I think that the imagery used in this video really captures the mood of Americans during the dust bowl era. I think sometimes pictures can get more across than actual words and the photos in this video helped to covey the real issues in this time period. The photos that revealed the living conditions of the migrant workers were extremely impactful. I really sympathized with the poor workers because you could see the hopelessness in their eyes as they stood around their makeshift shelters. I noticed that there were some photos of families that were just like The Joads. This lead me to believe Steinbeck created the Joads to serve as a portrait of the typical American family during this time. Besides the pictures, I found the interviews to be very educational as well. I was shocked to learn that this book had the impact it did. I was not aware of how controversial it really was during the time period it was released in. I was surprised to learn that people actually had plans to frame John Steinbeck and accuse him of crimes. It was interesting to hear the different people’s opinions of why the book might have been banned or burned. You assume it is because of its language, however one of the interviewees brought up a great point when she said the book might have been banned because of its “call for collective action.” I agree with this point. People might have been afraid that this book could influence the people of America to organize for social change and fight for the causes they believe in. Change isn’t always wanted, especially in more southern conservative areas that value tradition. Lastly, I thought it was fascinating that interviewee Jack Hicks said the book being burned and banned was a mark of excellence and that it was only burned and banned because of the truth the book presented. I agree with his statement. I think that great novels are thought provoking and can be interpreted in many different ways .Grapes of Wrath was sparked controversy over readers all across America proving itself to be an example of great literature.
Why do YOU think the book was banned? Was it necessary to go as far as burning it?
Despite the increased length and boredom sometimes associated with this video, I found most of the facts brought forth to be pretty interesting. The video allowed the viewer to learn more about the author’s life and the foundation and history of the book. For such a meaningful book, I found it fitting to create such a biography about Steinbeck and his books. Overall, with watching this video it allowed us to compare our initial feelings with the book to how other people felt 70 years ago when the book was published and people witnessed the events first hand. Next, I learned a lot from watching the video that gave me a better understanding of Steinbeck and his journey to success. After he wrote his two other books, people thought of him as an expert on labor which caused him to start to follow, watch and quote migrants which set the foundation for Grapes of Wrath. After it was published, with all the success there was still opposition by those who felt offended and banned the book. I never knew this but now feel that is important to know because it represents the fact that there are many interpretations for the book’s intentions. Overall I felt the video was very meaningful and helped with understanding of Steinbeck’s life. If such a book like Grapes of Wrath was created today that exposed such issues and flaws through a fiction story, do you think Americans would have the same reactions as people did against Grapes of Wrath and would there be such opposition to such a book as apparent in Grapes of Wrath?
The one part of the movie that really interested me was the response to the book. It’s amazing that this book was so controversial and telling, that it was banned and burned in two states. Oklahoma and California both banned and burned the book and mainly because it made these two particular states look bad. However, this shows how great a novel GOW really is. It makes people think and it makes people angry, and I believe that’s what makes a novel timeless, it grabs a reaction out of anyone who reads it. It’s funny to think that still to this day; people are still trying to get this book banned. In an area around Bakersfield, California, where the book takes place, people are trying to ban it from libraries. This book had such an impact on so many people, and sometimes not positive, that at points Steinbeck feared for his life.
If you were living through the Dust Bowl, would you want people to read this novel or would you want it banned? ~Jessica C P6
Hey Sophie, I just wanted to say that I was not copying you in the whole book burning idea and being banned; I had that before and was waiting to post it lol. I also thought it was really interesting that this book was being banned and burned. I feel that when this book came out, the people that were portrayed poorly in it, fought back and wanted others to not think this was all their fault. I don’t think this book should be burned because I feel that you should never burn a book, but again this coincides with the idea of the farm owners and banks and such saying this book being fiction and not true, but they were just scared that the truth would come out.
Sophia, I think there are many reasons as to why the book was banned after its publication. First, with Steinbeck’s other two books, people knew the influence the books had and how much the books meant to the people. This might have caused the people to start to change their opinions about the government’s role in the dust bowl and created more opposition. Next, there are also many parts of the book that seem controversial. Such as Rose of Sharon at the end of the book and the sexual references with the priest and girls by Jim Casey. It could have also threatened people’s religious views as well. Lastly, though I wouldn’t burn the book, I think it is necessary to burn the book in some circumstances to represent no tolerance for such controversial issues. A way of cleanliness per say.
I did not know much about Steinbeck before reading the Grapes of Wrath. But after viewing this video i now know a lot more about him. i learned that he has many famous books out there. and he really focuses on migrant farmers. He exposes what it was like to be a migrant farmer. especially in the book we just read, the Grapes of Wrath. It was said these books were used almost to vent Steinbecks anger. What really interested me though was how mad people were about the Grapes of Wrath and how controversial it was. People were very much against it even when Steinbeck stated "it is just a work of fiction." Some people even wanted to kill him. He was actualy told to carry a gun on him when he was in public. In many libraries the book was banned and in some states the book was even burned. and even today there are people who despise the book. This was a huge surprise to me. In my mind i can not come to think of why it would be so controversial.
so my question to you is, why was The Grapes Of Wrath so controversial and still is today? Jarrett L. Period 5
Jess, If i lived during the dust bowl i would defiantly want people to read this book. Because in my opinion people are very naive about what went on at this time. and when they read this book they will defiantly see the truth in the whole matter. I believe that Steinbeck does a great job in describing and revealing what happened during that terrible time period. And i would want the world to know how hard it was to go through what i went through. and to feel the pain i felt. There for i would want this book to be read. Jarrett L. Period 5
The most interesting (and pretty much only interesting) thing to me in this video was the fact that this book was actually banned in Oklahoma and California. It is stunning to me to think that these states felt so offended by a book that they felt the need to "protect" their people from the content of it. I personally believe that people generally learn from their mistakes, and this in particular would be a good lesson, not only in how to respect the land, but respecting each other. Because this book makes people think about how the country actually runs, and which people contribute most, it was banned and burned, condemned if you will. It is astonishing to me that they would try and hide something that is so clearly embedded in our country's past. If you were the state leader of Oklahoma or California, how would you justify banning the book?
Jess- If i lived through it, I would want people to read about it. If they read about it, it would be easier to ensure that it would never happen again.
Sorry about my post being similar to everyone's too.. the blog post thing just came up as being post-able on my computer.
I think that many of the photographs and pictures used also help you get a feel for what much of Steinbeck's writing is really about. I think that it was very interesting how in the video it discussed that a lot if not all of his books reflected his own experiences and feelings of many things. For isntance, the video mentions "Of Mice and Men" and the the man in the video says that this book was a large reflection of Stienbeck's experinces on a beet farm and in agriculture and that after writing it he was regarded as something of an expert in farm labor. I also found it very interesting when Thomas Steinbeck from the video said that John Steinbeck never really wanted to write the Grapes of Wrath, but that it was his wife that encouraged him to turn it into a book. This surprised me because I see Steinbeck as something of a hero for the lower classes and the laborers and I would have thought that he would have wanted the message from GOW to get out to the public.I also find it interesting and reassuring that his wife's presence was a large inspiration for much of Steinbeck's work and it lets you see how much the people you love can have an influence and impact on your life. The reaction of the American public to GOW reminded of the story "Fahrenheit 451" in that the book was something that would create rebellion and change in attitude of the lower working classes that much of the upper class associated with the bank and the great depression would not want.
Do you think that the steinbeck wanted the lower class to change thier attitudes and behaviors in order to help them, or do you think that Steinbeck intended the upper classes to read the book and realize what was going on with the migrant families and that it was wrong?
Jessica C, I completely agree that the fact that GOW created so much controversy and trouble with its release is what makes it a great book. It is a fantastic piece of literature because it gets people to open thier eyes to the problems in the world and because it gives people different perspectives on viewing things. GOW sends such a strong messsage that it is still being debated today and that is what makes it a great piece of literature.
I think that many of the photographs and pictures used also help you get a feel for what much of Steinbeck's writing is really about. I think that it was very interesting how in the video it discussed that a lot if not all of his books reflected his own experiences and feelings of many things. For isntance, the video mentions "Of Mice and Men" and the the man in the video says that this book was a large reflection of Stienbeck's experinces on a beet farm and in agriculture and that after writing it he was regarded as something of an expert in farm labor. I also found it very interesting when Thomas Steinbeck from the video said that John Steinbeck never really wanted to write the Grapes of Wrath, but that it was his wife that encouraged him to turn it into a book. This surprised me because I see Steinbeck as something of a hero for the lower classes and the laborers and I would have thought that he would have wanted the message from GOW to get out to the public.I also find it interesting and reassuring that his wife's presence was a large inspiration for much of Steinbeck's work and it lets you see how much the people you love can have an influence and impact on your life. The reaction of the American public to GOW reminded of the story "Fahrenheit 451" in that the book was something that would create rebellion and change in attitude of the lower working classes that much of the upper class associated with the bank and the great depression would not want.
Do you think that the steinbeck wanted the lower class to change thier attitudes and behaviors in order to help them, or do you think that Steinbeck intended the upper classes to read the book and realize what was going on with the migrant families and that it was wrong?
Jessica C, I completely agree that the fact that GOW created so much controversy and trouble with its release is what makes it a great book. It is a fantastic piece of literature because it gets people to open thier eyes to the problems in the world and because it gives people different perspectives on viewing things. GOW sends such a strong messsage that it is still being debated today and that is what makes it a great piece of literature.
Because I wasn't alive during this era, I don't know firsthand what went on, but Steinbeck's book allowed me to get a sense of what happened back then.This video did an excellent job on explaining the history of the book GOW. The interviews were very factual and I learned a lot by hearing it from a person who lived through that era. Also, the photos were great because i could actually see evidence of what was going on during the "Dust Bowl" era. Something i found interesting was that people were so mad at John, that they tried to get him in trouble for things he didn't do. Someone even tried to plant pot and frame him for it! What i didn't know before was how controversial this book was, and still is for that matter. Some people believe it is a clear depiction of what happened, and others are offended by it and think that it should be banned from libraries. The book has a call for "collective action" and people may have been "threatened by it", as an interview stated. I can understand why some people get offended, however, i believe that Steinbeck told the truth in his novel and it is important for people to read this story to educate themselves on America's past.
Would you be offended or feel threatened by this book if you were alive during the "Dust Bowl" era?
Ryan, Yes, I believe that if a book was created today that showed the flaws and issues in society through a fiction novel there would be the same type of reactions. People will always have different opinions on things, but on every controversial subject where people are told the truth, it seems to spark the same type of reactions every time. People either get offended or agree with the plot, but no matter what, there is always talk when people are faced with controversial subjects.
Seeing the pictures in this video gave me a deeper understanding of the Grapes of Wrath. I feel like this video made me feel more compassion for the people who lived through the Dust Bowl much more than the book did. Seeing the devastation in the photos in this video really made me feel grateful that I have not had to go through an experience such as this in my life. Moreover, this video showed the point of view of the people living in California and how they felt about the migrant farmers. On the other hand, the book was bias towards the "Okies" and did not even mention the over population, lack of education, and health issues California citizens faced when the migrant farmers moved to California. Additionally, the video also gave me some information about Steinbeck's past books, beliefs, and his journey in writing GOW. For example, before he wrote the book, he did a study on migrant work and camps. I found it interesting that farmers wanted the book banned in some states. While reading GOW, I did not find it offensive towards anyone, so I did not think it would be a controversial work at all. Looking back, the Grapes of Wrath was a very informative book. If I had not read it, I would not have known the great impact that the Dust Bowl had on so many people.
If you were living in California during the Dust Bowl era, would you be welcoming to the migrant farmers, or try to push them away?
Leah- If I was living in the Dust Bowl era, I don't think I would feel threatened by the facts in this book, however, I feel like Steinbeck generalized the families a lot. For example if I had a different experience than the Joad family I did, I might get mad that Steinbeck suggested that all families went through the same struggles.
The part of the video that really caught my attention was when it talked about how controversial the book is. When I read The Grapes of Wrath, I didn't really realize that it could have been degrading to some of the people in states such as California. The book was actually banned from this state! I know that this book is fiction, but in the inter-chapters especially, it actually stated many true facts about the people from the west. For example, they didn't like the fact that the "Okies" and the "Arkies" were coming into their state and taking jobs and they were taking over the land. So, Steinbeck wrote about how the migrant farmers really felt about the people from California especially. He wrote the "reality" and it made these people very angry; as if it made them look bad. Angry enough that they'd burn the books!
Do you think people in the present day have the same controversial views of the book as they did in the past? Why?
Amanda M, You bring up a very good point. I think that most people would say that they'd welcome the migrant farmers to California, but in reality, that's false. This might sound bad, but I wouldn't want the migrant farmers coming to our land and sort of taking control. I understand that there were better opportunities in CA, but I wouldn't want the numerous families taking over all of the jobs, etc. Like in the present day, if a huge group of random people come and take something of yours, it's likely that you'll be upset too.
To begin, I really liked this video because it had great visuals such as real pictures from the Dust Bowl. When reading GOW, it was hard to visualize what everything looked like, and this video gave me the opportunity to see what it was really like. I found it really interesting when the woman "Steinbeck Scholar" stated that Steinbeck took his anger out on the situation during the "inter chapters." An example she mentioned was when he talked about the car dealers and how they would scam their customers. This woman mentioning this statement made me suddenly notice anger in Steinbeck's writing and I now interpret those inter chapters as a way for Steinbeck to say what he felt on the whole issue. Next, I thought it was cool that Steinbeck was hesitant on writing the book and it was his wife who urged him to write it and considered it a story that needed to be told. As said by the woman Steinbeck Scholar, "Her belief in him allowed him to write." Lastly, I thought it was really annoying that when the book was published, some of the farmers were outraged by the way they were portrayed in the novel. Although the farmers weren't based on real individuals, farmers from the areas of where Steinbeck based the story were angry because it "made them look bad." Because of this, they didn't want the book sold or offered in libraries. I don't think they should have gotten mad and make such a big deal out of the situation. It's not like Steinbeck was trying to stab anyone in the back; he was just trying to show the world how bad life had gotten for some people.
Discussion Q: When originally reading the book, did you sense anger in Steinbeck's writing? If so/if not, Why?
I find it interesting that Grapes of Wrath is being banned in some states. That lady who looked a bit older and sweaty made an excellent point that I commend her for saying: "...to some extent it is [banned] because of the language, but I think the other reason it's mostly banned is because its really a call for collective action. ... Collective action of any kind is somewhat threatening to America. We tend to depend upon individual initiative, believe in individual action." Even now, big industry, big government is banishing a book that relies on gathering together to intiate social change. Until she said this, I hadn't even REALIZED how much "I" is emphasized. In this country, its all about yourself. We're dirty and selfish, and Steinbeck wrote about how that could be changed if we worked together. This whole point makes me realize how damn American I am. And even as we were talking today in class, when everyone was making comparisons and great points, I wondered what someone from another country would think about the situation. I wondered what a European or African would say about over-processed cheap food or the act of ripping migrant farmers off or using slave labor.
Are you as American as I am? Do you think opinions about the book would change with the country you're from?
Despite its long length and slight tedium, I actually found one part of the video rather humorous. When it was discussing the floods in California during the winter of the Dust Bowl, it said something along the lines of ‘the migrant farmers had nothing left, and then it started raining.’ It made me think of a cartoon in which the character is upset and thinks, ‘Things can’t get any worse now,’ and then it starts raining. This is almost exactly like what the migrant families went through. They had nothing left except each other: no food, money, or shelter. Just when they thought things couldn’t get any worse, the floods came. I also thought it was very interesting how Steinbeck’s wife greatly influenced the publishing of The Grapes of Wrath. The video said that Steinbeck originally wasn’t a big supporter of the migrants, but his wife urged him to write and publish the book.
How would you feel if you were a migrant during the winter floods? Would they be the last straw, and cause you to give up, you would you keep going?
Jarrett, I was also surprised at how controversial the book was when it first came out. I think the main reason it is so controversial is because the well-off people sitting in their houses with food and money just didn’t want to believe that such awful things could be occurring in their country. Also, Californians certainly didn’t like being portrayed as the ‘enemy’ in the book. The book is still controversial today, because many of the same issues still exist now as in the 1930’s and 40’s. One of the main themes in the book is unionizing, and people joining together to help each other. Companies today no doubt still feel threatened by unions, just as they did when the book was published.
I really liked this video because the pictures really captured my attention. Some of the photos were heart-wrenching and it made me realize, even more so, how devastating the Dust Bowl was. If it weren't for the pictures, I don't think that people would understand how terrible this tragedy was. Like Sophie, I sympathized for the poor workers because they looked so hopeless and lost. Also, from the video, I learned about John Steinback. For example, I learned about his writing technique. Before writing the story out on paper, he had a lot of ideas in his mind. One of the interviewees on the video said that the West thought that Steinback was an expert on labor because of his book. I disagree with this because he did not discuss farming techniques in the novel. Also, I believe that it is shameful that Oklahoma and California banned the book. Even though "The Grapes of Wrath" makes them look bad, the book reveals a lot about American history. The exposure of California's mistreatment during this time should be exploited, rather than hidden, to ensure that the mistreatment of migrant farmers stops.
When I was watching the video, I was thinking the same thing! I loved the visuals because they gave me a better understanding of the Dust Bowl and it wasn't just like words on a page. I definitely thought the pictures were the most beneficial part of the video.
And to answer you question, (which, by the way, is really good) I think it is really hard to answer that question. I think anyone in our class would say they would help the migrants, but none of us really know what it was like then. But as I think about it, it would be hard to feed my own family, let alone another member. This reminds me of that moment in GOW when Ma is trying to decide if she wants to help feed the kids or give more food to her family. This draws that question about choosing between generosity and greed.
I would want people to read it so that they would gain a deeper understanding on what it was like to live through this time. The book may make readers (like me) realize that life could be worse and why it is important to not take housing, food, showers, etc. for granted. Also, it makes me appreciate my ancestors who lived through this tragedy.
When I watching watching this clip there were a few things that stood out to me, and actually caught my attention. Since I think we all realized how The Grapes of Wrath was a pretty long book, I was very suprised when I heard that it was not meant to be that long. This stood out to me because I feel that The Grapes of Wrath is known for its length and extent to detail. Another thing said that came to a surprise to me was when the film talked about how the book had been banned in certain places. I mean I understand that not everyone is going to have a positive response to the novel, but I wouldn't ever really think that i would be banned. Lastly I found it interesting that his wife basically made him write the book. I feel surprised about this because when your reading the book it just has so much detail and meaning, one would think that this had been a novel in Steinbeck's head while the issue was happening? This makes me question where he got the inspiration from to write the novel? When i say that I mean all of the little hidden details, symbols, and themes that tie into the text!
Amanda, I feel that you brought up an excellent point in your post that I didn't realize until I read it! I did not realize that the book was kinda bias towards the Okies, and in a sense we are cause we are learning about all of the hardships that they went through to get to California. And never one when I was reading did I stop to think about the other side of the story because I just assumed that there was no way there were having problems, and if they did then the migrants were worse. Now when I think about it, the residents of California may have been getting some of their jobs away by migrant farmers who will work for very cheep. I think of our issue today with illegal immigrants coming over to the US and working for very little pay, taking American jobs away. Great point!
What I found interesting about this video was Steinbeck's metamorphosis. I didn't realize that before he came to writing GOW that he had written other books similar to the whole concept of the migrant workers. I liked seeing how greatly his perspective went from thinking these people were just show casing American spirit, to his anger with the flawed justice system, to his final happy medium. That medium being his way to show truth without too much anger and too much "spirit". The spirit in GOW is pretty much the concept of family, like the Joads and how strong they are. The anger you find in the inter-chapters. I think the book really did piece together all his ideas perfectly. I also found it interesting that he was not that motivated to write a novel that would show the truth behind the great depression/dust bowl. I assume since he had written those other books that for him to write the GOW would be no problem, and evidently he was pushed to do it by his wife. It makes me wonder why someone with so much anger and passion for knowing about the migrants would not want to jump on the chance immediately and enthusiastically write a novel that would show the world the truth. Was he afraid of criticism? Did he not want Americans to be enraged? Or was he just plain unmotivated to write a full on novel? I don't know those answers... but I think it may be a combination of them all. You can see how he was unmotivated with the Oklahomans book, the video mentions. I recall them saying he was "working" on it, but never finished it. So I conclude he was just scared for many reasons to write the story. I also found the reaction of America interesting because it really shows what kind of people are out there... Some people may think "OH he's bashing us, this is all untrue. He's making the higher class people look bad. etc." but really Stienbeck was telling the story about a family that could have very well been real and he stuck to the just telling the story as it was, not fabricating anything other than down playing the government camps a bit. Everyone has their own opinion so you can see why some people automatically thought GOW was just a big lie to make a certain class of people look bad. And why the book was banned from certain states? Because the government didn't want normal people like us knowing the truth. When Steinbeck realized the truth about the way America was, he was enraged.. the same reaction most Americans would have knowing the sad truths of the depression. So the government is afraid of the bad feelings people will have for it after knowing the truth. Wow, that was a lot of babble.
My question is, how would you feel or react if you exposed a truth like this and someone tried to hide it away from people? Would you stand up to it and continue to aware everyone?
Carley, Me liked your post mucho. If I lived in one of those states and I heard of the banning, it'd only make me curious to read the book and I'd probably illegally get my hands on it so I could figure out the truth for myself... But if I was a state leader, I bet I'd have to say something like "Oh, this book completely fabricates the way we are in this state. It tells lies upon lies about our justice and blah blah blah". But of course... the leader is just trying to protect the people from the truth. It's so messed up really. I enjoyed your post.
I was really interested in learning more about Tom Joad as a writer; I've seen most of those pictures at least four other times or so in class. Grapes of Wrath wasn't his first novel on migrant farmers. Before writing the novel he had already become "an expert on farm labor" and had traveled with a photographer capturing the dust bow. He stopped taking pictures and started writing his book though; Steinbeck doesn't play around. He was even asked to write a bunch of novels on farm labor. Steinbeck feels that the farmers "represent the true American spirit." His result was a great book that lead to controversy, which usually proves to be a good book (cough bible)... but on the down side, I was forced to read it over the summer and I'm writing about it now. sigh. The video helped me verify that Grapes of Wrath knows what it's talking about.
Although the video posted was extremely lengthy and truthfully bored me at certain points, I thought it really told me a lot about Steinbeck. Despite learning about him from GOW I really got a lot out of the video. It's amazing how Steinbeck could use his opinion and thoughts on the economy and government in order to create a book that created such a huge phenomenon but also an enormous controversy. Personally, I find it somewhat immature that those select few States, including California, were actually so offended by Steinbeck's words that they all together banned the book. It may appear to some that John Steinbeck was aiming to possibly offend people, but at the same time I find that his true intentions were to show people every perspective of what was occurring to some how unite the country. Which reminds me of the point I posted last night: To think when disaster or depression strikes a nation, people actually set aside their differences in order to become one. GOW may have caused tension but people still thought of Steinbeck sort of like a man of words and wisdom no matter what their opinion about the Dust Bowl.
Are people truly ONLY for one side of something? Or can they actually feed into anothers well written opinion, such as Steinbeck's?
I found it interesting that this book caused so much controversy. The fact that two states banned and burned the book was surprising. Steinbeck was expressing his views through a fictional story. One historian brought up a good point by saying that this book was banned because it called for collective action. The government didn’t want anyone to take the book literally and try to rebel. The people of Oklahoma, California, and the government were all shed in a bad light in this book.
Do you think the government has the right to ban controversial books?
Alexis M, I completely agree with what you said! This book was purely fictional although Steinbeck added his own views and opinions. I feel like Oklahoma and California had no right to ban this FICTIONAL book just because it made them look bad. Our country had a problem, and Steinbeck simply addressed this problem through his writing. Nice job!
Again I'm commenting on your post :) Personally, I think the book was burned and banned simply because people couldn't accept the truth. Steinbeck had been that one person to step up and expose people for who they truly were in this time of need. I don't agree with the burning of the book what so ever it in away degrades these states and makes them look a bit guilty... As if they were trying to hide the truth.
This video was interesting because it gives perspective on the effect the book had when it was released. It's not surprising that the Californian association farmers were upset. The book had really exposed them as tyrants and criminals. It's scary, though, that the state had such power of sensorship that they could have the book banned and burned in their state. However, one of the interviewees says, "To be banned and burned in two states is a real mark of excellence." I think, in a way, that's what Steinbeck wanted. The book was meant to cause a reaction, whether that be positive or negative. What's really surprising is that many people still haven't calmed down about this book. I couldn't believe that there are californian farmers still speaking out against it, I wonder if they've ever even read it. Maybe they would feel differently if they read the book and connected with the characters in the Joad family.
Do you think the government should have the right to sensor or ban literature?
Kelly,the video really got me thinking about Steinbeck's tone as well. I agree with the "steinbeck scholar" who said that Steinbeck really took out his anger in his earlier books, but in Grapes of Wrath, he tried to control that anger. When I read the book, I almost felt like their was an element of scientific observation to it. In the inter chapters, I felt like Steinbeck wasn't really giving an opinion of his own. It was more like he was saying, this is what happened, this is who the people were and what they were thinking and how they felt, this is just how it was. Even in the Joad family there doesn't seem to be any rage. They are aware of the injustices they are suffering, but they handle the situation with surprising grace. In one of the interviews, the woman says, "The book is just a plea for dignity in the face of crisis."
I'm glad we watched this video because it did teach me a lot about Steinbeck that i didn't know. He didn't just stay at home to think and write, he went out and traveled and went to see the real pain people were going through which i thought was interesting to hear. It's like he was doing research for all his books and different series to come. In the movie something that caught my attention was when they said that people were lucky if they could find housing or a vehicle to stay in. I always thought that people had a tent, a makeshift house, or at least a car to sleep in. It never really hit me that many of the families may have slept outside on the ground huddled together for warmth, it was almost heart breaking in a sense to hear because no one shouldn't have a place to sleep. Another point I wanted to touch upon was the pictures of the migrants they showed a ways into the movie. Most of them were men that had been worn down from work and hardships, but they all seemed strong and like they were looking towards something, like a brighter future. They gave off a sense like they had hope, which I thought was remarkable for what they must be going through. While they were talking about how Steinbeck got around to writing the Grapes of Wrath, they talked about his terribly titled, and angry book, The Fair Lettuceberg. This book didn't meet his expectations for they way he wanted to convey the migrants in California, so he burnt it. I thought that this was ironic because first, he was struggling to show what migrants in California were going through while these people were also struggling to show people in the US that they need a voice in a union. I also think it's ironic that he burnt his book because it didn't covey what he wanted, because the big farmers in California and the people in Oklahoma burned the Grapes of Wrath because it conveyed them in a manor they did not choose to be seen as. I thought that was very interesting
People now are as scared of the truth as they were 80 years ago, why is that?
Molly, to answer your question, no i don't think that the government has the right to ban US citizens from reading books. The right of free speech is something we are allowed to act upon so why can't we see how others convey their first amendment rights? People should be able to make up their own minds about topics and be able to form their own opinions without the government interfering or telling us how to think.
I never thought of the fact that migrants may not have had a place to sleep in until I watched this video. I always thought that they had a tent, a makeshift house, or at least a car to sleep in. I didn’t think that families might have had to sleep together on the ground huddled for warmth. It was almost heartbreaking in a sense. I also thought that the pictures of all the pictures of the migrants were amazing. It was about 5 minutes into the movie or so when they showed all the pictures of these migrants who were mostly men. These men were worn down, tired, aged looking, but they still looked proud. They all seemed to be looking forward towards a brighter future almost as if they knew that they were going to win their fight and that their troubles would soon be over. On another note, I thought it was interesting that Steinbeck wasn’t just a stay at home, think, and write type of person. He really put himself into the middle of it all when he went to California to see how the migrants were really living, how their work conditions were, and the daily struggles they went through. It was like he was doing an in depth analysis of this mass of people that he grew to care about as a whole. I also thought that it was interesting that Steinbeck struggled to convey the struggles of the migrants....
...He started to try and get his message out with his angry and poorly titled book, The Fair Lettuceberg, but he thought that it just didn’t get the message across that he wanted. I thought that this was ironic because he was struggling to get his message across about how the migrants were living while the migrants were struggling to get the message across that they wanted a voice in a union to help them. I also thought that it was ironic that he couldn’t convey the migrants lives the way he wanted in Lettuceberg so he burned it while people in Oklahoma and California burned his book because they didn’t like the way they were being conveyed in the Grapes of Wrath. Q : People in the US seem to be as afraid of the truth as they were 80 years ago, why is that?
Molly, to answer your question, no I don’t think the government should control what we read. Freedom of speech is our first amendment right, so why shouldn’t we be able to act upon the way other citizens have conveyed their first amendment right? The government can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to say what we should think. We as human beings should be able to formulate our own opinions on different topics including books, and since everyone’s entitled to their own it doesn’t even really matter what other people’s opinions are. No matter what we’re not going to all agree on a topic so we should just be allowed to keep our opinions the way they are. The government doesn’t need to tell us how to tweak them. Stacy B per 6
The migrant families had nothing left and had to go on with their difficult journey. I felt really bad for them while watching this video. The pictures used really helped me to picture everything they went through. By including the pictures I felt more connected to the people. I also felt very bad for the people because on top of what they were going through, the weather was horrible. They had to deal with flooding which made their conditions worse. I also learned a lot more about Steinbeck. I saw how controversial the book was to everyone when it first came out. I think its interesting that nowadays the book isn't controversial anymore. It shows how people have changed opinions over the years. However, we still have a lot of events that have occurred since then that would be considered controversial to write about now. Steinbeck really helped out migrant farmers by showing everyone how they were treated which in turn helped them to be treated better. Steinbeck represented all of those farmers and he really understood all the hardships and feelings they went through. - Alexis A. Period 6
This video reviled new facts about The Grapes of Wrath that I have never heard of. I had no idea that the book was banned in two states. This shows that people are unwilling to accept the facts that happened years ago. Also the book still has relevance today. The meaning of the story is still prevalent today and will probably never go away. This book also inspired many people. It inspired Bruce Springsteen to write the Ghost of Tom Joad. It also inspired Woody Guthrie, and Rage Against the Machine. These are all ways the story is still being told today. This book just has something about it that makes people want to retell it.
Do you know of any other books that have the same impact as The Grapes of Wrath?
I do not believe that the government should have the right to sensor what types of books are sold. I believe that no one should be able to ban literature from being sold just because they don't want to face the facts. People should also be exposed to all different views of the issue not just one. Also I think that the government would be violating our rights if they banned certain literature.
I thought it was interesting how one book could have such an impact on people. Like Jack Hick said from the video, “It moved people both negatively and positively”. Some were inspired by GOW and retold the story through a different book. Some people were outraged, states burned or banded the books, and some tried to harm Steinbeck. To me it's kind of amusing how this book can trigger so many people to act in so many different ways and I think this proves that GOW is a powerful book. Part of the video that caught my attention was when they mentioned that GOW was ban in Oklahoma!!! I was very confused because I thought people in Oklahoma would feel sympathetic towards the Okies in GOW and want their state to be more aware of how much their ancestors suffered from the Dust Bowl. Lastly, I thought I was funny how some people ignored the GOW just because it's fiction, this reminded me of people that still believe that the Holocaust didn't really happen. I think some people are too scared to admit/face the truth.
Does banning or burning books make us unintelligent/inane/senseless (like Fahrenheit 451)? Ash P6
Stacy, I was surprised that Steinbeck actually put himself out there and observed the migrants' living and working conditions. I think this made the book more realistic. I can relate this to Nickle and Dimed, like Steinbeck, Barbra experiments and tries to create a living with a low wage. In order to write their books, Steinbeck and Barbra experienced the daily struggles themselves and I give them a lot of credit for what they did because not a lot people are willing to actually put themselves in other people's shoes. Ash P6
The video was very informative on Steinbeck's process of coming up with the story of the Joads. At first, Steinbeck was anti-socialist, then he interviewed the people from both the federal campsites and Hoover villes which caused him to sympathize with the migrant farmers. He also had influence from his wife was a farm laborer advocate. Grapes Of Wrath originated from Of Mice and Men which was about labor, The Oklahomans, which represented the true American heroes, and L'Affaire Lettuce- burg, which harshly criticized the owners and ranchers. One thing that the video surprised me on the was the kinds of responses the novel received from the people. TGOW was a very passionate novel that moved people both negatively and positively. It immediately became a bet seller, and was popular among many people. It was mostly controversial because of the collective idea that is emphasized towards the end of the novel. At the time, Labor Unions were viewed Communistic, and there was this “red alert” mood against those who tried to unionize. The Associated Farmers banned and burned Steinbeck's books because they said it was full of lies against the Californians, and it was anti-American.
Do you think that banning/burning of the books signify the strength of a book or the weakness of a book?
@Molly: No, I don't think that gov't should have the right to sensor or ban literature because that limits the freedom of thought to the people. People should be open to many different views of controversial topics. If the gov't sensors literature it just means that they are trying to hide some kind of truth from the public. That would not make the gov't very trustworthy.
It's surprising how much of a hit The Grapes of Wrath was during its time. To me, this shows what the conventional wisdom was during the Great Depression. This book's sales represent the people's yearning for a change I'm how the American poor are treated. This stays true today, given the popularity of Nickel and Dimed. It's a hard road, but as long as there is an interested public, something can be done.
The most interesting thing that I got out of this video is that it was banned in Oklahoma. The fact that it was banned in California wasn't as surprising, considering the book makes the people of that state look like monsters. The people from Oklahoma, on the other hand, are portrayed in a different light. If anything, the novel inspires pity for the "Okies."
Why do you think Oklahoma banned this book?
Another thing I thought was interesting was that John Steinback wrote other things on the same topic. I guess all of them were outshined by The Grapes of Wrath, but it still suprised me that I had no idea it wasn't the only thing he wrote about migrant farmers.
Amanda-The visuals totally helped me understand the dust bowl. When I was reading the novel, I often forgot about the dust bowl and didn't picture it the way it really was. The pictures really helped me think about the situation the way it was meant to be portrayed, instead of the way my mind made it.
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that people were actually out to get Steinbeck, not necessarily about the book, that's kind of understandable with the way people looked at things back then and even now. However, even the chief of police in the town he was living in told him not to go off by himself, and to be armed or something. That's insane. I feel when an author has written something like that then it must be REALLY good. If something gets people really riled up then I'm guessing it's either something they don't want to realize or something they realize but don't want to be reminded of.
I thought it was interesting how Steinbeck didn't want to write the book at first, and only after encouragement from his wife he really got into writing GOW. I also found it interesting how he was antisocialism. It's amazing how one's attitude towards something can be influenced like that, and it makes me wonder if attitudes can be changed taht easily.
Ashley, I think banning/burning books does make us less intelligent. It also makes us arogant. Someone, like Steinbeck, worked hard to put that message out and even thought some may not agree with that message it's not right to hide it and keep it from getting out. Secrets always have a way of getting out, usually in an explosive way, so it's better not to have secrets in the first place. I'm talking about secrets in communities, secrets in personal lives are okay. Shama K p6
I think that this video is very interesting in showing how America really is. It's weird that people ban that book from certain places because I'm sure we're all scared about what might come from it. GOW really shows you how coming together and doing something as a group can cause change. And us, as Americans, are very selfish in that we don't want things to change. It's amazing how he didn't want to write that book and his wife encouraged him, and that he would make such a difference through a book that wasn't even going to be written. Obviously this shows how attitudes are changed so quickly and how selfish we as a country really are. We have a reputation as being friendly and giving and free, but look at how selfish we are. I think Steinbeck really portrays that message, that we are selfish and don't want things to chaange.
Katrice, I find it very interesting that this book was banned in Oklahoma. The book revolves around the people they call "oakies" and how hard their lives are. I don't think that the whole reason for this is to ban the language, they just don't want any change.
Sorry this is late as well, the video wouldn't work for me for a few days. When I was watching the video, it was really surprising that the book had been banned from two states and burned. The first thing that came to mind when I found this happened was that it was similar to Fahrenheit 451. It seems that our world is becoming more and more like the world in Fahrenheit 451. This is most likely a bad thing because the citizens in Fahrenheit were very mindless people and were all similar to each other. Do you think the world will one day follow in the foot steps of the world in Fahrenheit 451 due to similar actions already happening in the world due to The Grapes of Wrath and other things as well? Austin, I completely agree when you say that The Grapes of Wrath has had importance to the world and is still relevant today. To answer your question, I'm sure there are many other books that have made the same impact as The Grapes of Wrath, however, I am not sure of any.
I really liked this movie-like documentry about Steinbeck and his thoughts and books. I think one of the best things about films and clips like this one is that they not only explore points brought up by my mind and my peers' minds but also suggest new symbols and ideals.
It's really strange how much our world has changed since the release of The Grapes of Wrath. I feel like nobody reads anymore. The intellect of the world is shrinking and nobody seems to take notice. I try and read as many good books as I can find, but I don't think that will change much in the long run. After all, more and more people don't care enough to read and just want to be entertained.
My question is, "Do you think that at one point, people will just STOP reading books? And all their intake on knowledge will come from computers and movies?"
And to reply to Austin's post, a post that really caught my eye. I definitely think that The Grapes of Wrath is still significant. After all, aren't we JUST recovering from our countries worst recession, second only TO the Great Depression? I think that the symbols and morals that shine through in Steinbeck's novel continue and WILL continue to shine through for as many years as it is shown to young readers. I have not read any books with the same impact on the world as Steinbeck's, but I do believe that there are MANY books out there that do the same, in different ways.
This video nearly bored me to death, so I'm going to focus on one specific part that actually interested me, when the woman says "That, that sense of Casey saying, 'You know I'm no longer gonna be a preacher, I'm just... there aint no sin and there aint no virtue, there's just what people do.' Paraphrased, and that's, that's Rickets... I'm not gonna focus on whether ya' know, things are right or wrong, I'm gonna look at what is, and focus on what is. Rickets called it 'is' thinking..." I don't know if anyone in our class is religious or not, but to me this seems like the best way to deal with people. I personally don't believe in God, so to me there is no "sin" or anything like that. So taking peoples' actions and who they are and using what's in front of me to decide about people makes the most sense. I'm sure most people do this as well, but for some, religion might factor into the light you view people in.
My question is: Why do you think people don't always judge other people based on who they are and what they do?
Molly, i think what you said about the books purpose being to cause a reaction, whether good or bad was really interesting. I never even thought of that. I'm also wondering now whether the farmers who are still protesting GOW have read it; that's a really good point. In answer to your question, I don't think they have that right. I believe it goes against the first amendment: freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly. The book is a form of speech and press, and banning it or censoring it would infringe on those rights.
I think that the imagery used in this video really captures the mood of Americans during the dust bowl era. I think sometimes pictures can get more across than actual words and the photos in this video helped to covey the real issues in this time period. The photos that revealed the living conditions of the migrant workers were extremely impactful. I really sympathized with the poor workers because you could see the hopelessness in their eyes as they stood around their makeshift shelters. I noticed that there were some photos of families that were just like The Joads. This lead me to believe Steinbeck created the Joads to serve as a portrait of the typical American family during this time. Besides the pictures, I found the interviews to be very educational as well. I was shocked to learn that this book had the impact it did. I was not aware of how controversial it really was during the time period it was released in. I was surprised to learn that people actually had plans to frame John Steinbeck and accuse him of crimes. It was interesting to hear the different people’s opinions of why the book might have been banned or burned. You assume it is because of its language, however one of the interviewees brought up a great point when she said the book might have been banned because of its “call for collective action.” I agree with this point. People might have been afraid that this book could influence the people of America to organize for social change and fight for the causes they believe in. Change isn’t always wanted, especially in more southern conservative areas that value tradition. Lastly, I thought it was fascinating that interviewee Jack Hicks said the book being burned and banned was a mark of excellence and that it was only burned and banned because of the truth the book presented. I agree with his statement. I think that great novels are thought provoking and can be interpreted in many different ways .Grapes of Wrath was sparked controversy over readers all across America proving itself to be an example of great literature.
ReplyDeleteWhy do YOU think the book was banned? Was it necessary to go as far as burning it?
Sophia G. Period 5
Despite the increased length and boredom sometimes associated with this video, I found most of the facts brought forth to be pretty interesting. The video allowed the viewer to learn more about the author’s life and the foundation and history of the book. For such a meaningful book, I found it fitting to create such a biography about Steinbeck and his books. Overall, with watching this video it allowed us to compare our initial feelings with the book to how other people felt 70 years ago when the book was published and people witnessed the events first hand. Next, I learned a lot from watching the video that gave me a better understanding of Steinbeck and his journey to success. After he wrote his two other books, people thought of him as an expert on labor which caused him to start to follow, watch and quote migrants which set the foundation for Grapes of Wrath. After it was published, with all the success there was still opposition by those who felt offended and banned the book. I never knew this but now feel that is important to know because it represents the fact that there are many interpretations for the book’s intentions. Overall I felt the video was very meaningful and helped with understanding of Steinbeck’s life.
ReplyDeleteIf such a book like Grapes of Wrath was created today that exposed such issues and flaws through a fiction story, do you think Americans would have the same reactions as people did against Grapes of Wrath and would there be such opposition to such a book as apparent in Grapes of Wrath?
Ryan H. Per. 5
The one part of the movie that really interested me was the response to the book. It’s amazing that this book was so controversial and telling, that it was banned and burned in two states. Oklahoma and California both banned and burned the book and mainly because it made these two particular states look bad. However, this shows how great a novel GOW really is. It makes people think and it makes people angry, and I believe that’s what makes a novel timeless, it grabs a reaction out of anyone who reads it. It’s funny to think that still to this day; people are still trying to get this book banned. In an area around Bakersfield, California, where the book takes place, people are trying to ban it from libraries. This book had such an impact on so many people, and sometimes not positive, that at points Steinbeck feared for his life.
ReplyDeleteIf you were living through the Dust Bowl, would you want people to read this novel or would you want it banned?
~Jessica C P6
Hey Sophie,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say that I was not copying you in the whole book burning idea and being banned; I had that before and was waiting to post it lol. I also thought it was really interesting that this book was being banned and burned. I feel that when this book came out, the people that were portrayed poorly in it, fought back and wanted others to not think this was all their fault. I don’t think this book should be burned because I feel that you should never burn a book, but again this coincides with the idea of the farm owners and banks and such saying this book being fiction and not true, but they were just scared that the truth would come out.
P.S. You had a really good post :)
~Jessica C P6
Sophia,
ReplyDeleteI think there are many reasons as to why the book was banned after its publication. First, with Steinbeck’s other two books, people knew the influence the books had and how much the books meant to the people. This might have caused the people to start to change their opinions about the government’s role in the dust bowl and created more opposition. Next, there are also many parts of the book that seem controversial. Such as Rose of Sharon at the end of the book and the sexual references with the priest and girls by Jim Casey. It could have also threatened people’s religious views as well. Lastly, though I wouldn’t burn the book, I think it is necessary to burn the book in some circumstances to represent no tolerance for such controversial issues. A way of cleanliness per say.
Ryan H. Per. 5
I did not know much about Steinbeck before reading the Grapes of Wrath. But after viewing this video i now know a lot more about him. i learned that he has many famous books out there. and he really focuses on migrant farmers. He exposes what it was like to be a migrant farmer. especially in the book we just read, the Grapes of Wrath. It was said these books were used almost to vent Steinbecks anger. What really interested me though was how mad people were about the Grapes of Wrath and how controversial it was. People were very much against it even when Steinbeck stated "it is just a work of fiction." Some people even wanted to kill him. He was actualy told to carry a gun on him when he was in public. In many libraries the book was banned and in some states the book was even burned. and even today there are people who despise the book. This was a huge surprise to me. In my mind i can not come to think of why it would be so controversial.
ReplyDeleteso my question to you is, why was The Grapes Of Wrath so controversial and still is today?
Jarrett L. Period 5
Jess,
ReplyDeleteIf i lived during the dust bowl i would defiantly want people to read this book. Because in my opinion people are very naive about what went on at this time. and when they read this book they will defiantly see the truth in the whole matter. I believe that Steinbeck does a great job in describing and revealing what happened during that terrible time period. And i would want the world to know how hard it was to go through what i went through. and to feel the pain i felt. There for i would want this book to be read.
Jarrett L. Period 5
The most interesting (and pretty much only interesting) thing to me in this video was the fact that this book was actually banned in Oklahoma and California. It is stunning to me to think that these states felt so offended by a book that they felt the need to "protect" their people from the content of it. I personally believe that people generally learn from their mistakes, and this in particular would be a good lesson, not only in how to respect the land, but respecting each other. Because this book makes people think about how the country actually runs, and which people contribute most, it was banned and burned, condemned if you will. It is astonishing to me that they would try and hide something that is so clearly embedded in our country's past.
ReplyDeleteIf you were the state leader of Oklahoma or California, how would you justify banning the book?
Jess- If i lived through it, I would want people to read about it. If they read about it, it would be easier to ensure that it would never happen again.
Sorry about my post being similar to everyone's too.. the blog post thing just came up as being post-able on my computer.
-Carley W p5
I think that many of the photographs and pictures used also help you get a feel for what much of Steinbeck's writing is really about. I think that it was very interesting how in the video it discussed that a lot if not all of his books reflected his own experiences and feelings of many things. For isntance, the video mentions "Of Mice and Men" and the the man in the video says that this book was a large reflection of Stienbeck's experinces on a beet farm and in agriculture and that after writing it he was regarded as something of an expert in farm labor. I also found it very interesting when Thomas Steinbeck from the video said that John Steinbeck never really wanted to write the Grapes of Wrath, but that it was his wife that encouraged him to turn it into a book. This surprised me because I see Steinbeck as something of a hero for the lower classes and the laborers and I would have thought that he would have wanted the message from GOW to get out to the public.I also find it interesting and reassuring that his wife's presence was a large inspiration for much of Steinbeck's work and it lets you see how much the people you love can have an influence and impact on your life. The reaction of the American public to GOW reminded of the story "Fahrenheit 451" in that the book was something that would create rebellion and change in attitude of the lower working classes that much of the upper class associated with the bank and the great depression would not want.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the steinbeck wanted the lower class to change thier attitudes and behaviors in order to help them, or do you think that Steinbeck intended the upper classes to read the book and realize what was going on with the migrant families and that it was wrong?
Jessica C,
I completely agree that the fact that GOW created so much controversy and trouble with its release is what makes it a great book. It is a fantastic piece of literature because it gets people to open thier eyes to the problems in the world and because it gives people different perspectives on viewing things. GOW sends such a strong messsage that it is still being debated today and that is what makes it a great piece of literature.
Jake O Period 6
I think that many of the photographs and pictures used also help you get a feel for what much of Steinbeck's writing is really about. I think that it was very interesting how in the video it discussed that a lot if not all of his books reflected his own experiences and feelings of many things. For isntance, the video mentions "Of Mice and Men" and the the man in the video says that this book was a large reflection of Stienbeck's experinces on a beet farm and in agriculture and that after writing it he was regarded as something of an expert in farm labor. I also found it very interesting when Thomas Steinbeck from the video said that John Steinbeck never really wanted to write the Grapes of Wrath, but that it was his wife that encouraged him to turn it into a book. This surprised me because I see Steinbeck as something of a hero for the lower classes and the laborers and I would have thought that he would have wanted the message from GOW to get out to the public.I also find it interesting and reassuring that his wife's presence was a large inspiration for much of Steinbeck's work and it lets you see how much the people you love can have an influence and impact on your life. The reaction of the American public to GOW reminded of the story "Fahrenheit 451" in that the book was something that would create rebellion and change in attitude of the lower working classes that much of the upper class associated with the bank and the great depression would not want.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the steinbeck wanted the lower class to change thier attitudes and behaviors in order to help them, or do you think that Steinbeck intended the upper classes to read the book and realize what was going on with the migrant families and that it was wrong?
Jessica C,
I completely agree that the fact that GOW created so much controversy and trouble with its release is what makes it a great book. It is a fantastic piece of literature because it gets people to open thier eyes to the problems in the world and because it gives people different perspectives on viewing things. GOW sends such a strong messsage that it is still being debated today and that is what makes it a great piece of literature.
Jake O Period 6
Because I wasn't alive during this era, I don't know firsthand what went on, but Steinbeck's book allowed me to get a sense of what happened back then.This video did an excellent job on explaining the history of the book GOW. The interviews were very factual and I learned a lot by hearing it from a person who lived through that era. Also, the photos were great because i could actually see evidence of what was going on during the "Dust Bowl" era. Something i found interesting was that people were so mad at John, that they tried to get him in trouble for things he didn't do. Someone even tried to plant pot and frame him for it! What i didn't know before was how controversial this book was, and still is for that matter. Some people believe it is a clear depiction of what happened, and others are offended by it and think that it should be banned from libraries. The book has a call for "collective action" and people may have been "threatened by it", as an interview stated. I can understand why some people get offended, however, i believe that Steinbeck told the truth in his novel and it is important for people to read this story to educate themselves on America's past.
ReplyDeleteWould you be offended or feel threatened by this book if you were alive during the "Dust Bowl" era?
Ryan,
Yes, I believe that if a book was created today that showed the flaws and issues in society through a fiction novel there would be the same type of reactions. People will always have different opinions on things, but on every controversial subject where people are told the truth, it seems to spark the same type of reactions every time. People either get offended or agree with the plot, but no matter what, there is always talk when people are faced with controversial subjects.
Leah S. Period 5
Seeing the pictures in this video gave me a deeper understanding of the Grapes of Wrath. I feel like this video made me feel more compassion for the people who lived through the Dust Bowl much more than the book did. Seeing the devastation in the photos in this video really made me feel grateful that I have not had to go through an experience such as this in my life. Moreover, this video showed the point of view of the people living in California and how they felt about the migrant farmers. On the other hand, the book was bias towards the "Okies" and did not even mention the over population, lack of education, and health issues California citizens faced when the migrant farmers moved to California. Additionally, the video also gave me some information about Steinbeck's past books, beliefs, and his journey in writing GOW. For example, before he wrote the book, he did a study on migrant work and camps. I found it interesting that farmers wanted the book banned in some states. While reading GOW, I did not find it offensive towards anyone, so I did not think it would be a controversial work at all. Looking back, the Grapes of Wrath was a very informative book. If I had not read it, I would not have known the great impact that the Dust Bowl had on so many people.
ReplyDeleteIf you were living in California during the Dust Bowl era, would you be welcoming to the migrant farmers, or try to push them away?
Leah- If I was living in the Dust Bowl era, I don't think I would feel threatened by the facts in this book, however, I feel like Steinbeck generalized the families a lot. For example if I had a different experience than the Joad family I did, I might get mad that Steinbeck suggested that all families went through the same struggles.
Amanda M period 5
The part of the video that really caught my attention was when it talked about how controversial the book is. When I read The Grapes of Wrath, I didn't really realize that it could have been degrading to some of the people in states such as California. The book was actually banned from this state! I know that this book is fiction, but in the inter-chapters especially, it actually stated many true facts about the people from the west. For example, they didn't like the fact that the "Okies" and the "Arkies" were coming into their state and taking jobs and they were taking over the land. So, Steinbeck wrote about how the migrant farmers really felt about the people from California especially. He wrote the "reality" and it made these people very angry; as if it made them look bad. Angry enough that they'd burn the books!
ReplyDeleteDo you think people in the present day have the same controversial views of the book as they did in the past? Why?
Amanda M,
You bring up a very good point. I think that most people would say that they'd welcome the migrant farmers to California, but in reality, that's false. This might sound bad, but I wouldn't want the migrant farmers coming to our land and sort of taking control. I understand that there were better opportunities in CA, but I wouldn't want the numerous families taking over all of the jobs, etc. Like in the present day, if a huge group of random people come and take something of yours, it's likely that you'll be upset too.
Allie B Period 6
To begin, I really liked this video because it had great visuals such as real pictures from the Dust Bowl. When reading GOW, it was hard to visualize what everything looked like, and this video gave me the opportunity to see what it was really like. I found it really interesting when the woman "Steinbeck Scholar" stated that Steinbeck took his anger out on the situation during the "inter chapters." An example she mentioned was when he talked about the car dealers and how they would scam their customers. This woman mentioning this statement made me suddenly notice anger in Steinbeck's writing and I now interpret those inter chapters as a way for Steinbeck to say what he felt on the whole issue. Next, I thought it was cool that Steinbeck was hesitant on writing the book and it was his wife who urged him to write it and considered it a story that needed to be told. As said by the woman Steinbeck Scholar, "Her belief in him allowed him to write." Lastly, I thought it was really annoying that when the book was published, some of the farmers were outraged by the way they were portrayed in the novel. Although the farmers weren't based on real individuals, farmers from the areas of where Steinbeck based the story were angry because it "made them look bad." Because of this, they didn't want the book sold or offered in libraries. I don't think they should have gotten mad and make such a big deal out of the situation. It's not like Steinbeck was trying to stab anyone in the back; he was just trying to show the world how bad life had gotten for some people.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion Q: When originally reading the book, did you sense anger in Steinbeck's writing? If so/if not, Why?
Kelly L, P5
I find it interesting that Grapes of Wrath is being banned in some states. That lady who looked a bit older and sweaty made an excellent point that I commend her for saying: "...to some extent it is [banned] because of the language, but I think the other reason it's mostly banned is because its really a call for collective action. ... Collective action of any kind is somewhat threatening to America. We tend to depend upon individual initiative, believe in individual action." Even now, big industry, big government is banishing a book that relies on gathering together to intiate social change. Until she said this, I hadn't even REALIZED how much "I" is emphasized. In this country, its all about yourself. We're dirty and selfish, and Steinbeck wrote about how that could be changed if we worked together.
ReplyDeleteThis whole point makes me realize how damn American I am. And even as we were talking today in class, when everyone was making comparisons and great points, I wondered what someone from another country would think about the situation. I wondered what a European or African would say about over-processed cheap food or the act of ripping migrant farmers off or using slave labor.
Are you as American as I am? Do you think opinions about the book would change with the country you're from?
-Therese period 5
Despite its long length and slight tedium, I actually found one part of the video rather humorous. When it was discussing the floods in California during the winter of the Dust Bowl, it said something along the lines of ‘the migrant farmers had nothing left, and then it started raining.’ It made me think of a cartoon in which the character is upset and thinks, ‘Things can’t get any worse now,’ and then it starts raining. This is almost exactly like what the migrant families went through. They had nothing left except each other: no food, money, or shelter. Just when they thought things couldn’t get any worse, the floods came. I also thought it was very interesting how Steinbeck’s wife greatly influenced the publishing of The Grapes of Wrath. The video said that Steinbeck originally wasn’t a big supporter of the migrants, but his wife urged him to write and publish the book.
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel if you were a migrant during the winter floods? Would they be the last straw, and cause you to give up, you would you keep going?
Jarrett,
I was also surprised at how controversial the book was when it first came out. I think the main reason it is so controversial is because the well-off people sitting in their houses with food and money just didn’t want to believe that such awful things could be occurring in their country. Also, Californians certainly didn’t like being portrayed as the ‘enemy’ in the book. The book is still controversial today, because many of the same issues still exist now as in the 1930’s and 40’s. One of the main themes in the book is unionizing, and people joining together to help each other. Companies today no doubt still feel threatened by unions, just as they did when the book was published.
Jenny L. 6
I really liked this video because the pictures really captured my attention. Some of the photos were heart-wrenching and it made me realize, even more so, how devastating the Dust Bowl was. If it weren't for the pictures, I don't think that people would understand how terrible this tragedy was. Like Sophie, I sympathized for the poor workers because they looked so hopeless and lost. Also, from the video, I learned about John Steinback. For example, I learned about his writing technique. Before writing the story out on paper, he had a lot of ideas in his mind. One of the interviewees on the video said that the West thought that Steinback was an expert on labor because of his book. I disagree with this because he did not discuss farming techniques in the novel. Also, I believe that it is shameful that Oklahoma and California banned the book. Even though "The Grapes of Wrath" makes them look bad, the book reveals a lot about American history. The exposure of California's mistreatment during this time should be exploited, rather than hidden, to ensure that the mistreatment of migrant farmers stops.
ReplyDeleteIs it socially acceptable to ban a book?
Alexis M, Period 5
AMANDA M,
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching the video, I was thinking the same thing! I loved the visuals because they gave me a better understanding of the Dust Bowl and it wasn't just like words on a page. I definitely thought the pictures were the most beneficial part of the video.
And to answer you question, (which, by the way, is really good) I think it is really hard to answer that question. I think anyone in our class would say they would help the migrants, but none of us really know what it was like then. But as I think about it, it would be hard to feed my own family, let alone another member. This reminds me of that moment in GOW when Ma is trying to decide if she wants to help feed the kids or give more food to her family. This draws that question about choosing between generosity and greed.
Great Post!
Kelly L, P5
Jessica C,
ReplyDeleteI would want people to read it so that they would gain a deeper understanding on what it was like to live through this time. The book may make readers (like me) realize that life could be worse and why it is important to not take housing, food, showers, etc. for granted. Also, it makes me appreciate my ancestors who lived through this tragedy.
Alexis M :)
When I watching watching this clip there were a few things that stood out to me, and actually caught my attention. Since I think we all realized how The Grapes of Wrath was a pretty long book, I was very suprised when I heard that it was not meant to be that long. This stood out to me because I feel that The Grapes of Wrath is known for its length and extent to detail.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing said that came to a surprise to me was when the film talked about how the book had been banned in certain places. I mean I understand that not everyone is going to have a positive response to the novel, but I wouldn't ever really think that i would be banned.
Lastly I found it interesting that his wife basically made him write the book. I feel surprised about this because when your reading the book it just has so much detail and meaning, one would think that this had been a novel in Steinbeck's head while the issue was happening?
This makes me question where he got the inspiration from to write the novel? When i say that I mean all of the little hidden details, symbols, and themes that tie into the text!
Grace N.
Period 6
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI feel that you brought up an excellent point in your post that I didn't realize until I read it! I did not realize that the book was kinda bias towards the Okies, and in a sense we are cause we are learning about all of the hardships that they went through to get to California. And never one when I was reading did I stop to think about the other side of the story because I just assumed that there was no way there were having problems, and if they did then the migrants were worse. Now when I think about it, the residents of California may have been getting some of their jobs away by migrant farmers who will work for very cheep. I think of our issue today with illegal immigrants coming over to the US and working for very little pay, taking American jobs away. Great point!
Love, Grace!
What I found interesting about this video was Steinbeck's metamorphosis. I didn't realize that before he came to writing GOW that he had written other books similar to the whole concept of the migrant workers. I liked seeing how greatly his perspective went from thinking these people were just show casing American spirit, to his anger with the flawed justice system, to his final happy medium. That medium being his way to show truth without too much anger and too much "spirit". The spirit in GOW is pretty much the concept of family, like the Joads and how strong they are. The anger you find in the inter-chapters. I think the book really did piece together all his ideas perfectly. I also found it interesting that he was not that motivated to write a novel that would show the truth behind the great depression/dust bowl. I assume since he had written those other books that for him to write the GOW would be no problem, and evidently he was pushed to do it by his wife. It makes me wonder why someone with so much anger and passion for knowing about the migrants would not want to jump on the chance immediately and enthusiastically write a novel that would show the world the truth.
ReplyDeleteWas he afraid of criticism? Did he not want Americans to be enraged? Or was he just plain unmotivated to write a full on novel?
I don't know those answers... but I think it may be a combination of them all. You can see how he was unmotivated with the Oklahomans book, the video mentions. I recall them saying he was "working" on it, but never finished it. So I conclude he was just scared for many reasons to write the story. I also found the reaction of America interesting because it really shows what kind of people are out there... Some people may think "OH he's bashing us, this is all untrue. He's making the higher class people look bad. etc." but really Stienbeck was telling the story about a family that could have very well been real and he stuck to the just telling the story as it was, not fabricating anything other than down playing the government camps a bit. Everyone has their own opinion so you can see why some people automatically thought GOW was just a big lie to make a certain class of people look bad. And why the book was banned from certain states? Because the government didn't want normal people like us knowing the truth. When Steinbeck realized the truth about the way America was, he was enraged.. the same reaction most Americans would have knowing the sad truths of the depression. So the government is afraid of the bad feelings people will have for it after knowing the truth.
Wow, that was a lot of babble.
My question is, how would you feel or react if you exposed a truth like this and someone tried to hide it away from people? Would you stand up to it and continue to aware everyone?
Olivia N 6.
Carley,
ReplyDeleteMe liked your post mucho. If I lived in one of those states and I heard of the banning, it'd only make me curious to read the book and I'd probably illegally get my hands on it so I could figure out the truth for myself... But if I was a state leader, I bet I'd have to say something like "Oh, this book completely fabricates the way we are in this state. It tells lies upon lies about our justice and blah blah blah". But of course... the leader is just trying to protect the people from the truth. It's so messed up really. I enjoyed your post.
-Olivia N. 6.
I was really interested in learning more about Tom Joad as a writer; I've seen most of those pictures at least four other times or so in class. Grapes of Wrath wasn't his first novel on migrant farmers. Before writing the novel he had already become "an expert on farm labor" and had traveled with a photographer capturing the dust bow. He stopped taking pictures and started writing his book though; Steinbeck doesn't play around. He was even asked to write a bunch of novels on farm labor. Steinbeck feels that the farmers "represent the true American spirit." His result was a great book that lead to controversy, which usually proves to be a good book (cough bible)... but on the down side, I was forced to read it over the summer and I'm writing about it now. sigh. The video helped me verify that Grapes of Wrath knows what it's talking about.
ReplyDeleteJACKIE G5
Although the video posted was extremely lengthy and truthfully bored me at certain points, I thought it really told me a lot about Steinbeck. Despite learning about him from GOW I really got a lot out of the video. It's amazing how Steinbeck could use his opinion and thoughts on the economy and government in order to create a book that created such a huge phenomenon but also an enormous controversy. Personally, I find it somewhat immature that those select few States, including California, were actually so offended by Steinbeck's words that they all together banned the book. It may appear to some that John Steinbeck was aiming to possibly offend people, but at the same time I find that his true intentions were to show people every perspective of what was occurring to some how unite the country. Which reminds me of the point I posted last night: To think when disaster or depression strikes a nation, people actually set aside their differences in order to become one. GOW may have caused tension but people still thought of Steinbeck sort of like a man of words and wisdom no matter what their opinion about the Dust Bowl.
ReplyDeleteAre people truly ONLY for one side of something? Or can they actually feed into anothers well written opinion, such as Steinbeck's?
Jenna Limone
p.5
I found it interesting that this book caused so much controversy. The fact that two states banned and burned the book was surprising. Steinbeck was expressing his views through a fictional story. One historian brought up a good point by saying that this book was banned because it called for collective action. The government didn’t want anyone to take the book literally and try to rebel. The people of Oklahoma, California, and the government were all shed in a bad light in this book.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the government has the right to ban controversial books?
Alexis M,
I completely agree with what you said! This book was purely fictional although Steinbeck added his own views and opinions. I feel like Oklahoma and California had no right to ban this FICTIONAL book just because it made them look bad. Our country had a problem, and Steinbeck simply addressed this problem through his writing. Nice job!
Madison B. Per 5
Sophia,
ReplyDeleteAgain I'm commenting on your post :)
Personally, I think the book was burned and banned simply because people couldn't accept the truth. Steinbeck had been that one person to step up and expose people for who they truly were in this time of need. I don't agree with the burning of the book what so ever it in away degrades these states and makes them look a bit guilty... As if they were trying to hide the truth.
Jenna L.
p5
This video was interesting because it gives perspective on the effect the book had when it was released. It's not surprising that the Californian association farmers were upset. The book had really exposed them as tyrants and criminals. It's scary, though, that the state had such power of sensorship that they could have the book banned and burned in their state. However, one of the interviewees says, "To be banned and burned in two states is a real mark of excellence." I think, in a way, that's what Steinbeck wanted. The book was meant to cause a reaction, whether that be positive or negative. What's really surprising is that many people still haven't calmed down about this book. I couldn't believe that there are californian farmers still speaking out against it, I wonder if they've ever even read it. Maybe they would feel differently if they read the book and connected with the characters in the Joad family.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the government should have the right to sensor or ban literature?
Molly H 5
Kelly,the video really got me thinking about Steinbeck's tone as well. I agree with the "steinbeck scholar" who said that Steinbeck really took out his anger in his earlier books, but in Grapes of Wrath, he tried to control that anger. When I read the book, I almost felt like their was an element of scientific observation to it. In the inter chapters, I felt like Steinbeck wasn't really giving an opinion of his own. It was more like he was saying, this is what happened, this is who the people were and what they were thinking and how they felt, this is just how it was. Even in the Joad family there doesn't seem to be any rage. They are aware of the injustices they are suffering, but they handle the situation with surprising grace. In one of the interviews, the woman says, "The book is just a plea for dignity in the face of crisis."
ReplyDeleteMolly H 5
I'm glad we watched this video because it did teach me a lot about Steinbeck that i didn't know. He didn't just stay at home to think and write, he went out and traveled and went to see the real pain people were going through which i thought was interesting to hear. It's like he was doing research for all his books and different series to come. In the movie something that caught my attention was when they said that people were lucky if they could find housing or a vehicle to stay in. I always thought that people had a tent, a makeshift house, or at least a car to sleep in. It never really hit me that many of the families may have slept outside on the ground huddled together for warmth, it was almost heart breaking in a sense to hear because no one shouldn't have a place to sleep. Another point I wanted to touch upon was the pictures of the migrants they showed a ways into the movie. Most of them were men that had been worn down from work and hardships, but they all seemed strong and like they were looking towards something, like a brighter future. They gave off a sense like they had hope, which I thought was remarkable for what they must be going through. While they were talking about how Steinbeck got around to writing the Grapes of Wrath, they talked about his terribly titled, and angry book, The Fair Lettuceberg. This book didn't meet his expectations for they way he wanted to convey the migrants in California, so he burnt it. I thought that this was ironic because first, he was struggling to show what migrants in California were going through while these people were also struggling to show people in the US that they need a voice in a union. I also think it's ironic that he burnt his book because it didn't covey what he wanted, because the big farmers in California and the people in Oklahoma burned the Grapes of Wrath because it conveyed them in a manor they did not choose to be seen as. I thought that was very interesting
ReplyDeletePeople now are as scared of the truth as they were 80 years ago, why is that?
Molly, to answer your question, no i don't think that the government has the right to ban US citizens from reading books. The right of free speech is something we are allowed to act upon so why can't we see how others convey their first amendment rights? People should be able to make up their own minds about topics and be able to form their own opinions without the government interfering or telling us how to think.
Stacy B. Per 6
I never thought of the fact that migrants may not have had a place to sleep in until I watched this video. I always thought that they had a tent, a makeshift house, or at least a car to sleep in. I didn’t think that families might have had to sleep together on the ground huddled for warmth. It was almost heartbreaking in a sense. I also thought that the pictures of all the pictures of the migrants were amazing. It was about 5 minutes into the movie or so when they showed all the pictures of these migrants who were mostly men. These men were worn down, tired, aged looking, but they still looked proud. They all seemed to be looking forward towards a brighter future almost as if they knew that they were going to win their fight and that their troubles would soon be over. On another note, I thought it was interesting that Steinbeck wasn’t just a stay at home, think, and write type of person. He really put himself into the middle of it all when he went to California to see how the migrants were really living, how their work conditions were, and the daily struggles they went through. It was like he was doing an in depth analysis of this mass of people that he grew to care about as a whole. I also thought that it was interesting that Steinbeck struggled to convey the struggles of the migrants....
ReplyDelete...He started to try and get his message out with his angry and poorly titled book, The Fair Lettuceberg, but he thought that it just didn’t get the message across that he wanted. I thought that this was ironic because he was struggling to get his message across about how the migrants were living while the migrants were struggling to get the message across that they wanted a voice in a union to help them. I also thought that it was ironic that he couldn’t convey the migrants lives the way he wanted in Lettuceberg so he burned it while people in Oklahoma and California burned his book because they didn’t like the way they were being conveyed in the Grapes of Wrath.
ReplyDeleteQ : People in the US seem to be as afraid of the truth as they were 80 years ago, why is that?
Molly, to answer your question, no I don’t think the government should control what we read. Freedom of speech is our first amendment right, so why shouldn’t we be able to act upon the way other citizens have conveyed their first amendment right? The government can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to say what we should think. We as human beings should be able to formulate our own opinions on different topics including books, and since everyone’s entitled to their own it doesn’t even really matter what other people’s opinions are. No matter what we’re not going to all agree on a topic so we should just be allowed to keep our opinions the way they are. The government doesn’t need to tell us how to tweak them.
ReplyDeleteStacy B per 6
all three above and this one are mine, they wouldn't all fit into one - stacy B per 6
ReplyDeleteThe migrant families had nothing left and had to go on with their difficult journey. I felt really bad for them while watching this video. The pictures used really helped me to picture everything they went through. By including the pictures I felt more connected to the people. I also felt very bad for the people because on top of what they were going through, the weather was horrible. They had to deal with flooding which made their conditions worse. I also learned a lot more about Steinbeck. I saw how controversial the book was to everyone when it first came out. I think its interesting that nowadays the book isn't controversial anymore. It shows how people have changed opinions over the years. However, we still have a lot of events that have occurred since then that would be considered controversial to write about now. Steinbeck really helped out migrant farmers by showing everyone how they were treated which in turn helped them to be treated better. Steinbeck represented all of those farmers and he really understood all the hardships and feelings they went through.
ReplyDelete- Alexis A. Period 6
This video reviled new facts about The Grapes of Wrath that I have never heard of. I had no idea that the book was banned in two states. This shows that people are unwilling to accept the facts that happened years ago. Also the book still has relevance today. The meaning of the story is still prevalent today and will probably never go away. This book also inspired many people. It inspired Bruce Springsteen to write the Ghost of Tom Joad. It also inspired Woody Guthrie, and Rage Against the Machine. These are all ways the story is still being told today. This book just has something about it that makes people want to retell it.
ReplyDeleteDo you know of any other books that have the same impact as The Grapes of Wrath?
Austin C. Period 6
Madison,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the government should have the right to sensor what types of books are sold. I believe that no one should be able to ban literature from being sold just because they don't want to face the facts. People should also be exposed to all different views of the issue not just one. Also I think that the government would be violating our rights if they banned certain literature.
Austin C. Period 6
I thought it was interesting how one book could have such an impact on people. Like Jack Hick said from the video, “It moved people both negatively and positively”. Some were inspired by GOW and retold the story through a different book. Some people were outraged, states burned or banded the books, and some tried to harm Steinbeck. To me it's kind of amusing how this book can trigger so many people to act in so many different ways and I think this proves that GOW is a powerful book. Part of the video that caught my attention was when they mentioned that GOW was ban in Oklahoma!!! I was very confused because I thought people in Oklahoma would feel sympathetic towards the Okies in GOW and want their state to be more aware of how much their ancestors suffered from the Dust Bowl. Lastly, I thought I was funny how some people ignored the GOW just because it's fiction, this reminded me of people that still believe that the Holocaust didn't really happen. I think some people are too scared to admit/face the truth.
ReplyDeleteDoes banning or burning books make us unintelligent/inane/senseless (like Fahrenheit 451)?
Ash P6
Stacy,
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that Steinbeck actually put himself out there and observed the migrants' living and working conditions. I think this made the book more realistic. I can relate this to Nickle and Dimed, like Steinbeck, Barbra experiments and tries to create a living with a low wage. In order to write their books, Steinbeck and Barbra experienced the daily struggles themselves and I give them a lot of credit for what they did because not a lot people are willing to actually put themselves in other people's shoes.
Ash P6
The video was very informative on Steinbeck's process of coming up with the story of the Joads. At first, Steinbeck was anti-socialist, then he interviewed the people from both the federal campsites and Hoover villes which caused him to sympathize with the migrant farmers. He also had influence from his wife was a farm laborer advocate. Grapes Of Wrath originated from Of Mice and Men which was about labor, The Oklahomans, which represented the true American heroes, and L'Affaire Lettuce- burg, which harshly criticized the owners and ranchers. One thing that the video surprised me on the was the kinds of responses the novel received from the people. TGOW was a very passionate novel that moved people both negatively and positively. It immediately became a bet seller, and was popular among many people. It was mostly controversial because of the collective idea that is emphasized towards the end of the novel. At the time, Labor Unions were viewed Communistic, and there was this “red alert” mood against those who tried to unionize. The Associated Farmers banned and burned Steinbeck's books because they said it was full of lies against the Californians, and it was anti-American.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that banning/burning of the books signify the strength of a book or the weakness of a book?
@Molly:
No, I don't think that gov't should have the right to sensor or ban literature because that limits the freedom of thought to the people. People should be open to many different views of controversial topics. If the gov't sensors literature it just means that they are trying to hide some kind of truth from the public. That would not make the gov't very trustworthy.
Anjita P-6
It's surprising how much of a hit The Grapes of Wrath was during its time. To me, this shows what the conventional wisdom was during the Great Depression. This book's sales represent the people's yearning for a change I'm how the American poor are treated. This stays true today, given the popularity of Nickel and Dimed. It's a hard road, but as long as there is an interested public, something can be done.
ReplyDeleteThe above comment is by Luke S. Period 6
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing that I got out of this video is that it was banned in Oklahoma. The fact that it was banned in California wasn't as surprising, considering the book makes the people of that state look like monsters. The people from Oklahoma, on the other hand, are portrayed in a different light. If anything, the novel inspires pity for the "Okies."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Oklahoma banned this book?
Another thing I thought was interesting was that John Steinback wrote other things on the same topic. I guess all of them were outshined by The Grapes of Wrath, but it still suprised me that I had no idea it wasn't the only thing he wrote about migrant farmers.
Amanda-The visuals totally helped me understand the dust bowl. When I was reading the novel, I often forgot about the dust bowl and didn't picture it the way it really was. The pictures really helped me think about the situation the way it was meant to be portrayed, instead of the way my mind made it.
Katrice K, period 5
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that people were actually out to get Steinbeck, not necessarily about the book, that's kind of understandable with the way people looked at things back then and even now. However, even the chief of police in the town he was living in told him not to go off by himself, and to be armed or something. That's insane. I feel when an author has written something like that then it must be REALLY good. If something gets people really riled up then I'm guessing it's either something they don't want to realize or something they realize but don't want to be reminded of.
ReplyDeleteSarah p6
I thought it was interesting how Steinbeck didn't want to write the book at first, and only after encouragement from his wife he really got into writing GOW. I also found it interesting how he was antisocialism. It's amazing how one's attitude towards something can be influenced like that, and it makes me wonder if attitudes can be changed taht easily.
ReplyDeleteAshley, I think banning/burning books does make us less intelligent. It also makes us arogant. Someone, like Steinbeck, worked hard to put that message out and even thought some may not agree with that message it's not right to hide it and keep it from getting out. Secrets always have a way of getting out, usually in an explosive way, so it's better not to have secrets in the first place. I'm talking about secrets in communities, secrets in personal lives are okay.
Shama K p6
I think that this video is very interesting in showing how America really is. It's weird that people ban that book from certain places because I'm sure we're all scared about what might come from it. GOW really shows you how coming together and doing something as a group can cause change. And us, as Americans, are very selfish in that we don't want things to change. It's amazing how he didn't want to write that book and his wife encouraged him, and that he would make such a difference through a book that wasn't even going to be written. Obviously this shows how attitudes are changed so quickly and how selfish we as a country really are. We have a reputation as being friendly and giving and free, but look at how selfish we are. I think Steinbeck really portrays that message, that we are selfish and don't want things to chaange.
ReplyDeleteKatrice, I find it very interesting that this book was banned in Oklahoma. The book revolves around the people they call "oakies" and how hard their lives are. I don't think that the whole reason for this is to ban the language, they just don't want any change.
Taylor S.
Period5
SORRY THIS IS LATE! I WAS ABSENT :)
Sorry this is late as well, the video wouldn't work for me for a few days.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching the video, it was really surprising that the book had been banned from two states and burned. The first thing that came to mind when I found this happened was that it was similar to Fahrenheit 451. It seems that our world is becoming more and more like the world in Fahrenheit 451. This is most likely a bad thing because the citizens in Fahrenheit were very mindless people and were all similar to each other.
Do you think the world will one day follow in the foot steps of the world in Fahrenheit 451 due to similar actions already happening in the world due to The Grapes of Wrath and other things as well?
Austin,
I completely agree when you say that The Grapes of Wrath has had importance to the world and is still relevant today. To answer your question, I'm sure there are many other books that have made the same impact as The Grapes of Wrath, however, I am not sure of any.
-Jess Blitz. p. 5
I really liked this movie-like documentry about Steinbeck and his thoughts and books. I think one of the best things about films and clips like this one is that they not only explore points brought up by my mind and my peers' minds but also suggest new symbols and ideals.
ReplyDeleteIt's really strange how much our world has changed since the release of The Grapes of Wrath. I feel like nobody reads anymore. The intellect of the world is shrinking and nobody seems to take notice. I try and read as many good books as I can find, but I don't think that will change much in the long run. After all, more and more people don't care enough to read and just want to be entertained.
My question is, "Do you think that at one point, people will just STOP reading books? And all their intake on knowledge will come from computers and movies?"
And to reply to Austin's post, a post that really caught my eye. I definitely think that The Grapes of Wrath is still significant. After all, aren't we JUST recovering from our countries worst recession, second only TO the Great Depression? I think that the symbols and morals that shine through in Steinbeck's novel continue and WILL continue to shine through for as many years as it is shown to young readers. I have not read any books with the same impact on the world as Steinbeck's, but I do believe that there are MANY books out there that do the same, in different ways.
This video nearly bored me to death, so I'm going to focus on one specific part that actually interested me, when the woman says "That, that sense of Casey saying, 'You know I'm no longer gonna be a preacher, I'm just... there aint no sin and there aint no virtue, there's just what people do.' Paraphrased, and that's, that's Rickets... I'm not gonna focus on whether ya' know, things are right or wrong, I'm gonna look at what is, and focus on what is. Rickets called it 'is' thinking..." I don't know if anyone in our class is religious or not, but to me this seems like the best way to deal with people. I personally don't believe in God, so to me there is no "sin" or anything like that. So taking peoples' actions and who they are and using what's in front of me to decide about people makes the most sense. I'm sure most people do this as well, but for some, religion might factor into the light you view people in.
ReplyDeleteMy question is:
Why do you think people don't always judge other people based on who they are and what they do?
Gretchen G
Period 5
Molly,
ReplyDeletei think what you said about the books purpose being to cause a reaction, whether good or bad was really interesting. I never even thought of that. I'm also wondering now whether the farmers who are still protesting GOW have read it; that's a really good point.
In answer to your question, I don't think they have that right. I believe it goes against the first amendment: freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly. The book is a form of speech and press, and banning it or censoring it would infringe on those rights.
Gretchen G
period 5