Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
Steinbeck produced such amazing imagery - a master of words.
After stopping in chapter 3 when assigned to read “The Grapes of Wrath” in high school, I decided it was time to give it another shot, particularly since “East of Eden” is my favorite novel of all time. Far bleaker than “EoE” and without the same personal punch at the end, “TGoW” still carries weight with its direct assault on big business and hatred towards the poor and the migrant, but outside of Ma, I didn’t find myself really pulling for any of the characters even in their dire circumstances.
★ buddy read with sophia (wouldn't have been able to finish this book w/o her)
First off, no one can deny the sociopolitical significance of this book, so it's hard to rate it on the same scale as the books I'd read for entertainment because that's just not its purpose. As a novel, it was slow and uninteresting for the large part. But as far as its message goes, there was a lot of interesting things I noticed.
What I liked:
→ The intercalary chapters: I learned this term from this book. Between the main chapters narrating the story of the Joad family, there were intercalary chapters where the narrative shifts focus and Steinbeck's voice is more closely heard. He essentially preaches his message about capitalist exploitation and worker mistreatment in post-WW2 America. I loved loved loveddd these chapters! Steinbeck had a lot of interesting points, like the one chapter where he talks about how no matter how poor the people were, they would pitch in funds to help bury a stillborn, highlighting the callous nature of the rich who hoard their money as well as the sense of community that protected the poor communities.
→ The characterization: Every character was fleshed out and had their individual nuances. From Ma to Casy to even the little children Ruthie and Winfield. It gave a unique introspection into the different facets of the migrant experience. I especially loved Tom's perspective as he struggled between protecting his family and fighting for his ideals.
What I didn't like:
→ The language: Every sentence of the novel aims to mimic the country accent of southern migrants. However, as someone who actually lives in the South, I felt that this was very excessive and not at all natural. Considering that Steinbeck himself spent most of his early life between California and New York City and thus likely had little interaction with actual southerners, this aspect of the novel made me a bit uncomfortable.
→ The sexualization: The descriptions of Rosasharn in particular made me very uncomfortable because it sexualized her pregnant body and overall felt a bit perverted. The ending of the novel, where Rosasharn allows a dying man to drink her breast milk straight from her and HER MOTHER SUPPORTING THAT ACTION?? I was shocked baffled bamboozled at this. But of course, there's a larger significance to consider as it allowed Rosasharn to recover from the loss of her baby and signaled the lengths individuals are willing to go to in times of desperation. But srsly, was there no other way to convey this??
All in all, I think this book transformed my perspective a little, even if it was largely uninteresting. Also special thanks to sophia (I contemplated dropping this book wayyy too many times lmao)
First off, no one can deny the sociopolitical significance of this book, so it's hard to rate it on the same scale as the books I'd read for entertainment because that's just not its purpose. As a novel, it was slow and uninteresting for the large part. But as far as its message goes, there was a lot of interesting things I noticed.
What I liked:
→ The intercalary chapters: I learned this term from this book. Between the main chapters narrating the story of the Joad family, there were intercalary chapters where the narrative shifts focus and Steinbeck's voice is more closely heard. He essentially preaches his message about capitalist exploitation and worker mistreatment in post-WW2 America. I loved loved loveddd these chapters! Steinbeck had a lot of interesting points, like the one chapter where he talks about how no matter how poor the people were, they would pitch in funds to help bury a stillborn, highlighting the callous nature of the rich who hoard their money as well as the sense of community that protected the poor communities.
→ The characterization: Every character was fleshed out and had their individual nuances. From Ma to Casy to even the little children Ruthie and Winfield. It gave a unique introspection into the different facets of the migrant experience. I especially loved Tom's perspective as he struggled between protecting his family and fighting for his ideals.
What I didn't like:
→ The language: Every sentence of the novel aims to mimic the country accent of southern migrants. However, as someone who actually lives in the South, I felt that this was very excessive and not at all natural. Considering that Steinbeck himself spent most of his early life between California and New York City and thus likely had little interaction with actual southerners, this aspect of the novel made me a bit uncomfortable.
→ The sexualization: The descriptions of Rosasharn in particular made me very uncomfortable because it sexualized her pregnant body and overall felt a bit perverted. The ending of the novel, where Rosasharn allows a dying man to drink her breast milk straight from her and HER MOTHER SUPPORTING THAT ACTION?? I was shocked baffled bamboozled at this. But of course, there's a larger significance to consider as it allowed Rosasharn to recover from the loss of her baby and signaled the lengths individuals are willing to go to in times of desperation. But srsly, was there no other way to convey this??
All in all, I think this book transformed my perspective a little, even if it was largely uninteresting. Also special thanks to sophia (I contemplated dropping this book wayyy too many times lmao)
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
è un libro faticoso ma che vale la salita e mi spiego faticoso perchè è faticoso quello che accade e tu la senti tutta la fatica. Tutta la fatica del viaggio, tutto il dolore, la sporcizia, la polvere.
Senti tutto.
E poi senti la rabbia, soprattutto la rabbia.
Senti tutto.
E poi senti la rabbia, soprattutto la rabbia.
adventurous
dark
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
It's a good book.
It's a tough book though.
It's a tough book about tough times.
Hard times.
If you're looking for a pick-me-up, don't look here. ...but I guess that's Steinbeck for you.
Favorite quotes:
"Well, I'll sure thank ya for a hand, I sure will. Makes a fella kinda feel like a little kid when he can't fix nothin'"
"It was her habit to build up laughter out of inadequate materials."
"Pa let's out a squak like a sow littering broken bottles."
"A fella can get so he misses the noise of a sawmill.
It's a tough book though.
It's a tough book about tough times.
Hard times.
If you're looking for a pick-me-up, don't look here. ...but I guess that's Steinbeck for you.
Favorite quotes:
"Well, I'll sure thank ya for a hand, I sure will. Makes a fella kinda feel like a little kid when he can't fix nothin'"
"It was her habit to build up laughter out of inadequate materials."
"Pa let's out a squak like a sow littering broken bottles."
"A fella can get so he misses the noise of a sawmill.
A powerful novel that will both break and restore your faith in humanity at the same time. The fact that it can have such an impact 80 years after its first publication is a testament to the strength of the writing and the importance of the subject.
I have seen the argument that this book is just a 'piece of propoganda', firmly giving the view that the Joad family (and the evicted migrant workforce they represent) are the 'goodies' whilst the powerful banks and corporations that have taken control of the land are the 'baddies'. Yes, you could say that; the writing is definitely 'one-sided'. No, it is not subtle; Steinbeck makes his point then makes it again, each chapter a message of anger and pain. But from a contextual point of view, writing in the shadows of the Great Depression, you can see exactly why this approach was needed.
Looking at the writing style, I enjoyed the structure of the book. The main plot follows the lives of the Joad family as they are forced from their homeland and travel to the West in hunt of work. These chapters are deeply personal, with strong phonetic dialogue and simple domestic descriptions helping to firmly embed you in the heart of the family. However, these sections are broken up by a more omniscient narrator, who shows how the plights of the Joads are affecting America as a whole. This voice feels more detached, a birds-eye view - yet the pain and suffering are still felt from afar. Though the interrupting chapters are only an extension of the messages contained within the Joads' story, to me, they were a firm reminder that this is not just a fictional story: this was a reality for a whole nation of people. Moreover, I found that the distance from the situation - the struggling workers, suffering under the power of those who own the land - only emphasised its cruelty and unfairness.
Overall, I found this book compelling and emotive. And though it was deeply saddening to read, I leave with an overall impression of hope. Yes, it shows a perfect example of humanity's cruelty and injustice - but it also shows its intrinsic kindness, selflessness, compassion and unity. It is only a shame that the latter must be brought out by the former.
I have seen the argument that this book is just a 'piece of propoganda', firmly giving the view that the Joad family (and the evicted migrant workforce they represent) are the 'goodies' whilst the powerful banks and corporations that have taken control of the land are the 'baddies'. Yes, you could say that; the writing is definitely 'one-sided'. No, it is not subtle; Steinbeck makes his point then makes it again, each chapter a message of anger and pain. But from a contextual point of view, writing in the shadows of the Great Depression, you can see exactly why this approach was needed.
Looking at the writing style, I enjoyed the structure of the book. The main plot follows the lives of the Joad family as they are forced from their homeland and travel to the West in hunt of work. These chapters are deeply personal, with strong phonetic dialogue and simple domestic descriptions helping to firmly embed you in the heart of the family. However, these sections are broken up by a more omniscient narrator, who shows how the plights of the Joads are affecting America as a whole. This voice feels more detached, a birds-eye view - yet the pain and suffering are still felt from afar. Though the interrupting chapters are only an extension of the messages contained within the Joads' story, to me, they were a firm reminder that this is not just a fictional story: this was a reality for a whole nation of people. Moreover, I found that the distance from the situation - the struggling workers, suffering under the power of those who own the land - only emphasised its cruelty and unfairness.
Overall, I found this book compelling and emotive. And though it was deeply saddening to read, I leave with an overall impression of hope. Yes, it shows a perfect example of humanity's cruelty and injustice - but it also shows its intrinsic kindness, selflessness, compassion and unity. It is only a shame that the latter must be brought out by the former.
This book was well written, and I understood what it was doing, but it's not quite what I'd usually go for and I often found myself not wanting to pick it up.