Booth states in chapter 2 that one of the first general rules of writing a novel is that it must be realistic. Personally, I'm not sure that I agree with that. Most readers do not read a story looking for something that is a mirror image of their life . They read to escape that world to enter one that lets them escape reality. There needs to be a nice balance between what is real and what is fictional. The reader wants realistic characters with heroic qualities and tragic flaws but events that are require large amounts of courage and self-sacrifice that any normal person would run away from. The readers want a hero that they can gawk after and wish they were. Then when the book is over, the awe factor wares off and they move on to another hero they wish they were. I'm not sure if this is right, but I wonder if that is one of the reasons that The Grapes of Wrath was so controversy during the 1930's? The people of the time wanted a hero and the main character turned out to be a murder who was given a second chance and jumps his parole. He completely destroys any credibility or reliability that he may have had within the first eight chapters.
Another view Booth has is that an author's voice should not be heard in the novel. Sometimes the author's voice is very helpful and cuts out unnecessary scenes but the reader still receives the necessary information. In The Grapes of Wrath the author uses his own voice to describe members of the Joad family because if the descriptions were to come from a murderer, then the views could be seen as corrupt because the main character is untrustworthy.
My question is, can we trust Tom Joad? And is The Grapes of Wrath at controversy because Tom Joad does not fit the hero image that readers expect?
"Booth states in chapter 2 that one of the first general rules of writing a novel is that it must be realistic. Personally, I'm not sure that I agree with that."
ReplyDeleteIt's very important that you understand that when Booth is quoting these "general rules," he is NOT placing them there (in the chapter titles, for example) as thesis statements. Chapter 2, "Novels Must Be Realistic" is a careful criticism of that idea, not a defense. So, Booth does NOT have the view that the "author's voice should not be heard." Be careful not to confuse Booth's views with the views he's arguing with.
Also, be careful with "most readers" claims. That's a quasi-empirical claim that you can't really make. Escapism might be a reason readers turn to particular genres, but I can't imagine too many would read The Grapes of Wrath to escape reality... Be careful with generalizations about what "the reader" wants. (This is actually part of Booth's argument in a later chapter.)
As we'll continue to talk about, Grapes was controversial for many reasons. Its language and its roughness were starting points, as was its critique of capitalist exploitation. The 30s were the great age of the gangster--Joad's status as a murderer certainly makes us question his morality at this point in the book, but is that the same as "credibility or reliablity"? And is it really completely destroyed after eight chapters already? A good place to begin to answer this question? Look at contemporary reactions to the novel--see what readers thought of Joad and the other characters.