Talk:The Grapes of Wrath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Oklahoma Portal This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Difficult to Understand 2 Joad vehicle 3 Links 4 Cover 5 Title 6 True or False 7 e-book? 8 Themes 9 Some clean-up 10 "Explanation of the novel's title" 11 Bias 12 The Dreaded "In my opinion...." 13 Popular Culture 14 Allusions 15 Criticism 16 Bibliography 17 Banned? 18 Influence on New Deal 19 Tom an advocate for proletarians? 20 What years? 21 Neutrality 22 The Death of Grandpa Joad

[edit] Difficult to Understand

The plot summary section is very difficult to understand. It makes mention of things without clarifying on what happened (For example "This realization, supported by the deaths of Grandpa and Grandma and the departure of Noah (the eldest Joad son) and Connie (the husband of the pregnant Joad daughter, Rose of Sharon), is forced from their thoughts: they must go on because they have no other choice." mentions those events without explaining them at all.) 71.124.41.111 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joad vehicle

Two points, the article should have information about the vehicles. One detail in the book, that it has a 12v electrical system, seems erroneous. 6v systems were the norm of vehicles up to 1955, 30 years later. In 1956 the thunderbird, a luxury sports car made the change from 6 to 12v, its seems unlikely an old vehicle would have superior technology. can anyone speak to whether there was indeed 12v systems then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.15.150 (talk • contribs) September 27, 2006

[edit] Links

We need an actual external link for the "California Pastoral" article to balance out the Keith Windschuttle "Myth of the Okies."

-NStearns

Actually that's not true, "Myth of the Okies." is full of useless facts that has little things to do with such article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.99.33 (talk • contribs) September 25, 2005

This is the greatest american novel ever written. its very an interesting book to read/

[edit] Cover

Can't we get a cover of the first edition of the book? Or at least one that dates from the first couple of years? Nobody wants to see some 1997 Penguin cover or whatever that is. --Priceyeah 00:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• You find one then......Cls14 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Found a version of the cover showing both the front and back. I'm not experienced editing Wiki pages. If anyone would like to grab that image and replace the one now displayed it is at http://library.syr.edu/digital/exhibits/g/GrapesOfWrath/lgimage/GrapesOfWrath.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endy9 07:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

In the section on "Explanation of the novel's title," the sentence:

"The Grapes of Wrath", suggested by his wife, Carol, deemed more suitable than any of the names John himself could come up with.

...doesn't parse. It should be either "seemed" or "was deemed." I don't want to edit it because I'm not sure what the original writer intended. And, of course, if it's changed to "was deemed," that raises the question, was deemed by whom? By Steinbeck, or perhaps by his editor or publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MylesCallum (talk • contribs) May 26, 2006

[edit] True or False

My high school teacher told me that TGOW was written in 30 days. Any truth to it? Can anyone find a source to back it up? Leonida August 27 2006

Though I don't have an answer, I would say that that's unlikely. Possibly an early revision of the work took a month, but I find it improbable that the book was written wholesale in a month, it being about five hundred pages, depending on the edition. I'd press your English teacher on that one. Ourai ^т _с 03:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your teacher may have got confused with On the Road which was written in a few days ("not writing typing") - and it shows. Dr Spam (MD) 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "written in thirty days". One could easily type out a masterpiece novel in that time span, but that really only accounts for a very small fraction of the work. The actual "writing" is the thinking through of the material that the author wants to include: some people take their whole lives to do that. Given the quality of The Grapes of Wrath, I think we can safely rule out the thirty-day hypothesis. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steinbeck began writing TGOW on June 1st, 1938 and finished the first draft of the handwritten manuscript on October 26th, 1938. See Working Days: The Journals of The Grapes of Wrath edited by Robert DeMott, for more info on the composition of the novel.69.109.227.108 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Frank

[edit] e-book?

anybody know where I can find the text of this book on-line?

there is a text document of the book at [1] S-man64 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is it's not legal, since this book is still under copyright in the US. Cactus Wren 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

This novel has some very important themes and comments on mankind as a whole. A section relating to themes should be added. (For basic ideas see the SparkNotes entry.) I hope to contribute to this article in the near future. It might be good to establish a to-do list as well. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some clean-up

I've made a number of changes to the structure (but not so much to the content) of this article. To begin with, I've removed the following sentence,

The family's name, "Joad", is similar to the first name of the Biblical figure Job (pronounced "Jobe"), who suffered greatly when tested by God, but nevertheless maintained his faith.

from the article for the moment, not because it isn't important or relevant (quite the contrary, in fact), but because there simply is not a place for it at the moment. We can put this back in once a proper section has been established to detail the themes of the novel. I've also removed

Woody Guthrie wrote The Ballad of Tom Joad the night he saw the film. He described the film in a column: "Shows the damn bankers' men that broke us and the dust that choked us, and comes right out in plain old English and says what to do about it. It says you got to get together and have some meetins, and stick together, and raise old billy hell till you get your job, and get your farm back, and your house and your chickens and your groceries and your clothes, and your money back" (reprinted in Woody Sez [New York, 1975], p. 133).

because this belongs more on the page discussing the film than it does here. I've also removed the section dealing exclusively with awards and nominations, since this merely reproduces information already found elsewhere in the article.

Finally, there were too many unnecessary sections. I've combined the numerous sections at the end of the article into one main section dealing with the novel's appearance in popular culture (adaptations, music, etc.). I also combined most of the elements of the plot summary into a second lead paragraph, and moved -- for the time being, anyway -- the discussion of the article's title to the end of the plot summary section. This might also be further developed and then moved to a future section about thematic concerns. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Explanation of the novel's title"

In the section on "Explanation of the novel's title," I thought it was also because the first flyer that they got was saying they could pick grapes, but when they got there, there weren't any jobs. So that made them angry. Anger is wrath, so you get "Grapes Of Wrath" but please correct if I'm wrong. We're studying the Great Depression in school and our exam will have things about The Grapes Of Wrath, so I'd really like to know if I'm correct! Thanks! Kschechter 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "grapes of wrath" comes from the Book of Revelations, chapter 14 which is where the hymnist took it from. ("And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God." etc etc) Dr Spam (MD) 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article's explanation is correct. It was in The Battle Hymn of the Republic. I would go with this explanation. – Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also a quotation from the end of Chapter 25: "The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." Cactus Wren 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

"One should note that this novel is a fictional characterization of the plight of tenant farmers. Two-thirds of farmers in the dust bowl, primarily farmers who actually owned the land, actually stayed in Oklahoma and survived these storms. Many of these families held on and actually prospered in later years. One should avoid the tendancy of extrapolating the plight of the Joads into the fate of all residents of the dust bowl era. In many ways, this novel has contributed to a false characterization of the peoples in the affected midwest U.S. areas." That section seems awfully npov...it implies that people didn't suffer during the great depression, though i have read that many farmers actually suffered more than the Joads did. If no complaints, I'm going to remove that section...maybe it can go under criticism or something, though i think it would need support from a credible source. 66.41.62.136 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and it still stinks. "Two-thirds of farmers... actually stayed in Oklahoma..." Two-thirds. That's a lot. You know what else is a lot? One-third. --Tysto 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dreaded "In my opinion...."

In the plot summary the dreaded "In my opinion....." phrase comes up. I shall remove it, lol.

[edit] Popular Culture

There is a reference to this book on a simpsons episode, I don't know which one but it's the episode where Lisa meets a rival/ --203.97.127.185 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

haha, I don't know if you were trying to be funny with that statement, but the episode is called "Lisa's Rival". The students are making diaramas for "Diarama-rama", and Nelson's is just a pile of grapes. When Skinner inquires, Nelson says "Here's the grapes, and" -- pulling out a hammer -- "here's the wrath." --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions

The new allusions section either needs to be removed, or a lot of work done to it. The novel doesn't 'allude' to Virgil's Aeneid, it just has some parallels that I'm not sure are worth mentioning. Also, its fairly poorly written ("The novel can be a reference to anything."). I propose a complete rewrite or deletion, but I have not read the book in years, so I'm hesitant myself. Lebroyl 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

"Some people feel that the real Oklahoma and its people don't fit the description in the book and that this novel has contributed to a supposed false characterization of the peoples in the affected midwest U.S. areas."

This seems to have been here for a while, but I'm not sure why.

I'm sure 'some people' think that, however in the interests of fairness I think we should have an 'Anti-criticism' section, for which I propose:

'Some people feel that noted revisionist Keith Windschuttle is simply trying to promote his own right-wing agenda.'

Seriously, if no one feels this adds anything of note, I'll delete it. Roman Candle 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For literary criticism, rather than citing one critic, or a generic "some people," it's far better to go for a professional librarian's summary of the criticism. I've provided one, with URL source; he references over thirty sources. 3Tigers07:14, 18 February 2007 (PST)

Upon further consideration, the whole criticism section of this article was totally inadequate. It's one of the most famous novels in human history, with vast amounts of critical literature dedicated to it. I've reworked the whole thing with critical summaries from Steinbeck scholars and librarians, with sources. Needs a lot more work, but I'm short on time. I'll get back to it. 3Tigers09:30, 18 February 2007(PST)

I'm with both Roman Candle and 3Tigers here. The "some people" who think that this novel doesn't represent -- at least generally -- what life was like for Oklahoma's poor during the Depression have obviously not picked up either a history book or the novel itself (or both). I don't think we can find a reputable source advocating such nonsense: so please remove the phrase. Better commentary can be found. (And although it's a relatively minor issue, just to help keep things in perspective I feel bound to point out that while the novel is inarguably one of the most important in American literature, I think it falls short of world fame.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

Considering the huge number of articles available on this book, the current bibliography is functionally useless - it only cites a few highly specific articles, some of them slipshod and inept. Suggest deletion, or else refer to the Library of Congress or UC Berkeley's Bancroft Library. 3Tigers09:40, 18 February 2007 (PST)

[edit] Banned?

I've removed the following from the article to this talk page:

The Grapes of Wrath was banned upon its publication in 1939 in Kern County, California, where a great part of the novel is set. The official reason given was the coarse language it contained, and the "nudity" (breast feeding) scene at the end of the book. However, the driving force behind the banning was the Associated Farmers of Kern County. Criticism was also often leveled at the novel's depiction of a minister as an open sexual predator. The book is frequently banned in schools across the United States, and in 1986, in Graves County, Kentucky, an adult was almost arrested for possession of a copy. In Austin, Texas if you even speak about it you could be in big trouble.

I've never heard of the book being banned and, although a number of books were blacklisted in the United States around the time the novel was first published (such as Joyce's Ulysses), this still needs to be cited. Furthermore, the paragraph just seems to get worse as it goes on. Someone "almost arrested" in 1986 for owning a copy? This seems completely ludicrous to me and I would certainly not accept that as fact without proper documentation. Lastly, there's an obvious POV/clarity issue with the final sentence.

I first tagged the section five months ago as lacking sources, so whoever added this information has had ample time to include their references. The section belongs here until the facts can be properly attributed to their sources. --Todeswalzer|Talk 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on New Deal

I removed the unsourced assertion that "[The Grapes of Wrath] is believed to have influenced [the] New Deal." The novel was published in 1939, by which time all significant New Deal reforms had already been implemented, and a central drama (the reactionary Supreme Court and FDR's court-packing plan) had already played out. Indeed, WP's own New Deal article gives an end date of 1938. Given these uncontroversial facts about the duration of the New Deal, it seems clear that this novel couldn't have influenced the New Deal. SS451 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom an advocate for proletarians?

The plot summary says that Tom became an advocate for the proletarian. This might (or might not) be technically correct, but it is very misleading since such vocabulary was not used in the book, and I seriously doubt Tom's character would have any idea what a proletarian was. Note in the film section this quote: "there are several references to socialist politics and questions which appear in the John Ford film of 1940 which do not appear in the novel, which is less political in its terminology and interests." Maybe we could change proletarian to "workers and the oppressed"? Or simply "the oppressed" if we need brevity.

-changed "proletarian" to "the oppressed".

Personally, I prefer "proletarian" although it should be "proletariat" which has a specific meaning in the English language: "Wage-earners collectively, esp. those without capital and dependent on selling their labour". I think that's more accurate and pertinent than the comparitively vague and wide-ranging "oppressed", and for this reason I don't think it's misleading to use it. On the contrary in fact. 81.96.164.105 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What years?

Which year(s) are covered in the novel? Or is just generically "1930s". -- 71.191.131.7 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Isn't it a little strong to use phrases like "The novel is meant to emphasize..." when it is really a rather ambiguous book that never explicitly states its intention in any way? Also, the article states quite definitely that "although Steinbeck was accused of exaggeration of the camp conditions to make a political point, in fact he had done the opposite, underplaying the conditions that he well knew were worse than the novel describes." While it cites a source for this, it never allows for the possibility of the opposite view, which can also be sourced(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okie#_note-6 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okie#_note-7). Carter Butaud (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree.

To describe Steinbeck as an elitist "who misinterpreted the Okie experience and then imposed that leftist misinterpretation on the American consciousness", can hardly be regarded as NPOV. So if the neutrality tag should be used somewhere it is in the Okie article.

Furthermore, as far as I can see this article as a whole is neutral and well-balanced. So if this was the only reason to add the POV template, I propose you (1) rework the section by adding appropriate references to it; (2) or use the {{Disputed-section}} tag in the section rather than at the top of the page.

Hope you don't mind, but I remove the tag.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Death of Grandpa Joad

The article states that Grandpa Joad died because of the medicine he was given when he resisted going to California. I have never heard anything like that. Has anyone else here ever heard anything like that? Do we know where that statement came from? LLBBooks (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)