Reading John Steinbeck’s »Grapes of Wrath«, as a non-English mother tongue reader – anybody?

[Brian Hall]

Two things to consider are the language of the time/place and the author. Any reading of Mark Twain will jar our modern sensibilities with the casual way segments of society are slurred. "She" isn't necessarily that type of derision but does follow the changing fashion and superstition of a given era. Steinbeck, like Joyce's Ulysses or Kerouac's novels, uses language that his contemporaries "get", but future generations will post threads about. "Ya Dig"?

Lots of people here in Oklahoma still talk like the Steinbeck example posted above. Not all, but it isn't uncommon. I'm not referring to any racist terms. I can't remember hearing any racist terms from anyone around here.

 

[Astoneroad]

Lots of people here in Oklahoma still talk like the Steinbeck example posted above. Not all, but it isn't uncommon.

That makes sense that the local dialect is retained and diminishes in a smaller diameter over time. Some New Yorkers still speak like a Damon Runyon (originally from Kansas) character, but only in certain neighborhoods defined by square blocks, rather than an entire state. The dialect usually defines a broader set of social strata which is embraced by those that use it, and derided by those that don't. "Fuggit 'bout it" by segments of NYC/New Jersey is still used, and within a radius of a hundred miles or so... I'm guessing that Oklahoma or Tuscany has its own examples.

 

[Astoneroad]

It’s totally fine with me, but it makes me wonder why ...

Are you wondering why that phrase came to exist, or why Steinbeck, a native Californian, used it? I'm sure a google search offers insight into the first. He used it to give an authentic element to the characters and storyline, as @Brian Hall, an Oklahoma resident, verified is still used.

 

[Vacceo]

I still find Shakespeare (pen name for Edward de Vere ) beyond challenging or anything in middle English (Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur) to the point that reading it is a chore and therefore not entertaining. @Vacceo, I'm guessing that as a historian, you're more comfortable with the original Cervantes in the Spanish of the time, than a student in the 21st century. Give Steinbeck another 400 years, and I suspect a similar gap in understanding will evolve.

Translations always lessen the intent of the author, especially over time. I have a friend that works for a company that sells translations of the bible into all sorts of arcane languages, which makes me laugh that translating Koine Greek into English, then Navaho, Mandarin, or any tribal language of the world, is thought to be an accurate depiction. Steinbeck's use of language offers us immersion into his times, if not pressed for precise intent, imo.

Cervantes has an advantage, considering the time, for a native speaker: it´s not in verse. The other element is that being a novel, the gap is more a culture issue of the time (as Lowenthal stated, "the past is a foreign country") compared to the present. However, if you tell me about the Poem of Mio Cid, things change and in that regard, it can be as far as reading Beowulf (Beowulf is even worse as it´s older). Drawing from those examples, I find easier to read Chaucer than Shakespeare.

To give you a comparison, Cervantes does not have stuff such as "hath" instead of "had". Cervantes´ Spanish is still under the wings of Nebrija´s grammar, which is the basis for the standarization of the XVIII century that reaches till today.

If we consider authors like Quevedo or Góngora, it becomes as complex as reading, let´s say Milton for a modern English reader. That´d be a fairer comparison. And comparatively, reading Milton´s Areopagitica (that is English language at its best, I´d say) is a lot easier being a pamphlet compared to poetry.