Personal Review

The main reason I chose this book is because of the author, John Steinbeck. I like his writing style because it is very straightforward and is not too flowery like other classics I have read like The Scarlet Letter and A Tale of Two Cities. However, The Grapes of Wrath is comparatively long compared to Steinbeck's other books but is, nevertheless, able to stay to the point. As I stated in the text connections entry, I liked Steinbeck’s use of dialogue to drive the story. This gave me a real understanding of what his characters were like, and kept the book moving. On the other hand, this book was different from Steinbeck’s other books because it is not as concise and thoroughly edited, so it dragged in the middle. One reason I like this book is its connection and accuracy to history. While reading this book, I was studying the Great Depression in History class. My knowledge from History gave me a much better understanding of the social problems during the Great Depression and enhanced my reading experience and, in turn, enhanced my knowledge of History. Tenant farmers were perhaps the hardest hit portion of society during the Great Depression, and John Steinbeck explores how they were exploited, excluded from society, and unfairly looked down on, very accurate to actual history. The Grapes of Wrath is such a highly regarded book because of its vivid yet accurate portrayal of an important part in America’s history.

Text-Text Connection

One important text connection that is evident in The Grapes of Wrath is in its style. John Steinbeck’s style in The Grapes of Wrath shares similarities to his contemporary Zora Neale Hurston’s style in Their Eyes Were Watching God. In both of these books, the story is driven by the dialogue rather than the narrator. This gives the book a more personal feeling while keeping the book straightforward and genuine. It also develops the characters much better than narration can and gives the reader good imagery of the characters. Another similarity between The Grapes of Wrath and Their Eyes Were Watching God is the use of the natural dialect of the characters. This also gives the reader more insight about the social class of the characters and the imagery of the setting. The prevalence of dialogue in both of these novels gives these books a unique and intriguing feel.

Syntax

During The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck switches back and forth between the Joad family and migrant farmers in general. He uses quotation marks when the chapter is about the Joad family. However, when it is about migrant farmers in general, Steinbeck neglects to put quotation marks. This is probably because he wants to show that when the migrant farmers are talking, it could be any migrant farmer throughout the nation, or even anybody who has had unfairness thrust upon them. It also shows how each migrant farmer was not thought of as an individual person, but rather as a stereotypical migrant farmer in a large group. Another difference in syntax and style between the parts about the Joad family and the parts about the migrant farmers in general is that the migrant farmer chapters are much shorter compared to the chapters about the Joad family. This is probably because the general parts are used to more broadly and Steinbeck shows more of his views on society during these parts rather than the detail of the Joad’s journey. The sections about the migrant farmers are the most meaningful parts in the book and are the best parts to read because they are short and concise which really gets Steinbeck’s point across. Also, the short chapters provide the reader relief from the rest of the book and are a place where Steinbeck can write about what he feels. The short chapters with no quotation marks are unique to this book and separate the two separate stories manageably for the reader.

Diction

• Mashed
• Stamping
• Pounded
• Ragged
• Sagging
• Splintered
• Beaten
• Crumbled
• Crushed
• Wrenched

All of this verb based diction makes the reader feel like he/she is having these things done to him/her. This diction creates a very hurt and suppressed tone with words like “pounded”, “beaten”, and “crushed”. Diction like “wrenched” and “crumbled” creates a tone that the migrant farmers were unfairly stolen of their life and belongings and now their way of life is destroyed. The whole book is about how people take advantage of other people and the diction creates a feeling of some people inflicting hurt and distress onto other people who really need help in the tough times of the Great Depression.

Rhetorical Strategies

• Paradox: “The fields were fruitful, and starving men moved on the roads. The granaries were full and the children of the poor grew up rachitic.”
• Simile, zeugma: “On the highways the people moved like ants and searched for work, for food.”
• Personification: “And the anger began to ferment.”

Steinbeck’s style is to use paradox in order to show how paradoxical life is in regards to social class. The use of paradox could indicate socialist tendencies in Steinbeck, because it shows the unfairness and the absurdity of the capitalist system of having very disparate social classes. Steinbeck also uses simile throughout the book to characterize the migrant farmers. For example, by comparing them to ants shows how the “Okies” were treated like insects and were just nuisances that did not have any feelings. Personification is predominant through the novel. This could be because the author wants to show how it is inevitable and is a natural process that the migrant workers will rise up against their suppressors. However, more likely it is just because personification is a great way for Steinbeck to tell the story in a more engaging and interesting way. Also, Steinbeck includes a lot of detail in his novels and compliments it with figurative language and other rhetorical strategies to immerse the reader in the novel and keep the story lively and interesting.