Nancy Lewis

By JOHN NORTH

WEAVERVILLE — “The Grapes of Wrath,” a literary classic by John Steinbeck that focuses on the troubles of a family of poor sharecroppers during the Great Depression, continues to be relevant as the United States and much of the world suffer through the worst economic slump since that period.

At least that was the viewpoint expressed by Nancy Lewis, a retired literature professor and instructor at UNC Asheville’s Center for Creative Retirement. She spoke on the power, impact and continuing relevance of “The Grapes of Wrath” in an Oct. 14 presentation that drew about 40 people to the Weaverville Public Library.

Lewis spoke for nearly an hour about Steinbeck and his book, noting numerous differences between the 1939 book and the 1940 John Ford film that starred Henry Fonda. She then fielded questions for 15 minutes. The program was sponsored by Friends of the Weaverville Library.
Lewis began by noting that “Grapes” was not only a top-notch literary work, but “it’s also a rather ‘valuable’ novel.” Specifically, she said a first edition with dustjacket in good condition is worth about $38,000.

However, she asserted, “I’m here to speak about the more intrinsic value of ‘The Grapes of Wrath.’” Lewis said the work superbly combines social protest with artistry, winning for Steinbeck the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award and, eventually, a Novel Prize.

Ironically, the book also was banned from a number of libraries across the nation and caught flak from some congressmen because of its stinging critique of capitalism.

A first-edition cover of “The Grapes of Wrath.”

The book drew such interest — positively as well as negatively — because it “put a face on a deep-seated problem in the United States, Lewis said. “Even though the novel was fiction, it was rooted in the real world.”

In summarizing the plot, she noted that more than a million people were “driven out” of the Dustbowl of Oklahoma and neighboring states, only to settle in California, where they found opportunities limited and hostility from the natives.

Lewis explained that signs — the result of a heavy advertising campaign — promised those wishing to escape the Dustbowl a “promising land of grapes” — and plenty of jobs.
“In the promised land of plenty, the people found themselves homeless and hungry and jobless. They were referred to as ‘Okies’ by angry Californians who did not welcome them.”

Lewis praised Steinbeck for using his novel to publicize ‘the plight of the people.”

Steinbeck himself was a California native, who “experience first-hand what he wrote about in the novel,” she said.

The book was the result of a request that he write a series of newspaper stories about government migrant camps, following his completion of  another classic, “Of Mice and Men,” Lewis noted. He found the government camps “sanitary.”

“It was not until John Steinbeck moved on to squatters’ camps, called Hoover-villes, that he was shocked.” He found conditions of squalor, with families sometimes living in cardboard boxes and large tiles.

“What John Steinbeck saw in these camps was the front line,” Lewis said. “He was appalled also by how they (the people) were treated.

Beginning in May 1938, Steinbeck began writing his classic that required seven months to complete. Lewis marvelled, “It’s amazing” that Steinbeck could write the book so fast because “it’s not a short novel.”

She lauded Steinbeck for turning his story, via the use of moral fervor, into a work that prompts a similar level of outrage as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

What especially appalled Steinbeck was the terrible treatment of the Okies by the very people who lured them to California, including bankers and other powerful figures, Lewis said.

She also noted that the book’s ttled was taken from the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

The ultimate irony of what Steinbeck saw is that many of the migrants “literally were starving: because many of the growers were destroying unsold produce to avoid creating a glut on the market and, hence, a drop in price, she said.

She quoted from Steinbeck’s book, “In the eyes of the hungy, there is a growing wrath.”

In discussing the organization of the book, Lewis said the first chapter describes the setting and dust storms in Oklahoma, followed by a second chaper that introduces various characters and develops them.

“He continues the pattern, with an expository chapter and then a larger chapter on experiences of the characters,” she said.

Lewis reviewed a number of the trevails the family experiences after it decided to move to California.

Heading west on Route 66, “eventually, the highway becomes their home.”

Shortly into the trip West, they encounter an ominious sign — a man returning East, who claims there is no work and “the more workers, “ the less their employers will have to pay.

Upon reaching California, the family quickly discerns that being called “Okies” just “means your scume,” Lewis said.

As the family begins to drift in different directions, “what’s left of the family goes to a squatter — or Hooverville — camp, where conditions are grim” and the police eventually burn it down.

In a bit of rare luck, the family moves to a government-run camp, “where people are treated as human beings, with both physical and emotional dignity” left intact.

Lewis noted that in the book, Ma Joad was the  strongest character, while in the film Tom Joad was the hero — perhaps, she suggested, because the filmmakers wanted to appease Henry Fonda.

Still, the professor said, “Steinbeck suggests that it’s the women in the novel who have the strength to endure” — and prevail.

Next, the family find work picking peaches, but also have to move into a company camp, where the conditions — again — are tough.

In fact, Lewis said, the migrant workers soon learned that their day jobs paid only enough to cover each night’s supper. Moreover, they learn that they were brought in as strikebreakers.

John Steinbeck

Steinbeck makes one of his characters, Jim Casy, into “a kind of Christ figure, the professor noted. Before he is murdered by a mob, he says, ‘You fellows don’t know what you’re doing.’”
Joad retaliates by killing Casy’s murderers, declaring that he plans to spend the rest of his life fighting “for the rights of the people.”

After the peachs are picked, the family then gets a job picking cotton and makes its new home in half of a boxcar. However, winter rains leave them with no jobs and no money — and their boxcar is flooded, forcing them to flee to higher ground.

In the final scene of the novel, which Lewis termed powerful and dramatic, the children’s mother feeds a starving man her breast milk.

With its release in 1939, “The Grapes of Wrath” became the best-selling book that year and went on to capture the top literary awards. “In 70 years since, it’s never been out of print or sold less than 50,000 copies” annually, she said.

She noted that The New Republic magazine said “Grapes” belonged “very high” in the category of “angry books.”

What’s more, Lewis said, “Some people ... were quick to label him (Steinbeck) a communist.”
In his defense, she said, “The truth is, John Steinbeck was never a Marxist nor did he have ties with the Communist Party.”

Despite contentions in some circles that Steinbeck exaggerated conditions in the camps, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, an admirere of the book, visited many of the camps and confirmed that Steinbeck was accurate.

Moreover, following a government probe, it was found that the workers’ rights were being violated by the companies, she said.

Lewis pointed to three factors for the migrants’ problems including:
• A drought and a duststorm.
• The growth of technology, “where machines eliminated jobs and overworked the land.”
• An economic system that valued its profits over that of its workers.

She added that the concluding episode in the book, involving the woman breast-feeding a starving man “provoked much criticism ... Many libararies banned the novel as obscene because of the last scene.”

Lewis also said that the book was controversial because of its language and the unconventional religious views of Casy.

In turning to the film version, she noted that it was made in seven weeks “and omitted some key scenes” from the book, “including the last scene.” Nonetheless,  Steinbeck proclaimed that he “loved the film,” stating that it had a “truthful ring.”

Lewis added, “Not surprisingly, the growers called for a boycott of the film — and all of the 20th Century films — and Steinbeck received death threats.

In 1989, during the 50th anniversary celebration of the novel’s publication, William Kennedy said that the issues still are relevant — for outcasts bereft in a hostile society, according to Lewis.
“Today, many would agree with Steinbeck that we still have a deep failure — the underbelly of our wealthy nation.” Lewis said the poor and the middle class remain victims of an economic system that “still touts individual achievement at the cost of communal concern.”

She praised Steinbeck’s book for its continuing “power to raise awareness of society’s underclass.”

During a question-and-answer period that followed her presentation, most of those who addressed Lewis had statements to make instead.

One woman noted that it struck her as ironic that the public library in Salinas, Calif., Steinbeck’s hometown, recently announced that it could not obtain funding to stay open. However, when word got out, “people around the world gave money” to keep the library open.

Another woman suggested that Lewis and the meeting’s attendees should bear in mind the threat the Californians must have felt when they were inundated with poor Okies.

Her comment prompted Lewis and other attendees to note that the situation is similar to that involving an influx of Hispanics to this area. Lewis emphasized that “I’m a strong believer in community.”

The Daily Planet then asked Lewis if she had any criticisms of Steinbeck or of his top work.
In response, she said her main criticism is that parts of “Grapes” are “over-sentimentalized.”

A man lavishly praised her presentation and declared, “You are wonderful.”

In response, Lewis asserted, “Truly, I feel it was a monumental American novel.” She noted that “anybody who saw those camps was blown away. In one of the most fertile (agricultural) spots in California, people were dying.”

Another man said, “In a market economy, it’s a failure of government oversight” for such situations to exist.” As with today’s economy, he said of the migrants’ plight in “Grapes,” where was the oversight and where was the plan?”

Lewis answered, “There is a whole level of our society that most people turn their backs on.”
A woman said, “We have so much communication now — are there any writers now” of Steinbeck’s caliber? “It seems we’ve become callous.”

Lewis replied, “There really is nobody,” but another woman suggested a book titled “Empire Falls” by Richard Rousseau. Lewis agreed that that book might be today’s closest approximation to “Grapes.”