Analysis of Steinbeck's' Grapes of Wrath and Moon Is Down
Whilst John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” has always been judged as a valuable work of literature, “The Moon is Down”, although accepted as a piece of WW2 propaganda, has been criticised as “well intention but poorly conceived”.[1]
To what extent do you agree with the judgement of these two texts?
According to Montgomery et al’s “Ways of Reading”, F.R. Leavis stated that to achieve the position of a literary “classic”, a novel should have; “Characteristics such as complexity, aesthetic unity, literary language, subject-matter and canonical status”[2]
John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” shows all of these qualities to show that it is intrinsically valuable. However, Steinbeck’s “The Moon is Down”, although recognised as a piece of World War Two propaganda, has been criticised as not obtaining similar storytelling techniques. “The Moon is Down” uses accurate World War Two references to convey the reality of the story and the true cost that it has on both the conquered and the conquerors. I will argue that both novels are of value, whilst “The Grapes of Wrath” has greater status, “The Moon is Down” is equally deserved of this critical acclaim and value.
The “classic” pieces of literature throughout time all have a special value which is usually judged by the complexity of the plot, combined with structure, language and the ideas expressed. Complexity of a plot can be shown by sub-plots, interweaving with the main plot, that highlight and shadow the themes expressed by the main plot and protagonists. “The Grapes of Wrath” shows this by Steinbeck’s use of a periodic sequence to form his chapters, switching from the general, to the particular and to nature, Steinbeck expresses the commonness of the Joad’s tale and uses nature to create a sympathetic and unifying imagery. The occasional use of perspective chapters shows the tragic regularity of the extreme poverty suffered by many migrant families, similar to the Joads:
“Then they asked, What’ll we do?
To what extent do you agree with the judgement of these two texts?
According to Montgomery et al’s “Ways of Reading”, F.R. Leavis stated that to achieve the position of a literary “classic”, a novel should have; “Characteristics such as complexity, aesthetic unity, literary language, subject-matter and canonical status”[2]
John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” shows all of these qualities to show that it is intrinsically valuable. However, Steinbeck’s “The Moon is Down”, although recognised as a piece of World War Two propaganda, has been criticised as not obtaining similar storytelling techniques. “The Moon is Down” uses accurate World War Two references to convey the reality of the story and the true cost that it has on both the conquered and the conquerors. I will argue that both novels are of value, whilst “The Grapes of Wrath” has greater status, “The Moon is Down” is equally deserved of this critical acclaim and value.
The “classic” pieces of literature throughout time all have a special value which is usually judged by the complexity of the plot, combined with structure, language and the ideas expressed. Complexity of a plot can be shown by sub-plots, interweaving with the main plot, that highlight and shadow the themes expressed by the main plot and protagonists. “The Grapes of Wrath” shows this by Steinbeck’s use of a periodic sequence to form his chapters, switching from the general, to the particular and to nature, Steinbeck expresses the commonness of the Joad’s tale and uses nature to create a sympathetic and unifying imagery. The occasional use of perspective chapters shows the tragic regularity of the extreme poverty suffered by many migrant families, similar to the Joads:
“Then they asked, What’ll we do?