Henrik Ibsen: A Doll House

Henrik Ibsen & “A Doll House:” A Revolution in Evolution

     “Using the new style of realism, Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) slowly and painfully became the most influential modern dramatist (Jacobus, 416).” As a young boy growing up in Norway during the 19^th century, Henrik Ibsen was forced to deal with life at the bottom of the social hierarchy. His family was extremely poor and the immense financial and social pressure of living on the fringes of Norwegian society must have deeply impacted the young Ibsen. “[Some of Ibsen’s most famous characters] mirror his parents, and his themes often deal with issues of financial difficulty as well as moral conflicts stemming from dark private secrets hidden from society (Wiki).” As a child, living day to day just trying to make ends meet impressed upon Ibsen the true challenge of surviving in a complicated world. The complex internal struggle of the individual is not something that can be transmitted through aggrandized storytelling it must be harnessed through intricate plot development and complex circumstantial evidence. Growing up poor in Norway Ibsen understood the subtle intricacies of circumstance that made the apparently simple actions of a character much more complex than they appeared on the surface. This understanding of reality and its foundation in circumstantial subtlety is echoed in some of Ibsen’s most famous characters like Nora Helmer, the protagonist of “A Doll House.” Due to the circumstances of Nora’s actions what seems like a simple, heartfelt, and reasonable decision to save her husbands life concludes with the drastic realization that since childhood her life had been an illusion fabricated by the men in her life to protect her from the harsh realities of human existence. The complex circumstances of her actions and there resulting consequences allow Nora to see the world for what it is rather than what others would have it be. Ibsen’s ability to comprehend how circumstance largely affects the outcome of an action showcases his mastery of realist theatre, which is the genius behind many of his most celebrated works. There is no doubt that Henrik Ibsen fully grasped the concept of realism when he wrote “A Doll House” in 1879.

     Playwrights during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries (and some even earlier) attempted to harness mankind’s struggle for self actualization in an unforgiving world by writing in a new style, “which avoided mechanical ‘clockwork’ plots with their artificially contrived conclusions (Jacobus, 410).” In what is referred to today as realist drama details of a play’s setting, costuming, and individual circumstance are so fully realized the audience becomes convinced that they are listening in on life itself (Jacobus). Unlike the ancient Greeks who were very formulaic in their plot and character structures, realists broke away from the so-called “mechanical” structure of the early playwrights and focused more on the intricate complexities of circumstance that influenced a character’s actions. Sets were carefully arranged to reflect the everyday lives of the audience and the actions of realist characters were not single layered; actions were often thoroughly entwined with a degree of circumstantial subtlety that had never been seen before on stage. Ibsen and other realists recognized that the human struggle for survival did not always have a happy or succinct ending. More often than not reality finds a way to chew people up only to spit them back out again despite their sincere efforts at peaceful coexistence. This harsh reality is reflected one way or another in many of Ibsen’s greatest works but for the purpose of this essay we will focus primarily on Ibsen’s “A Doll House.”

     In 1879 Henrik Ibsen truly defined realist drama by seamlessly integrating the complex nature of human circumstance with the repression of women in late 19^th century society. Ibsen’s “A Doll House” challenged many of the societal conventions of the time by serving not as an aggrandized polemic for sexual equality or individualism, but by showcasing the very subtle yet extremely significant inner struggle of the individual searching for meaning in a world that provides little answers. “A Doll House” was a revolution in the evolution of modern theatre because it signified a theatrical shift from the “clockwork” like plots of the ancient Greeks into the subtle yet equally significant struggle of the individual against the unrelenting demands of society. The following essay examines the main character Nora’s transformation from “empty-headed ornament” in act I to a self realized individualist in act III and showcases the subtle complexities of realism that made this play a revolution in the evolution of modern dramatic theatre.

     Act I of Ibsen’s “A Dolls House” opens in a “comfortable room, tastefully decorated but not expensively furnished.” Immediately the audience is immersed into very “real” world where there is no grand palace in the background or war raging outside just off stage. The setting of realist theatre more resembles everyday life than anything else. This is a purposely-designed characteristic of realist works intended to engross the audience in a world not all that different from their own. Audiences were supposed to feel like they were “listening in on life itself,” which was a far cry from the dramatic works of the ancient theatre.

     From the opening action it becomes clear that Nora is a spendthrift immersed in an illusory doll-like existence propagated by her husband Torvald Helmer. He calls her pet names like “my little lark” and “my squirrel” but it is clear that Torvald babies his wife and treats her like a child. “Now, now, the little lark’s wings mustn’t droop. Com on, don’t be a sulky squirrel. (Taking out his wallet) Nora, guess what I have here. [Nora responds in jubilation turning quickly] Money!” Apposed to what you and I might be thinking this treatment was not at all considered unusual for the time period of the late 19^th century. Women were supposed to play subservient roles to their husbands and much of the action that takes place during the first act would be considered quite normal to early audiences. Yet despite the doll-like façade, there are a few key things to interpret from the opening scenes that will help us better understand Nora’s transformation from “empty-headed ornament” in act I to a self realized individualist in act III.

     In a conversation with Mrs. Linde, an old friend of Nora’s, we find out that below Nora’s doll-like veneer there is a deeper sense of character that penetrates her apparent superficialities. In response to her friend who is proud to have lived a long and tumultuous life Nora states:

“Nora: …I’ve also got something to be proud and happy for.

Mrs. Linde: I don’t doubt it. But whatever do you mean?

Nora: Not so loud. What if Torvald heard! He mustn’t know, not for anything in the world, Kristine. No one but you.

Mrs. Linde: But what is it, then?

Nora: Come here. It’s true—I’ve also got something to be proud and happy for. I’m the one who saved Torvald’s life.

…

Nora: Papa didn’t give us a pin. I was the one who raised the money.

Mrs. Linde: You? That whole amount?

Nora: Four thousand eight hundred crowns. What do you say to that?

                                                                                                                                     (Act I)

Apparently a few years prior to this conversation Nora’s husband Torvald became deathly ill from the ravages tuberculosis. If he was to survive the ordeal he had to be moved to an area with a dryer climate (Italy). After realizing her husbands impending doom, Nora took it upon herself to fund her and her husband’s journey by acquiring a loan from a bank clerk. Everyone around her thinks that she received the money from her father but in reality she had secured a loan from Nils Krogstad, an employee at the town bank. She is proud of what she has done because she successfully saved her beloved husbands life but as the story continues we find out that the circumstances of her actions might not be so cut and dry.

     Unbeknownst to anyone surrounding her Nora confines in Mrs. Linde that she had fraudulently secured the loan from Mr. Krogstad by forging her father’s signature shortly before he past away. In 19^th century society, it was not at all uncommon for women to be denied loans due to the simple and unavoidable fact that they were not men. Often women had to obtain permission from their husband or father in order to receive a loan much like students who have their parents co-sign their college loan. The co-signature legally authorizes that if the primary recipient of the loan defaults on making payments the cosigner will be held equally responsible for paying back the loan (as well as any accrued interest). Well aware of her husband’s imminent death, Nora fraudulently secures the loan from Mr. Krogstad despite the legal ramifications because she believes that her unconditional love transcends any laws put forth by social or legal mandate. “A daughter hasn’t a right to protect her dying father from anxiety and care? A wife hasn’t a right to save her husband’s life? I don’t know much about laws, but I’m sure that somewhere in the books these things are allowed.” But Krogstad is a spiteful, evil man filled with scorn after a social blunder that had ruined his reputation several years ago. He blackmails Nora and forces her to convince Torvald to keep him employed at the bank by threatening to unveil her long kept secret. The shame of having a husband find out that he was in debt to his wife was near unbearable in late 19^th century society despite the circumstances of her actions. Nora would rather kill herself than have her husband find out that she has been lying to him for several years because she knows what would happen to her marriage.

     Nora and Torvald’s entire existence is based upon the doll-like reality that has kept them safe from dealing with any of their internal problems (like the majority of marriages). Nora knows that any disruption to this carefully manufactured artificial reality would ruin her and her husband’s relationship because as we all know even the slightest injection of truth into a fantasy world can cause the entire illusion to fail.* This heartfelt concern for maintaining a pleasant and happy household truly showcases Nora’s fragility as a character. As a child Nora was sheltered from the world by her father and as she grew into adulthood Torvald took over as her protector and kept her sealed in a doll’s house so she would never have to deal with the harsh realities of life. Nora is completely unaware of who she is as a person or what the world is truly like outside her doll-like existence. But that is all about to change as we skip through to the final act, act III, where Nora finally becomes aware that she has been cosseted her entire life and decides that she must set off on her own to develop into moral and spiritual adulthood.

   

     And so we come to the final act of Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll House.” Tensions have been building since the opening and Krogstad has avowed to tell Torvald and the world everything if Nora does not help him gain a promotion at the bank. It becomes clear that Nora’s little secret has far greater social implications than we might have originally thought. In the preceding acts Nora had been contemplating suicide as a welcome alternative to Torvald’s acknowledgement that she had forged her father’s signature. Shame, it appears, was a far more ubiquitous and disgraceful thing during the 19^th century than I think it is in modern society. In response to Krogstad’s threats Nora becomes convinced that by killing herself she will be absolved of all wrongdoing but Krogstad reminds her that he will still have “control” over her “final reputation.” Even in death the shame of having society know that a member of your family has committed a forgery would have significant postmortem consequences on the surviving family members. Torvald would likely have been blamed for instigating Nora’s actions, which would have gotten him fired from his position at the bank. The Helmer children would be considered to have “bad blood” because society in those days believed strongly in the power of heredity. The shame that would have been imbued upon the Helmer family after having society become aware that she had committed a forgery was enough to convince Nora to postpone her suicide for at least the time being.

     After relentlessly pressuring Nora to aid him in his devious plot to regain his social standing, Krogstad has grown sick of waiting. He places a tell all letter in Torvald’s mailbox setting in motion a chain of events that will lead to the climax of the play. His plan is to bypass Nora and blackmail Torvald into submission with the threat of telling the world that his wife is a criminal. After a wonderful evening of dinner and dancing with the neighbors upstairs Torvald reads the letter and finally realizes what his wife has done.

     After Torvald learns of Nora’s crimes he pitches a fit, denouncing his wife as a “hypocrite, a liar—worse, worse—a criminal!” He reveals long concealed notions about

* After having witnessed an actor dressed up as a cowboy walk across the Tomorrowland set Walt Disney devised the intricate tunnel system that laces his Florida theme park with the intent never to break the illusion of his theme based attractions.

his beloved wife that have never come to the surface before because of the carefully crafted reality he had fought so hard to maintain. He states that he should have “suspected [she’d be a criminal]” and that “[he] should have known… [that all her] fathers flimsy values [would have] come out in [her].” He barraters his wife as if she never meant anything to him and focuses solely on the implications of her actions and how they will effect himself rather than his beloved wife and children. Even though Nora took the loan out to save her husband’s life Torvald reveals that he is truly a selfish man who “lacks any awareness that other people might be his equal” and this is what pushes Nora over the edge.

     

     Nora had always considered Torvald (and her father) as protectors. They were the shields that kept her isolated from dealing with the harsh realities of life. But in doing so they created a soulless manikin that lacked any knowledge of the real world and how to get along in it. Throughout the play Torvald and Nora’s relationship has been one of surface superficialities. They call each other pet names and act as though they’ve not a care in the world yet beneath this pleasant exterior there is a deep-rooted division between these two characters which likely echoes Ibsen’s own family experience growing up at the bottom of the Norwegian social hierarchy.

     The fronts people put on in order to maintain sociocultural homeostasis both at home and in the outside world can often lead to festering sores that accumulate if they are not properly dealt with. Ibsen believed that it was “the primary duty of [anyone is] to find out who he or she is and become that person” even if that duty took a lifetime. Since childhood Nora had been sheltered from the harsh realities of life by her husband and father, which made her ultimate realization that she had been living in a doll’s reality all the more difficult. Like a house of cards the removal of Nora’s false perceptions caused a chain reaction that lead to an entire restructuring of her persona yet as she evolves the audience feels as though she is a stronger character for having done so. After her husband’s true self had been revealed Nora finally becomes self aware of her own existence and realizes that she has to find out who she is before she can survive and raise a family. Having realized her lack of understanding about the world she desperately desires to set of on her own and learn for herself what it is to be a woman in society. After a serious conversation with Torvald she breaks free from the doll reality her father and Torvald had created for her and escapes to live life on her own so she can learn to be responsible for herself. The front door of the house slams as she exits the Helmer household on a quest to evolve into moral and spiritual adulthood in an exit that reverberated deeply in the minds of Ibsen’s 19^th century audience. Nora’s evolution as a character and the realist revolution that came with her helped create a sense of depth and sincerity in modern dramatic theatre that had scarcely been achieved prior to the realist movement. After “A Doll House” Henrik Ibsen would go one to write more fantastic works of realist theatre such as “The Pretenders,” “Brand,” “An Enemy of the People,” and “The Wild Duck.” All of which truly solidify his position as “the most influential modern dramatist.”   

John Steinbeck Bio

John Steinbeck: Champion of the Common Man

     Perhaps one of the most important authors of the twentieth century, John Steinbeck will forever be remembered as the champion of the common man. His corpus of unforgettable literary works includes American classics such as East of Eden, Of Mice and Men, and the historic Grapes of Wrath but his talent also broaches the realms of theatre and poetry. Steinbeck’s remarkable ability to capture the raw and heartbreaking tales of disenfranchised labor class citizens allowed his work to resonate deeply with his audience regardless of their economic status or ideological background. His fictional characters and their families had an uncanny sense of humanity that made them more than just illusory individuals; they were your friends, your family, and most importantly your stories. They often symbolize microcosms for the macrocosm of American sociopolitical life. Their stories, while often dark and riddled with allegory, encapsulated the wide spectrum of human emotions associated with economic and social struggle so these individual characters were able to represent a whole class of people or epitomize a vast social movement. During times of socioeconomic uncertainty Steinbeck found ways to bring people together through the art of storytelling, which is probably his most outstanding talent as a great American author. Through his carefully constructed characters and their rich and detailed context he could manipulate the deepest of human emotions and reach people from all levels of society not just the underclass. But in the sea of information that envelops the work of John Steinbeck it is difficult to sift through the waters and establish an accurate vision of the man behind the pages. Therefore, in order to fully understand Steinbeck’s true genius as an American author we must read between the lines and focus on the characteristics of his personality that may have influenced his writing style. In my research I came across three important and reoccurring themes that largely influenced the writing style of John Steinbeck. They include his vision of the common man as the most righteous and honorable person in society, his naturalistic approach to observing human behavior with scientific objectivity, and his evolution as a writer largely shaped by the current events of his time. These pillars formed the foundation of Steinbeck’s writing style and by shedding light on them we as historians can more fully comprehend the reasons why John Steinbeck will forever be remembered as the champion of the common man. 

     Growing up in Salinas California during the early twentieth century, John Steinbeck was immediately cognoscente of the working class’s struggle. As teenager he would spend his summers working as a ranch hand for neighboring farms doing manual tasks and getting to know his colleagues. It was during this time that Steinbeck became intimate with the large Mexican immigrant population of Salinas and this is when Steinbeck first created his idea of the common man. To Steinbeck, common men were the backbone of American society. They were the people behind the slick façade of twentieth century America digging the ditches and providing the labor for an industrializing nation. Within these working class citizens John Steinbeck saw the manifestation of the proof of mankind’s success. These people worked for pennies on the hour and yet they found ways of working together to survive and be happy. He called it their “high survival quotient,” or the ability to reject the values of a commercial society that had abandoned them and instead rely on a set of social standards that they themselves had created in order to survive. “These were men whose courage he admired, whose rejection of cant and hypocrisy he applauded… In this way, the people at the bottom of society's ladder became Steinbeck's heroes, in his perspective and in his work (Price, Bloom 14).” His deep understanding and very personal relationship with the immigrant labor force that was forged during his childhood in Salinas allowed Steinbeck to appreciate people for who they were beyond cultural stereotypes and misconceptions. “He accepted and sympathized with [working class Mexican citizens]--as he often did with societal ‘underdogs’--and displayed none of the contempt for so-called ‘wetbacks’ that many Americans harbored (Moore, 78).” Steinbeck transcended cultural stereotypes with his writing and avoided any one sided opinions. He simply wrote what he saw but did it with a sense of depth and humanity for his characters that regardless of whether or not they were viewed unfavorably in popular American society they could be seen as just people trying to get by. In this way Steinbeck’s characters and stories brought people from all walks of life together in their understanding of working class struggle, which was probably his greatest achievements as an author.  

     Because he was able to cut through the red tape and bring people on the outskirts of society to the forefront, Steinbeck was considered the “literate spokesman” of the “hungry, disposed and wandering (Moore, 106).” He did not allow American culture to influence his perceptions; he instead used (often extensive) first hand accounts of actual experiences with these social underdogs in order to personally identify with their struggle. This is what I think differentiates Steinbeck from many other American authors. While other writers were simply reading about the working class’s struggle from a distance, Steinbeck took it upon himself to engage these people directly and absorb their plight by living it himself. “[In his research for The Grapes of Wrath] Steinbeck lived with ‘Oakies’ traveling from Okalahoma and endured all of the suffering that they had to endure in an attempt to personally interpret their lives… [Steinbeck] liked to work closely to the people he would later use as his character types (George, 36).” But Steinbeck’s affinity for the common man might not originate from his experience as a young ranch hand growing up in Salinas. As a boy Steinbeck cherished an admiration for “King Arthur” and the story of his “Knights of the Round Table.” He was enthralled by the idea of a young squire rising up from obscurity to the highest seat in the English monarchy. Perhaps this is where Steinbeck’s admiration for the common man begins.

     As historians looking back on the entire body of Steinbeck’s corpus it is important that we examine the underpinning moral framework from which he based his greatest works. Stories like the Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden are allegorical parables that represent Steinbeck’s strong moral basis and empathy for the common man. “Steinbeck seeks to invest in [common men] all the dignity of a medieval monarch and court…he sees the possibility that any person can be Arthur (Mathis, 33).” For Steinbeck, the common man personified moral virtue because he was able to rise above conventional society and find happiness in his own set of social standards. This respect and admiration for social underdogs most likely stems from Steinbeck’s deep-rooted fascination with the Arthurian legends. “In addition to consistently positive portrayals of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, an Arthurian subtext undergirds and informs…works that span the beginning, middle, and end of Steinbeck's career (Price, Bloomer 12).” Steinbeck’s admiration for the Arthurian legends instilled within him the belief that anyone could rise from nothing and become something-- just as Arthur started out as a lowly page and then rose to become king of all England. But in America during the early twentieth century, the environment surrounding the common man was not very conducive for upward social mobility. In a time when fierce nationalists were ousting immigrant laborers for stealing jobs and making it difficult for them to find work, common men had to work together in order to survive. 

     Steinbeck described the common mans “high survival quotient” as his ability to reject the values of a commercial society and rely on himself to survive and be happy. But like fish in the ocean surrounded by predators, as their environment became more hostile common men had to work together in order to survive. Without the trappings of conventional society created by the relative affluence of the middle and upper class, common men were left only with satisfying the most basic of human needs. “One of the salutary feature of Steinbeck’s work… is his insistence on the animal basis of human life, as seen in our fundamental need for food, shelter, physical expression, and, above all, tenderness and companionship (Dickstein, 4).” In the “paisanos” of Tortilla Flat, and the “Oakies” of The Grapes of Wrath Steinbeck portrayed the most basic animal struggle of survival in a harsh and unforgiving environment. Yet these people, these common men, were able to satisfy their basic animal needs by working together much like fish in the ocean that school together in order to ward off predators. But Steinbeck was a learned naturalist. He deduced that like schools of fish who abandon their individuality for the sake of the group, men also abandoned some degree of individuality as they join a social group. Therefore, man’s personal mentality takes on two roles: as an individual and as part of a group. He formulated this theory of a group mentality whilst writing Sea of Cortez where himself and marine biologist Ed Ricketts sailed around the Gulf of California observing the aquatic environment.

          "The book took each day's observations of sea life as an occasion for the

            drawing of biological parallels with human society. The most striking

            parallel for Steinbeck was the seeming existence of a group instinct in

            man similar to that found in schools of fish and colonies of marine fauna.

            Man, Steinbeck suggested, ... could be regarded as a group phenomenon

            as well as an individual one (Gale, 6).”

     This biological vision of society as an organism consisting of other organisms had a profound influence on Steinbeck’s work. Many of his epic stories showcase how individuals work in symbiosis with the larger society in order to satisfy fundamental human needs like hunger, shelter, and compassion, while others use the group mentality to foster greed and malevolence.* It is as if Steinbeck was suggesting that because common men had to work together in order to survive each individual sacrificed a certain degree of their individuality and this makes their disposition more malleable. “When individuals form a group, to an extent, they lose their individuality and replace it with a group identity (Snell, 192).” Within working class society the person was no longer responsible for only himself and his family. To Steinbeck, common men and women represented only single cells in a multi-cellular organism and therefore group “leaders” could manipulate their opinions more easily as was the case in In dubious Battle. “When a single fish joins a school of fish, the school of fish acts as one, having a will and purpose of its own. The group thus becomes more than the sum of its parts, and the same observations apply to humans (Price, Bloom 37).”

     Steinbeck’s naturalistic approach to observing society with scientific objectivity helped him see social underdogs and common men from a completely different perspective than most other realist writers of the era. In a time of economic depression, fierce nationalism, and civil unrest Steinbeck was able to observe the underclass’s struggle from the perspective of those who lived it. He would often stay with these people for moths at a time just to better understand their day-to-day lives. This helped him take mundane everyday activities like cooking a simple meal, slaughtering a pig, or getting into a car and turn them into universal metaphors for his characters plight. While other writers during the thirties sat and watched at a distance Steinbeck dove right in to the social horrors he wrote about. This often made his writings visceral and raw interpretations of the real lives of common men, which forced readers to come face to face with the social problems that twentieth century American culture was propagating.   

     But people began to see Steinbeck as constantly taking the side of social radicals and people on the fringes of society. In doing so Steinbeck himself was pilloried as a social radical despite his objective approach to observing social behavior. His ideas on the righteous moral virtue of working class citizens and his vision of society as a singular organism scared many Americans during a time of great social unrest. This forced his readers to question their existing social and moral values, which caused an uproar during his lifetime. Yet despite all of the opposition to his subject matter, John Steinbeck remained true to his own moral principles and continued to write “quasi-journalistic fiction that touched on burning social problems” regardless of whether or not it “brought him into angry collision with some of America’s cherished values (Dickstein, 6).”

     After analyzing his early short stories such as Cup of Gold and The Pastures of Heaven it is clear that Steinbeck did not start out as a sociopolitical activist. His experiences, more than anything else, shaped him into the great American author he would later become. Growing up in Salinas Steinbeck had a front row seat to the struggle of working class Mexican immigrants. Through his observations he saw that these were decent hard working people with a sense of moral virtue that surpassed the social standards of popular American culture. In these lower class citizens Steinbeck saw what he considered the proof of mankind’s success. Yet in the midst of the Great Depression and World War One, Steinbeck became increasingly concerned with the development of popular culture. “[It was during the thirties that] Steinbeck went from a detached observer who sees a strike as the crucible of a larger metaphysical conflict to an indignant muckraker and reformer exposing the abuses and human costs of the system (Dickstein, 6).” His shift from a semi-journalistic short story author to a social reformist was not planned in the sense that he had a hidden agenda. Instead, Steinbeck’s writing style came about through his scientific and first-hand observation of the lives of everyday common people. Steinbeck saw first hand how California landowners exaggerated the amount of jobs available just so they could drive down the cost of labor as droves of “Oakies” came into the state to escape the drought in the Midwest. He watched as the same greedy landowners let food rot as immigrant babies died of malnutrition. This social horror was a result of corporate America blatantly usurping displaced farmers escaping from the Dust Bowl and Steinbeck wanted to voice this travesty to the American people. “The fruit of American plenty on the California trees and vines is exactly the fruit that beleaguered migrants cannot have, the dream that will never be realized (Dickstein, 7).” The Grapes of Wrath and other Steinbeck novels forced American society to question its attitudes on migrant workers and the plight of the common man. This uncertainty caused people to violently reject Steinbeck’s work because he was writing it in a time when political propaganda emphasized American nationalism and the individual, not the benefits of a migrant work force or the needs of the group over the individual. “[Steinbeck’s work] emphasized that rugged individualism must ultimately temper itself according to the dictates of the greater community (Mathis, 29).” These ideas reeked of communism and governmental responsibility for the poor—something Americans were not easily inclined to accept.

     But perhaps the strong opposition to Steinbeck’s work echoes his skill as a writer. “If anything, the visceral reaction his prose testifies to the power of his art. If he hit a little too close to home and stepped on peoples' toes, he was only fulfilling the duties of a good writer (Price, Bloom 43).” If Steinbeck hadn’t truly captured the struggle of working class citizens in The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, and In Dubious Battle, readers perhaps would have cast these works aside as nothing more than exaggerated reformist propaganda. But in Steinbeck’s weathered hands “the enormous sympathy, the philosophic overtones, the pervading spirit of humanity [in The Grapes of Wrath] informed the melodramatic elements with something more important than their surfaces and very nearly excused them (Snell, 193).” Because he was able to fully capture the suffering of these people and successfully point to commercial America as the cause, Steinbeck was able to strike home with the power of his message. But his newfound prose for the plight of social underdogs extended beyond migrant workers in America. Steinbeck set his next focus on translating the struggle of communists.

     During and after the First World War the American Government portrayed communists as anarchists more concerned with social disruption than social interdependence. In fact, J. Edgar Hoover established the now (in)famous Federal Bureau of Investigation for the sole purpose of combating the communist threat in America during this time period. Anti-communist sentiments persisted up until (and perhaps after) the Cold War, yet Steinbeck sought to change a lot of the American perceptions of communists in a travelogue titled A Russian Journal. The work was a personal account of an expedition John Steinbeck and renowned photographer Robert Capa took across Russia during the late forties. “Above all else, [Steinbeck and Capa] vowed to ‘avoid all politics,’ as Steinbeck noted: ‘All we wanted to do was to report what Russian people were like’… [A Russian Journal] showed Americans that they were not so different from ordinary Russians, a gesture meant to unify rather than divide these two world powers at such a crucial juncture in history (Price, Bloom 23).” In accordance with his prose for the social underdog, Steinbeck sought to bring attention to the day-to-day lives of Russian communists in order to force people to question their perceptions. But A Russian Journal was not the first of Steinbeck’s works to investigate the ethics of the communist mentality.

     Written in 1936, In Dubious Battle was “An exploration of how individual morality is submerged and lost with in a group or institution (George, 29).” One of Steinbeck’s most popular novels, In Dubious Battle showed the flaws of the communist mentality (although it was never specifically stated that the characters were communists) and illustrated Steinbeck’s true attitudes towards communism. It told the story of two communist organizers who usurped people into believing in a labor strike that would result in thousands of people loosing their jobs. They used scare tactics and lies to mislead followers into whole heartedly supporting their strike, which Steinbeck felt was the fundamental flaw of communism. “[The communists strike organizers] are not strike ‘leaders,’ in Steinbeck’s view, but men who have learned to tune in to the rhythms of group life, who become adept a using the material at hand, including their own human losses, as a means of playing on people and welding their anger into an iron fist (Dickstein, 10).” The communist organizers are portrayed as evil men unconcerned with the wellbeing of the group; they just want to gain power for their cause. This, I think, sheds light upon a fundamental paradox in the communist ethos that Steinbeck was well aware of. Philosophically, socialism and communism seemed like they could work if every person was willing to sacrifice something for their fellow man. But the sad truth of the matter is that communism and socialism are both destined to fail because the stupid and greedy will always attempt manipulate people for their own ends. An essential unification of ideals has the power to do a world of good but in the wrong hands a unified populace can be easily controlled and used for evil rather than good. Steinbeck understood this fundamental dilemma and he used In Dubious Battle to showcase it. “[Through In Dubious Battle] Steinbeck appears to have ascertained, and openly critiqued, communism's problems regarding practical application, thus showing an American audience the incongruity of the political theory and its necessarily de-humanizing implementation (Price, Bloomer 40).” Steinbeck’s unfavorable portrayal of communist organizers in this story illustrated that despite the fact that American’s were pillorying him as a communist and social radical he understood that the communist ethos could never work realistically.

     So if John Steinbeck wasn’t a left wing social reformist seeking to radically alter the sociopolitical culture of America through his literary works then what kind of author was he? “Steinbeck was a uniquely American novelist, the critics contended, whose distrust and anger at society was offset by his faith and love for the land and its people (Gale, 1).” His stories often reflect this juxtaposition of attitudes by presenting two sided arguments that are not invariably one thing or another. He presents information on both sides of the spectrum in order to increase the gravity of his stories and add depth to his characters. “Steinbeck’s unparalleled interest in people and their moral insufficiencies…meant that his [characters] would not be mere animated arguments or stiff exemplifications of ‘good’ in conflict with equally simple examples of ‘evil’ (Snell, 196).” This ability to truly capture the internal struggle of people who are not entirely good or evil allowed his characters to resonate deeply with people from all walks of life. His characters’ decisions are burdened with the moral insufficiencies of their personality, which gives them a sense of humanity that we can all relate to. By being able to capture the true essence of people and translate that into his characters Steinbeck could rise above the cultural stigma associated with his subject matter and appeal to people from a wide range of intellectual backgrounds.

     But the true gravity of Steinbeck’s work extends beyond his ability to capture the essence of working class citizens and social underdogs. By skillfully creating detailed backdrops for his characters, Steinbeck’s works often serve as microcosms for the macrocosm of large social movements. Through the use of a literary tool known as an “inter-chapter” Steinbeck was able to capture not only the plight of a single family unit but also the struggle of the entire working class. “[In The Grapes of Wrath] Steinbeck used one family to stand for a mass migration, and added sweeping interchapters that generalize this movement into a vast social phenomenon (Dickstein, 15).” Through the use of interchapters Steinbeck was able to add context to his already engaging characters, which gave his work a deep sense of gravity and weight. By establishing a vast and often cinematic backdrop for his characters Steinbeck could let them stand for an entire class of people instead of individuals in a storyline. This allowed his work to take on a more serious role in influencing the attitudes of the American public because he was not simply spinning yarn about the Joad family and their struggle; he was using one family as an allegory for a much larger social movement that composed hundreds of families and thousands of struggles. 

     Because John Steinbeck was able to capture the true essence of his characters and create resonating universal backdrops that allowed people from all walks of life to appreciate their stories, Steinbeck was truly the champion of the common man. While most realist writers of the thirties were writing about what they saw at a distance Steinbeck took it upon himself to delve into the everyday lives of people he called “common men” and in doing so wrote with an understanding that no other American author of his time could match. He was able to transcribe the plight of social underdogs with such gravity and weight that mainstream America was unable to deny the social horrors they themselves were oblivious to, yet creating. Because Steinbeck forced Americans to question the very framework of their moral foundation in a time when popular society called for placidity in their ambivalence he became the anti-hero. And yet, through the power of his stories he changed many opinions on critical social concerns such as poverty, immigration, and communist ideals and for this he will always be remembered. From a young boy fascinated with the story of King Arthur, to a quasi-journalistic fiction writer, to a Pulitzer Prize winning author John Steinbeck will forever be remembered as the champion of the common man because he was a common man. Sir Thomas Watt offered this assessment of Steinbeck’s literary work, which I think is a fitting end to this biographical analysis. "Like America itself, [Steinbeck’s] work is a vast, fascinating, paradoxical universe: a brash experiment in democracy; a naive quest for understanding at the level of the common man; a celebration of goodness and innocence; a display of chaos, violence, corruption and decadence. It is no neatly-shaped and carefully-cultivated garden of artistic perfections, but a sprawling continent of discordant extremes (Gale, 10).”

Works Cited

* The Grapes of Wrath and In dubious Battle respectively.

1.) Price, Michael Bloom, Harold. “John Steinbeck and His Achievement.” Bloom’s BioCritiques: John Steinbeck: 2003, p43-82, 40p. EBSCO Research Database. Stable URL: http://web.ebscohost.com/lrc/detail?vid=3&hid=2&sid=558482fc-be0b-44a1-9c50-ae0984df416e%40sessionmgr2

2.) Gale Literary Database. John Steinbeck. Stable URL: http://galenet.galegroup.com.cobalt.champlain.edu/servlet/GLD/form?l=2&u=CA&u=CLC&u=DLB&s=2&locID=vol_b92c.

3.) Andrew E. Mathis, “The King Arthur Myth in Modern American Literature.” McFarland & Co. Publishers. North Carolina 2002

4.) Moore, Harry Thorton, “The Novels of John Steinbeck.” Kennikat Press Inc. Port Washington New York.

5.) Snell, George, “The Shapers of American Fiction.” Cooper Square Publishers Inc. New York New York. 1961

6.) George, Stephen K. “The Moral Philosophy of John Steinbeck.” The Scarecrow Press Inc. Lanham Maryland. 2005

7.) Dickstein, Morris. “Steinbeck and the Great Depression.” South Atlantic Quarterly. Duke University Press. 2004