He tells all the relevant background information about a character as soon as that character is introduced. The character in question is then given a family/societal role. After that, his or her behavior within that role is mainly affected by the events of his or her past. One of the first examples of this tendency is Uncle John. Before we meet him, Tom describes the events of Uncle John's life and how they have affected the man's behavior. John had a pregnant wife whose appendix burst after he refused to take her to a doctor. After she died, he felt horribly guilty. "He figures it's his fault his woman died. Funny fella. He's all the time makin" it up to somebody-givin" kids stuff, droppin" a sack a meal on somebody's porch. Give away about ever'thing he got, an" still he ain't very happy" (Steinbeck 92). Most of the family members are described with that method, usually by the narrative voice itself. So the characters have complex psychological backgrounds, which give specificity to them in contrast to the any-men of the shorter, broader chapters. But the Joads then fade into stereotypes because Steinbeck has essentially finished talking about them as individuals. We seldom discover new parts of their identities as the events of the book force them to either act within their familial roles or not. The plot is not character-driven. In that way, Steinbeck infuses the story of the Joads" journey with mythic qualities. Unfortunately, he does so by using flat characters. The next complaint mentioned by DeMott is "heavy-handed symbolism" (Steinbeck ix). (Let's be fair and conveniently not mention that Joe Casy, who went out into the wilderness to find new wisdom, whose last words before his violent murder were "You don" know what you"re a-doin"" (Steinbeck 535), has the same initials as Jesus Christ.) Steinbeck's prose style, which is so powerful, could have neared its potential were he more subtle.
