FREE ESSAY ON CENSORSHIP IN GRAPES OF WRATH

CENSORSHIP IN GRAPES OF WRATH

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 risque,
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.