When I heard we were going to read The Grapes of Wrath, I was not very enthused. Getting into the book was very slow, and I didn't start reading until just this week. Once into the story of the book, I was captivated by Steinbeck's use of symbolism and description. This book became more interesting as I read on. The tragedy and cruelty the family experienced was unimaginable, only the descriptions made that possible. Every little image was described so finely that no spec of dirt was missed. The Grapes of Wrath is one of the most famous novels in America for a reason.
Steinbeck's use of tone helped to express the theme of the difference between greed and necessity. In the book, Steinbeck describes different families traveling on the same journey as the Joad Family. Steinbeck's tone expresses that these families are struggling to stay alive, yet struggling to keep their family together. Many times, when Steinbeck changes the point of view, the tone also changes. The Joad family has a feeling of hope and excitement, while the 3rd person views are failure and defeat. For example, the jump from chapter 12 to chapter 13. In chapter twelve, the family is hungry, tired and in need of supplies they can not afford. In chapter 13, returning to the Joad family, they are just on the road excited and unknowing of the dangers ahead. As the book progresses, the views of both general people and Joad family become more the same. In chapter 21 to chapter 22, the family has seen hard times and tragedy in California. Chapter 21 in the second paragraph, it states, "guarding the world against their own people." The Joads realize they are outcasts, and not wanted.
One question that was on my mind the whole book was weather or not Rose of Sharon was right when she said, "Said it would a been a good thing if he stayed home an' studied up tractors." This made me wonder, would it have been better for a family in the Dust Bowl to stay home, or move to California. There were pros and cons to both. If a family were to stay home, they would have been out of money, on the road, or needing food. But that family would have friends and neighbors and support. In California, there would be jobs, no dust, good crops and good land. On the other hand the majority of the people experienced the cons. No job opportunities, no money, no food, no home, and worst, no friends. In an unknown land, you can trust no one. The Joad family was lucky, they found people who they trusted and had some money for food. So would it have been better to stay in Oklahoma? Did Connie, Noah, and Muley make the right decision leaving the family?
This book was an opportunity to see into the past when times were not like today. I enjoyed the book when it was over and am excited there isn't another long one like it. I am truly excited for the next book.
-Cool Beans:)
I disagree when you say the Joads are outcasts who aren't wanted. They are just people who are unfortunate and striving for survival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meghan and I think I must disagree with the idea that the times are not like today. They may not be as drastic today as they were 70 years ago, but do you see how there are some similarities between the 1930's and the 21st century now? I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinion, I just would like you to consider another point of view.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your conflict of would it have been better to stay back instead of move forward, I don't know. The Joads, as did many other families, took a risk. When the Stock Market crashed, our country was in chaos. Those who made a living by taking risks were now left with virtually nothing. So, I will answer your questions with one question: Is it a good idea to take risks or is it better to stay with what you know in order to feel comfort?
Excellent Post!