While John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Pearl Buck's The Good Earth vary greatly in their underlying topics, their thematic content and l The overall intent are surprisingly similar. Both award-winning literary works, together they provide a unique view of the United States in the 1930s, when the glitz and glamor of the Roaring Twenties had faded into the decade(s) of economic recession and national suffering termed the Great Depression. The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939, as the horrific reality of the situation began to hit many Americans, does so head-on, giving the reader a first-hand look into the lives of the Joads, a family of Dust Bowl migrants from Oklahoma . . Chapters detailing the family's not inconsiderable trials and tribulations alternate with more symbolic chapters, "offering thematic counterpoints... to the story of the Joads" (Henry). The Good Earth, on the other hand, follows the life of Wang Lung, a poor farmer in early 1900s China, as he raises a family and becomes a wealthy landowner. It too was written during the Depression, by an American author and humanitarian who sought to provide the comfort “of a rags to riches tale” in unsettled and uncertain times (Thompson). Its focus on the importance of land and family, as well as the immense struggles to overcome, makes its relevance to the Depression clear and suggests a kind of allegorical purpose for the tale. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Neither Steinbeck nor Buck wrote their books simply to entertain: they used the personal relationships between their characters and the actions taken because of these relationships to illustrate broader concepts of social responsibility and awareness. During the Depression, a time of “poverty and uncertainty,” they provided social commentary and insight into the physical and emotional realities experienced by many, particularly the farmers and tenant farmers who lost their homes and jobs when the Midwest was hit by the Dust Bowl (Thompson). Using individual families as the focal points of their stories, Steinbeck and Buck provide complementary explorations of the prevailing attitudes of the era, attitudes capable of shaping lives almost as much as circumstances. The Grapes of Wrath addresses the Depression's idea of ​​personal responsibility as an important aspect of community membership, as well as a sign of evolution in the “basic unit of social structure in the United States” (Henry). Surrounded by contractors and police officers eager to prey on vulnerable migrant workers, the Joads recognize the power provided by a community of like-minded individuals, as well as the strength that can be drawn from that community. Although The Grapes of Wrath places emphasis on the value of community to the individual, it shows the community as an entity made up of people who contribute to it in return. This idea of ​​paying in advance is considered morally correct by Steinbeck and exemplified by Muley Graves, when he finds himself having to share his meager hare dinner with Casy and Tom Joad: "I have no choice in the matter... It's not like if seriously... what I mean, if one guy has something to eat and another one is hungry... well, the first one has no choice I mean, let's say he takes my rabbits and goes somewhere to eat them . See?" (Steinbeck 49). Muley understands and demonstrates this duty to his fellow man. Help Casy and Tom survive, just as thousands of Americans, migrant workers and otherwise, relied on acts of goodwill to get ahead. Tom later explains the reasoning to thebasis of this, quoting Casy as describing how the former preacher "discovered that he had no soul that was his own", but instead discovered that he "had only a little piece of a great big soul", a piece that "didn't fit if not with the rest” (418). This theory is certainly non-traditional, but the concept of the person as a fragment of a larger whole was certainly attractive in those times, when self-interest was the easy and prevalent choice to make. In The Good Earth, similar ideas of responsibility and duty to others are present, but with an emphasis on responsibility. Whenever problems arise for Wang Lung, Buck traces them directly to acts of “moral flaccidity” on his part, just as “the poverty and suffering of the 1930s” might be attributed to “a result of the extravagance of the 1930s.” 20” (Stuckey). While the Great Depression was certainly not caused by any moral failing on the part of the American people, this did not change such people's belief that it was their fault and should be endured as such. Wang Lung's experiences echo this idea. As Wang Lung becomes richer and richer, he becomes bored and eventually brings into his home a concubine called Lotus Blossom, "painted and fresh as a lily" compared to his wife O-lan, who is "stained with earth and dark with weariness” (Buck 196, 198). The stark contrast in the description of the two women makes it clear which is more visually attractive, but Buck rejects the idea of ​​placing value on physical appearance, instead placing more value on O-lan for his acceptance of hard work and toil, “the rocky path along which Americans had traditionally traveled” and which had served them well over the years (Stuckey). Wang Lung's rejection of O-Lan, and by extension these principles deemed essential by Buck, causes him suffering. In this case, that suffering is caused by the death of O-Lan, who, despite his previous indifference, realizes that he cares for her, if only because she “gave him children” (258). The "hard and dry" grief he feels over his loss is tinged with guilt and remorse, perhaps suggesting a sense of guilt present in the minds of Americans during the Depression, as if their economic struggles were no one's fault but They. , however, the characters in The Good Earth and The Grapes of Wrath are not powerful enough to actually be responsible for their misfortune. This blame is instead attributed to those in power. In the case of The Good Earth, this concept remains somewhat abstract, as different individuals serve as allegories for various aspects of the Depression experience. Buck focuses on the big picture, suggesting the guilt of the Depression on a large scale. Throughout his life, Wang Lung had great admiration for the rich and powerful. When he goes to the "great doors" to pick up O-lan on their wedding day, his encounter with the Old Mistress brings him "to his knees... banging his head on the tiled floor" (15). Given this dramatic response, it is no wonder that Wang Lung jumps at the opportunity to purchase land from the House of Hwang when given the opportunity. He feels "more than equal to these people in the foolish, big, wasteful house" and dedicates his life to this feeling (52). This idolatry and imitation of the rich also occurred in the United States during the 1920s, when the rich invested heavily and the less well-off followed their example to excess. When the stock market crashed in 1929, everyone was affected, but especially the poor. For this reason, Buck seems to imply some sort of responsibility on the part of the rich to set a positive example, and he makes this point at the very end of the book, when Wang Lungessentially becomes another iteration of the Old Lord. He does not condemn his narrator's success, but highlights the harmful impacts of his estrangement from the sources of his good fortune and the precedent set by the Old Lord. Steinbeck also draws a similar connection, emphasizing the change in agriculture that occurred when "it came to pass that landowners no longer worked on their farms," ​​but instead "became ... storekeepers," many of whom "had never seen the farms they owned” (Steinbeck 232-233). He blames this change for the plight of many tenant farmers, and understandably so, yet fails to recognize the large-scale economic developments that have necessitated the industrialization of agriculture. Overall, Steinbeck's scope within The Grapes of Wrath is limited. While not all chapters concern the Joads, the book continues to focus on migrant workers, a relatively small subgroup among the thousands affected by the Depression. His approach towards the authority figures of the time is very direct, without any attempt at symbolism. Instead, Steinbeck openly identifies those he holds responsible for both the Joads' problems and the migrant workers' problems collectively, preparing the Joads to deal with them. From the initial eviction by the bank to the mistreatment by the police, the family moves forward; but Ma's abrupt welcome to California stands out as an example of the prejudice Steinbeck wanted to call attention to. Her conversation with a bigoted police officer, in which he informs her that "we don't want you damn Okies settling [here]," serves to highlight the startling hypocrisy of discrimination against migrants in a country made up of immigrants (214 ). It is no wonder, then, that Tom is enamored of the government-run Weedpatch camp, where “the people…elect their own cops” and have a say in how things are run (286). This simple desire for a sense of democracy, from people who “have not been treated with dignity for a long time”, highlights the gross inadequacy of available aid and calls into question how individuals and groups are valued differently because of their circumstances (288). . The backdrop of the Great Depression makes this inequity pronounced, as destitution became a reality for many. The name “The Great Depression” is for many synonymous with poverty and suffering. It brings to mind images of destitution such as Dorothea Lange's omnipresent migrant mother. Neither The Good Earth nor The Grapes of Wrath attempt to counter this notion; in fact, The Grapes of Wrath delves into this as Steinbeck delves into the appalling conditions and treatment the Joads endure. Although the first camp the Joads stay at is a shock to them, with its half-dollar fee and "grumpy" owner, it is only when they stay in Hooverville that the Joads truly face destitution, both physically and psychologically ( 187). In Hooverville there is "no order" and an air of "sloppy desperation" (241). The grim atmosphere is further heightened when the contents of the scattered camp are listed, from the "dirty tents [and] junk gear" to the "lumpy mattresses out in the sun... [and] the blackened cans over the fire-blackened holes " (244). This grim description of the camp serves as a concrete manifestation of the internal turmoil the Joads face as they become aware of the reality of migrant life in California. Instead of being the imagined “land of milk and honey,” the state is full of “cops trying to scare [migrants] back” (251). The Joads' disappointment is palpable as they experience this loss oftheir greatest hope. However, Steinbeck seems to place value on their never-ending commitment, imbuing their suffering with a sense of nobility. However, during the Depression, it is unlikely that those in the Joads' position were concerned with a higher purpose for their suffering. Steinbeck's discussion of community support in times of trouble is much more realistic, as well as much more hopeful. The Wilsons, a couple the Joads meet early in their journey, demonstrate the kind of altruistic, neighborly behavior that Steinbeck so highly values. When the grandfather is dying, they offer their tent so that he can be more comfortable, insisting that "there is no one who is obligated in the moment of death" (139). In exchange, the Joads promise to "see [the Wilsons] come through," because they "can't let the help go unwanted" (149). The two families have a sense of mutual obligation of the best kind possible. They are bound together by their mutual kindness, a kindness that provides the elusive sense of security they crave throughout the book. In The Good Earth, Wang Lung and his family also experience extreme poverty as “the rains…hold back” and the harvest fails (Buck 67). Unlike Steinbeck's characters, who seek refuge in the community, Wang Lung isolates himself and his family to avoid “hostility in the village” and his less than honest uncle (73). His desire to have his own way remains strong even when they travel south of the city, as he rejects the idea of ​​begging. Despite the fact that he “had three pence left,” Wang Lung remains steadfast in his “dislike [of] the idea of ​​begging from strange people” (94-95). While O-lan and the children end up begging, Wang Lung eschews this humiliating activity in favor of pulling a rickshaw, “work for a man's hands” (95). While this could be interpreted as the imposition of traditional gender roles, it seems more likely that it is instead an evaluation of Wang Lung's decision to pursue honest manual labor. Buck praises Wang Lung for making this choice and suggests “that individualism leads to… safety and security” (Stuckey). The stereotypically American devotion to hard work exemplified here is certainly present during the Depression, but perhaps did not need to be emphasized. Thousands of men (and women) were looking for jobs that simply didn't exist. The root of the problem lies not in personal ethics but in large-scale economic issues. Buck's principles placed responsibility to self and family above all else, a rational idea held by many struggling Americans in that period, but of limited practical importance. During difficult times, many turn to religion as a source of comfort and support. Given the uncertainty of the 1930s, it is surprising that Buck, the daughter of missionaries and a missionary herself, did not attempt to use The Good Earth as a vehicle with which to promote Christianity. Instead, he uses the “vivid world of Chinese customs,” with its various belief systems and corresponding practices, to create universal characters and “demonstrate similarities in order to promote understanding” (Thompson). Wang Lung's religious practices, conducted more out of superstition rather than deeply held belief, start a conversation about the value of tradition. Buck is not overly concerned with the details of his religious expression, but instead uses them “to show that [there is] no human gap [of understanding], but only a fictitious cultural gap” (Thompson). To achieve this, it avoids any specific spiritual focus and includes only one reference to the Confucian edicts regarding filial piety, whenWang Lung violates them by “correcting an elder” (63). Buck also allows Wang Lung to show reverence toward the “two small, solemn figures” of the “god…and his lady,” dressed in “robes of red and gold paper” (20). These two examples of religious practice actually highlight the universality that Buck was attempting to achieve, as the central theme of respect becomes evident. Although Steinbeck places great importance on respect, he does not attempt to achieve understanding on an international level, but rather a personal one. It does so by addressing the concept of faith as decided by the individual, rather than by society. That said, The Grapes of Wrath's strong Christian influences seem ironic at first. However, despite the abundant biblical allusions, Steinbeck uses them best to address the concept of doubt, exemplified in the character of Jim Casy. Casy is Steinbeck's final paradox: a skeptical preacher. Casy no longer "knows what to pray for or who to pray for" and spends the novel puzzling through his questions of faith, dispensing remarkable wisdom and insight throughout, often unintentionally (Steinbeck 137). Furthermore, Henry suggests that Casy's character is meant to "evoke the teachings of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice". Like Christ, Casy gives his life for many, and although he has no physical resurrection, his death causes the awakening of Tom Joad's social conscience. Tom intends to do "what Casy did," a statement that implies his continued presence among migrant workers, at least on a spiritual level (419). The role that Casy, and later Tom, seem to fill is that of a savior. Steinbeck draws attention to this aspect both to recognize the need for change and to provide reassurance to those who are victims of the conflicts described in his book. He and Buck recognize that faith is difficult to maintain in times of trouble and emphasize the importance of tolerance and respect at a time when the weak were alienated to bolster the self-confidence of those in power. Migrant workers' desire for a liberator is not surprising, considering the inhumane treatment they face at the hands of those employed to serve the public. Despite their desire for liberation, the characters in The Grapes of Wrath willingly bind themselves to the land. They feel tied to the earth “covered with dust”; after all, “they measured it and chopped it up.” [They] were born on it, and… were killed on it” (4, 33). Land is an inextricable part of the farmers Steinbeck describes, and the Joads are no different. While most of the family understands that they legally have to leave, the grandfather vehemently states: “This is my country. I belong here. And I don't give a damn if it's oranges and grapes that crowd a guy even out of bed. I won't go there. This country is not good, but it is my country. No, everyone move on. I'll just stay here where I belong" (111). The Joads don't let him stay behind, of course, but not soon after their departure he becomes "sicker than hell" and succumbs to a stroke. (135). Although such an event does not was unlikely considering his age and generally poor health, Casy believes that "the grandfather did not die [that night]", but actually "the moment [he was taken] away from that place" (146 In in a sense, dying was his way of “being with the land” that he loved so much (146). In an extreme way, Grandfather symbolizes the Joads' unpreparedness. They are not equipped to handle the changes that occur in society and in agriculture, as the economy began to industrialize and move away from manual labor. Wang Lung is also attached to the land, although he does not face the same economic barriers as the Joads.when he and his family leave during the famine, he remains extraordinarily busy "getting back to the land" (Buck 112). “The thought of [the land] lying there… fills him with longing,” so much longing that he considers selling his eldest daughter for the money needed to return there (116). While Wang Lung ultimately manages to walk away back to his farm, how far he was willing to go to do so is astonishing, and foreshadows the ultimate futility of his single-minded dedication to his land. At the end of The Good Earth, you know the character of Wang Lung's children well enough to know that they will ignore his wishes and sell the land to which their father also dedicated his life, despite promising him on his deathbed that " the land must not be sold” (Buck 357). The purpose of acknowledging this is not to condemn their intent, but to point out the apparent ruination of Wang Lung's life's work. For Wang Lung, “the earth [was his] flesh and blood,” making its loss (had he been alive) a mortal wound from which he would never recover (Buck 52). He measured his success by owning and developing land, and his children took away that standard altogether, rendering his daily struggle futile. One could argue that this is simply an example of the filial betrayal stereotype: a dramatic change of heart after the death of a parent. death, but even during Wang Lung's lifetime, his children did not pretend to love the land to which their father attached so much importance. Instead, this serves to emphasize the concept of futility pervasive in Depression. Work for its own sake, “dogged thrift and industry” with its corresponding deserved reward, was no longer a realistic expectation (Thompson). The Depression became the era of zero profit, where making do equaled success. Dave Smith's poem “Ear Ache” also speaks to this attitude: The Great Depression sat on my grandfather like Dante's Ugolino eating the malignity that betrayed him to an insatiable hunger. Left a lifelong blaster to fate, he knew that nothing he did or said would last. Like Wang Lung, Smith's grandfather is destined to see his life essentially pointless, a seemingly harsh assessment made even worse by his own knowledge of this event. Wang Lung is fortunate to be unaware of his sons' plans, as are the Joads, who remain unaware of how desperate their situation truly is. Despite their relentless determination and desire to survive and succeed, "their indomitable will" proves insufficient (Henry). Chapter three's description of an indefatigable turtle crossing “a concrete wall” and a “concrete plain” simply to continue trudging through the dust provides an easily understandable analogy for the Joads' travels (Steinbeck 15). Just like the turtle, they overcome one obstacle only to face another, without any true sense of the scope of their journey. If they had been able to understand what their trip to California and life there would entail, perhaps they would have been like Muley Graves, reluctant to leave because of a supernatural understanding that the situation in California was such that it left them no better than before. . Steinbeck deprives the Joads of this insight for narrative purposes: he needs them to travel to California, where "spring is beautiful" and "the fruit grows heavy" so he can wrest that image for both the Joads and his readers (Steinbeck 346 ). He denounces the dehumanization caused by conditions in government labor camps and indifferent guards and police officers, but in the process removes "some of [the Joads'] human charm" by employing them to 2014.