A Novel or a Treatise

     The Grapes of Wrath seems to extend beyond a treatise. It does explore the hardships of the 1930s, but I feel it examines and illustrates life. There is Jim Casy that is concerned with the human spirit, and how people affect each other as a whole. He says, “There are just things people do.” His philosophies reveal how everyone has good and bad things that they do, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the things people do are always seen as that by everyone. Ma is an example of what is to be humane. It is through her acts of kindness to others that displays how helping each other can provide people with strength, relief, and hope. Tom Joad shows us how good people can do horrible things.

      I feel this book is more of a novel, because it presents the reality of life. It presents the problems that people face, and the different ways that they deal with perplexing times. Every character does not have a certain way of looking at life, and it never assumes that any idea is superior over another. I believe The Grapes of Wrath presents the reader with more than one central idea or subject, and definitely more than one systematic way of dealing with life.  

A Novel or Treatise

Is The Grapes of Wrath a novel or treatise? A treatise is a formal writing that deals with or treats a specific subject. Steinbeck goes into detail about the way life was in the 30s. The land was dry and dusty, and the people were out of work. Booth, writes in his book, " The "implied author" chooses, consciously or unconsciously, what we read; we infer as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man; he is the sum of his own choices." The author chooses what he wants his reader to know or not know. It is true that The Grapes of Wrath could be treated as a treatise, I believe that it should still be called a novel. Steinbeck is writing in a way to help us see the hard life of the 30s.

"The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country." As Steinbech opens with telling us how the land is dry and crusted, we learn how the land is effected but also how it is effecting peoples lives.  "Three dollars a day, I got damn sick of creeping for my dinner--and not getting it. I got a wife and kids. We got to eat. Three dollars a day, and it comes every day." Through this telling of harshness of life the reader can feel sympathy for the characters, the Joads, and the reality of having to choose between staying and loosing everything or moving west to the "promise land".

Realism?

Realism is a controversy in itself; if an author creates a character, where do that character's traits come from? The author has to put something of him/herself into the character, using personal knowledge and feelings to create the persona. Is there a perfect way to write Realism?
Although Steinbeck comes across as a neutral third party telling a story, where does the dislike and mistrust of "the big man" or the police come from? He either infuses his own opinion, or feeds in the opinion of others (that he created in his mind) from that era. Hoovervilles were a fact then, but the character interaction with the fact has to be created,
I am most definitely not knocking Steinbeck (or any other author) in abilities to create a novel. I believe it's what makes an author appealing to the reader, and in the decision if I'll continue reading that author's works.

Realism

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?

Realism

What is realism? To some it's telling about the unpleasant side of life. To others, it may be that life really is not all that bad and needs to be viewed that way.
If literature is to be like life, how far should an author take that idea? Some would say that there should not be conclusive endings, or plots in life that do not exist. Life should be told as close as possible to real life. Literature should not have an narrator since there are not narrators in real life. The Grapes of Wrath is a realistic novel in which Steinbeck shares about life in the 1930s in Okalahoma.

"Three dollars a day. I got damn sick of creeping for my dinner--and not getting it. I got a wife and kids. We got to eat. Three dollars a day, and it comes everyday" (Steinbeck 37).

Steinbeck is letting the readers know how hard life was during the 30s. With the dust bowl and the great depression everybody was doing what they had to do to survive. The 30s were dificult times for everyone and many people did not have anything to look forward to. The way Booth puts it in his book, "Many in this century have required that a work reflect adequately the ambiguities of the human condition or even of the universe."

I do not believe that realism is strictly good, or strictly bad. Writers need to consider their purpose, the functions and effect. People can relate to realism and life. Whether the story is depicting life as pleasant or unpleasant the reader can sympathize with the character's view. The reader may have had a similar experience. Many of Steinbeck's readers may have lived through the 30s and can remember the difficulties during that time. It can serve as a picture of life during that time and be a bit of a history
lesson for all. It may even lead a reader to consider their own personal growth in honesty, integrity, their values about money and saving or even a good work ethic.

Realism

Many authors believe that a good novel is one that depicts the social reality of a given community or society. I can agree because when the novel portrays real life the readers are able to relate and identify with the characters of  a story. Fictional authors have grappled with conflicting attitudes toward realism. On one hand, there are naturalists who believe " no picture could be real unless it did justice to the unpleasant side of life." While others find life is not so bad after all and would like more positivity displayed. In real life there is not just a positive and negative side. Actuality is complex there are things in life that happen which are beautiful and other things that happen which are devastating, but real life just is and there are no rules that life will follow. I feel authors should portray both sides for the novel to truly be a good one that is realistic.
Authors will try and make their novels so realistic to readers that they will tell exactly how the characters feels through streams of consciousness and give the inside view through the characters head. This might add insight to what the author wants the reader to believe and feel but it hardly adds to the realism of the novel. Booth sarcastically says at no point does he forget that he is reading a novel. For an author to begin to write a novel worth reading the subject mater, structure, and technique plays a big role in making the the novel worth reading. That is the easy part anyone can study and observe this "unity" and attempt a novel. As Booth points out "like any art, this one cannot be learned from abstract rules."

Realism

     The outlook of how realism should be displayed in fiction differs greatly among authors. I believe that all of the perspectives give sufficient reasons for believing their methods are correct, but in anything there is always room for improvement.

     When dealing with the subject matter Booth explores the point of view that the subject matter should validate reality outside the book. There are those that believe that it should show the unattractive sides of life, and others that believe it is not realistic unless it includes the enjoyable events in reality. I believe one cannot exist without the other. It is the good and bad events that construct our lives. Everything in between is simply transitional points.

     When naturalists are writing about social reality there isn't strict rules about when or how a writer will intrude, but metaphysical truths seems to require more precise techniques and form. Booth says, "Many in this century have required that a work reflect adequately the ambiguities of the human condition or even the universe itself." I find myself wondering why there is more flexibility in one than the other.

     There are others that believe reality should be explored through the accurate reproductions of feelings formed by objects instead of providing one with how something can be viewed in life. I understand the logic to this notion, but I feel that it would be hard to create reality with just this alone.

     Then there is the dilemma of how to make a subject real. Some believe that it is doesn't make since to use chance in fictional literature, while others believe chance is what life is tailored around. I see the need for both. There are certain things in life that are influenced by what happens before that situation, but the outcome can also be left up to chance.

     This all ties into the technique that one chooses to express reality. Some believe it is only realistic to tell a story the way one would in real life. Isn't that the ultimate goal? That outlook is a reasonable one, but many believe reality is experiencing life, so that leaves us with the argument that a narrator should make himself invisible, so that the readers feel as if they are observing life in action.

     As I have stated before, all of these points of views have legitimate arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, so I believe there is no wrong or right answer. After going over the information that Booth provides one with, I believe a writer should use whatever methods and techniques that help him or her effectively display one's truth. Do you all believe that there are any of these points that make a book more enjoyable to read?