When you look at 'Grapes of Wrath,' the weakest moments are those in which Steinbeck is spouting a political idea directly at the reader. The book's real power comes from its slower, broader movement.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When you think about 'The Grapes of Wrath,' it's an American masterpiece, and a very long process goes into the making of such a book.
There's a tradition in American fiction that is deadly serious and earnest - like the Steinbeckian social novel.
The 1930s birthed two great agrarian novels: 'Gone with the Wind' from the viewpoint of the ruling class, 'The Grapes of Wrath' for the underclass. And both were turned into movies that dared to be true to the books' controversial themes.
It makes me nuts, the idea that if you put a political struggle at the heart of your book, then it has to be that the author - me - is trying in some way to push my views onto my readers.
I believe that the power of literature is stronger than the power of tyranny.
You could think of extraordinary examples to the contrary: The Grapes of Wrath... and even into the 70s.
'Pride and Prejudice' - perhaps more than any other Jane Austen book - is engrained in our literary consciousness.
My most successful books, the ones that I feel the strongest about, are the ones that started with a premise that for me was deeply emotional.
Fiction works when it makes a reader feel something strongly.
Aphorisms are bad for novels. They stick in the reader's teeth.
No opposing quotes found.