I am reading The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck for my
American Lit class.  In class we debated over whether
Steinbeck was intentionally presenting the idea of
Socialism in the book, or if he was telling it like it
is.  Anyone know?

Bryan

11 responses total.

All stories have manifest, allegoric, and latent content. The first
is the story - telling it like it is, if you wish; the second is the
message that the story is meant by the author to convey - a moral, or
an idea (such as socialism); the last is the content or message that
was unknown to the author, but which is nevertheless expressed in
the language of the story. The deepest analysis of a written work is
to identify all of the elements in each of the three categories. 

 I was also wondering how true the migration to CA actually was until
I saw a piece on PBS called "The Great Depression" and from that series
I saw the efforts  the republican governor, and how Upton Sinclair
almost won the CA gov's seat on the socialist ticket.
  I believe that the Joads were a composite of a typical okie family
and Steinbeck was merely portraying the hardships that the Depression
was inflicting on these folks.

I tend to agree with you, omni.  I think he ws more telling it like it was,
hopefully not conveying any socialist thought intentionally to put his own 2
cents in.  However, I have heard that he was socialist at about th time he
wrote the book.

  Another book he wrote was "In Dubious Battle" which I understand is
also written from a socialist point of view.

 Have you read any of Jack London's social writings?

Can't say I have, omni.

omni, I don't think there is 'merely portraying' in writing though.  Portraying
need a prospective, a position from which to speak, an angle to see.  In
protraying there is already a lot beyond the 'facts' that are being protrayed.
One need not preach to convey a point, political or otherwise, in narrative.
I think the socialist elements of the 'Grape' cannot possible be ignored.

The title gives it away. It wasn't called "A few months in the lives of
some Okies". The title is metaphorical, and the narrative reflects that.

Ahhh, all very good points.  However, what you would call "socialist"
many others would call simply humanitarian, or perhaps a depiction
of human nature when faced a specific situation (Lord of the Flies might
set a good example for that), not necessarily just plain "socialism".

Sure, Hong, but what book does not in one way or another depict human nature
when faced a specific situation?  
Are far as "Grapes" goes, I certainly think "socialism" apply because of its
understanding of the *cause* of misery is specifically socialist in orientation
Humanitarianism, however, does not have a specific view on the cause of social
misery.

Sure, generally speaking, many books discuss human nature in specific
situations (an example of one that really doesn't is Catcher in the Rye).
However, the Grapes of Wrath discusses man being reduced to nothing but
his fight for survival.  That's a very important situation to discuss
because it shows a very primitive function of man, and that only-survival.
I don't really know about the whole socialist idea, though.  The very
motives for socialism are also humanist elements, but I see no actual
result of socialism being presented (although the motives are all there).
Thoughts?

A small point: I think Catcher in the Rye speak of a very specific situation,
being a product of boarding schools I think of it as being very specific.
I guess you get to the root when you speak of the reduction of man because
if one ask what reduce the answer seems to be a cold capitalist world.
What is going on, I think, is a criticism from a socialist angle but not
a book on socialist utopia so there isn't really a socialist alternative
presented.  

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss