Book Review: Obscene in the Extreme

Rick Wartzman on the burning and banning of John Steinbeck’s <i>The Grapes of Wrath</i>.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When The Grapes of Wrath hit the shelves in 1939, it wasn’t exactly the feel-good book of the year. John Steinbeck’s tale of Depression-era misery was so bleak that critics responded with sanitized novels like Plums of Plenty and Of Human Kindness, in which Dust Bowl refugees get to live the American Dream. Grapes of Gladness, written by an aspiring real estate tycoon, tells of a family of Okies who find their fortune in California, the “Land of Sunshine, Fruit, Flowers, and Marvelous Industrial Development.” These cheery volumes are among the many details unearthed in Rick Wartzman’s engaging look at the long-forgotten campaign to quash a modern classic.

Grapes caused a scandal in California, where the wealthy farmers who’d gotten rich off migrant farmworkers like Steinbeck’s fictional Joads rushed to ban it as indecent and inflammatory. Characters such as an eccentric anti-Grapes crusader who dressed in green and a blind country lawyer who defended the novel on First Amendment grounds sweep in and out of Wartzman’s lively account. And in a stranger-than-fiction twist, the most vocal censors are revealed to be part of the kkk‘s short-lived Golden State branch.

Amid the controversy, Steinbeck emerges as a tireless researcher who based many of the details in Grapes on fact. The iconic scene in which one of the Joad girls breastfeeds a starving man was told to Steinbeck by a real-life hobo who responded to an ad offering $2 for interesting life stories. Critics were quick to dismiss graphic scenes like this—which used words like “tit” and “shitheel”—as dehumanizing to migrants. Not all readers agreed. “We kneed friends like you,” one Okie wrote Steinbeck, praising the gritty realism that came to ensure the book’s long shelf life.


If you buy a book using the Bookshop link on this page, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate