Everyday, people are faced with tough circumstances and even tougher decisions that must be made. In John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”, devastation and poverty brought about by the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s forces people to make a very tough, dicey decision- stay on their homeland, where life is nearly impossible but familiar, or move West to California, where there are supposedly more jobs and better land. Steinbeck chooses to narrate this American journey by alternating the focus of chapters. Although the story illustrates a specific family (the Joads)’s, travels and struggles, Steinbeck also included general chapters that prove the Joads’ hardships were not uncommon for American people during this time. By splitting the narrative, Steinbeck
…show more content…
Breaking a narrative voice creates controversy and that is exactly what Steinbeck meant to do, making it an excellent decision to do so. In the novel Steinbeck uses a third person omniscient point of view in order to create a personal connection between the reader and the Joads, but also establish a broader understanding of the effects of the Dust Bowl; “We have to do it. We don’t like to do it. But the monster’s sick. Something’s happened to the monster” (page 46). In chapter 5, one of the generally speaking chapters, “the monster” is a personification of the government system in charge of taking land and money away from those struggling too much to pay for it. Although it is safely assumed that the situation in this chapter is what happened to the Joads family, it is also made clear through use of common terms such as “the tenant men” and “the owner men” (page 43) that this situation …show more content…
When people disagree on a topic, they discuss, argue, and speculate. Grapes of Wrath is a realist novel that instead of painting a hopeful picture of successful living during the Dust Bowl era shows the ugly truth of how people lived. Steinbeck narrates the mindset of different groups of people and in doing so angers the members of these groups. Businessmen or workers of the bank may feel personally attacked, or even members of churches may be upset by the representation received through Casy’s outlook. Despite the outrage the book caused, people starting talking and understanding the horrors, the real horrors of this time period. Not just dust in people’s food or beds, but the effect of losing crops to the dry land, “The squatting men looked down again. What do you want us to do? We can’t take less share of the crop- we’re half starved now. The kids are hungry all the time. We got no clothes, torn an’ ragged. If all the neighbors weren’t the same, we’d be ashamed to go to meeting “ (page 42), or the things some went through in order to get nutrition, “Rose of Sharon loosened one side of the blanket and bared her breast. ‘You got to,’ she said” (page 581). Many of the scenes that Steinbeck wrote horrified people so much that instead of being angry at the situation, they were angry at Steinbeck. Although this made him lose a good portion of his audience, his choice of writing remains
Breaking a narrative voice creates controversy and that is exactly what Steinbeck meant to do, making it an excellent decision to do so. In the novel Steinbeck uses a third person omniscient point of view in order to create a personal connection between the reader and the Joads, but also establish a broader understanding of the effects of the Dust Bowl; “We have to do it. We don’t like to do it. But the monster’s sick. Something’s happened to the monster” (page 46). In chapter 5, one of the generally speaking chapters, “the monster” is a personification of the government system in charge of taking land and money away from those struggling too much to pay for it. Although it is safely assumed that the situation in this chapter is what happened to the Joads family, it is also made clear through use of common terms such as “the tenant men” and “the owner men” (page 43) that this situation …show more content…
When people disagree on a topic, they discuss, argue, and speculate. Grapes of Wrath is a realist novel that instead of painting a hopeful picture of successful living during the Dust Bowl era shows the ugly truth of how people lived. Steinbeck narrates the mindset of different groups of people and in doing so angers the members of these groups. Businessmen or workers of the bank may feel personally attacked, or even members of churches may be upset by the representation received through Casy’s outlook. Despite the outrage the book caused, people starting talking and understanding the horrors, the real horrors of this time period. Not just dust in people’s food or beds, but the effect of losing crops to the dry land, “The squatting men looked down again. What do you want us to do? We can’t take less share of the crop- we’re half starved now. The kids are hungry all the time. We got no clothes, torn an’ ragged. If all the neighbors weren’t the same, we’d be ashamed to go to meeting “ (page 42), or the things some went through in order to get nutrition, “Rose of Sharon loosened one side of the blanket and bared her breast. ‘You got to,’ she said” (page 581). Many of the scenes that Steinbeck wrote horrified people so much that instead of being angry at the situation, they were angry at Steinbeck. Although this made him lose a good portion of his audience, his choice of writing remains