Alexis' Book Blog

In Dubious Battle

By John Steinbeck

Review by Sandra Miller-Louden

Think of In Dubious Battle as a time capsule, a curious and sometimes compelling story of a fascinating decade in America’s not-too-distant past.  The subject matter, the writing style, the language—and most important, the novel’s outlook—is vintage 1930’s Depression America. 
Written in 1936 and set, as are most Steinbeck novels, in California, In Dubious Battle tells the story of itinerant, unskilled laborers—apple pickers, in this case—who are being organized, guided and manipulated by “The Party.”  While the word “Communist” is never directly used, it’s clear who and what “The Party” is (the closest Steinbeck ever gets to actually coming out with it is his sparing use of the word “Reds”).

The novel starts with Jim Nolan who gets a letter telling him where to go and who to meet—this is the beginning of his involvement with the group of organizers, led by Mac.  Most characters here only go by one name—either first or last—which gives a transient, short-lived feeling to the novel.  The reader knows these characters in a way, yet she doesn’t and while certain characters such as Jim and Mac are mainstays, many others flit in and out at random.

Jim and Mac pick their “dubious battle” in a California valley where it’s time to pick apples.  The bosses have just slashed the wages after promising higher ones.  The men are angry, but without organization.  Mac’s job—and Jim’s as his pupil—are to get the men to strike and stop anyone from trying to break the strike by picking the apples at the low wage (known as “scabs”).  Mac and Jim fly by the seat of their pants, using any means that comes their way to cement the will of the workers and have them pull together as one.

I find this book fascinating for several reasons.  First, it’s by John Steinbeck, written three years before The Grapes of Wrath.  While there are definitely seeds being planted here that will take root and become his Pulitzer Prize masterpiece of 1939, they are still in their infancy in In Dubious Battle.   There are also scenes and references meant to shock—and by 1936 reading standards—they very well would have.  Today’s jaded reader, while identifying these references, can barely muster up distaste, let alone offense.  Steinbeck’s writing at times is also distracting and yes, a bit wooden.  “Jim laughed hopelessly,” and later Mac laughs “mirthlessly.”  Characters “mumble weakly” (“mumble” is defined as “speaking indistinctly and in a low voice”—ergo, “weakly”) and at one point Mac “gobbles his food quickly and hungrily.”  (Isn’t that what “gobbling” means?)  Characters are constantly “nodding their heads” (“nod” would suffice).  Writers today are admonished constantly to “show, not tell.”  There’s a lot of “telling” in In Dubious Battle.

While many of Steinbeck’s novels and novellas were turned into movies, In Dubious Battle has not been.  There’s enough action—and enough pathos—that it could have been.  That it was not, perhaps speaks volumes.  I liked it much better the first time I read it in the mid-‘90s.  This time around, I considered it quaint, often redundant (the same speeches and scenes restated three and four times), often overwritten—and yet, I can’t say I didn’t like it.  Steinbeck’s emotion is sincere and his take on men in groups, men in mobs as opposed to a single man is dead on. 

The ending is stark and effective.  While not a great novel, In Dubious Battle is still worth reading, if only to get an accurate time line on Steinbeck, his work, his views, his obvious sympathies.  He isn’t a National Treasure for nothing.