n  “And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, 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.”n

Honestly, I didn’t know too much about the migrant movement in California until I had started with Steinbeck’s works the previous year. Now, I was more than familiar with what had happened in India over the century under a similar context, so I thought, how much more could have gone wrong? Well, I am not comparing much, but of all the authors I have had encountered in the same genre, no one gets within a mile radius of what Steinbeck had achieved. In English. We have got Manik Bandopadhyay in here…

Despite having the flavour of the usual Steinbeck, I think for some reason than this one is more relatable for people from outside America as well… kind of reminds me of Dominique Lapierre’s The City of Joy which as far as I remember addresses the Fabricated Holocaust, The Bengal Famine of 1943 which managed to kill 2.1-3 million people out of starvation, and well, other chronic epidemics. And all those migrant farmers-turned-vagrants jammed up in the slums and on the streets of Calcutta(Kolkata). Also relatable is the upward trend in farmer suicides that India had noticed in 2014(that’s not the only year it took place, however only in that year as many as 5650 farmers and 6750 agricultural labourers wilfully breathed their last as per NCRB). And the ongoing protest since 9th August 2020… The funny thing is that in here most of the people don’t care shit about what happens to them until someone like Rihanna tweets about it, and then backlashes just for the sake of controversial publicity.

About the story, well the dusty, unseasoned depiction is perhaps the only thing that some may find a bit problematic (that’s what got it banned in the first place I guess), and besides it does get quite morbidly depressing several times and that is not lessened in any way by the alternate documentary-style chapters. The character arcs are significantly well executed, well, maybe except for Tom Joad Sr., though I liked the frequent moments where he quite self-consciously lampooned patriarchy. The tone of self-justification gets a bit frustrating after a time, though. But I can’t actually countback for it, seeing how much we all actually do that every day, every time.

However, I couldn’t help but not feel sorry for all of the characters. The thing is that some people are just born irresponsible. And some are just born self-occupied; and since it is a realist novel, there’s an ambiguous tone throughout the novel for most of the characters, you can’t just justify many of their actions on the other hand sometimes they do something that you can’t deny is beneficial. Speaking of which, do you remember the ‘rabbits’ from Of Mice and Men? Then you are bound to get apprehensive as soon as you hear Grampa ramble on and on about grapes and peaches…

I’m yet to read Steinbeck’s proclaimed magnum opus, but I can’t really imagine how East of Eden could get any more emotional, really man, this one is so gut-wrenchingly morose that after a bit of riding with the Joads I got as unemotional and stone-faced as they all got, though the author had made it perfectly clear that they, if anything, were luckier than the most. The crudest, and quite obviously the most vulnerable fragments of the story were shown through the eyes of Ma, though.

n   “Then it don’ matter. Then I’ll be all aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where-wherever you look. When they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’-I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build-why I’ll be there. See?... ”n

Damn it, man. I nearly teared up at this particular moment.

obsessed with calling steinbeck one of my favorite authors without having read this book

I’m listening to the Audiobook. It’s sooooo good!!!!

I’ve read the book. I’ve seen the stage production, but I never listen to the audiobook.... and the narrator’s are so so terrific!!!!

Oklahoma, 1939. Tractors invade the barren plains, ruining crops, demolishing houses, stripping farmers of their livelihood, leaving only billows of dust and ransacked land behind. Bewildered families choke with disbelief at the lame excuses of the landowners who blame a monster bigger than them. Not the severe droughts, not the iron machines, not their useless greed, but the bank, the bank forced them to do it.
And so a pilgrimage of thousands of destitute families to the promised land of California where the valleys are ripe with fresh hope and sweet grapes begins, and the roads become a limbless reptile hauling an endless tail of wrecked trucks and rootless people who have exchanged their living heritage for the expectation of honest jobs and decent lives.

A debunked list of thwarted illusions and betrayed promises awaits the Joads, the protagonists of Steinbeck’s tale of protest and epitomization of countless second rate Americans who had to endure the degradation of being treated like cattle, the marginalization of inhuman living conditions and the bigoted treatment of their fellow citizens as a result of the Great Depression’s climatic, social and economic debacle.
More than seventy years later, Steinbeck's denouncement of the effects of an abusive system that endorses laws of supply and demand over humanity and social justice mirrors the precarious situation of many developed countries that are struggling against unmanageable unemployment rates and massive migratory movements, which elevates the writer’s prophetic voice of protest to an enduring literary classic that speaks on its own.

“The Grapes of Wrath” is composed of juxtaposed symphonic alternating movements. Short, jazzy and lyrical chapters combining journalistic language with spiritual rhythms give an atemporal view on the migrant drama, which in turn arise as premonitory for the interweaved longer narrative chapters depicting the Joad family’s exodus to California and their symbolic plight for moral equity.
Framed in bold dialogue and raw dialectical jargon, a menagerie of styles, dissonant voices, folk wisdom and biblical imagery gives shape to the mystic soul of the book, which orbits around two concentric points: land and family.
When the Joads are obliged to abandon their farm they are also deprived of their dignity, of their ancestry, of their roots. Once the land is lost, drastic developments threaten the family unit but Ma Joad, tough and vulnerable mother, resilient and respectful wife, gentle and brawly cornerstone of the Joads' collective willpower, and her son Tom, the male counterpoint to Ma’s ability to adapt, personify the indignation that fuels the spark of revolt to preserve self-respect in front of implacable adversity.
But when hope becomes desperation, desperation melts in prayer, prayer degenerates into hunger and hunger ferments in wrath and the skies break lose in floods of misfortune and a mother caresses the disfigured face of her son in the dark, the debilitated bonds that kept the family together shatter silently in fragmented impotence and paralyzing vexation, leaving only one absolute, pulsating soul that speaks for all people, the ghost of Tom Joad:

“Then it don’t matter. Then I’ll be aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where – wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy. I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build – why, I’ll be there.”

And this is how Steinbeck’s polivalent epic evolves from socio-economic determinism to numinous spirituality, for the fury of losing land and lineage metamorphoses into a chant of redemptive love for mankind that overcomes individual boundaries, temporal limits and material needs and rekindles a perdurable harmonious faith that can only be born of the most inexhaustible and universal compassion.

“The people in flight from terror behind – strange things happen to them, some bitterly cruel and some so beautiful that the faith is refired forever.”

“And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.”

A bleak and depressing read, yet the perseverance of the human spirit shines bright in Steinbeck’s Great Depression novel. The Grapes of Wrath tells the story of the Joad family, uprooted from their home and forced to travel west to the promised land of California. Short expository chapters punctuate the main narrative surrounding the Joad family and their journey, the two working together to effectively depict the westward movement of migrant farmers and their struggles to find work in the 1930s.

The cast of characters in The Grapes of Wrath is wonderful, as is the case with all the Steinbeck I’ve read so far, and it’s a joy to watch the different members of the Joad family grow and change over the course of the novel. Shoutout to my favourite, Ma Joad - she takes NO shit. I love how the gender roles are reversed once they leave home and are out on the road as Ma Joad begins to take control and become head of the family.

I had always wondered where the title Grapes of Wrath came from, so I loved learning that the expression came from the inefficiency of the agricultural systems. The putrefying crops are used to symbolise the festering anger of the people, as excess crops are left to rot and spoil in order to maintain high prices, whilst migrant farmers and their families are literally starving to death. It’s simply maddening to read about.

Steinbeck can do no wrong in my eyes as once again I was carried away with his stunning prose and beautiful descriptions of scenery and landscapes. And once again, biblical themes play a huge part. It’s a slow burn, but the overall journey is worth the time invested. The ending felt a little sudden, I wanted to know what came next, but I chalk that up to simply wanting to spend more time with the Joad family.

For me, The Grapes of Wrath doesn’t match up to East of Eden, but it comes pretty damn close. 4.5 stars.

هر رمانی که رنگ و بوی رئالیسم سوسیالیستی داشته باشد حتما در بستری از فقر شکل می‌گیرد و مهم ترین عنصر این بستر بی رحمی طبیعت است. یادتان می‌آید در جلد اول "کلیدر، جلد اوّل و دوّم" قبل از این که گل محمد دست به جنایت بزند و یاغی بشود دام هایشان مرض هولناکی گرفتند و همه تلف شدند؟ و یادتان هست توصیف فوق العاده دولت آبادی از تلاش گل محمد برای کشت دیم؟ گل محمد که یک کرد قلدر است روی زمین بذر می‌پاشد اما محصولی که به دست می‌آورد چنان تنک و کوتاه است که برای چیدنش باید روی زمین بنشیند و از این که تنبانش خاکی بشود خونش به جوش می‌آید. و این هم بستری که اشتاین بک توصیف می‌کند:
"مردها برای دیدن ذرتهای نفله شده به خاطر طوفان که اینک بتندی می خشکید، کنار نرده های خانه‌هاشان ایستادند. تنها سبزی ناچیزی از زیر قشر نازک غبار پیدا بود مردها خاموش بودند و اغلب جنب نمیخوردند. آنها از خانه ها خارج شدند تا پیش مردهاشان بیایند و ببینند که آیا این بار شوهرانشان خیلی دمق هستند یواشکی چهره مردها را میکاویدند زیرا تا زمانی که چیز دیگری از ذرت باقی بود، احتمالی داشت نابودشود. بچه ها همان نزدیکی ایستاده بودند"

ماشینیسم مورد حمله اوست. همان طور که جلال آل احمد در "نفرین زمین" آمدن موتور آب را نقد و ریشخند می‌کند. چرا؟ چون علاوه بر این که سبک زندگی را تغییر می‌دهد و بهره‌کشی از طبیعت است (که طبیعت به خودی و خود یکی از مقدسات اندیشه اشتاین بک است) که ابزاری است در دست مالکان بزرگ برای از میدان به در کردن خرده مالک ‌ها:
"تراکتورها از راه رسیدند و در کشتزارها رخنه کردند؛ خزندگان بزرگی بودند که مثل حشرات و با نیروی باورنکردنی حشرات می جنبیدند. روی
خاک می خزیدند. رد پایشان را روی میدانی که می غلتیدند و باز می گشتند به جا می نهادند و سپس آن را می زدودند. تراکتور دیزل که هنگام آسایش تف می کرد، با صدای رعد آسایی که به شکل لندلند سنگینی در می آمد، میلرزید. غول خپله ای بود که زمین را بر می گرداند و پوزه کفتاری اش را در آن فرو می برد ."
و
"خانواده ای ایالت را رها کرده و رف��ه است. پدر خانواده از بانک پول قرض گرفته است. و اینک بانک زمین می خواهد. بانک هنگامی که زمینها را تملک میکند برای زمینها تراکتور می خواهد نه خانواده. آیا تراکتور بد است؟ این تراکتور دو کار می کند: زمین ما را بر می گرداند و ما را بیرون می راند. میان این تراکتور و تانک تفاوت زیادی نیست. هر دو مردم را بیرون می رانند، وحشت زده و مجروح می کنند. این چیزی است که باید به آن بیندیشیم."

شخصیت‌های خوشه های خشم همان آدم های بی‌سواد و پاپتی جامعه هستند که درکی بسیط از دنیا و مافیها دارند. قانون به راحتی می تواند آن‌ها را له کند. قانون همیشه علیه آن‌ها است:
"جاد گفت: در زندان مک آلستر یکی هس که حبس ابده، وقتش رو با مطالعه میگذرونه. منشی مدیره. کاغذها و این چیزهاشو اون مینویسه. اما یارو خیلی چیز سرش میشه، حقوق و کلی از این چیزها میدونه. یه دفه من باهاش صحبت کردم، دیدم بیست و چهار ساعته میخونه. گفتش با کتاب خوندن هیچ دردی دوا نمیشه. میگفت هرچی راجع به زندون نوشتن چه حالا و چه قدیم همه رو خونده و تازه بعد از همه اینها کمتر از اون وقتی که شروع به خوندن کرده بود چیز میفهمه"
و
"کمربند پهنش با قلاب زیبای مسی، کشهای سرخ رنگی که آستینهای پیراهن آبی رنگش را نگاه می داشت و فرورفتگی زیبای کلاه نمدی اش، هیچ یک او را به پایه برادرش نمی رساند؛ زیرا برادرش آدم کشته بود، چیزی که هرگز فراموش نخواهد شد. آل می دانست که چون برادرش آدم کشته، جوانان همستش حتی او را با نظر تحسین می نگرند. می دانست که در سالیسار او را با انگشت به هم نشان می‌دهند: این «آل جاد» رو میبینی؟ برادرش یکی رو با بیل کشته!"

دوره رکود بزرگ امریکا است. یک نوع اقتصاد در حال مرگ است تا نوع تازه‌ و بی‌رحمی از اقتصاد سربرآورد که قداستی برای هیچ گوشه‌ای از زندگی انسان‌ها قائل نیست:

برزگران در خانه های محقرشان از میان اموال خود، اموال پدران و اجدادشان چیزهایی بر می گزیدند. آنچه می خواستند با خود به «مغرب» برند گزین می کردند. مردان سنگدل بودند، زیرا نمی دانستند که گذشته تمام شده است. ولی زنها می دانستند که در روزهای آینده، یاد گذشته با فریادهای رسا به سراغشان خواهد آمد."

خانواده جاد هم مثل خیلی دیگر از اهالی ایالت اوکلاهاما به بانک مقروض هستند و بانک به راحتی موفق می‌شود خانه و کاشانه آنها را از چنگشان در بیاورد. بنابراین چاره ای جز مهاجرت ندارند:
"روشنایی بسرعت بر دشت پاشیده می شد. فعالیت خانواده قطع شد. همه بر جای خود ایستاده و در شروع نخستین حرکات سفر مردد بودند. اینک که زمان حرکت فرا می رسید، واهمه داشتند. همانطور که پدربزرگ می ترسید، همه بیمناک بودند. سایبان را دیدند که نیمرخش در روشنایی به چشم می خورد، فانوسها را دیدند که رنگشان می پرید و هاله های نور زرد رنگشان خاموش می شد. در مغرب ستاره ها کم کم خاموش شدند خانواده همچنان ایستاده بود..."

جایگاه مسیحیت در این رمان شباهت عجیبی به جایگاه مسیحیت در رمان "مسیح بازمصلوب" و "عالیجناب کیشوت" دارد. کشیشی که نماینده کلیسا باشد و قصد موعظه داشته باشد به درد مردم نمی‌خورد اما کشیشی که در سازوکار اداره امور شک کرده باشد و بخواهد دردی از مردم دوا کند محبوب و به درد بخور است:
"کشیش گفت: این سرنوشت همه مردمه. نیگا کنین، من، مثلا سابقا همه تواناییم رو صرف مبارزه با شیطون می کردم، چون شيطون رو دشمن میدونستم ولی یه چیزی بدتر از شیطون روی این مملکت پنجه انداخته و تا کله شو نزنن ولکن نیس. این سوسمارهای گنده رو دیدین که چه جوری میچسبن؟ همین که پنجه ش رو بند کرد و چسبید، اگه از وسط نصفش کنین سرش سالم میمونه، گردنشو ببرین باز هم سرش سالم میمونه و میچسبه..."
و
"کشیش با مهربانی گفت: حتما منم گناه کرده ام. همه گناه کرده‌ن. گناه چیزی نیس که بشه ازش ایمن بود. تموم اونهایی که از بی گناهیشون مطمئن هسن، هه، این مادرقحبه ها. اگه من جای خدای مهربون بودم یکی یه تیپا در کون همه شون می زدم و این کثافتها رو از بهشت مینداختم بیرون. من نمی فهمم حرف حسابشون چیه!؟

این صحنه‌های تجمع بیچاره‌ها که هنوز امیدشان را از دست نداده‌اند در فیلم خوشه‌های خشم یکی از سکانس‌های تاثیرگذار و دردناک را ساخته:
"مهاجران حس می کردند که از دست رفته و متلاشی شده اند، چون همه از جایی می آمدند که بینوایی و اندوه بر آن فرمان می راند - آنجا که تحقیر شکست را تحمل کرده بودند . و چون همه به جانب ایالت تازه و شگفتی می رفتند، دور هم جمع می شدند، با یکدیگر حرف می زدند، زندگی شان، خوراکی شان و آنچه از سرزمین جدید انتظار داشتند، همه را با هم تقسیم می کردند."


مادر در این رمان یک اسطوره تمام عیار و یک ستون محکم برای خانواده‌س که البته در فیلم به این استواری ساخته و پرداخته نشده:
"مادر گفت: یه وقتی میرسه که آدم عوض میشه و همه چیزو جور دیگه میبینه. اون وقت، هر مرگی جزئی از همه مرگهاس، و هر تحملی جزئی از همه تحملها. تولد و مرگ دو جزئی از یک چیزه و در این موقع دیگه آدم خودش رو تنها حس نمیکنه. در این موقع تحمل بدبختیها خیلی سخت نیس، چونکه هر بدبختی جزئی از همه بدبختیهاس. دخترم، خیلی دلم میخواس میتونسم اینو به تو بفهمونم. اما غیر ممکنه."

چرا این قدر اشتاین بک را دوست دارم؟
چون بعد از «تورتیا فلت» و «مروارید» و «موش ها و آدم ها» این چهارمین رمان است که ازش میخوانم و باز هم درباره فقرا است. این نجیب زاده های واقعی که مناعت طبعشان را به پول نمی‌فروشند و فقط به سیر بودن شکمشان راضی هستند:
"مادر لبخند کوچکی زد:
. شاید همینا ما رو انقدر سرسخت میکنه. خرپولها میان و میرن، بچه هاشون به هیچ دردی نمیخورن، زاد و رودشون از بین میره. اما مال ماها، همیشه هسن. غصه نخور، توم، روزهای بهتری هم میرسه.
. تو از کجا میدونی؟ . نمیدونم از کجا."

اشتاین بک ایده‌های مشخصی در جهت اندیشه‌های اشتراکی و مارکسیستی دارد. یکی اصالت کار در برابر سرمایه‌ است. یکی هم مخالفت با مالکیت خصوصی است. مخصوصا در فصلی که جادها وارد یک اردوگاه دولتی با مدیریت اشتراکی می‌شوند این خیلی نمود دارد:
"شما مالک چیزهایی هستید که دیگران ندارند، اگر شما می توانستید این را بفهمید شاید ممکن بود از سرنوشت خود بگریزید. اگر شما می توانستید علل را از نتایج جدا کنید، اگر می توانستید بفهمید که مارکس و لنین نتایج بودند نه علل، ممکن بود باز هم زنده بمانید. ولی شما نمی توانید این را بفهمید، زیرا مسئله مالک بودن برای همیشه شما را در «من» منجمد می کند و شما را همیشه از «ما» جدا می‌کند."

و بالاخره من:
"رمان را بستم و از اتوبوس پیاده شدم. سهم زیادی از مطالعه م توی اتوبوس است. فروشگاه افق کوروش نزدیکمان است اما یک بار هم پایم را توش نگذاشته‌م. فکر کردم اگر من هم مثل خانواده "جاد" دوست ندارم سرمایه‌دارهای بی اصل و نسب رشد کنند و خرخره‌مان را بچسبند باید از اصغرآقای بقال خرید کنم نه از افق کوروش. با اصغرآقا سلام و علیک می‌کنم و نمی‌گذارم کار و کاسبی‌اش مثل کار و کاسبی خانواده "جاد" کساد بشود. میدانم پولم دارد توی جیب کی می‌رود"

In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

This book really gets my goat. Those poor, dirty Joads. So poor and so, so dirty. After being displaced from their Oklahoma farm following the Dust Bowl storms that wreck their crops and cause them to default on their loans, the Joads find themselves a family of migrants in search of work and food. They join a stream of hundreds of thousands of other migrant families across the United States to what they believe to be the prosperous valleys of California. Only once they arrive, they discover that there is nothing prosperous about it—not only is there a serious shortage of work (mostly caused by an overabundance of labor that came with the influx of so many other migrant families), but they also have to contend with growing anti-migrant sentiment among the local population and wealthy landowners who think nothing of taking advantage of them in their state of vulnerability. Without proper labor laws protecting worker’s rights and no trade unions to represent their interests, the Joads are severely underpaid for whatever work they do manage to find, and they simply fall deeper and deeper into despondency.

The reason this gets my goat is ‘cause it doesn’t have to be that way. Yes, the Joads are uneducated and wouldn’t qualify for anything more than basic manual labor. Yes, it is the Great Depression and this is not an easy time to find a job even for skilled workers. And yes, they are a family of 47 and they probably look pretty ridiculous all crammed up in the back of their makeshift pickup truck. But gosh darn it, if only they had unions! If only they had fair labor standards to guarantee them a minimum wage! If only they had the protection of government legislation to prohibit wealthy landowners from colluding to keep prices high and wages low!

Which leads me to wonder… what would Ayn Rand think of all this? After all, aren’t labor unions and economic regulation precisely what she argues against? By that account, if Atlas Shrugged is the supposed Bible of right-wing thinkers, then I’d have to say that The Grapes of Wrath might just be its antithesis. But the real difference, as far as I can tell, is that while Atlas Shrugged represents a crazy woman’s vision of a whack job world that could never actually exist, John Steinbeck tells it like it is, and how it was, for so many hard working Americans who were taken advantage of under a system that did nothing to protect them. And what’s even more remarkable is that Steinbeck’s characters (whom, by the way, Rand would refer to as “moochers”—just thought we should be clear on that) make Dagny Taggart and Henry Reardon look like a couple of pussies. What is it Ma Joad says? That if you’re in trouble or hurt or need, to “go to poor people—for they’re the only ones that’ll help.”

This is a novel about the working poor, and it should serve to remind us what can go horribly wrong in an unregulated economy.

Steinbeck's classic blew me away again with the power of its vision, the depth of its character, and the realism of its dialogs. I also rewatched the movie and found it to be relatively faithful to the book. A few things were dropped (the Wilsons, Noah's leaving, the pathos-laden ending with Rosasharon in the farmhouse) and a few things were swapped around (the government camp and the peach camp), but Henry Fonda did a perfect performance as the interesting Tom Joad whose character arc goes from somewhat hardened criminal to socially conscious drifter. I also loved Casy and found John Carradine stupendous in that role.

The narration of the book has three voices: the third party narration of the Joad family's trials and tribulations; a more sweeping, journalistic voice about the larger political and social context; and a closeup into the thoughts and actions of people implied on the fringes (most notably the roadside cafés which play a role twice in the primary narrative - younger's Tom's initial ride to the farm, older Tom's purchase of bread and candy). I feel that this technique was borrowed in principle at least from the Dos Passos USA Trilogy - the closeups reminded me of the Camera Eye sections and the sweeping passages of the Newsreel sections.

The book itself tells the story of the Joads and by extension of an entire generation of mid-western farmers in the US that were forced off their land after the Dust Bowl, a period of several years of famine, to seek their fortunes in a promised land out west in California. The harsh realities of life on the road, the prejudice of stationary observers towards the "Oakies", and the exploitation by farmers and farming associations of the labor surplus are painfully delineated. There is nonetheless some great humor (Ma's beating a man with a chicken as told by Tom, Ruthie and Winfield's discovery of the toilets, etc) in here and some great moments of humanity - primarily in Casy's speeches and in my all-time favorite one, "wherever there's a man, I'll be there too" by Tom.

The relationships in the book, particularly between Ma and Tom are beautifully drawn and yet the minor characters are also given time to change with the situations. Of course, not everyone makes it to the land of milk and honey, and the land itself does not welcome them with open arms but rather with rejection and disdain.


As for the historical context, it is hard for us to get exact numbers, but somewhere between 400,000 and 3.5M people were displaced from the Great Plains area that was affected by the drought and violent dust storms between 1931 and 1939 during which 75% of the topsoil was wiped out in the Oklahoma panhandle, western Kansas, eastern Colorado, and northern Texas. Not all of the displaced went to California, nonetheless, it is estimated that 1/8 of today's California population are descendants of survivors of the Dust Bowl. It is also hard to estimate the number of deaths, but most sources settle on a number of about 7000 primarily from malnutrition and disease (both hinted at in the book, of course).

Steinbeck depicts this vividly with sharply drawn images and an appeal to our emotions: we see that unfortunately, the Great Depression has also impacted California and there are no jobs there either. It is important to note his insight that it was not just farmers that were driven from the land: in the book at the first stop for the Joads, they meet a shopkeeper who left because he had no more customers. In fact, people from across the economic spectrum were impacted and forced to rethink their means of getting an income.

Also important to this book is the fact that it was not just climate change that pushed people off the land, it was also the ruthlessness of banks and speculators as well as technological change. This period represents a shift from manual sharecropping of smallish plots to the massive scale of industrialized agriculture. The heartlessness with which the guys in suits drive the Joads and their neighbors of their land is shocking, and yet realistic. The practice of printing handbills for wide distribution in order to drive down labor prices as well as the labeling any resistance to falling wages as "red" was a powerful theme in the book.

There is a feeling of inevitableness, but also injustice as few provisions were made by the government for these victims of change, and the gutting of legislation to protect small landholders from rapacious actions by the large financial interests during the Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover administrations left gaping holes in the safety net.

An absolute American masterpiece, there is no question in my mind of this novel deserving the 1940 Pulitzer Prize over other great books like Chandler's The Big Sleep and Tropic of Capricorn also being published in 1939. This one just has an eternal, lasting perfection to it. Grapes of Wrath was one of the primary sources quoted when Steinbeck was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1962. His moving acceptance speech here.

My votable list of Pulitzer winners which I have read (only have the 40s, 50s, and 60s to finish!):

So I finally got to reading this 'Great American novel' that tells the tale of a Great Depression family being forced out of their farm by 'progress' and their arduous journey across America to the supposed land of agricultural work aplenty, California. A realist tale of the plight of the disenfranchised migrants on the road and then at the hands of the big powerful 'corporate' farmers; with as much as the tale told in the families' dialogue as by the narrator. Interesting that for years Steinbeck was labelled a socialist or a communist for what were perceived as his political views because he told this story from the disenfranchised point of view. It was the best selling book in 1939 and eaten up by the masses, despite being loathed by many of those in power.

The book felt like one everlasting ride through Hell, albeit a well written one. It's interesting that American distaste and maltreatment of migrants seems to be a constant in their history, from a nation entirely built on immigration. Steinbeck artfully depicts how for any chance of survival community is needed, at time using Christian religious imagery.

Should be worth noting that it has been well documented that Steinbeck read extensive notes from three other writers to create this work and failed to credit the woman source, Sanora Babb, who's own similar book was then not published by Random House after Steinbeck's was on the market. Overall a 7 out of 12 Three Star read, that I feel I might have appreciated this read more if I read at an earlier age.

2024 read

اسم پرآوازه ی کتاب کافیه تا هرکسی برای خوندنش وسوسه بشه...حقیقت اینه که شاید کتاب بیش از حد طولانی و گاهی خسته کننده به نظر بیاد ولی چیزی که اشتاین بک ازش شجاعانه صحبت کرده برهه مهمی از تاریخ آمریکا رو روایت می کنه که هم طی خوندن و هم در پایان نه تنها پشیمون نیستید بلکه از تجربه ای که با این کتاب داشتید خوشحال هم خواهید بود.

داستان کتاب سفر خانواده جاد - به عنوان سمبلی از هر خانواده کارگر آمریکا- رو از اوکلاهما به سمت کالیفرنیا روایت می کنه. سفری که همه کارگران از روی اجبار در نتیجه ی ورود ماشین و صنعتی شدن عملیات کشاورزی و نهایتا بیکاری کارگران در پیش گرفتند.ولی واقعیت اینجاست که برخلاف تصور عموم حتی کالیفرنیا هم نه تنها بهشت نیست که جهنم بدتری برای اونهاست.

میشه گفت اشتاین بک رو همه جوانب و مشکلات این سفر ریز شده و دید خیلی خوبی از اون زمان به خواننده میده. این که چطور در میانه بحران بیکاری کارگران، نداری و فقر، گرسنگی و بیماری و مرگ و تلاش برای بقا، هر قشری سعی داشته صرفنظر از "انسانیت" به نوعی از این اوضاع سودی به دست بیاره

جایزه بهترین شخصیت داستان هم تقدیم می شود به "مادر قصه" ...که وقتی دید مردان نه دیگه اعتماد به نفسی براشون مونده و نه عقل و منطقی خودش دست به کار شد و هر بار با درایت، کشتی خاندان جاد رو به سمت درست هدایت کرد. امکان نداره این کتاب رو بخونید و عاشق ترکیب زنانگی- مردانگی موجود در این شخصیت نشید

بد نیست در جریان باشیم که

این کتاب زیاد به مذاق سرمایه دارن و زمین داران آمریکا خوش نیامد و برای مدتی توی آمریکا ممنوع شد ولی بدلیل حقیقت گویی و هم دردی با قشر پائین جامعه جای خودش را باز کرد و خواننده های زیادی داشت.نارضایتی سرمایه داران از حقیقت گویی اشتاین بک آنها را واداشت تا حرفهایی بر خلاف انچه کتاب گفته بود تحویل کشاورزان که اغلب هم بی سواد بودند،بدهند. آنها کتاب را ضد کلیسا معرفی کردند و همین طور به دروغ گفتند که تصویری که این کتاب از کشاورزان به نمایش گذاشته تصویر مردمی وحشی است. کشاورزان هم از همه جا بی خبر به کتابخانه ها رفتند و این کتاب را آتش زدند.

انجمن کشاورزان متحد کالیفرنیا این رمان را دروغ و پروپاگاندای کمونیستی خواندند. این در حالی بود که این کتاب مدت کوتاهی توسط ژوزف استالین نیز در اتحاد جماهیر شوروی تحریم شده بود زیرا حزب کمونیست حاکم از این تفکر که حتی بی‌نواترین آمریکایی هم می‌تواند صاحب یک ماشین باشد خوشحال نبود. اشتاین‌بک چندین بار تهدید به مرگ شد و اف‌ بی‌آی او را تحت نظر قرار داد.



وقتی که کار نوشتن کتاب به پایان رسید اشتاین بک نوشت: آن کتاب بزرگی که امیدش را داشتم از آب درنیامد. تنها یک کتاب معمولی است. البته همین کتاب معمولی برنده جایزه پولیتزر ادبیات سال 1940 شد.


عنوان این کتاب از «سرود نبرد جمهوری» گرفته شده است: چشمان من شکوه آمدن خدا را دیده اند/او تاکستانی که خوشه‌های خشم در آن انبار شده اند را پایمال می کند. این سرود توسط جولیا وارد هاو یکی از طرفداران براندازی اصول بردگی در سال 1861 نوشته شده است.

The author focuses on the causes of the terrible suffering of the thousands and thousands of tenant farmers who were forced to leave their homes and head towards the mythical Paradise (California) which turned out to be Hell. It was happening at the times of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl in the Unites States in the 1930s. Those causes were the natural forces, modern technology and the ugly face of capitalism (the greedy exploiters and the voiceless victims of exploitation). (I did not know Steinbeck was so anti-capitalist and pro-communist).
On the other hand, it is a gripping story of a family in their endless and often deadly quest for a better life.
And, to me, of all the members of the family, Ma Joad seems the most important one. She is not only a strong and brave woman, she is also like a glue that keeps all the family together in the new, dire circumstances. Having come from the patriarchal society, she becomes a true leader for the whole family for rest of the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Ma was heavy, but not fat; thick with child-bearing and work. She wore a loose Mother Hubbard of gray cloth in which there had once been colored flowers, but the color was washed out now, so that the small flowered pattern was only a little lighter gray than the background. The dress came down to her ankles, and her strong, broad, bare feet moved quickly and deftly over the floor. Her thin, steel-gray hair was gathered in a sparse wispy knot at the back of her head. Strong, freckled arms were bare to the elbow, and her hands were chubby and delicate, like those of a plump little girl. She looked out into the sunshine. Her full face was not soft; it was controlled, kindly. Her hazel eyes seemed to have experienced all possible tragedy and to have mounted pain and suffering like steps into a high calm and a superhuman understanding. She seemed to know, to accept, to welcome her position, the citadel of the family, the strong place that could not be taken. And since old Tom and the children could not know hurt or fear unless she acknowledged hurt and fear, she had practiced denying them in herself. And since, when a joyful thing happened, they looked to see whether joy was on her, it was her habit to build up laughter out of inadequate materials. But better than joy was calm. Imperturbability could be depended upon. And from her great and humble
position in the family she had taken dignity and a clean calm beauty. From her position as healer, her hands had grown sure and cool and quiet; from her position as arbiter she had become as remote and faultless in judgment as a goddess. She seemed to know that if she swayed the family shook, and if she ever really deeply wavered or despaired the family would fall, the family will to function would be gone.'

برای کسانی که بدنبال لذت درک لبخند ژکوند هستند ! چیزی که‌میخوام بنویسم بیشتر از جنس احساسه‌ تا از جنس تحلیل .. فقط بیست صفحه از کتاب رو‌خونده بودم‌و تونستم باهاش ارتباط برقرار کنم .. یه شب بارونی بهار .. حوالی ساعت ده شب خوندن‌ رو‌شروع‌ کردم و تا هفت صبح یکنفس خوندم .. نزدیک به ده ساعت یه حس عجیب و غریب که تووی این بیست سالی که میخونم اولین بار بود که برام اتفاق میفتاد .. چهارصد صفحه‌اول رو یه تیکه و پیوسته خوندم .. کتاب با هر سطرش روح ‌خواننده ‌رو‌به ‌درد میاره ..جاهایی از داستان قلب ادم واقعا به درد میاد .. عجیب نیست که خود نویسنده بعد از نوشتن این رمان مدتی دچار اختلال روحی میشه .. داستان روایت اوارگی یه خانواده پرجمعیت تووی شاهراه شماره ۶۶ هست و مصیبت هایی که یکی بعد از دیگری گریبان گیر این خانواده میشه .. شخصیت ها به راحتی اب خوردن حذف میشن .. و هر بار یه بهت سنگین فضای سیاه داستان رو‌در بر میگیره .. میتونم بگم دیگه محاله بتونم همچین‌داستان زیبایی بخونم .. مخصوصا پایان داستان .. بدون شک نقطه اوج داستان همون سه سطر انتهایی داستان هست .. اونقدر دردناک که انگار هیچ وقت قرار نیست از ذهن خارج بشه .. بهترین رمانی بود که تووی زندگیم خوندم ...