Hooptedoodle

I believe that when Steinbeck used the word, hooptedoodle, he was talking about the intercalary chapters in The Grapes of Wrath. These chapters are important and help to bring depth to the characters, but they are not necessarily important to understanding the story. In the intercalary chapters we get a more in-depth look of the way life was in the 30s, in a more colorful language of the land.

“The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country.”

Then in the narrative chapters we see how the heat is affecting the lives of the Joads. They end up having to leave Oklahoma and move to California to find work.  The intercalary chapters help the reader see the bigger picture of the times and then Steinbeck zooms in on the Joads and shows how the 1930s affected them.

The intercalary chapters also show dramatization as in chapter five.   One of the farmers says, “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 dialogue the reader gets the bigger picture of how the times were tough for everyone, not just the Joads, and how some were not sticking together.

Booth writes, “We should remind ourselves that many dramatized narrators are never explicitly labeled as narrators at all. In a sense, every speech, every gesture, narrates; most works contain disguised narrators who are used to tell the audience what it needs to know, while seeming merely to act out their roles.”

It is through these hooptedoodles that Steinbeck helps the reader feel more in touch with the Joad family and all they are facing with the land and their jobs. 

Symbolism - Did Steinbeck really mean it or am I reaching?

I have, on many occasions, beat the dead horse of the men-folk "...squatted on their hams and found sticks with which to mark the dust" in chapter 5. Recently, I finally got the light-bulb from what's been itching at the back of my brain-shell every time I talked or thought about the hams and dust-drawing.

Please allow me to refer to John 8: 2-11. Everyone knows "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone” (8:7), but what of Jesus' actions before he made this statement? As the accusers brought the woman to him and accused her of adultery, he "...bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger" (8:6). After speaking, he again "...stooped down and wrote on the ground" (8:8). There are many anecdotes and theories about what Jesus wrote in the sand, but Jeremiah (17:13) gives the explanation. Despite this, the questions around what Jesus was doing still abounds.

A little Hebrew (Moses') law; when an accused person(s) was brought before a priest, the priest would write the broken law and the names of the accused in some way that was not permanent. The dust on the floor was the usual custom. In John, the Pharisees accused the woman without witnesses (at least two were required by Moses' Law), and stood around chuntering about following the same laws they weren't following. With Jesus' "first stone" statement, he threw the actions of law back on the Pharisees which, in essence, chased them off one at a time.

Now, a few correlations. In chapter 5, The "machines" and "monsters" of banks (the law) was being explained by the owners, or the owners' men. These are the pharisees explaining what the unfeeling banks (Moses' Law?) are expecting to be done. The land is dying and needs to be fixed (are the land and farmers the accused?), and the banks have the only answer.

The men of the fields are on their hams drawing in the dust while the owners (or owners' men) are yacking about the cotton leaching the land (the accusation that the farmers killed the land because they had to resort to cotton to live in the dust?). What are the men drawing in the dust? Are they doodling or are they drawing names and laws in the dust?

The women-folk, sitting in the background seeing how it all pans out, like the locals would do if Jesus were confronted by the pharisees in this public way?

Steinbeck wrote in chapter 5, "The owner men went on leading to their point: You know the land’s getting poorer. You know what cotton does to the land; robs it, sucks all the blood out of it." Steinbeck then writes "The squatters nodded—they knew, God knew." So Jesus/the farmers squatted and drew in the sand/dust, while the owners/pharisees babble on about things they knew little about. And lastly, the squatters - "they knew, God knew" puts the farmers in the same context as Jesus.

The symbolism could be intended, or perhaps the men in Grapes squatted and drew to avoid face-to-face altercations with the owners. With the other religious metaphors and outright insanity, is this another example, or am I grasping for straws?

Authority

 Well guys and gals I am finally well enough/have a chance between make-up assignments, to work on my blog post. With this open prompt I want to take a look at how Steinbeck shows authority and its abusive nature through out this novel by the police.

I want to take a look at how the cops are represented. The police in this book are portrayed as cruel and unjust. I think back to the beginning of the book when Tom first was released from prison. The moment he was let out of the institution, he was on his own to get back to where ever he lived. He was on his own instead of some sort of assistance in how to get home. Then there is the incident in chapter eighteen, when the officer rudely enters the Joad’s tent and tells Ma they will have to leave. I do not know if this is just my Southern up-bringing, but where I come from, you treat everyone, especially mothers, with the up most respect. I was completely baffled by how rude and obnoxious he was to Ma while she was nursing her sick and dying mother. Then it happened again as they were trying to cross into the valley after being forced from their tent. I understand doing your job, but when the officers were made aware of Grandma’s condition and did not act, her death is now on their hands. The officers could have helped get Grandma to a hospital and potentially, could have saved her life. What happened to the "protect" in "protect and serve"? The final incident in chapter twenty-one sent me over the edge in rage. The officer shot an innocent by-stander and then arrested an innocent man with no real charge against him!  Is this how corrupt the government used to be?

A Man of Many Faces

Ma Joad is a character that imitates strength, and is definitely one that the characters cannot survive without, but Tom Joad left the strongest impression on me. Grapes of Wrath made it clear that community is needed for successful progress, but Tom seems to take that concept a bit further. There is nothing flat about his character.

In the beginning of the story, Tom says: "But, hell, if I seen Herb Turnbull comin' for me with a knife right now, I'd squash him down with a shovel again." Prison changed him in many ways, but he still came out with the tremendous ego that went in with him. His life was worth keeping even if it meant that he had to take someone else's life, and he did so without any regrets. He was not much different from the men that drove the tractors; each man saw his life as too valuable to spare for another man's life.

As the story progresses, Tom's character transforms into someone more complex. Even though he continues to have a short fuse, he concerns himself with a matter in the Hooverville that doesn't directly involve him. In prison he would have minded his own business in a situation similar to this one, but the more he experiences other people's struggles, the harder he finds it to ignore their pain.

Casey is involved in the final situation that makes Tom aware that he belongs to something much more significant than himself. Survival was no longer the most important thing in life. He is able to see that the sacrifice of his life will possibly mean the survival, equality, and success of many lives. Tom Joad's life is the symbol of how life becomes richer when the "I" converts to "we."

One Day at a Time

Throughout the novel the Joad family has been moving along on their quest for a better life, not once have they stopped moving until now. They have hit many obstacles along the way; pessimistic people who are coming from California with stories of hopelessness, members of the family running off either by choice or because it was what needed to be done,and finally, reaching California after weeks of traveling only to find that everyone is hungry and that there is little work and scarce amounts of food.

They have made the choice to stop in what's called a government camp. The only sign of hope in the entire state.There are toilets, washtubs, and nice welcoming people just like them. The Joads have chosen to stay because they are running out of money quickly and they can work around the camp to pay for the basic costs of living by contributing to the community. The best part about the government camp is that it is run by the people and police officers are not allowed in the camp without a warrant.

The Joads are taking life one day at a time and have yet to lose their faith. Things are looking up for the family and they are beginning to feel like human beings again. Showers are a part of their everyday lives and they have a stable place to rest their heads at night. Throughout their journey they have lost many things including people but they have gained a new found sense of what is truly important "fambly" and sticking together.

Silent Religious Mockery?

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.

Ma Takes Charge

“One month we been here.  An’ Tom had five days’ work. An’ the rest of you scrabblin’ out ever’ day, an’ no work. An’ scairt to talk. An’ the money gone. You’re scairt to talk it out. Ever’ night you jus’ eat , an’ then you get wanderin’ away. Can’t bear to talk it out. Well you got to.”

Once again, Ma shows she is the leader of the home. While it is the men who go out and try to find jobs to put food on the table, it’s Ma who takes charge after seeing the situation and knowing something needs to change.  The family has hot water and toilets, but the family is starving, and Ma is not going to let the family starve. The men are satisfied with the status quo, not willing to leave what they know and where they are comfortable. In a time when it was not a woman’s right to take a man’s job, Ma is not afraid of stepping on a few toes and saying what needs to be done. Pa even sarcastically tells ma that she is doing a man’s job. It may be easier to sit back and allow someone else to lead and make the tough decisions, but so far no one else has been doing that job and Ma has had enough. Even earlier, when the men threaten to split the family up, it is Ma who steps in and says “no” that they need to stick together because that is the only way they will make it.

Maybe the reason we have seen other families give up on California and go back to their homeland is because they do not have a Ma Joad in their family. They do not have someone who sees the value of family or will see the situation as it really is and say what needs to be said. Ma Joad is not afraid of the unknown and will make changes when needed.