Not much has changed since 1939, has it? That same mindset permeates this entire valley.

What`s that there Pulitzer Prize stuff, Ain`t heard of no Pulitzer stuff and my pappy never said nottin about that, Nobel ? That don`t ring a bell.. Ain`t ever heard of nobody getting a Nobel thing in Bakersfield...Is that Nobel thing in Utah? That`s not in California right?... We ain`t inbred hillbillies, we don`t look like any of those folks in Deliverence, but we do like our piggies.....and Bulls....yeehaw 

Dear Bakersfield,

Thanks for the free publicity.

Yours truly,

John Steinbeck

1939

Pulitzer Prize winners do not need publicity......

Tell that to Oprah's Book Club nominees.

Everyone seems to forget that you can find a copy of "the Grapes of Wrath" on any library shelf in Kern County.  The ban was shortlived because fair mined citizens of Bakersfield worked to correct this act of censorship. 

Every community has skeletons in it's closet,  Including Bakersfield.  Thankfully there are usually enough intelligent people in our county who work to right an injustice.

1939 America....it was banned for a whole year.. You could find it in any redneck village in the USA except Btown.

Oprah is a very insightful literary influence..geez. You must watch Oprah..it shows 

New York is a redneck city?   Even though they didn't ban the book, they DID CENSOR IT.

 Steinbeck's book about Dust Bowl emigrants sold sensationally in Oklahoma,

and in 1939 Hollywood was making it into a movie,

but the book was censored in Camden, New Jersey; East St. Louis,

Illinois; Buffalo, New York; and Kansas City, Missouri.

Kern County's Board of Supervisors soon added Kern County,

California to the list of censors

Naw, Maggie. Oprah's a drag.  I was only pointing out that Elie Wiesel was more than happy to go on Oprah to promote "Night," and then he went with her to Europe to visit some of the concentration camps.  Your statement that Pulitzer Prize winners don't need publicity was kinda naive.  JK Rowling doesn't need publicity.  Stephen King doesn't need publicity.  They're making millions.  Among the general reading public, Pulitzer Prize winners need all the publicity they can get. They gotta eat, too, ya know.

And let's not forget the author with a permanent butt groove on Oprah's couch--Maya Angelou.

It wasn't the rednecks in Bakersfield who were  trying to ban the Grapes of Wrath. 

According to traditional prejudice,  it was the rednecks from Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas that third generation Bakersfieldians were trying to keep out and who, incidentally who were the protagonists in the banned book.

I'll admit it--I tried reading "Grapes of Wrath."  But every time I picked it up I would fantasize about better books I'd read before.  "East of Eden" was a walk uphill both ways in the snow, and it was still better than "Grapes of Wrath."  JMHO.

I read The Grapes of Wrath from page one until the end. All the way.

Hey, I'll admit it. It's not the best book in the world. Duh. The ending is pretty sad and disturbing, yes. But it's not a bad book. If I can read it, it can't be bad. It's generally required to be read in the 11th grade -- or that's what I had assumed, because that's when my English teacher had us read it.

I'm sure that many teachers do not enjoy teaching the book for whatever reason. I guess I can understand that. Heck, I honestly don't believe that Ms. Moore wanted to teach it to my English class when we were reading it, but she did it anyway. Of course, when she had us reading it, we only made it through, say, 11 chapters or so before she quit as had us turn the books in. I don't know why she had us do that, but I do know that it was getting close to the end of the year. She had the students turn in their Grapes of Wrath books to the library, but I somehow missed that and kept the book. Besides, I wanted to finish it anyway. I stayed up until 1 a.m. one night just to finish it. It was killer, but I did it. I'm glad that I did not just quit mid-book. Quitting in the middle of a book bites, because you'll never know how it ended.

Moby Dick was a yawner and Silas Marner was lethally dull.

 But East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath?  They were fascinating.   I didn't like Tortilla Flats though because of the glorification of the con artists.

Mom, A LOT of so-called classics are a drag.  Steinbeck just isn't my cup of tea.  Neither is Charles Dickens, but then we've had this conversation before.  I like writers that GET TO THE POINT (Hemingway, Kerouak, Austen, etc.)  Writers that wax poetic and willfully insert that dreaded symbolism into their books (ROT Hawthorne!) bore me.  Of course, Hemingway blew it with "Old Man and the Sea" and Kerouak had his less-than-stellar moments, but you get my point.  And forget about Dostoyevsky and Baudelaire and anyone else that my friends forced me to read.  Yuck!  SOME classics are good and some are WAY over-rated.  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" anyone? 

Jane Austen's meandering love story got to the point?  I don't think so.  But I love her writing anyway.  Talk about meandering though, read Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre. 

I guess people in the 1800's had more time to read and didn't mind reading 5 pages to find out what the moors looked like in the moonlight.

Absolutely Nada to Hemingway.  He too much of a man's man for me.  I don't give a damn about an old man in a boat trying to catch a big fish.  BORING.

Audrey: That's Buffalo, (the city in upstate) New York, not (the city of) New York.

It's a long way from Heathcliff and Cathy to the Joad family. I loved Wuthering Heights. It remains an amazing novel and timeless in its study of personality, love and obsession. Kate Bush wrote a great song borrowing and idealizing the title and characters. Pat Benatar did a great cover of the song as well. The Grapes of Wrath continues as a powerful snapshot of depression life for migrants in America.  Great books, like The Grapes of Wrath, are seldom easy reads, but fortunately in this book's case you can always source some Woody Guthrie songs to catch the spirit.   

Audrey, the old man catching the big fish, struggling mightily to land it, followed by his short-lived elation before helplessly watching his prize being eaten by sharks was symbolic of the man's life as a whole. Reading between the lines of Hemingway's stories is just one of the many things that made them so fascinating.

Actually Adam, Wuthering Heights is an interestng example.  I read it long ago when I was a teenager and hated it.  It just seemed like a breathless bodice-ripper to me, 1800s-style.  Then I read it again a few months ago and was blown away.  I really liked it, and it left a lasting impression on me.  Maybe it's a maturity thing.  Maybe teachers shouldn't be subjecting teenagers to literary works they're just not ready for yet.  All it does is sour some of them on books in general. 

And as for The Grapes of Wrath, what really bothered me about it was that it seemed patronizing.  You could almost see Steinbeck beating his chest for "honesty, clarity--the REAL struggles of these people!!" with all the whitebread sincerity of a movie director.  In other words, I felt manipulated in the same way I feel manipulated every time I watch a Mel Gibson movie.  Steinbeck had an agenda, like Upton Sinclair did with The Jungle and Harriet Beecher Stowe did with Uncle Tom's Cabin, and they all sucked.  I guess the lesson here is write for yourself if you want honesty.  When you write while thinking of the effect you will make on your audience you're a phony and your book's a drag.

IMHO  : )

I"m sure Harper Lee would agree with you Catherine. And I certainly agree with you about Steinbeck in particular.

Thanks, Sam.  It's nice to see someone else who doesn't assume a book is good just because everybody says so.  Historically significant, maybe.  But good enough to stand the test of time?  Nope.

You can imagine some of the antagonism I faced as a Litt. major when I would intrude my skepticism in the university mind-set of that environment. But I was born in Weedpatch so that pretty well established my "credentials" to be skeptical.

As far as the "Grapes of Wrath" goes I couldn't disagree with you and Sam more,  Cat.

It was painful for me to read because I related on a gut level with the Joad family.  

The part that stays with me the most, is the mother in the labor camp feeding her children fried dough meal after meal because that's all she had.  The children were getting sick from a lack of vegetables and protein but the mother couldn't help them.

And then there was the struggle these people had to stay clean and keep a  roof over their heads!   They never lost their dignity though even when they were stripped of everyday comforts,  harassed by the Bakersfield police,  and lied to by local farmers.

Steinbeck just wrote what he saw.

I was born and raised with the "Joads" Audrey and I'm qualified to disagree with you. Steinbeck was a fraud.

You and I lived in the same housing project once Sam, remember?    I knew the Joads too and Steinbeck was right on the money!.

Many of America's great novelists had strong points of view, and told stories of the human condition. If they railed about the injustices they witnessed and recounted, who could blame them when the crimes were so egregious and rampant.  We will never see a generation of American writers to equal the talents that put pen to ink in novel format over the first half of the 20th Century.

Well, Mom, in all fairness, I only read about half the book before I put it down for good.  I just couldn't stand it.  But you're the one that taught me that's life's too short to try to finish a book you don't like.  Especially when the library is so full of other books.  : )

I'm with Audrey on this one.  Although I didn't experience it personally, I was a product of, and saw the effects of the extreme poverty of the depression years.  My paternal grandfather abandoned his wife who then was forced to take in laundry to feed their three children.  My father, at about age 8 had to leave and be farmed out to relatives so that there would be enough to eat for the other two.  During the depression he had to search for work to try to feed my mother and their two children and often sat on the doorstep in tears while he made sure she fed the babies.

My maternal grandfather was crippled from polio and was unable to work to feed their nine children.    Too many children they couldn't feed?  Of course.  But in those days they didn't have birth control nor were abortions an option.

Because of his early life, my father worked in  construction during the war and then water well drilling and later in the oilfields while chopping or picking cotton on his days off.  He had what we call the depression mentality and feared being broke more than anything 
As a result he piled up a little property and a tidy savings that outlasted his lifetime.

Steinbeck captured the hopelessness of some and the determination to survive of still others.  I understood it.  I empathized with the people in the book.  I saw my father in the desperate attempt to see his family safe.  And I saw the desolation of people so poor they couldn't defend themselves and became victims of the unscrupulous.

Whatever people may feel about Steinbeck or his writing style, his story was powerful.

Never's a long time, Adam.

Nancy

I was waiting for you to weigh in on this.  Thanks!

Where's Roy Tullis?  I bet he could add a few footnotes to the story.

This is the only lesson you learned after 20+ years under my roof?  All that wasted breath I could have been using to cool my soup!

But you're the one that taught me that's life's too short to try to finish a book you don't like.  Especially when the library is so full of other books.  : )

Well, maybe I'll give The Grapes of Wrath another try.  Not right now, though.  I'm staying away from depressing stuff lately.

Yeah, you also taught me to feel free to form my own opinions.  Hence: Steinbeck sucks!  Nya nya nya nya nya!  : )

Cat

You have the right to be wrong.

Mom, we also disagree about American Idol, whole vs. fat free milk and bacon on burgers.  But we agree about Angelina Jolie vs Jennifer Aniston and Martha Stewart's magazine being too Martha Stewarty.