Why Is Rose of Sharon Excited When She Comes Back to Ma?
- Sign In
- Join
- Profile
- Friends
- Groups
- Discussions
- Comments
- Reading Challenge
- Kindle Notes & Highlights
- Quotes
- Favorite genres
- Friends' recommendations
- Account settings
- Help
- Sign out
The Grapes of Wrath discussion
When reading Steinbeck I am enamored by the visual images he paints on the pages, but can be annoyed by the use of the anticlimax in some of his novels, most notably in Grapes of Wrath.In Grapes of Wrath, the novel ends quite unexpectedly with the Joad family sheltering in a barn against the flooding rains with a boy and his starving father. Rose of Sharon then has the family and the boy leave the barn and proceeds to feed the starving father her breast milk to keep him alive -- and the book ends.
Is this the right ending in the context of the novel itself? By the end of the last page the family's future is uncertain with the arrival of winter, the preacher Casy has died, Uncle Al has left to marry and one of the main characters,Tom, has been forced to leave and become a fugitive after killing a policeman, not to mention the fact the Rose of Sharon has had a miscarriage.Instead of a positive climax where Tom and the Joad family's future is looking bright, Steinbeck has chosen to end on a tragic note with family struggling and member's missing.Why?
Is it to highlight the dark reality of the Great Depression? Is the final scene of Rose of Sharon breast-feeding a starving man and smiling absently supposed to symbolize a kind farfetched hope?
Throughout the book the reader is made to sympathize with the Joad family's situation. To end the novel without answering critical questions like,'Will Tom rejoin the family and escape arrest?' or 'Will the family ever be able to settle down in peace?' leaves the reader unsatisfied and forces them to imagine a fitting scenario.
So can the anticlimax, given the story it's placed in, be seen as a cynical plot device that plays with the reader's emotions or genius piece of creative writing?
where else could he have gone with it? they were doomed and the closing image of the breast feeding is one of the most powerful i have read, it is furious, tender and beautiful all at once. the family will not have peace, but tom's speech gives hope that peace may one day arrive
i don't think it could have ended more perfectly
My interpretation was that this ending was absolutely there to "highlight the dark reality of the Great Depression", as you say.Only I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. It's to point out that there are people who suffer, and that we should *care* about that suffering. If the book were to end on a happier note, then a well-off reader learns that the poor can manage just fine, with a little grit. But that's not the desired message at all.
Is it a "cynical plot device"? Well, it's a device designed to deliver a message, for sure. But I think that message was heartfelt by Steinbeck, and not at all cynical. Deliberate more than cynical, I think.
The ending was stunning, one of the greatest I've ever read. Ken wrote: "The ending was stunning, one of the greatest I've ever read." True. It was amazing.
The breast feeding of a starving person is not a Steinbeck original. It appears in stories from the time of the Roman empire. I think the use of this here is right to the point. Since The Juad family lost almost every significant male character on the way their chances of surviving are very slim. But there should always be hope. Even for a starved man.
They are suffering and will suffer much more so I do not see a better way to resolve this.
But it seems everyone has forgotten that she had lost her child. So by simply taking this man in and nurturing him was like a small replacement. The two needed each other in that desperate time. It was almost like suggestive to the fact that men always should remember that woman are just as important in the role of surviving in this world. They a take on a matriarch role many times in life. But it seems everyone has forgotten that she had lost her child. So by simply taking this man in and nurturing him was like a small replacement. The two needed each other in that desperate time. It was almost like suggestive to the fact that men always should remember that woman are just as important in the role of surviving in this world. They a take on a matriarch role many times in life. 
To me, the ending is amazing. Sure, we get no Hollywood style "closure" on the plight of the Joads, but that's the point: the Joads are symbolic of many families of the era, even of struggling working folks throughout history, and the ending to that saga is nowhere in sight. History continues. Suffering continues. Poverty and injustice continue. Families just get along the best that they can, and most of them live out their lives in humble obscurity, out of sight and out of the public mind. The Joad's story continues, and nobody knows how it ends, because the same story is happening right now to millions of people across the planet. Steinbeck knew exactly what he was doing. And the breast feeding is utterly powerful. Hope. Faith. Charity. People, even the poorest and misery stricken among us, are capable of great acts of kindness and selflessness, as evidenced by the sharing of a childless mother's milk with an elderly man. An Okie version of Jesus on the cross. Hardly an anticlimax in my view.
I was left unsatisfied after the end. Important questions like "Will the Joads' trip out to California be completely pointless, or will they find work?" and "Will Tom Joad be arrested?" were never answered. After reflecting on the ending for a few days, though, I realized that this was the best ending because the power of hope was stronger than any other time in the novel. Rose of Sharon saved a starving man. We all need saving, and sometime the road towards becoming a better person is rough and seems pointless at times. But we must never give up hope. The Joads can hope they get work in California, and Tom can hope he won't get arrested. 
The ending also plays into a central theme of the novel in that the Joads are seeking the land of milk and honey. They had the milk with them. It was their humanism. I never thought of it as an anticlimax. More, it was an unblinking look at reality and left the question hanging as to whether or not they would survive. All the more powerful that way. 
Jonathan wrote: "Instead of a positive climax where Tom and the Joad family's future is looking bright, Steinbeck has chosen to end on a tragic note with family struggling and member's missing.Why? " (I'm responding without having read the other responses, so forgive me if I say something redundant.)
The ending was a clarion call for action by highlighting desperation. My recollection is that as he was finishing the novel John had just visited some flooded areas where farm workers had perished due to their shanty towns being flooded from torrential rains. I believe it was Life Magazine who sent him to do the reporting.
Steinbeck was in a fury over the neglect of the farm workers. People were dying and nobody seemed to care. By showing them in dire straits he hoped to galvanize people into action to come to their aid. This is exactly what happened. By dramatizing the direness of extreme conditions he was able to save lives.
For Steinbeck to have given the story a happy ending just to make people feel good would have been entirely inappropriate.
The scene of a woman saving a starving man by feeding him breast milk is supposed to be a true story told to Steinbeck by someone. It supposedly happened in Sweden during a blizzard.
(My source for all this is the Jackson Benson biography of Steinbeck.)
Well put, Monty. 
I loved everything about The Grapes of Wrath. Sandyboy wrote: "where else could he have gone with it? they were doomed and the closing image of the breast feeding is one of the most powerful i have read, it is furious, tender and beautiful all at once. the f..."
Exceedingly well put!
Nsf wrote: "I was left unsatisfied after the end. Important questions like "Will the Joads' trip out to California be completely pointless, or will they find work?" and "Will Tom Joad be arrested?" were never..." What happens to the Joads specifically really is a trivial consideration when taking the entire novel in context.
I agree with all who spoke here in response to your question, but I will say that I felt like Steinbeck painted a picture. It is visceral and so real. Growing up in Oklahoma, I have always been proud of the people there. I have always bragged about them in my new state and where ever I have lived, but I never realized how awesome they were until I read Grapes of Wrath. The Joads remind me of the people I grew up with. There is no complaining. You do what you can for your family, and if you can help others. Not only is he trying to show this horrible time, I believe it illustrates the strength of the people. Rose of Sharon has just had this horrible traumatic event, and still helps someone else. It is a beautiful act of strength. 
Sandyboy wrote: "where else could he have gone with it? they were doomed and the closing image of the breast feeding is one of the most powerful i have read, it is furious, tender and beautiful all at once. the f..."
Oh yes, totally agree. Read this book a few years ago and to this day, the breastfeeding finale stayed embedded in my mind. I think it shows that the human race will do anything and everything in their power to survive, even if it goes against our beliefs, even if there is absolutely no hope for survival.
This discussion overlooks one point about how the ending relates to the overall theme of the book: because Roseof Sharon has just lost her baby, she has milk available in her breasts that would otherwise A)go to waste B)make her suffer (the whole milk-in-the-breasts-that-can't-be-released thing is actually painful/unhealthy). So, this completely ties together Steinbeck's points throughout the novel about the waste of food, the waste of life, etc. such as the "extra" crops and fruit and pigs killed in the ditch whenever they couldn't profit some owner that could have saved some starving families' lives. So yes, this is a powerful image and statement about helping, charity, humanity, etc. but ALSO about using all of our resources and each giving according to what s/he has and receiving according to what s/he needs. It's a pretty genius ending, I must say, even though it did surprise me at first and I actually checked to make sure my book wasn't missing some more pages... 
Linda wrote: "This discussion overlooks one point about how the ending relates to the overall theme of the book: because Roseof Sharon has just lost her baby, she has milk available in her breasts that would oth..." I loved your analysis of the last scene. I have heard several discussions about this and never heard your interpretation before.
Also, California had been described earlier as the promised land of milk and honey, but the people had the milk all along. 
Geoffrey wrote: "Also, California had been described earlier as the promised land of milk and honey, but the people had the milk all along." Beautifully stated.
Actually, I thought the ending was going to be much worse. I thought Tom would have been violently killed, so I was relieved he was actually "free." I thought it was a wonderful ending, in keeping with the whole book. Poor as these people were, they'd give to each other with everything they had. There was no other way to survive.
Interesting that this final scene occurs right after Ruthie and Winfield fight over a flower. They're the only two Joads who don't seem to know how to share.
A great ending full of symbolism. Her name is Rose of Sharon which in some religious traditions is symbolic of Mary, Mother of Jesus. Jesus said, "That which you do unto the least of these you do unto me." The starving man was certainly among the "least of these." Through nursing this man she was giving life to Jesus and through Jesus all of humanity. I think that is what Steinbeck was trying to tell us- to serve each other as best we can. By doing that we give life to God and all of humanity. I think Steinbeck gives us the end of the book in three steps.The first one is what will happen to Tom. He will become an activist. And that doesn't look a happy end because we've seen what has happened to Casy.
The second one is what Steinbeck writes a few pages before the end of the book when he shows a portrait of hunger, desperation and men in anger. And maybe these people begin to realize they must unite and fight which links with the new role of Tom.
The third one is what we see in the last page. Poor people give everything they have, even when they think they don't have anything else to give. We don't know what the future will be for the Joads except that if they finally survive it won't be easy at all. But we see something Steinbeck is remarking along the book: Mother is the pillar of the family (society) and in the end we realize that Rose of Sharon has grown up. She has become suddenly a hard woman and we can foresee that if the family survives she will continue the matriarchy.
Maybe Steinbeck didn't want or didn't dare to write in an explicit way the dark end we can foresee for these people or maybe he wanted to let us readers choose the future for them.
How many Ayn Rand fanboys would declare that she acted voluntarily in her charitable act--proving the market solves all problems--and that an old man sucking a young teat is kinda..., you know,...."hot"?I'm just saying.....
The ending is highlighting the dark and tragic truth that was the dustbowl. The breastfeeding in the end is a symbol of renewed hope and humanity. The Jonas family and fellow travelers lost their sense of humanity and were hardened by their journey. We see proof of this when they are passing through the homeless camps with the poverty stricken families and they "feel nothing". The rose of Sharon gives a man life and hope by feeding him and helps him regain his strength. I think it's a symbol of the travelers regaining strength and hope. The name "The Rose of Sharon" is also a symbol of hope because the flower The rise of Sharon is known to bloom in the hardest conditions. And in the last sentance when it says that Rose "smiled mysteriously" that's an omage to the famous painting the Nursing Madonna. The mother is the Virgin Mary and she is nursing the Savior Jesus - who is all God and all Man simultaneously. Bc he is man he requires sustenance to live and yet as God does he REALLY need human help to live? It shows the frailty of man and our reliance on man's obedience to God to fulfill His plan/work.I would say the image at the end is referencing that well known painting in that Rose of Sharon is keeping man alive according to her calling by God and yet DO we need man's help if God ordains us to live?
Yes bc God expects us to participate obediently in His plans to sustain/benefit mankind.
How can anyone say that "wherever you see a cop beating a guy look into his eyes you'll see me" is an anticlimax? It is the quintessential liet motiv to all violent rap music. It is not an end but an almost prophetic statement about America. It is where the very title for the book comes from as well as the whole point of the book. Anyone who is disappointed with the ending knows nothing about how the world works. 
I read Grapes of Wrath years ago and I seem to recall a different ending.. Or I might be remembering an ending if a different novel altogether. But here it goes.. The rain stopped and the Joads left the barn along with the child of the man who died. There was a description of how beautiful the day was after the rain. Suddenly Ma Joad chuckled until she laughed out loud and Rose of Sharon joined her. I remember crying when I got the laughing part because these people still managed to laugh after everything they went through. I've been googling if Steinbeck altered his ending but I can't find any reference to this. I hope I'd be able to find the book when I go home to my parents' house. I'm just wondering if someone read the same ending.. Or am I remembering a different book? If I am, would anybody know what book it was? 
Sorry Elle, but I think that was a different book, I don't know what though :( . I hate that feeling when you remember a scene but don't know what it's from... You're recollection is interesting though, because it fits with the theme of strength and getting through their difficulties, and sometimes a twinge of luck (like when they found that spare car part at the place with the one-eyed guy), so on second thought, maybe it's not from a different book at all. I make up memories sometimes, so maybe that's what you did. *your 
I read The Grapes of Wrath once when I was 15 for an honors english class. At the time, I felt awkward about the ending (women's breasts were still objects of fascination and wonder for me at that age -- still are if I'm honest). I remember some of the girls in the class being grossed out by the image of a young woman feeding an older male stranger from her breast, eliciting exclamations of, "Ewwww!"As I neared 40, I remembered the passage again. I was going through a painful divorce and I awoke from a dream of my estranged wife suckling our baby boy, a scene I enjoyed watching many times: the hungry, frantic baby grasping for her breast and latching on to her nipple, sucking eagerly, seeming to become drunken from her milk, as she smiled at her darling's face.
As my tears dried, I wondered the significance of the tender dream when the memory of Rose of Sharon nursing the old man came to mind. Such compassion, I thought and the phrase "the milk of human kindess" wafted into my brain. I looked up the quote and found it's origin to be from Shakespeare, a quote from Lady MacBeth goading her husband to evil to expediently fulfill her ambition, "Yet do I fear thy nature, It is too full o' th' milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way." She goes on to say that, if she'd sworn to do it, she wouldn't have hesitated to take her own baby "while it was smiling in my face" and to "have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums, and dash'd the brains out."
There's a comparison: Rose of Sharon and Lady MacBeth! The poor childless mother feeding a starving old man from her breast and the rich and powerful woman sacrificing the milk of human human kindness on the alter of human ambition!
Whatever anyone else says, in my humble and personal opinion, the ending of The Grapes of Wrath was among the greatest ever written.
To me, the whole thing Steinbeck was trying to show was how inhuman the system we live in is on people. It's not just a matter of capitalism, but a whole social and political system that Steinbeck is trying to highlight. This moment of extreme stress for the whole family when Rose of Sharon looses her child is juxtaposed with the image of breast feeding, and I think Patrice has a point when he talks about how it's a classic symbol of compassion. I think that's what Steinbeck was trying to show: the lack of compassion that the system has for people. The problem for me is not the ending, which I do feel is powerful, but the penultimate scene just before. The family has just survived the flood in a boxcar and for no seemingly good reason -as the flood danger has really now passed - Ma takes half of them through a trek in the flood waters to get to the barn where the starving man just happens to be. This really makes no sense. Perhaps a couple of the men might scout out a new location, but to take the kids and the sick and weak Rose through the floodwaters is not very credible. It is a very forced way to get to the ending and does leave too much "hanging." Not that a novel should resolve all of the issues it presents, but there are several story arcs that certainly feel like he had more to say but they are cut short.It always feels to me like that he had this great ending in mind and either got tired of writing, ran out of ideas how to get there or was rushed to finish the book NOW by the publisher so he came up with the flood-trek to get to his ending.
I feel like this book is generally hailed by people who haven't experienced the brutal cycle of poverty. That said, I'm not comparing today's economic climate to that of the Great Depression at all. Going through this book felt like it was beating the selfless poor theme into every page with nothing to say about it. Capitalism is bad and the ones on top don't face repercussions, nothing has changed from then to now, but the ending makes it feel like we should just suffer under it especially since unions never come to fruition. 
Perfect ending! How can you be annoyed by it? 
Terrible ending! Laying in bed just after reading and can't sleep due to disappointment. Not that the breastfeeding wasn't a unique and creative way of finishing this long journey but the act itself is not one the Rose of Sharon would have so easily given into. Rose of Sharon was always complaining and scared and never would have felt comfortable breast feeding a stranger no matter what the circumstances were. It was completely out of her character and most of all just felt like Steinbeck started to give up on the book and make some non-sense up cause he was tired of writing it anymore. Strongly disappointed. 
Breast feeding the starving man at the end is possibly one of the best book endings ever written. Not every book is supposed to end with a bang, or vindication, or a win.
Jay wrote: "Terrible ending! Laying in bed just after reading and can't sleep due to disappointment. Not that the breastfeeding wasn't a unique and creative way of finishing this long journey but the act itsel..." That is the point. It is the metamorphosis of her tragic rebellion.
I went to see the Grapes of Wrath opera by Ricky Ian Gordon last summer at Opera Theatre St. Louis, and I wondered if the breastfeeding scene was going to be staged. It seemed like something possibly too taboo or risque for a Missouri stage, but they did it. Jay wrote: "Rose of Sharon was always complaining and scared and never would have felt comfortable breast feeding a stranger no matter what the circumstances were. It was completely out of her character " Character development.
Caleb wrote: "Jay wrote: "Rose of Sharon was always complaining and scared and never would have felt comfortable breast feeding a stranger no matter what the circumstances were. It was completely out of her char..." Exactly. To me, and I'm sure to many, that scene was the perfect ending, because it was such a culminating point of her character development.
It was a strong ending - showing no matter how little people have, they are still willing to give (even if it's breastmilk or Ma earlier in the book giving a spoonful of food to the people's children staring at her). It was Ma whom prompted Rose of Sharon to breastfeed the man dying of starvation. Steinbeck does this beautifully in a wordless discussion between Ma and Rose of Sharon: no words are exchanged between mother and daughter, just Ma's eyes passing over her then back to her and Rose of Sharon agreeing. Zak wrote: "Caleb wrote: "Jay wrote: "Rose of Sharon was always complaining and scared and never would have felt comfortable breast feeding a stranger no matter what the circumstances were. It was completely o..." Yes! It was so uplifting. I very resemble Rose of Sharon in behavior and admire Ma Joad so to see that change in Rose of Sharon was very inspiring. She is finally seeing the value in herself by doing something selfless. I think the smile is her finding a bit of self confidence and self reliability for the first time.
It was also such a strong feminist statement. Ma was the pragmatist. She keeps everyone going each day, sacrificing herself and now Rose of Sharon can see a glimpse of herself taking on the role as a woman of the family.
I just reread this book. The ending was the best ending ever. It tells of the desperation of the era and what people would do to survive...even Rose of Sharon...who was about to lose her mind with the loss of her baby.. but was able to help another man live. I think that gave her the solace she needed to carry on...One of my all time favorite books!
What I took from the ending was this: In the wake of the Great Depression, people isolated and polarized themselves. Families migrated in almost literal tribes toward California. One of the many repeated scenes that occurs throughout was that when people saw a broken down car, with a destitute, starving family sitting in the hot midwestern air, almost everyone continued to drive by. "I can't afford to stop." "Somebody else surely will." was a paraphrase of what was often repeated. But, there's importance in the fact that Steinbeck chose to have his family, the Joads, stop many times. He wrote many scenes that, though they were poor and hardly had anything to give, they still gave what they could and benefited from it. In the wake of such a dark storm that was the Great Depression, we can still do all we can to help those hiding out in the barn with us, even imparting of our own substance, even the substance that was saved for a dream that had perished. This final scene was one of unity and almost even duty. 
Michael wrote: "I read The Grapes of Wrath once when I was 15 for an honors english class. At the time, I felt awkward about the ending (women's breasts were still objects of fascination and wonder for me at that ..." You radically need to self-censor.
The book was a great work of literature, but the ending sucked. Sorry. add: link cover
Flag Abuse
Flagging a post will send it to the Goodreads Customer Care team for review. We take abuse seriously in our discussion boards. Only flag comments that clearly need our attention. As a general rule we do not censor any content on the site. The only content we will consider removing is spam, slanderous attacks on other members, or extremely offensive content (eg. pornography, pro-Nazi, child abuse, etc). We will not remove any content for bad language alone, or being critical of a particular book.Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Why Is Rose of Sharon Excited When She Comes Back to Ma?
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1120035-the-debate-of-the-anticlimax
0 Response to "Why Is Rose of Sharon Excited When She Comes Back to Ma?"
Post a Comment