Why “The Murder,” by John Steinbeck?
“The Murder” touched me. There is a very personal connection.
I had been married before to a woman from Wales in 1984. Her first language was actually Welsh. I married her because of her beauty, much like Jim married Jelka, and unfortunately there was no communications.
We were oceans apart when we were together. I connected with Jim and understood the loneliness he felt. The silence was deafening between my wife, Denise, and I. She lived inside herself, and never came outside her shell, and like Jelka would not go outside the home.
Like Jim, I tried to engage her, and get her involved with other women in the community, but like Jelka, Denise wanted to stay home, and knit sweaters and hats. The only place where she would come out of her shell was in the bedroom. But like Jim, I wanted more than sex. So I understand Jim’s need to communicate with his wife.
I grew lonely, but instead of prostitutes, I made my work my mistress. I threw myself into my job as an Army health care officer. I stayed late at the hospitals. Worked weekends. Volunteered for refugee support missions. Then, l lied to her and told her I was just following orders. She was killed in an automobile accident in Hanau, Germany six years after we were married.
It was a lonely marriage while it lasted. There was no violence in our marriage, but there were long periods of silence and tears. I know she was lonely. I remember coming home early from work one day. I caught her crying. I asked her what was wrong? She shook her head, and said, “Nothing. Nothing’s wrong.” Denise smiled, wiped her tears, and asked, “What would you like for dinner?” She was like Jelka in she accepted her role, and she saw no escape from being married to me, no matter the pain she carried inside her.
Divorce was not an option even though this was in 1980s. Denise and I were married in Port Talbot, Wales. The minister required Denise to say, “Love, honor, and obey.”
Like the contract between Jim and Jelka, women were not equal, they became property of the husband when they married. The United States Army still viewed marriage as an extension of the husband rank and status. I actually had to get my commander’s permission to marry Denise since she was a foreigner.
An officer’s wife was an extension of the husband. They were required to participate with other officer wives in supporting unit activities or the officer’s evaluation report was lowered. Denise saw this as one of her duties as a wife, and she participated, but did so quietly, and painfully. All my officer evaluations mentioned Denise and her level of participation.
It was also understood an officer divorcing his wife was not officer material. If an officer wasn’t successful in his marriage, he couldn’t be successful in commanding and leading soldiers. Those officers getting a divorce were essentially terminating their military careers. So women were essentially seen by the Army as property, and expected to do their duty as military housewives. Husbands were responsible for controlling and keeping their wives in check. Marriage was a contract that was supposed to last forever. This was in 1984.
John Steinbeck’s “The Murder,” was published in 1933, 50 years before I married Denise. The mystery takes place on a ranch in rural California near Monterey County. Men road horses, and carried shotguns. Steinbeck’s narrator doesn’t attach a date to the story. We don’t know if it is 1890 or 1925. All we know is the marriage contract was the same as it was when I married Denise in the 1980s.
Marriage was a legally binding contract in the eyes of man, the state, and the church. Religion was a major factor in maintaining the control of the husband over the wife. I believe Steinbeck message goes beyond the pages of mystery and is about the legal status of women in society. Women were property of their husbands and subject to no protection under the law when they married. The institution of marriage is what Steinbeck want’s the reader to focus on. They may have gotten the right to vote in 1917, but that didn’t mean they were equal to men.
Men were supposed to keep their wives in check. Wives understood the marriage contract. When the contract was broken the husband was expected to make appropriate corrections. The deputy sheriff understood the contract. When Jim killed Jelka’s lover, the deputy sheriff doesn’t arrest Jim. The deputy sheriff and the coroner understand wives are property of their husbands. A legalized killing. Jim had a right to protect his property under the law, and kill Jelka’s lover. The charges are dismissed and the coroner says, “Go kind of light on your wife.” They leave and Jim goes to make the appropriate correction of his property.
Jelka’s accepts Jim beating her with the nine-foot, loaded bullwhip. Then, Jelka asks him if he wants breakfast and resumes her role as the obedient housewife.
Steinbeck highlights the cruelty of the marriage contract back in 1933 and the lack of protection for women under the American legal system. Women were essentially slaves, property of the husbands under the laws of marriage. Women could be beaten like slaves in the 1930s, and had little or no legal protection. If you look at the timeline below it shows a slow but steady steps for equal rights for women that still haven’t been totally been realized today.
Word Cloud and Illusion of the Good Knight
The Word Cloud revealed the following cluster of words and their frequencies having to do with home:
WINDOW 8 KITCHEN 9 HOUSE 21
DOOR 8 CASTLE 6
BEDROOM 6 BARN 13
Steinbeck is masterful in cloaking Jim Moore, murderer and wife abuser, as a knight protecting his home, his castle and his property. The mountains around his home are described as castles. He paints Jim Moore as a victim, marrying the beautiful, foreign, Jelka. She cannot communicate with him, and so he must seek solace with the prostitutes of the Three Star.
Steinbeck describes Jim Moore as an understanding husband. Sadden by Jelka’s loneliness he doesn’t know what to do about it. One night our poor knight returns home to find Jelka his wife in bed with her cousin. He of course overcome with grief shoots the foreign intruder. Our good knight then rides into town and brings back the law and the coroner to view the sad scene. The authorities understand. A knight must protect his castle and his property. The law protects the good knight and he isn’t charged in the unfortunate death of the foreign intruder. A man must protect his land and his women. Jim then punishes Jelka by beating her. She obviously learns her lesson and she accepts her beating. Then she feeds her good knight breakfast.
The good knight responds by building a new castle. The community responds by viewing him with awe and admiration. Moore doesn’t destroy the old homestead. Jim leaves it as an example to all so they can see what he has overcome, to keep the myth of being a good man alive.
A Literary Mystery
“The Murder” isn’t a mystery, if you are looking for a detective solving a crime of passion. There is no Philip Marlowe, Sam Spade or C. Auguste Dupin solving the murder. No need since the crime was solved and the murderer set free. Steinbeck’s mystery is in the cloaking and illusion of justice in an unjust society. This is a great literary mystery raising the level of social criticism against a male dominated society. It was a time when the vows of marriage reduced women to being voiceless property owned by their husbands. To love, honor, and obey. Steinbeck wants the reader to go beyond the characters and look at the social injustices of domestic abuse, and the lack rights of women in society.
Other Cowboy Thoughts…
As mentioned the story has a dream-like western feel to it. Saddles, rifles, cattle, horses… So I can see where mysteries can cross into other genres, such as westerns.
If you think about westerns, many are mysteries dressed in cowboy hats. The cowboy with his sidekick, solving who stole the cattle can be considered a mystery. Throw a star on the cowboy and you have a detective. One could even argue that the hardboiled detectives of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler were cowboys riding the modern range of Los Angeles, with their guns and fists, and solving the crimes.
Irony and The Murder
My wife, Pam read The Murder last night. She said after reading the story, “John Steinbeck is a male chauvinist pig.”
This made me take another hard look at the story.
I think the key to understanding The Murder is how Steinbeck uses irony in the telling of his story. His story isn’t sexist or racist. He is actually commenting on American culture of the times. Steinbeck portrays Jim Moore as upright citizen. Jim Moore is awed and admired in the community after, not before, but after committing adultery, killing a man, and beating his wife into submission.
This is irony in full display!
Steinbeck isn’t condoning or embracing the actions of Jim Moore. He is using irony to point out the flaws and double standards in society during the 1930s. Jelka isn’t turned into the dutiful wife making breakfast for her husband. She is reacting the only way she can. To save her stay alive, and avoid another beating, Jelka must submit to the “terror” that is her husband. Steinbeck is portraying American culture of the 1930s as it is–– Blind to its’ violence and abusive treatment of its women.
The beauty is in Steinbeck’s skill of hiding the true mystery from the reader by cloaking Jim Moore as an admired man in his community. The true mystery is discovering the irony in the story.
I will try to explain this to my wife, but she can get abusive at times. I hate to get her angry. I usually avoid it at all costs.
Lessons From “The Murder” Timeline
How we view literature is tainted by where we are in our own history. Talking with other students in the class about John Steinbeck’s “The Murder,” it was interesting how many asked me, “Why didn’t Jelka just leave her husband Jim? Was she in some kind of trance?”
Most of my fellow students were looking at the story from 2013 eyes. I doubt readers in the 1930s would have considered the question of leaving a marriage even one filled with domestic violence. Society and Culture viewed marriage differently than we do today. Divorce is accepted in today’s culture, but not back in the 1930s when Steinbeck wrote “The Murder.”
Women were supposed to love, honor, and obey. That had been the marriage contract for centuries and lasted well into the 1960s when divorce rates started to climb. Today most marriages end in divorce.
In the 1930’s there was little choice for women in abusive marriages. Economically where could a woman turn when she left her husband? Women were expected by society to stay at home. Working outside the home was a rarity for married women. There was also the social stigma of being a divorcee.
If one was unfortunate to be in a relationship like Jelka, you were resigned to do the best you could. Her reaction to stay was all she could do. She had little or no options.
There were no protections or safety nets under the law. Churches were not a safety net. How could they be when their marriage vow mantra was “love, honor and obey… until death do you part.” There weren’t any shelters for battered women as there are today. The first such shelter was opened in 1974.
Looking at the “The Murder” Timeline one see’s a lot of blank space between the 1920s until the 1960s. No real progress for women rights took place between 1920s until the 1960s. I am not too sure why it took so long. The feminist movement was dormant after it passed the 19th Amendment.
Then women’s voices calling for equal rights erupted in the 1960s and 1970s. Laws protecting women were passed. The height of the feminist movement was between 1960 and 1970s. Women campaigned for equal pay, voting rights, reproductive rights, maternity leave, and protection against domestic violence, sexual harassment and violence.
Using the attached timeline and focusing on events concerning women’s rights and freedom helped clarify John Steinbeck’s story. When looking at the mysteries we read we need to be aware of the cultural norms and attitudes, and try to understand the events that were taking place in the world when the books were written.
I haven’t read any reviews or critical essays on “The Murder” and it would be interesting to see what the literary critics have to say about Steinbeck’s story then and now. Did the literary critics of the 1930’s understand his message–– the failure of a male dominated cultural and society to see itself as it really was, blind and violent toward women. What about the literary critics of today? Would they miss Steinbeck’s message, and label him, like my wife did, a male chauvinist pig?” I normally don’t like to read reviews until I’ve formed my own opinion, but I might do so now.
WHAT I MISSED!
I could not find many reviews or critical essays on “The Murder.” Perhaps, because it isn’t a novel, but just a short story. Critical reviews/essays tend to focus on John Steinbeck’s novels. The few reviews that I did read, highlight the racism displayed by Jim toward the “Jugoslav girl,” and highlight that the reason the deputy sheriff did not press charges is that the victim of murder was a Jelka’s “Jugoslav” cousin. Those comments could very well be true. I believe I let my personal connection with being married to someone that was from a foreign county, overlook the racism that is very present in the story.