Matthijs Smits
asked:
The author casually mentions, somewhere in the beginning of the book, how one of the characters' grandpa had to drive away and kill indians to take up the land on which the joads eventually had their farm. This is said almost 'in passing' as if it has no relevance and it is said by one of the characters angrily as an argument that it is in fact THEIR property. Do you feel that John Steinbeck neglects this issue?
To answer questions about
The Grapes of Wrath,
please sign up.
Jack Burton
You must understand that Steinbeck is a master. Where you may find hypocrisy or irony is where it has been very intentionally written. It's important to remember that Steinbeck is not the characters, he *wrote* the characters.
Arnstein
I would start by looking at what kind of novel this is, and The Grapes of Wrath is a book about real consequences. When the families from small farms are forced to move en masse like this then they create real consequences elsewhere. When the tribes of Native Americans were treated the same way then they had to move and this had consequences of a similar nature. The migration of the 'Okies' and of the Native Americans are similar and I believe that Steinbeck wanted to compare them. For instance, there are famous battles where the Native Americans fought back - perhaps he was trying to tell the readers that if nothing changes then the oppressors will receive the wrath of the oppressed, just like before?
Also, I'm pretty sure Grandpa was made into such a horrible person as he was because he needed to be a bit of a villain, both because the family still chose to care for him (caring for others is a very important theme in this book), and because his deeds shouldn't be defended.
Also, I'm pretty sure Grandpa was made into such a horrible person as he was because he needed to be a bit of a villain, both because the family still chose to care for him (caring for others is a very important theme in this book), and because his deeds shouldn't be defended.
Charles Bill McKenny
Sadly, that's the way of the world. I don't think it's mentioned casually. I don't think there's much about the book that is casual. There is a lot of gray in the book. I don't find a black and white, good guys versus bad guys book. The author seems to recommend a more socialistic view, but even that has problems.
Jack
I'm not sure I can really answer your question, but I do find it interesting that it was, in the eyes of the character, perfectly fine for Grandpa to take the land away from the Indians, but not for the banks to take away the land from the sharecroppers. In a way this double standard makes it a little harder for me to sympathize with the character.
Ally
I don't think Steinbeck wrote this for irony, but instead for realism. If you go back far enough, everyone in America lives on stolen land, but it'd be nearly impossible to find a homeowner who would give it up willingly. Those people believed they "earned" their land by killing the indigenous people who lived there before them, and when the banks first came to take land, it seemed like the banks didn't do anything to "earn" that land back. People didn't understand debt and loans in the same way, especially when they lived through a time where all the land in America wasn't claimed and divided and owned already. It seems hypocritical to us, and it is sad to see how much early representation of native people is reduced to being murdered or driven away, but at the end of the day I don't think Steinbeck even focused on indigenous people enough for us to speculate on his views.
Michael Chapman
As others have said - the narrator didn't ignore the hypocrisy, the character did. The fact the author included it in the dialogue at all points to his awareness of the issue.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more