1

Mao

David Mao

Mr. Weidman

Honors English II

May 5, 2009

Argument of The Grapes of Wrath

John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrathis a story about the great dust bowl migration that occurred during the great depression. Throughout half of the chapters, he focuses on the Joad family, a large group of migrants that make their way through life out of the dust bowl tragedy and into the new promised land of California. In the other half, Steinbeck describes, in what are knows as intercalary chapters, the story of the entire group of Okie migrants throughout a more generalized journey.

Through this story, he makes the argument that humans are basically one big entity and are best when working together; also, everything, including capitalism, that goes against this view must be done away with. He argues this mainly through characters of Jim and Tom, effective characterization, the book’s structure, ethos, and pathos.

This point is mainly stated through Casy’s revelation in The Grapes of Wrath that “maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of” from chapter 3, page 33.

In Steinbeck’s Nobel acceptance speech, Steinbeck shows his theory of “the perfectibility of man,” which shows his belief that all men have a capability to become better, if not perfect. He wants everyone to work together and uphold the social obligations to each other – in his speech, nuclear tension, but in his book, the obligation as humans for farm owners to save the Okies from starvation and the cruelties of the migration. He is arguing that we must indeed all work together as one.

In Steinbeck’s Harvest Gypsies, a series of newspaper articles reporting the status of Oklahoma workers in California, he describes the situations and living conditions of the migrants in California. As readers, we can understand through this that Steinbeck is making his argument in The Grapes of Wrath for these conditions to improve and for readers to fight for these people.

Steinbeck argues against capitalism and for collectivization more directly in his intercalary chapters. For example, in chapter 5 car salesmen sell extremely overpriced cars to unsuspecting migrants. Also, as seen in chapter 17, the migrants come together, and “the twenty families became one family.” (page 264).

He argues this point through many rhetorical strategies. Casy, a holy man states Steinbeck’s argument and is a martyr for his causeon pgs. 526-527.Tom, the story’s hero, converts to Casy’s idea, encouraging readers to follow his example (chapter 28, pg 567-573). In fact, in Bruce Springsteen’s The Ghost of Tom Joad, Springsteen gives one view of the book’s argument. When Tom becomes a part of all of the migrants that are becoming mistreated, a more spiritual side of collectivization.

Effective characterization for all characters throughout the entire book makes us like the characters, who act very believable and realistic. The structure of the book is a powerful tool, allowing Steinbeck to state what is going on in general in the world not just in the Joad family through the intercalary chapters. It states the world in which the Joad family is going through. Also, they state the adventures of the Okies as a group. These brief views away from the Joad family give a sense of realism, as does the characterization.

His use of ethos throughout the entire book attacks capitalism, which brings out the worst in people and goes against the collective. Pathos creates a sense of sympathy for the migrants, and makes readers want to help these migrants, and to bring up their poverty status to a point where they are equals through collectivization For example,in the very end, Rose of Sharon feeds a man starving for days with the only thing that the family can give – her milk (pages 618-619).

Casy states the argument, Tom persuades us to follow his example, characterization and intercalary chapters give a sense of realism and believability, ethos and pathos persuade us internally (emotions and our sense of right and wrong) to help the migrants.

Socialist Worker Online article elaborates on Steinbeck’s argument, and points out one of Steinbeck’s arguments in one of the “most inspiring passages,” in which Steinbeck promotes collectivization – “In the night one family camps in a ditch and another family pulls in and the tents come out... here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two [families] apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other...For here ‘I lost my land’ is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate –‘We lost our land...’” The same source says that The Grapes of Wrath is partially about “human potential crushed by capitalist society.”

The book’s effectiveness can be reasonably deducted through an understanding of the book’s rhetoric, as well as accounts from outside sources. Bruce Springsteen’s “The Ghost of Tom Joad” shows a very fictional, but inspiring, result of Steinbeck’s message of collectivization, in which we will be able to be a part of everyone around us. Also, the ghost of Ton Joad literally still lives on today in our society’s art, showing how effective the book was to the American public.

In the article “The Myth of the Okies” by Keith Windschuttle, he does not doubt the effectiveness of the book’s argument, but simply points out that the facts of the book are not completely correct. This does not mean that the book’s argument is invalid, only that it is not meant to be taken as history. In fact, I consider this the ultimate praise to a story’s effectiveness, because if readers believe what they are reading is true like history, then an author can convince them of anything. This “history-like” realism of the book is quite possibly from the intercalary chapters and the realistic characterization of the characters.

From the congressional speech made by Lyle Boren, it is shown that the argument of this story can be taken the wrong way. The migrants are portrayed as good people in contrast to the scheming policemen and other Californians, and the book is not intended to attack the integrity or intelligence of the Oklahoma natives. If the way an author proves his or her argument can offend a certain group of people (here, the actual Oklahomans), then his argument is not effective at all to them, and his or her rhetoric has failed.However, it is important to note that the number of individuals that would take offense to this nowadays are in great minority.

This source also shows that the notoriety of the story had risen to a point where a congressmen has taken action to defend his state. This shows, again, the historical quality of the story – the public believes in Steinbeck’s tale. This also shows pride of the Oklahomans when they feel that the pathos in the book makes the public sympathize to them, which means that The Grapes of Wrath was also extremely effective when conveying its pathos to its readers.

David Rapkin’s article also explains what Steinbeck uses to support his argument. When he states that “even when all hope seems lost, Steinbeck’s characters sense that another world is possible,” he shows Steinbeck’s rhetorical strategies of his characters. When he says that “[Tom Joad becomes] a revolutionary whose fighting spirit goes everywhere and anywhere that ordinary people are suffering injustice,” he shows Steinbeck’s use of the character Joad in his argument, as well as the ideals of collectivization.

From these outside sources, as well as a complete understanding of The Grapes of Wrath, it is clear that the novel is, indeed, a very persuasive novel, especially when considering its great impact on American society. We can see that through his rhetorical strategies, he is able to support his argument in a way that encourages readers to feel that this is a completely valid possibility for the American future. Personally, I was persuaded when reading the book – through its captivating story and rhetoric, it is hard for anyone to reject the pathos that he presents at almost every turn and his attacks on the tragedies of capitalism during the great depression, as well as the idealistic society that he wants to come true. However, when dealing with the real world, it is important to note that society has grown so far away from Steinbeck’s society that it is almost impossible for any revolution to occur. Today, society is becoming even more capitalistic, and despite an economic recession, business are now more ethical, communism is now in the great minority, and the setting of Steinbeck’s novel has long since passed away.

Works Cited

Boren, Lyle. Congressional Speech. U.S. House, WashingtonD.C. 24 January 1940.

Rapkin, David. “Steinbeck: Poet of the Dust Bowl.”Socialist Worker Online. 8March 2002

Springsteen, Bruce. “The Ghost of Tom Joad.” The Ghost of Tom Joad. Columbia, 1995.

Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.

Steinbeck, John. The Harvest Gypsies: On the Road to the Grapes of Wrath. Berkeley: Heyday

Books, 1988.

Steinbeck, John. Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech. Nobel Banquet. City Hall, Stockholm, Sweden. 10 December 1962.

Windschuttle, Keith. "Steinbeck's Myth of the Okies."The New Criterion. 20.10 (2002): 24.