Grapes of Wrath

The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939, follows the story of migrant workers in California during the 1930s Dust Bowl, particularly through the eyes of the Joad family. When Tom Joad is paroled from prison, he returns home to find his family’s farm destroyed. Due to the Great Depression, changes in the agricultural industry, and bank foreclosures, they are now living with their uncle, John, with no options left. The family decides to pick up and move to California, after receiving a handbill advertising thousands of available agricultural jobs in the Golden State.

The journey across the country is far from easy. The Joads purchase the best car they can with their few funds, but it still experiences many problems. The grandmother and grandfather both die from the exhaustion of the trip and heartbreak of leaving their home. As they get closer to California, they start experiencing prejudice from locals against the newbies, who they rudely refer to as “Okies”. They encounter other travellers on the road back to Oklahoma, who could not find work and prefer to starve in a comfortable environment than the strange land of California. The family starts to get the first hint that life in California may not be as great as it seems.

The Joads are hit with a harsh reality upon reaching California. They travel from camp to camp, searching for the perfect balance of work and safety, but it is not easily found. In places with work, such as the peach picking camp, there are so many workers pleading for jobs that the owners are able to push the wages down to two and a half cents a day. In the government-owned Weedpatch Camp, conditions are wonderful. There is running water, Okie-run local authority, and federal protection. However, there is little work near the camp, and eventually the Joads must leave.

In addition to trying to avoid starvation, the Joad family must also contend with their son, Tom. Back home in Oklahoma, Tom was on parole for killing a man in a bar fight, and by leaving that state he broke the terms of his parole agreement. His short temper often leads to problems. He hits a local police officer threatening to burn down a Hooverville and even kills the man who murdered family friend Jim Casy.

Aside from being a well-written and gripping story, The Grapes of Wrath was also a call to action. Steinbeck wrote the novel with the intention of hitting the reader “below the belt”. A native Californian, he had watched The Grapes of Wrath play out in real life for thousands of migrant families. He hoped that this novel would draw national attention to the issue. In order to prevent critics from claiming that his work was inaccurate, Steinbeck did extensive research, even visiting the Arvin Federal Government Camp near Bakersfield.

The contemporary response to the novel was far from positive. Hatred came particularly from California, whose locals were portrayed as vicious and cruel. In fact, a contemporary review from The New York Times describes the state of affairs in California as similar to that of Nazi Germany. Naturally, many protests regarding the book occurred. The Associated Farmers of California deemed the book “a pack of lies” and “communist propaganda”. Several of the more successful farming communities even participated in book burnings. Kern County, California, where the Joads reside at the end of the novel, banned the book from the local library. Steinbeck was accused of being a socialist and a communist, but ironically, even Josef Stalin banned the book in the Soviet Union.

The book banning really speaks to the power behind this book. Steinbeck was one of the first people to truly reveal the strife and inhumanity of migrant life to the American public. California farmers realized this, and knew that their time in charge was coming to an end. They feared that migrants might be inspired by the likes of Tom Joad or Jim Casy and rise up in rebellion. This fear was so great that it caused grown adults to ban and burn books.

Unfortunately for the farmers of California, their efforts were for naught. The American people made the Grapes of Wrath a bestseller, and it eventually won the National Book Award and a Pulitzer Prize. Millions of people became educated about the plight of the California migrant worker. While Grapes may not have solved the problem, it did encourage the American people to take action. Combined with the Second World War, migrant farming became less of an issue.

However, many of the messages in Grapes of Wrath still ring true today. The disparity between rich and poor continues to grow. And while the modern-day Joad family may not be travelling to pick cotton in California, perhaps they are working in a Bangladeshian clothing factory. Here in America, migrant workers still exist, although they are largely Latino. Grapes of Wrath represents our past and our present.

The book ends abruptly as spring rains threaten to flood the Joads camp. Daughter Rose of Sharon gives birth to a stillborn infant as the waterline creeps higher. Eventually, the family flees to a barn on higher ground. There, they find a man dying from starvation and his young son. To save the man’s life, Rose of Sharon offers him her breast milk for support. It is an abrupt ending, and the reader never finds out the fate of the Joad family. Of course, this reflects the never-ending effect of poverty. There is no happy ending for the Joads or the migrant workers in 1939. The ending calls for action to help these people live humanely.

Chilton, Martin. "The Grapes of Wrath: 10 Surprising Facts about John Steinbeck's Novel." The Telegraph. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Fbooks%2Fbooknews%2F10755043%2FThe-Grapes-of-Wrath-10-surprising-facts-about-John-Steinbecks-novel.html>.

"The Author, On 'Grapes Of Wrath'" The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Aug. 1990. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/opinion/the-author-on-grapes-of-wrath.html>.

Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief

Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief seeks to explain one of newest American religions: Scientology. The Pulitzer Prize winning author began his investigation after writing a piece on former Scientologist Paul Haggis for The New Yorker. His quest to understand this less than understood religion resulted in two years of investigation and a spot as a finalist for the National Book Award for Nonfiction.

Wright begins the story with the biography of its charismatic, controversial founder - L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard is undeniably a genius. He publishes thousands of science fiction novels throughout his lifetime. Eventually, he is able to convince roughly a hundred people to sign a billion-year contract and join the Sea Org, sailing around the Atlantic to avoid government intervention. Soon, his religion would grow to include millions of followers, according to the Church of Scientology.

However, Hubbard is also a pathological liar, fabricating war stories, medals, and injuries to help further his religion. He is abusive to his second wife Sara, who accused him of “systematic torture” in divorce papers. Members of the Sea Org found him “comically self-important” and seemed to think he was insane at times. Despite his shortcomings, he was still able to become a powerful, influential religious figure.

Our first hint that Scientology might not be the best comes during this Sea Org period, as Hubbard’s paranoia leads to the creation of Operation Snow White. He and his wife, Mary Sue, convinced that the American and British governments are responsible for the negative reputation of Scientology, placed roughly 5,000 Scientologists in 136 government agencies worldwide. Their task was to serve as the Church’s intelligence agency, “gathering information on critics and government agencies around the world, generating lawsuits to intimidate opponents, and waging an unremitting campaign against mental health professionals”, according to Wright.

From there, Wright covers Scientology’s shift to Hollywood through the influence of several key members, including John Travolta, Paul Haggis, and most notably Tom Cruise. Following the death of Hubbard (explained to Scientologists as dropping the body “in order to move on to a higher level of existence”), David Miscavige takes over the Church. Miscavige is reportedly abusive to his fellow Scientologists, except for his friend and shining star of the Church, Tom Cruise, who receives luxury treatment. This brings us to the Scientology we see today - celebrities engaged in a very secretive, private religion that seems almost cult-like to an outside eye. It is amazing to see how a religion with money and resources has become so powerful.

Wright’s biggest strength is his fairness to the religion. He never seems vengeful, hateful, or disgusted by the material he is writing. As Michael Kinsley The New York Times jokes, “That crunching sound you hear is Lawrence Wright bending over backwards to be fair to Scientology.” Given the church’s extensive history of harassing and suing those who publish critical material on Scientology, it is easy to see why he took this route. However, it also adds to his credibility by showing his commitment to presenting the facts rather than making broad judgements. As Lisa Miller of The Washington Post points out, “this author is not fooling around.” His footnotes and list of sources could make a whole book on their own. Wright wants the reader to know that he searched for the truth, and he is not about to let anyone discredit his findings.

However, Wright’s work has not been without its critics. Obviously, the Church of Scientology was highly unhappy with the book. They reached out to several news organizations with a response to the highly damaging claims made in Going Clear. The Daily Beast published one such article written by Church lawyers, which accuses Wright of being “blatantly bigoted”. They claim that Wright refused their assistance and refused to provide an advance copy despite their many requests. They state that Wright “doesn’t inform his readers about the sources in the book” despite the roughly forty pages of listed sources Wright provides.  

In fact, the lawyers clearly state that they only read “certain passages” provided on the Amazon.com website. It is hard to take their criticism seriously when they couldn’t even be bothered to read the entire book.

Wright’s biggest misstep is becoming so absorbed in his material that he often leaves the reader behind. By the middle of the book, the reader already forgets all of the newly-learned Scientology terms such as PTS/SP or OT V status. He is telling a complicated story and it is easy to leave the reader behind.

However, that should not scare anyone away - Going Clear is a highly informative and fascinating portrayal of Scientology. It is definitely worth the read. A religion that has long escaped understanding in America is finally explained in Going Clear.

All the President's Men

 
All The President’s Men tracks the investigation of Watergate by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from its measly beginnings to turning the government upside down. Their persistence and good journalism skills allowed them to uncover that the Watergate break-in was not a singular incident, but rather a small piece of a great puzzle of political corruption.

Some of the most interesting parts of the book come from Woodward and Bernstein’s details of life in the newsroom. The reporters had to be dedicated to printing the truth but still remaining up to date in the world of daily newspapers. As the story grew, more and more news outlets such as The New York Times and Newsweek began to do investigative work of their own. Despite their suspicions, they had to remain ethical in printing just the facts. Fortunately, the layout of the daily newspaper afforded them the time to do the job properly. This book highlights the competition in the world of print journalism, which is starkly different from our world of instant, 24-hour news today.
It is a bit disappointing that Bernstein and Woodward did not take advantage of the opportunity to share their own feelings within the book. In numerous occasions, from deciding to take a bribe, telephone grand jury members, or uncover their sources, the pair of reporters are faced with huge moral decisions. They must weight finding the truth with their own journalistic ethics. As mentioned by Doris Kearnes in The New York Times, “the same passionate language which keeps the story moving keeps the reader at the threshold of moral choice; rarely does it permit looking at the decision making process.” With this book, Bernstein and Woodward truly had the chance to offer their own introspection into these moral crossroads, but they simply did not take it.
At the time of publication in 1974, the Republican Party was highly unhappy with the book. Even during the investigation, they attempted to accuse Bernstein, Woodward, and The Washington Post of being McGovern sympathizers trying to throw the election in favor of the Democrats. Ben Stein of The American Spectator panned Bernstein and Woodward, attempting to discredit their work by noting that they “got what they wrote from sources, not from original research.” In their mind, the reporters overdid their articles, creating a “false image” of Nixon’s White House. 
This response is to be expected, however. Until Watergate, Nixon had been an overwhelmingly popular president. At his reelection in 1972, he boasted a 68% approval rating. By September of 1974, 58% of Americans wanted him tried for possible criminal charges, according to the Pew Research Center (Kozlowska). Republicans saw this as a liberal attack, rather than a partyless, catastrophic abuse of power.
It’s a fair assessment that Bernstein and Woodward did get the majority of their information from sources, but the contacting of these sources was original research in its own right. Not to mention, the two reporters were among the few who kept digging. They easily could have reported the simple fact of the burglary, but their perseverance ended up tying these facts together to expose the larger picture.
The impact of Watergate is something that we still feel today. Before, Americans had an admiration for politicians and the office of the President in particular. However, Watergate exposed the ugly, dirty side to politics.
Ultimately, Watergate shattered a generation. It destroyed the trust between the American people and their President. According to a CNN Poll cited on NPR, 53% of Americans felt that the government could be trusted all or most of the time in 1972. By 1974, following the Watergate scandal, that percentage dropped to 36%. It has remained under 50% ever since, except for a brief spark following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. When one looks at the sort of bashing that President Barack Obama has faced while in office, from people refusing to believe that he was born in the United States to calls for impeachment, it is easy to see how this attitude has impacted American politics. Will American politicians ever be able to regain that trust from their populace?
Finally, it is revealed that Nixon has been bugging his own office. The tapes reveal that he knew of his men’s involvement and actively covered up the Watergate scandal, thus setting the process of impeachment into motion. In the final paragraphs of the book, President Nixon delivers his Oath of Office for his second term. He reassures the public that everything will be fine, and that the Watergate scandal will not destroy his government. It is an abrupt ending, without the full answers (as they were not available at the time) but a fitting conclusion to the whirlwind story of how two reporters uncovered the greatest scandal in American political history.


Kozlowska, Hanna. "Watergate's Emotional Legacy." Op Talk. NPR, 8 Aug. 2014. Web.

'The Lord says it's Okay.' - Under the Banner of Heaven

     In Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer explores the violent history of fundamental Mormonism through the 1984 killings of 24 year old Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter, Erica, at the hands of Dan and Ron Lafferty.
     Dan and Ron Lafferty began as regular members of the Mormon Church, however, after Dan’s business was shut down for lack of proper license, he became increasingly anti-government. He found solace in Book of Mormon - particularly Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which validated the principle of plural marriage.
     But there was one problem – their sister-in-law, Brenda. Highly educated, Brenda encouraged the other wives to resist their husband’s decent into polygamy and other strange, non-Mormon beliefs. Ron’s wife listened, leaving her husband and moving to Florida with their children. Soon, the two brothers were excommunicated from the LDS Church. Eventually, the brothers claimed receive a commandment from God, ordering the death of Brenda and Erica Lafferty.
     Emily Bazelon of The Los Angeles Times notes that Krakauer’s book is far from an easy read. It is terribly disturbing to hear the countless stories of young girls being brainwashed and raped in abusive marriages. Not to mention, in many of these exclusively FLDS towns, the entire law enforcement system is run by the Church. With nowhere to turn, these young women are trapped, unaware that a reality exists outside their town.
     Krakauer also speaks to several former members of the FLDS Church, who finally rose up against years of teachings to start a life of their own. These interviews, particularly with DeLoy Bateman, are incredibly insightful and interesting.
     As pointed out by Robert Wright of The New York Times, Krakauer’s jumps from present day to the beginnings of the religion can seem disconnected and choppy. However, the information provided gives the reader a better understanding of Mormonism and the church doctrine that allowed Dan and Ron Lafferty to evolve from perfect believers to excommunicated killers. Killing in the name of God is far from a new phenomenon, even in the Mormon Church.
     Obviously, the Mormon Church was less than thrilled by their portrayal in this book. Richard E Turley, the managing director of the Family and Church History Department for the LDS Church, posted a scathing review of the book. He claims that the book will only appeal to “gullible persons” and that “serious readers… need not waste their time on it.” However, this is a story that must be told. When Americans discuss the idea of religious violence, they often do not consider that this could be happening right here at home. It is very easy to dismiss religious fundamentalism as something that happens elsewhere, an action done by other people and other religions. However, this book points out the very dangerous and very real fundamentalism happening right in our own backyard.
     Turley was also upset that Krakaeur’s narrative left out the “vast majority of Latter-Day Saints” who are a “peace-loving people”. I believe that’s a fair assessment. There are thousands of Mormons who would never dare to kill someone or engage in polygamy. The majority of the atrocious acts highlighted in this book were committed by excommunicated fundamentalists. However, Krakauer makes a clear distinction between the two, never hiding the fact that his book is not about the common Mormon, just in the same way that a book about 9/11 is not about the common Muslim.
     Krakauer concludes the book by returning to the Lafferty trials, which posed highly important questions. Can Lafferty be truly deemed insane if he was simply following the orders of his God? If so, does that mean that every religious person is insane, and that their crimes done in the name of God are excusable? What sort of precedent does that set?
     In the end, Lafferty is found mentally capable of understanding the full nature of his crime. Now, he sits on death row, awaiting the day when he will be put to death.

When Plague Strikes: Year of Wonders

     In the 17^th century, a tiny English village called Eyam was stricken with bubonic plague. The villagers, led by rector William Mompesson, agreed to quarantine themselves in order to keep the disease from spreading to nearby villages. In the end, an estimated four-fifths of the town population perished from the outbreak.

     In Year of Wonders, Geraldine Brooks recounts this story from the eyes of the fictional Mompesson’s servant, Anna Frith, a young widower with a brain ahead of her time. Frith sees much of the early death, including that of her two young sons. Now alone, Frith agrees to help Mompesson and his wife, Elinor, tend to the villagers as they struggle through the difficult time.

     It is here that Brooks is truly at her best. As noted by The Guardian’s Alfred Hickling, it would be easy for Brooks to get caught up in recounting death after death. Instead, Brooks looks at how the living respond, from learning to tend to new herbs to digging graves for profit. Her deep knowledge of the subject shines through particularly in a scene where Anna and Elinor must mine enough lead to keep the owner’s only surviving daughter from losing her claim. The drama is real and intense, making for a very interesting read.

     Brooks does an excellent job with her portrayal of women in the book. The protagonist, Anna Frith, is highly intelligent, brave, and independent. Her employer, Elinor, and the Gowdie women are equally vital to the story and the life of the townspeople. As more and more people fall victim to the plague, the women are not afraid to step up and use their skills for a good cause. The most promising plague cures come from the plants housed at the Gowdie residence, which is solely tended to by women. Considering that the majority of historical narratives are told from the perspective of men, it is refreshing to see a book that looks at an event without leaving women off the page.

     However, Brooks’ work is not perfect. As described by David Liss of The Washington Post, “her characters often break down between seemingly good modern thinkers and seemingly bad early-modern thinkers”. The common townspeople are pigeonholed into ignorant, witch-hunting crazies while Frith, Elinor, and the Gowdie women make medical conclusions far ahead of their time. In fact, Anna Frith seems almost too perfect of a character.

     The book concludes with a shocking and almost unbelievable twist. In an epilogue told from a few years later, Anna Frith finds herself on a boat to Oran, where a Muslim doctor happily takes her in as his assistant and member of his harem. There, she raises her two children in this amazing cultural center. As pointed out by John Vernon of The New York Times, “no mention is made of the number of their servants.”

     Ultimately, the goal of historical fiction is to help the reader become interested in a certain historical event. Geraldine Brooks far and above accomplishes this goal, bringing the story of Eyam to life in an interesting and dramatic read.