Erskine Caldwell: Tobacco Road

[Max Cairnduff]

Tobacco Road is a 1932 novel by Erskine Caldwell, a writer who I believe is famous in the US although not in my native UK. It is a novel which addresses the plight of the rural poor in the South of the US, and is extremely well written.

Unfortunately, despite it being well written, I didn't personally enjoy it or feel it was a success. Caldwell examines the lives of the Lester family and their close associates, using them as a lens through which to explore both how internal failings and external injustices combine to make the lot of the poor degrading, hopeless and near unbearable. Caldwell is admirably even handed in this, showing just how they are disadvantaged by the rich and well educated who take advantage of them, but also how their own imprudence and frequent lack of sense also holds them back from improving their situation.

The chief difficulty with the novel, however, is that the Lester family and their associates don't wholly persuade. Whereas in Steinbeck the poor can be portrayed as so virtuous they do wholly convince as people, here they are so utterly venal and repulsive that they equally (perhaps more) fail to convince. The characters betray no empathy, humour, compassion, any sense of common struggle, anything really which would make them human beings. They do display greed, fear, lust and (in fairness) hope (albeit only for themselves), but in the main their emotional lives would not be out of the reach of the average insect. The work also struggles for me with an overly convenient ending that did not persuade and with some problems with differentiation of character.

All that said, the novel is, as noted above, well written. Caldwell writes persuasive descriptive passages and makes the poverty of his characters a real and perceptible force with genuine impact on the reader. Themes of race are not shied away from. Caldwell had real experience of the lives of the kind of people he writes about, and that authority does show through. There is much, therefore, to admire in this work. Without humanity though, it becomes for me something of an empty vessel. I've never liked Steinbeck's work, but what struck me on reading this was that Steinbeck's writing was informed by a love of humanity, Caldwell may have had a similar love but he needed I think to reflect it more in this particular novel.

I discuss the novel at considerably greater length at my blog at Pechorin’s Journal (http://pechorinsjournal.wordpress.com). Actually, I spend more time on it there than I suspect it merited, but I was struggling with the paradox of a work I considered well written but ultimately unsuccessful. I also felt that since I was saying it didn't work, it was probably fair to go into precisely why I thought that to be the case. Anyway, should you have further interest in it, my detailed writeup is over there.

[OutragedOptimist]

Well, thanks for writing this. I read Tobacco Road a few years ago, at the urging of my grandfather who considers it a great work of American realism. I was left with a horrible cold rusty taste in my mouth. Caldwell may do a good job at depicting squalor, but he never really gets inside of his characters. His character portraits are actually quite superficial, the sort of thing a sharp observer would notice after spending just a few months in the area. I mean, he notices what people do, and what they say they want -- money, cars, guano -- but he's got no idea what's really driving them. No matter how miserable or squalid people's lives, they've still got some kind of relationship with the people around them.
This all reminds me of what Georg Lukacs said about Zola (not that I've read Zola -- always avoided him) and other so-called "naturalists." Lukacs said the naturalists were just describing reality from the outside and therefore turned it into a static, set-piece. He said proper realism never talks about impersonal forces but always looks at the people in power, relationships, and local history, to create a living picture of reality.
Nice, no?

[Max Cairnduff]

I tagged it on my blog as social realism, which I think is fair, but I entirely agree with your observation that it's very much a superficial and external perspective. There's no real character to the characters, it's reality described from the outside and because of that it ultimately lacks realism.

If you read my full entry on my blog, you'll see I'm actually more critical there ultimately than here (more space really), I thought Caldwell robbed the poor of their humanity, and for me that made this a slightly ugly book.

[OutragedOptimist]

Yes, that's it -- reality described from the outside ultimately lacks realism. Well put.

[titania7]

Unfortunately, despite it being well written, I didn't personally enjoy it or feel it was a success.

This is how I felt about the two Caldwell novels I've read so far, God's Little Acre and Deep South. The latter was of particular interest to me, however, as it delved into the fraudulent depths of hypocritical Christiniaty. If you have ever experienced what it's like to spend time around self-righteous preachers, you will appreciate Deep South on some level. I don't honestly remember that much about God's Little Acre. It seems like there were obscure innuendos about oral sex. Beyond that,
the book is a bit of a blank.


Caldwell examines the lives of the Lester family and their close associates, using them as a lens through which to explore both how internal failings and external injustices combine to make the lot of the poor degrading, hopeless and near unbearable. Caldwell is admirably even handed in this, showing just how they are disadvantaged by the rich and well educated who take advantage of them, but also how their own imprudence and frequent lack of sense also holds them back from improving their situation.

Your are very adept at summing up the message I, too, feel Caldwell is doubtlessly trying to convey. Not having read the book, I cannot offer an expert opinion (obviously). But much of Caldwell's writing seems to focus on poor people who are subjugated by those who are wealthy. I think you make a good point when you say "....their own imprudent and frequent lack of sense also holds them back from improving their situation." How often is this the case? So often those who complain aren't really willing to
implement the changes necessary to improve their lot. Or they fail to plan and make poor decisions. This part of the book sounds very true to life--and, on a certain level, timeless.


The chief difficulty with the novel, however, is that the Lester family and their associates don't wholly persuade....The characters betray no empathy, humour, compassion, any sense of common struggle, anything really which would make them human beings.

It would sound like the characters are rather one-dimensional. Don't most of us feel the emotions you mention at least a every now and then? For me, not a day goes by in which I don't feel ALL the sentiments you mention: empathy, humour, compassion, and a sense of common struggle. Aren't those feelings part of a common bond with humanity??


They do display greed, fear, lust and (in fairness) hope (albeit only for themselves), but in the main their emotional lives would not be out of the reach of the average insect.

I may have known a few people like this. But they are no longer in my life, thankfully.


The work also struggles for me with an overly convenient ending that did not persuade

How a book ends is important. It should be believable, not some contrived, make-shift conclusion.


and with some problems with differentiation of character.

It's sounding better and better, Max ;).


All that said, the novel is, as noted above, well written.

Hmmm....if you say so, Max :).


Caldwell writes persuasive descriptive passages and makes the poverty of his characters a real and perceptible force with genuine impact on the reader.

Ok, these are all positive things, I'll admit. When you say the book has had a "genuine impact" on you, it almost makes me want to read it.


Themes of race are not shied away from.

Good.


Caldwell had real experience of the lives of the kind of people he writes about, and that authority does show through. There is much, therefore, to admire in this work. Without humanity though, it becomes for me something of an empty vessel.

There's that humanity issue again. If the figures in Tobacco Road are flimsy people who only have ONE side to their character, I should think that the book would indeed be a bit of an "empty vessel", as you say
(nice analogy, by the way).


I've never liked Steinbeck's work, but what struck me on reading this was that Steinbeck's writing was informed by a love of humanity, Caldwell may have had a similar love but he needed I think to reflect it more in this particular novel.

I like Steinbeck. Indeed, he grows on you. I would encourage you to read his short fiction, and most especially, his story, "Saint Katie." I was hooked on Steinbeck after reading that ;). It's about a....well, a demon-possessed pig who gets exorcised. Please do look it up when you have a chance. I found it in a short story collection called Angels and Awakenings, a volume of selected "tales of the miraculous" by a variety of authors. "Saint Katie" is probably THE funniest story I've ever read--and it may well be my favorite, as well (though Henry James' "Beast in the Jungle" is right up there).


I discuss the novel at considerably greater length at my blog at Pechorin’s Journal (http://pechorinsjournal.wordpress.com).

I'll visit your blog very soon. I'm going to be a bit occupied until the beginning of this next week. Thus, I won't have time to read a longer review until after that. But I shall look forward to reading everything you have to say about Tobacco Road, Max. I'll let you know what I think, too.


Actually, I spend more time on it there than I suspect it merited, but I was struggling with the paradox of a work I considered well written but ultimately unsuccessful. I also felt that since I was saying it didn't work, it was probably fair to go into precisely why I thought that to be the case. Anyway, should you have further interest in it, my detailed writeup is over there.

I think it's perfectly understandable that you would've tried to put some effort into explaining why you didn't think Tobacco Road "works." I appreciate that....and, as I said, will be eager to hear more.

The abbreviated review you've posted here is splendid, by the way.
So, I'm expecting great things when I visit your blog!!!

~Titania

[Max Cairnduff]

Hmmm....if you say so, Max :).

There is some very well written prose, and he is very good at the descriptive stuff. To be honest, if it had been a terrible book it would have been easier to write about.

I'll keep an eye out for the Steinbeck story, I had Steinbeck in school which is often an unfortunate way to encounter a writer. I have a friend who schooled in France, and to this day cannot read Zola, Balzac, Flaubert et al...

[Max Cairnduff]

The abbreviated review you've posted here is splendid, by the way.
So, I'm expecting great things when I visit your blog!!!

~Titania

Forgot to say, I was actually happier with my writeup here in the end, but sometimes working through a long commentary makes it easier to write a briefer one.

Or, as the old saying goes, I'm sorry this letter is so long but I did not have time to make it short.

[Max Cairnduff]

I just saw that Stewart wrote this up on his blog also, back in 07. booklit Blog Archive Erskine Caldwell: Tobacco Road (http://booklit.com/blog/2007/07/24/erskine-caldwell-tobacco-road/)

It seemed worth linking here, for those wishing another view.

[jackdawdle]

can pride be the reason for poverty? i'm inclined to think it. the lester family seem to be a classic example of it.

your write up in pechorin's journal was excellent by the way.

[OutragedOptimist]

Interesting idea. I hadn't thought of this. The Lesters' poverty is brought about by factors beyond their control -- they're sharecroppers who can't even afford to buy seeds to sow their own crop, and they can't get a loan except under extortionist conditions. But on the other hand, they refuse to leave the land. If they weren't so proud, they could conceivably abandon the land and get factory jobs and lift themselves out of their crushing poverty.
So, their pride keeps them clinging to an outdated agricultural life. Rather than enter the modern world, they choose to live a debased life of poverty. Is this what you meant? That pride keeps us from opening our eyes to change, and therefore leads to a life of poverty?

[jackdawdle]

Interesting idea. I hadn't thought of this. The Lesters' poverty is brought about by factors beyond their control -- they're sharecroppers who can't even afford to buy seeds to sow their own crop, and they can't get a loan except under extortionist conditions. But on the other hand, they refuse to leave the land. If they weren't so proud, they could conceivably abandon the land and get factory jobs and lift themselves out of their crushing poverty.
So, their pride keeps them clinging to an outdated agricultural life. Rather than enter the modern world, they choose to live a debased life of poverty. Is this what you meant? That pride keeps us from opening our eyes to change, and therefore leads to a life of poverty?


There are ways to make money and then there are ways to make money.

One way I suppose is to buy into the system, dot all your i's, cross all your t's, mind your p's and q's; in short, keep up appearances and be content.

But we all know not everyone subscribes, the Lesters included. They rather starve and debase themselves in their own terms than live the fancied dream of a corporate magnate whom the state endorses and it's religion sanction.

If that isn't pride, then tell me what is OutragedOptimist?

[Max Cairnduff]

can pride be the reason for poverty? i'm inclined to think it. the lester family seem to be a classic example of it.

your write up in pechorin's journal was excellent by the way.

It can certainly exacerbate, I don't think Caldwell posits one sole cause of the Lester's poverty. They are disadvantaged by external forces, but they also fail to improve their own situation.

One could ask though, is it just that a man be forced to abandon everything that has meaning to him in order to make a living? Socialists (and, to be fair, many capitalists) would say no, and in the 1930s that would include many Americans. Modern European style social democrats would also probably struggle with that question to a degree.

So certainly, Lester's pride contributes to his poverty, but it's not the sole cause and there is a real question which I think the book intends to ask and intends not to answer for us as to whether that pride is wrong or whether Lester's lack of real choices is the real wrong. It's a question I came to no real answer to, I suspect because there is no really good answer. He should go and work at the cotton mills, but it's hard counsel to tell a man to leave all he loves merely to survive.

Good question, thanks for it. Thanks for the comment on the blog entry also.