Erika Coonan

For context, this quote is spoken by Casy, a friend of the Joads who traveled with them to California. He used to be a preacher and then stopped, because his personal views changed. Anyway, they were talking about a rich guy who owned hundreds of acres that could be turned into farming land and supply work to a ton of people, but instead is just sitting there unused.

“If he needs a million acres to make him feel rich, seems to me he needs it ‘cause he feels awful poor inside hisself, and if he’s poor in hisself, there ain’t no million acres gonna make him feel rich, an’ maybe he’s disappointed that nothin’ he can do’ll make him feel rich-- not rich like Mis’ Wilson was when she give her tent when Grampa died. I ain’t tryin’ to preach no sermon, but I never seen nobody that’s busy as a prairie dog collectin’ stuff that wasn’t disappointed” (pg 207).

There was this passage I read a while back, and I was surprised at how relevant it was. Here it goes:

“This you may say of man-- when theories change and crash, when schools, philosophies, and narrow dark alleys of thought, national, religious, economic, grow and disintegrate, man reaches, stumbles forward, painfully, mistakenly sometimes. Having stepped forward, he may slip back, but only half a step, never the full step back” (pg 150).

Alright, so I’ve been throwing this argument around in my head for a while, and the argument is whether or not the GoW is sexist. And the truth is, I just don’t know. I guess yes. Here’s why.

The book was published in 1939. The norm of the time was that women stuck to domestic affairs while the men worked. There’s no arguing that fact. It was also a norm that men did the thinking and made the decisions for the family. Since this book was written right after the peak of the migrations, it can be considered a reliable account of current events of that time. So when a situation like this occurs....

“Ma looked to Tom to speak, because he was a man, but Tom did not speak. She let him have the chance that was his right, and then she said, ‘Why, we’d be proud to have you. ‘Course I can’t say right now, Pa says all the men’ll talk tonight and figger when we gonna start. I guess maybe we better not say till all the men come. John an’ Pa an’ Noah an’ Tom an’ Grampa an’ Al an’ Connie, they’re gonna figger soon's they get back” (pg 94).

I would assume that it’s a norm. Of course, in today’s standards, this definitely would be sexism, but it was accepted back then. Not that it makes it okay.

And then there’s Rose of Sharon, the oldest Joad daughter, who is pregnant for most of the book. In one of her first passages, she’s described as such:

“her round soft face, which had been voluptuous and inviting a few months ago, had already put on the barrier of pregnancy, the self-sufficient smile, the knowing-perfection look; and her plump body-- full soft breasts and stomach, hard hips and buttocks that had swung so freely and provocatively as to invite slapping and stroking-- her whole body had become demure and serious” (pg 95)

When I read this I had to set the book down for a second. “as to invite slapping and stroking”?!?!?!?!?!? “INVITE”?!?!?!?! WTF STEINBECK. As if her existence is a personal invitation to men to grope her. I don’t even know if this was normal for back then. I mean it probably happened but it also probably wasn’t okay even then. Men could just get away with it more. So I was like, is this purposeful? Is Steinbeck saying these sexist things on purpose to prove a point? Or is this just a byproduct of the time, a casual statement thrown in no different than his descriptions of the cotton fields?

Basic gist of The Grapes of Wrath: one family, the Joads, lived in Oklahoma until they were forced to leave their farm because tractors could do work faster and cheaper than manual labor. The same thing happened to the rest of the farmers in Oklahoma. They embarked on a journey west to California, where they were told work was readily available. But as they got farther along in their journey, they began to live in squalor as there was actually a scarcity of work due to every farmer and his mother heading to California at the same time. The suffering never seemed to end.

The book is set up so that every other chapter is following the Joads’ journey specifically. The other chapters are broad explanations of what’s happening to Californians and Oklahomans. The broad chapters are full of rich descriptions and scattered dialogue, and Steinbeck used these chapters to really speak some wisdom.

One in particular that I really liked was about used car dealerships. While every other industry seemed to be suffering, the used car dealerships in Oklahoma were booming. Oklahomans couldn’t buy the old beat up cars fast enough. Salesmen would become greedy-- and sell these horrible, beaten down jalopies for prices as high as they could get away with. They were profiting. The pace of this chapter is so quick, and really makes you feel the intensity of the dealership and the salesmen trying to make a profit off of scared, suffering families. Here is one paragraph that I really liked:

“Jesus, where did that Apperson come from, the Ark? And a Chalmers and a Chandler--ain’t made ‘em for years. We ain’t sellin’ cars--rolling junk. Goddamn it, I got to get jalopies. I don’t want nothing for more’n twenty-five, thirty bucks. Sell ‘em for fifty, seventy-five. That’s a good profit. Christ, what cut do you make on a new car? Get jalopies. I can sell ‘em fast as I get ‘em. Nothing over two hundred fifty. Jim, corral that old bastard on the sidewalk. Don’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. Try him on the Apperson. Say, where is that Apperson? Sold? If we don’t get some jalopies we got nothing to sell” (pg 62).

So GoW is pretty lengthy-- 455 pages. I figured that if I read 2 chapters every day I’ll be done in time with a few days to spare. I kept up pretty good with it until the 16th, which was MIFA. Now I’m about 10 chapters (200 pages) behind. Yay! So I’m not really sure how to tackle this. Thank God the book is interesting. Actually, that’s something I wanted to talk about.

THIS BOOK IS SO GOOD. I have always loved books that are super descriptive of the setting and the characters. And this book is that to the max-- there are huge paragraphs describing something so small and simple. Steinbeck is AMAZING at characterization as well. The dialogue is so...appropriate (?) of the time period and setting, and you immediately get a sense of who the characters are based on the way they speak. It’s the little details like their southern drawl that makes this book seem so authentic and realistic.

Just the idea of this book is so appealing to me. This time period/setting (Great Depression/Dust Bowl) was obviously extremely difficult to live through, and despite learning about it for so many years I felt like I was missing something. Like I wasn’t getting the full picture. This book seems to satisfy a little bit of what I was wondering. Even though it was so sad that these people had to leave everything behind (houses, pets, sometimes even family members), I still romanticize packing up your prized possessions and driving out west to California. There’s something so appealing about that, even though the circumstances are not appealing at all.

A Man Called Ove, by Fredrik Backman, is a beautiful story about a grumpy old man, his neighbors, and his past. Let me tell you, it is worth your time to read this book. While I wouldn’t consider it a MUST-READ, it is a charming, feel-good book that will make a lasting impression on you. At 337 pages, it seems kind of long after a quick glance, but the story doesn’t get that deep. It’s fairly surface level. Some people may like that, and some may hate it, but both will love the way Backman writes. After reading this passage, you’ll know what I mean:

“When  [Ove and a stray cat] get back to the house, Ove reluctantly feeds the wretched animal, and once it’s finished, announces they’ve got errands to run. He may have been temporarily press-ganged into cohabiting with this little creature, but he’ll be damned if he’s going to leave a wild animal on it’s own in his house. So the cat has to come with him. Immediately there’s a disagreement between Ove and the cat about whether or not the cat should sit on a sheet of newspaper in the Saab’s passenger seat. At first, Ove sets the cat on two supplements of entertainment news, which the cat, much insulted, kicks onto the floor with its back feet” (pg 173).

See? The book is written in third person, but by the way Backman writes, it’s like you’re inside the heads of every character, including animals. And the characters are so animated and fun to read about.

And the story is so sweet. At first, Ove is pretty easy to judge. You dismiss him as just being old and cranky. But then, you get to know his past. Backman includes chapters that take place before the present storyline. You pity Ove, and you begin to understand him as well. And it’s interesting to see how the whole story fits together.

-Entertains reader: yes! -Does not conform to the expectations of a single genre: No -Has been judged as artistic: Probably not. Nothing was very unheard of with the book. -Has stood the test of time: It’s too recent to know. -Shows thematic depth, nuance, is complex: yes- white shirts, death, morals/principle, Rune being taken away/the rights of old people, etc. -Demonstrates innovation in style, voice, structure, characterization, plot, and/or description: Only in voice and plot. -May have a social, political, or ideological impact on society: No -Does not fall into the traps of pulp fiction such as clichéd or derivative descriptions and plot devices, or sentimentality rather than earned emotion: some clichés and descriptions, but emotion is earned. -Is intended by the author to communicate in an artistic manner: no -is universal in its appeal: yes

-Entertains reader: yes! -Does not conform to the expectations of a single genre: Yes, because I can’t pin it to a single genre. Drama? Realistic fiction? Adventure? -Has been judged as artistic: I would say it’s artistic, with the illustrations and the different styles of writing for Oskar, his grandma, and his grandpa. -Has stood the test of time: It’s too recent to know. -Shows thematic depth, nuance, is complex: I would say it’s nuanced, but I’m not completely sold on complexity. -Demonstrates innovation in style, voice, structure, characterization, plot, and/or description: Yes! I had never read anything like this before. -May have a social, political, or ideological impact on society: It’s possible. It shows a new side of the 9/11 terror attacks, which definitely had a social, political, and ideological impact on society. -Does not fall into the traps of pulp fiction such as clichéd or derivative descriptions and plot devices, or sentimentality rather than earned emotion: Definitely has earned emotion! Not cliché at all. -Is intended by the author to communicate in an artistic manner: not completely sure. -is universal in its appeal: even though its about 9/11, it’s really about dealing with a loss, so I would say yes.