This post was originally written as a discussion post in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate environmental literature course. 

John Steinbeck. The Grapes of Wrath. 1939.

As I sat down to write my initial response, I felt like I needed some additional context. I did some very surface research (ie googling ha!) on Steinbeck and the Dust Bowl to refresh my memory. It’s interesting that Steinbeck did years of research for the novel (possibly even stealing some of it from another gal who lost her book contract because of him?!), and published it at the beginning of 1939. In 1939, the rain came back and the drought ended. And then the US entered WWII in 1942 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the economy recovered.

This is important because so much of the book seems to be building toward something—hints of a revolution—and I think that the end of the drought and the emergence of a larger threat that unified the country quite possibly allowed the US to avoid what could have been a revolution of sorts—an avoidance that Steinbeck wouldn’t have anticipated as he wrote and published the book prior to these other events. I’m not sure how this ties into an environmental message, exactly, but I think it’s really interesting. 😉 One clear indication of this is in Chapter 19 where Steinbeck says that the “great owners ignored the three cries of history.” The first is that “when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away.” The second is that “When a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need.” The third is that “repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.” Steinbeck clearly represents these three “cries of history” in the Joad family and their experiences.

Another interesting tie in here is the title of the novel, which has so many allusions. Yes, there are the allusions to the Bible verses (Isaiah and Revelation) about God’s wrath pouring out on the earth. But there’s also the connection to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, written at the beginning of the Civil War. “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. His truth is marching on.” So, not only is the biblical context about war, but there’s also historical context here that points to Steinbeck being aware of a breaking point and foreseeing a war of some type. I would think that in his time period, the Civil War would not have been so far away that people would not have seen the references to both the biblical and the historical context in the title.

A final thought on this… At the beginning of the novel, a tenant says, “ ‘There’s some way to stop this…We’ve got a bad thing made by men, and by God that’s something we can change.’” Not only does this point to the need for people to do something, but this is interesting wording because there are multiple ways to read “by God”—is it the expression or is it the means of fixing the problem? With the connection to the Exodus story, I wonder if it isn’t a hint of the latter. One of the important connections in the Exodus story is that the reason the Israelites get the Promised Land is because the inhabitants of the land are evil, and the land is spitting them out. Leviticus 20:22-24 “…the land to which I am bringing you will vomit you out. Do not live according to the customers of the people I am driving out before you. It is because they do these shameful things that I detest them. But I have promised you, ‘You will possess their land because I will give it to you as your possession—a land flowing with milk and honey.’” If the large landowners are the problem at the beginning (Egypt), and the migrant workers are the Israelites, then the owners in California are the evil inhabitants that are going to be “spit out.” The way that these folks treat the migrants, dishonest pay, killing Casy, etc, hints toward that evil in these inhabitants. The battle to take over the land is the next stage in the Exodus journey—it’s kind of like an alternate ending had the rains and the larger conflict of WWII not come.

The importance of a connection to the land is one of the most important environmental messages in the novel. There is a huge focus on the large land owners—faceless, nameless entities (“There wasn’t nobody you could lay for”). One tenant says, “If a man owns a little property, that property is him, it’s part of him, and it’s like him. If he owns property only so he can walk on it and handle it and be sad when it isn’t doing well…that property is him, and some way he’s bigger because he owns it.” (sounds a little like Thoreau—the land becomes a part of you) But these big owners hadn’t even been to the land: “…owners no longer worked on their farms. They farmed on paper; and they forgot the land, the smell, the feel of it…” Because they haven’t been to the land, they don’t know the land. Because they don’t know the land, they don’t care about the land. Because they don’t care about the land, they are willing to ruin the land in order to make a profit. The men driving the tractors represent this lack of connection: “He could not see the land as it was, he could not smell the land as it smelled; his feet did not stamp the clods or feel the warmth and power of the earth…he did not know or own or trust or beseech the land.” So, the land owners show us what happens when there is a lack of relationship with the land.

It’s not just about the destruction of the land, though—it’s also about what happens to the owners. One of my favorite quotes is “the machine man, driving a dead tractor on land he does not know and love, understands only chemistry; and he is contemptuous of the land and of himself.” The lack of connection makes the man feel contempt for the land…but also for himself. Grampa can’t move from the land because “ ‘Grampa an’ the old place, they was jus’ the same thing.” The way we relate to the land impacts how we feel about the land, which impacts our view of ourselves, because of the connection to the land.

In fact, Steinbeck focuses a lot on the unity of things, echoing Leopold a bit as he shows how even something small affects another. We see this in the very beginning with the side tale of the turtle. An ant runs into his shell “and suddenly head and legs snapped in…the red ant was crushed between body and legs. And one head of wild oats was clamped into the shell.” Then cars drive by and the turtle gets hit and spins onto his side. As he rights himself, “the wild oat head fell out and three of the spearhead seeds stuck in the ground.” And then the turtle buries the seeds as he walks on. The fact that Tom Joad picks up a turtle to bring home just ties everything together. The oat is connected to the turtle who is connected to Tom, who is connected to his family, and so on. What we do has an effect on other living beings and on the environment, and there’s an intimate connection between a person and the land.

This idea is extended to the family unit. We see this a bit in the description of how Ma holds the family together: “She seemed to know that if she swayed the family shook, and if she ever really deeply wavered or despaired the family would fall…” In times of trouble, Steinbeck gives a visual illustration of how this unit circles up: “The family became a unit. Pa squatted down on the ground, and Uncle John beside him…” And the rest of family gathers around in this circle, each with a place and a part. It is Ma who stands up to the men and tells them that family is all that matters. That connection is what’s important: “ ‘What we got lef’ in the worl’? Nothing’ but us…’” And, as they go along the road, that connection extends to the other migrants. They become one big family: “Every night a world created…every night relationships that make a world, established…”

And, by tying in the Joads’ experience to all the other migrants, Steinbeck makes it a universal story about the dissonance in the relationship between man and the land. Again, Steinbeck frames the whole novel in this way from the very beginning. This time, it’s through the words of Casy: “maybe that’s the Holy Sperit—the human sperit—the whole shebang. Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of.’” Casy later says “ ‘…when they’re all workin’ together, not one fella for another fella, but one fella kind of harnessed to the whole shebang—that’s right, that’s holy.’” The importance of this unity is shown throughout the novel as the Joad’s become a representative, much like the Bible follows the journey of one man’s family (Abraham) through history. The chapters that alternate with the Joad narrative provide some insight and some foreshadowing, but mostly they put the Joads into the context of a bigger picture and, in doing so, make them a representative of a whole group. One diner is just like another, one car is just like another. And because they are all alike, they are all the same—one unit.