back then with the recession that we are in. People are losing their jobs and they are having to foreclose on their homes and move somewhere else. This is just like what the people from the "Dust Bowl" had to do except the problems today are a little different from back then. We are not yet to the point where we are sleeping in a ditch off the side of the road with 20 other people, but if it gets a lot worse we could be there someday. This is why I not only believe that the bank and the big companies controlled everything back then, but they still control everything today also.
Your first paragraph helped me to understand why the people were resentful to the migrant people. I also agree with you when you say that a theme of The Grapes of Wrath was the division among people socially, culturally, and economically.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your comparison with the Ludlow Massacre. That helped me make a closer connection with the tragedy the Joads had to face. I think that the book is focused around inequality with the help of emotion to allow the reader to make a greater understanding.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you say one of the main themes in the book is division among the people and society, a constant theme that I saw in the book is the family trying to stay together. I agree with you, of course becasue the family is in fact seperated and all of the member do not stay together due to the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about the Utopian theory. It was a bit frustrating when reading this book to know that the people had the potential to join forces and work together to over throw the system, but realizing that such a thing would never happen. I found it interesting though how some of the characters were aware of this fact, Casy especially. Tom later picks up on Casy's theorys, and when explaining, mentions a bible verse, which I think really hits that point. "Two are better than one..." (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, by the way) Anyways, I did like the book, and I think you did a really good job explaining it and making clear connections. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree when you state that it really was survival of the fittest. Yet, I honestly didn't have simpathy for the rich people. The only reason I say this is when you see how bad someone is or someone you know is doing, you would think that someone would have a little common courtesy and help them. I just think they were selfish, which is why they are greedy people. Yet, maybe that's not bad, because again they have to help themselves survive as well.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have been able to gather, I think that perhaps Steinbeck is creating different sides of himself through all of the characters. Having lived during this era, and in California, he would have intimately known all of the troubles of the Joad Family. He is debating with himself and the page in front of him. Does he give up hope like so many others, or does he strive to maintain his values and fundamental decency like Tom Joad? In a sense, Steinbeck is deciding to be a moral man in an immoral time: a sort of "ubermensch".
ReplyDeleteWas somewhat confused by your Ayn Rand comparison. Didn't she advocate that individuality should NEVER be sacrificed under ANY circumstances?
You mentioned the importance of working for the collective, and how working for yourself must benefit your fellow human beings. You also asked if that can go to far, and I believe that absolutely it can.
ReplyDeleteIn the Joad family, every person had a position to fulfill, tasks bestowed upon them that they were solely responsible for. Al kept the cars running, Ma cooked food, the children sought water. If Al only fixed the truck when he felt like it, Ma cooked for herself, and Ruthie and Winfield only got enough water for themselves, the family's goal of getting to California (not to mention their ultimate survival) would fail. They were working together, one dependent on another- but everybody was working.
However, if "person A" is putting forth effort to support "person B", then person B can become dependent on charity.
If person B is capable of contribution, then he/she should contribute- and if he is contributing, for the bettering of the group, then he's earned all efforts by person A made to support him.
If person B is not working for the bettering of the group, and is capable, then he hasn't earned the efforts made to support him.
Thus being said, working for yourself should benefit your fellow human beings, IF they are working as well.
I am not entirely sure the book was of Utopian ideals. They were trying to make their life better not perfect. It is good the strikers did not strive for an impossible goal. They tried only to earn enough money to live, not take down the wealthy men to make everyone make the same. That is a true Utopia ideal, what they did is only for a livable life.
ReplyDeletei agree with Kathleen about the Utopian ideaks. Their life was not perfect which is what Utopia is. Everyone tried to earn money to live, but not make everyone equal which is also a Utopian idea.
ReplyDeleteI do love books that make you realize that our lives now arent so bad. I love how you began by saying that there were many Joad families suffering and continuing to suffer. It is true there is still the big companies controlling the smaller ones. Like Jared said if things keep getting worse we could one day end up like the Joad family seeking a better place and sleeping along the ditch along 20 other families.
ReplyDeleteI also recognized the inequality theme and it sort of lingered throughout the story. When I was blogging I tried to break away from that theme mainly because it was so obvious and the only word I could think of. But I definitely recognized it and the book kept reminding me with more instances.
ReplyDeleteThis book was by far not one of my favorites, although it did an excellent job of showing that people seemed to struggle more than people do now. What I got out of this is that the people who weren't considered "struggling" then are what we consider struggling and suffering a lot. I also, along with some of my peers, agree with your saying that the many Joad families were suffering and are still suffering. Overall, almost all of this post is exactly what was going through my mind at different parts althroughout this book.
ReplyDelete"...nobody seems to look at his or her fellow man or woman as a fellow man or woman." I love this quote in your blog. I think that this is the lingering conflict throughout the whole novel. Of course reading the book, I thought about problems and wondered why people couldn't just learn to lend a helping hand to someone in time of need. When you related the situation to the Ludlow Massacre, it really helped me to understand how the people of California felt towards the migrant workers. When I finished this book, I was kind of disappointed, but now that I read your blog on the concept of the book, I realize that it was very well written.
ReplyDelete-Always,
Brandd. :)
I think one of the most important themes in this novel was family. The migrater's, I thought, all seemed to come together as whole and help each other through the hard times. This is seen more specifically when she shares her milk with the dying man after losing her baby. I think this shows how everyone is coming closer and becoming as one in order to make it through these harsh times.
ReplyDeleteI also see where you are coming from. The Joads are a very spread out and distant family but I think by the end they are able to come closer to a certain extant. I enjoyed reading your blog. It helped me better understand the hard times of this novel.
-kristen :)
I liked that you said the novel deals with inequality. As I read I thought everything was unfair. When California send all of the papers to poor farmers offering them jobs, they send to too many families when there are a limited amount of jobs. This excites all of the families looking for a future when they already have an unfair advantage. All the farmers that recieved these papers traveled to California many left without work.
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was vital in the beginning when the family invites Ivy and Sairy Wilson, a couple also on their way to California, to join them on their travel because they had been plagued by car trouble. This action made me see how during those times people were most willing to help one another out because everyone had their hardships thus all were striving for survival.
ReplyDelete