We are all aware of Steinbeck's use of crazy folks to represent the religious aspect of the book. Some characters had to be chased away with sticks, others verbally told to go away, and some stood in the background glaring at the goings-on of the evil people. Perhaps there's a silent and unseen slam on the practice of Christianity in his era. Just a weird thought, but allow me to spew forth my verbarhea.
Jim Casey is a fallen angel persona, questioning his faith and the why's of the human race. A man of the cloth questioning his belief puts religion into obvious question. He wonders about the humanity of the race and how anything can be considered religious if people are going to do what they want to do without consideration of salvation until after the fact. He wanders the desolate dust-desert to figure out not how religion works, but if he can work within its confines anymore.
The Joads meet up with a few more fanatics of religion; some have religious flatulance in tents for the soon-to-be-dead, some have religious rants that attack young pregnant ladies with threats of stillborn babies. These outward projections of the insanity of religion are in plain sight. I have another instance I would like to broach and see if I'm putting too much into my thinking.
The first-born of the Joad family was named after a biblical character. The character was chosen by God to preserve the human race and all the animals from a world-wide flood. He built an ark and survived forty days and nights on water. Noah Joad was born with issues - Pa Joad had to deliver while waiting for a mid-wife, and his attempts caused some deformation to the young baby. Because of the guilt, Pa was warmer with Noah than his other children. We do know Noah ate so much pig he got sick, then ate some more before he kind of disappears until his exodus at the Colorado River.
Allow me to put together a warped theory of Steinbeck's intent? Noah is named after a religious figure, yet is not in most of the book. Is this omission an accident or intentional? The only character with a biblical name is not used throughout the book? Again, mistake or intended?
The biblical Noah stood his ground against many odds to build his ark, and survived the massive flood. The Steinbeck Noah gets to the clear cool water of the Colorado, and can't leave it. Is it his divine destiny as it was biblical Noah's to the waters? The water of the biblical Noah separated him from humanity, and Steinbeck's Noah chose water over family to separate himself. Not a great connections or anything, but what if?
Biblical Noah stayed with his family and persevered by strength of his faith, Steinbeck's Noah beat feet. Is Steinbeck trying to say something by counteracting the faith of biblical Noah through the abandonment of his Noah? Is he offering that the biblical story isn't real or that human nature would not last through the flood?
Perhaps he was just forgotten (oops), and that's that.
Perhaps he was just forgotten (oops), and that's that.
Interesting observations, Jim. At first it seems like Steinbeck has too many characters to keep up with, realizes he has not mentioned Noah in a while, so he writes him off. Steinbeck, however does not have anything good to say about religious people, so Maybe there is something behind Noah's story? You can not count on Noah, he says one thing and does the complete opposite.
ReplyDeleteIt could be that he was just an inconvenience for Steinbeck. But I'm not too sure I believe that theory. Noah was very intrigued by the water and he repeatedly told Tom that he could never leave her. Perhaps we are overlooking what the water symbolizes?
ReplyDeletePerhaps he was, but you raise an interesting set of questions here. I think looking at Steinbeck's broader reliance on religious themes, narratives, and rhetoric helps us make *some* sense of Noah, but you're right to point out the loaded nature of his name. Odd that it doesn't seem to pay off symbolically or structurally--and I think it's insightful to connect the realities of the religious characters to the other 'uses' to which Steinbeck puts religious figures and language in the text. (For example, in the closing chapters, when he explicitly quotes from Ecclesiastes to get at the moral center of the novel.) There's preachin', and then there's preachin. What distinguishes one from the other? It's too easy to say "honesty"--of course that's the difference. But what kind? Where does it come from, and what value systems does it attach itself to?
ReplyDeleteGood questions here.
I never thought about it that way. I have questioned whether Steinbeck is simply questioning conventional religious beliefs. Maybe the issue is not with God, but those that separate themselves from a secular life because of religion.
ReplyDeleteIt all makes so much sense now! Thinking about it like that, the entire thought process of degrading religion makes the perfect way to get rid of Noah. What about the lady that wishes to pray over Grandma as she is dying? Do you think that is a way for Steinbeck to show that religion is to pushy?
ReplyDelete