The Grapes of Wrath AO5
My damndest to rip a reader’s nerves, I don’t want him satisfied…. I tried to write this bIn his
2006 introduction, Robert DeMott defines Grapes as “part naturalistic epic, part labor
testament, part family chronicle, part partisan journalism, part environmental jeremiad, part
captivity narrative, part road novel, part transcendental gospel.”
Accused by some critics of writing a sentimental novel, Steinbeck defended himself in a
letter to his editor, Pascal Covici:
‘I’ve doneook the way lives are being lived, not the way books are written…. Throughout I’ve
tried to make the reader participate in the actuality; what he takes from it will be scaled
entirely on his own depth or hollowness.’ (1939)
Early Reception
● Still, Grapes generated a significant amount of negative attention. School boards and
libraries enacted a widespread ban on the book, and some critics denounced it as
communist propaganda. Oklahoma Congressman Lyle Borden participated in ad
hominem attacks on Steinbeck, calling the novel “‘a black, infernal creation of a
twisted, distorted mind’ (1939). ‘Some have said this book exposes a condition and a
character of people, … but the truth is this book exposes nothing but the total
depravity, vulgarity, and degraded mentality of the author.’”
● Howard Bloom says that he prefers John Ford’s film version and cites a passage
from Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises to demonstrate that Steinbeck lacks
Hemingway’s mastery.
● Literary critic Leslie Fiedler, keynote speaker at a 1989 conference dedicated to The
Grapes of Wrath, “identified Steinbeck as a middlebrow author for middlebrow
critics,” claiming that Steinbeck’s mostly Californian fan base is shrinking.
● Others impugn his portrayal of “earthy characters” as befitting the kind of “tough
realism” favoured by writers such as Rebecca Harding Davis and Stephen Crane.
In recent years, however, The Grapes of Wrath has seen a critical renaissance as modern
critics, looking at the book through economic, historic, and materialistic lenses, replace the
New Critical methodology and its strict adherence to textual analysis.
● McElderry (1948): "The Grapes of Wrath was not merely a timely book on itinerant
farm labourers; it was—and is—creative in the best sense."
● Edmund Wilson (1948): "The Grapes of Wrath is a shrewd novel, a lively pattern of
experience, varied and skilful in texture; but it may be attacked as basically
sentimental."
● Norman Foerster (1948): "Is this novel ethically sound? Is it a wise book? And, to
revert to an earlier point, is it good sociology?"
● 1940 Eleanor Roosevelt: ‘I have never thought The Grapes of Wrath was
exaggerated.’
, ● 1940 Lyle Borden: "This book exposes nothing but the total depravity, vulgarity, and
degraded mentality of the author."
● Spearman (Marxist): "An embodiment of Marxist Soviet propaganda."
● Spangler (American Dream): "Steinbeck has smashed the notions of the American
dream."
● Hughes (Frontier): "Steinbeck countered the idealism of the frontier."
● Stokes (American Thought): "Steinbeck portrays a failure in American thought and
rationality."
● Clifton Fadiman thought “this ending [was] the tawdriest kind of fake symbolism”
(1961).
● Claude-Edmonde Magny argued it was “a purely poetic image in which no way brings
the plot to a conclusion” (1961).
● Mr Lisca (1958) illuminates the Biblical underpinning, in theme and symbol, of the
novel’s structure, showing that the Joad exodus is “an archetype of mass migration”
through which two opposed themes are interwoven: the breakdown of the family unit
economically and morally, which gives rise to an opposite and “upward” theme of the
rearrangement of the fragments of the family into a larger, more “communal unit.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26278509 - ‘The Ambivalent Endings of The Grapes of Wrath’
(1965)
● Angoff (1939): "Momentous, monumental and memorable."
● Rahv (1939): "Far too didactic and long-winded."
John J. Han: “A Defense of Steinbeck’s Intercalary Chapters in The Grapes of Wrath”
(2009)
● Han states that, over the years, The Grapes of Wrath has suffered critical attacks for
“allegedly lacking organic unity.”
● Critics such as Philip Rahv state that the novel is long-winded:
○ He questions its craftsmanship while acknowledging the valid political
observation and sincere feeling contained within.
● Other critics highlight how the sixteen intercalary chapters in the novel are major
structural weaknesses:
○ They claim that these chapters are irrelevant, repetitious and excessive.
● Steinbeck mentions devising a “new method” for writing the novel:
○ This involves alternating between narrative chapters describing the Joad
family’s plight and migration and general chapters providing context and a
My damndest to rip a reader’s nerves, I don’t want him satisfied…. I tried to write this bIn his
2006 introduction, Robert DeMott defines Grapes as “part naturalistic epic, part labor
testament, part family chronicle, part partisan journalism, part environmental jeremiad, part
captivity narrative, part road novel, part transcendental gospel.”
Accused by some critics of writing a sentimental novel, Steinbeck defended himself in a
letter to his editor, Pascal Covici:
‘I’ve doneook the way lives are being lived, not the way books are written…. Throughout I’ve
tried to make the reader participate in the actuality; what he takes from it will be scaled
entirely on his own depth or hollowness.’ (1939)
Early Reception
● Still, Grapes generated a significant amount of negative attention. School boards and
libraries enacted a widespread ban on the book, and some critics denounced it as
communist propaganda. Oklahoma Congressman Lyle Borden participated in ad
hominem attacks on Steinbeck, calling the novel “‘a black, infernal creation of a
twisted, distorted mind’ (1939). ‘Some have said this book exposes a condition and a
character of people, … but the truth is this book exposes nothing but the total
depravity, vulgarity, and degraded mentality of the author.’”
● Howard Bloom says that he prefers John Ford’s film version and cites a passage
from Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises to demonstrate that Steinbeck lacks
Hemingway’s mastery.
● Literary critic Leslie Fiedler, keynote speaker at a 1989 conference dedicated to The
Grapes of Wrath, “identified Steinbeck as a middlebrow author for middlebrow
critics,” claiming that Steinbeck’s mostly Californian fan base is shrinking.
● Others impugn his portrayal of “earthy characters” as befitting the kind of “tough
realism” favoured by writers such as Rebecca Harding Davis and Stephen Crane.
In recent years, however, The Grapes of Wrath has seen a critical renaissance as modern
critics, looking at the book through economic, historic, and materialistic lenses, replace the
New Critical methodology and its strict adherence to textual analysis.
● McElderry (1948): "The Grapes of Wrath was not merely a timely book on itinerant
farm labourers; it was—and is—creative in the best sense."
● Edmund Wilson (1948): "The Grapes of Wrath is a shrewd novel, a lively pattern of
experience, varied and skilful in texture; but it may be attacked as basically
sentimental."
● Norman Foerster (1948): "Is this novel ethically sound? Is it a wise book? And, to
revert to an earlier point, is it good sociology?"
● 1940 Eleanor Roosevelt: ‘I have never thought The Grapes of Wrath was
exaggerated.’
, ● 1940 Lyle Borden: "This book exposes nothing but the total depravity, vulgarity, and
degraded mentality of the author."
● Spearman (Marxist): "An embodiment of Marxist Soviet propaganda."
● Spangler (American Dream): "Steinbeck has smashed the notions of the American
dream."
● Hughes (Frontier): "Steinbeck countered the idealism of the frontier."
● Stokes (American Thought): "Steinbeck portrays a failure in American thought and
rationality."
● Clifton Fadiman thought “this ending [was] the tawdriest kind of fake symbolism”
(1961).
● Claude-Edmonde Magny argued it was “a purely poetic image in which no way brings
the plot to a conclusion” (1961).
● Mr Lisca (1958) illuminates the Biblical underpinning, in theme and symbol, of the
novel’s structure, showing that the Joad exodus is “an archetype of mass migration”
through which two opposed themes are interwoven: the breakdown of the family unit
economically and morally, which gives rise to an opposite and “upward” theme of the
rearrangement of the fragments of the family into a larger, more “communal unit.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26278509 - ‘The Ambivalent Endings of The Grapes of Wrath’
(1965)
● Angoff (1939): "Momentous, monumental and memorable."
● Rahv (1939): "Far too didactic and long-winded."
John J. Han: “A Defense of Steinbeck’s Intercalary Chapters in The Grapes of Wrath”
(2009)
● Han states that, over the years, The Grapes of Wrath has suffered critical attacks for
“allegedly lacking organic unity.”
● Critics such as Philip Rahv state that the novel is long-winded:
○ He questions its craftsmanship while acknowledging the valid political
observation and sincere feeling contained within.
● Other critics highlight how the sixteen intercalary chapters in the novel are major
structural weaknesses:
○ They claim that these chapters are irrelevant, repetitious and excessive.
● Steinbeck mentions devising a “new method” for writing the novel:
○ This involves alternating between narrative chapters describing the Joad
family’s plight and migration and general chapters providing context and a
