Grapes Of Wrath – Censorship Essay, Research Paper

The Grapes

of Wrath by John Steinbeck is considered a classic novel by many in the

literary field. The trials and tribulations of the Joad family and other

migrants is told throughout this novel. In order to gain a perspective into the

lives of "Oakies", Steinbeck uses themes and language of the

troubling times of the Great Depression. Some of these aspects are critiqued

because of their vulgarity and adult nature. In some places, The Grapes of

Wrath has been edited or banned. These challenges undermine Steinbeck’s

attempts to add reality to the novel and are unjustified. In 1939, The Grapes

of Wrath was published and came under fire for its content. Vulgarity and the

misrepresentation of a preacher were the main complaints that led to the ban

and burning of the novel from St. Louis, Missouri libraries in September 1939.

Vulgarity may be prevalent in the book, but it has its purpose. Steinbeck used

some vulgar terms to accurately represent the lingo and slang that was used by the

people of the 1930’s. Most of the terms that were considered vulgar may be a

bit distasteful, but is nothing that is not heard on the streets today. Extreme

profanity is not extraneous in the novel, in fact, it is tame compared to slang

terms used today. Casy, the former preacher that was traveling with the Joads,

is not be given the connotation as the most holy man. Casy did not consider

himself a minister at the time The Grapes of Wrath takes place. "But I

ain’t a preacher no more" is spoken many times by Casy in denial that he

is a man of the cloth. Indeed, Casy is brutally killed in the novel, but it

does not go into graphic, violent detail. Once again, Casy’s feelings against

the employers and government were common to the time and were used to state

that idea. Another point of controversy lies on The Grapes of Wrath’s closing

sequence. In this finale, an old man nurses from Rose of Sharon, a young women

whose baby was delivered stillborn. Some believe this is pornographic, sexually

oriented, and improper, especially for young children. In fact in some states,

the sequence is taken out. This sequence may be a vulgar, but it is an

essential element to the novel and is in no way pornographic. It shows the

desperation of the migrants to do anything to survive, no matter what the

implications may entail. Those who are missing this ending, such as those who

read editions in Texas, are missing this important element of The Grapes of

Wrath. These readers may never fully understand the lives of migrants in the

1930’s . The novel may have some adult content, but it was never meant to be

read by young children. The target audience, ages over 14, can look beyond the

visual picture and fully ascertain the section’s deeper meaning. Others may

critique Steinbeck’s use of socialistic and anti-government messages. During

the 1930’s, these ideas were very common. In fact, Upton Sinclair, a socialist

writer, was nearly elected governor of California. Living conditions, the

opposition between the Californians and the "Oakies", and the

inability to break out of the depression all added to beliefs of the times.

Steinbeck was not advocating socialism, he was just reflecting the times.

Without these individual beliefs of the "reds" and other people that

showed either socialistic or anti-establishment messages, the reader would get

a dry, unfulfilled perspective of the lives of people during the Great

Depression. Censorship does have its place in society. There are many things

that are too risquÉ, degrading, and should not be shown. Pornography, extreme

sexual content, and extreme gratuitous violence does not have its place in

literature or in society. The Grapes of Wrath does not have any of these above

aspects. Of those who choose to ban this book and other works of literature with

questionable themes, many of them are wrapped up in political correctness. In

literature, life should be shown like they it is, not as someone would like it

to be. As much as political correctness advocates would like to change things

for the better, they cannot change the past no matter how hard they try. ?