Steinbeck

[Danneskjold]

I am reading "Of Mice and Men" in English class. Now, you may have noticed that I put it in quotation marks. This is because the book is so bad, short, and generally of poor quality that I consider it a short story more than I do a novel and will refer to it as such.

You see, my major quarrel with Steinbeck is that he doesn't have a plot line. The plot that is there doesn't take twists, turns, or have any general change in it at all. Steinbeck has cultivated the habit of, instead of writing about the plot itself, going off on a long detour going as far off topic about the plot as he possibly can within one hundred and six pages. This is why I call what Steinbeck writes a "plot arch". It is the least efficient way to get from point A to point B without making the plot line look like a six year old drew it, spirialing off into all different directions. At least if his plot line did zig-zag around in different areas at random times it would be off of a constant pre-determined path.

Now, pre-determination is another qualm I have with Steinbeck's writing. Steinbeck uses literary devices, mainly foreshadowing, with such frequency that not only does it clog the very arteries of the story, and therefore stopping blood flow, but in "Of Mice and Men" and "The Pearl" you cold actually predict the ending of the story before you were halfway through the already short book. In "Of Mice and Men" foreshadowing told me how Lennie would be killed, why he would be killed, and who would do it. I will explain which events show this if explanation is asked of me, but I have already spoiled much of the plot, or what there is of one, as it is.

Steinbeck has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Although this is not generally the worst of qualities in a writer, Ayn Rand is guilty of that crime as well, the particular way Steinbeck uses his lack of subtlety is to give away the ending, not put across a message like Rand. When you combine the lack of plot, with the constipation of the story with foreshadowing and literary devices, the dead giveaway of his plot, and Steinbeck's complete lack of overall skill with words, you get the pieces of pure, unadulterated garbage that are perfectly exemplified by works such as "Of Mice and Men" and "The Pearl". Pulitzer author? Not in my book.

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Tell how you really feel! Steinbeck is greatly over rated. One funny story is that after the movie Grapes of Wrath was released it was allowed to be shown in Moscow. The Russian's reaction to the movie was that the United States must be a great place to live because even the poor people could afford automobiles.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

It has been years since I have read Steinback. I don't remember having such a negative reaction as you are here (which doesn't really mean anything, either).

I remember reading something by him that serves as a key to understanding him better. At least it makes it more interesting in a crossword puzzle kind of way. He said his father always called his work "smart-alack" work and used The Grapes of Wrath as an example. If you look at the plot events, Jim Casey, the preacher, echoes the story of Jesus--even to the point of having the same initials (JC) and saying to forgive his killers at the end because they don't know what they are doing. Also, there is the trek of the Joads to the promised land. The parallels between Tom Joad and Moses are pretty striking.

I would have to do some thinking about Of Mice and Men to come up with parallels since it has been years since I read it. Maybe Cain and Abel with a communist twist where Lennie represents the common man who has no intellect, has strong dreams, but does not know his own strength so he always kills his good and fragile values with good intentions.

This kind of approach makes reading Steinbeck much more interesting. His sense of life was not Rand's, but he was one hell of a fine craftsman in the Randian sense of making people and events stand for ideas.

On looking at some online things, I came across this little gem. You might be interested to know that an early manuscript of this work was eaten by Steinbeck's dog and that it was very different. See here and here. Maybe that's why Candy’s dog got shot at the beginning. Steinbeck was ticked at his own dog.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

The fact is that as an author, Steinbeck starts out with a plot with good potential, then makes the entire story so pedantic that it lulls you into it's monotony that is compounded when he adds so much foreshadowing that it further slows the already dreary story.

I will give him credit for making his people stand for ideas, the problem is when he makes his events stand for later ones in such an obvious light that there is no suprise left in the story.

As for Candy's dog being killed, I highly doubt that it was solely because the dog ate the manuscript, if at all. In context the dog is killed, not out of anger, but in order to put it out of its own misery. Also this served to completely give away the end of the book and leave no suprises.

I knew ahead of time that Curley's Wife (as is the only name given to her) was going to be killed by Lennie for the obvious reason that Lennie needed a reason to be killed. (which I'll explain how I knew was going to happen below) Also, Lennie had a bad habit of killing everything he touched, and Curly's Wife was in desperate need of being touched. You do the math.

The dog represents Lennie. Lennie was either going to live miserably from then on, or die miserably soon after, so George shoots Lennie in the back of the head while he doesn't expect it. The dog was shot in the back of the head to be put out of his misery, Lennie was shot to be prevented from knowing misery. Lennie directly parallels to the dog because he's so innocent that he does two things when he kills someone/something:

1) Blames them for getting killed

2) Says he "done a bad thing"

This shows that not only does he not understand the concept of death, but he doesn't understand that killing a person is worse than killing an animal (he says the same thing after killing the puppy as he does after killing Curly's Wife) So the parallels between the dog and Lennie are quite obvious.

It was also easy to tell that it would be George who shot Lennie because of Candy's quote regarding his dog. He said that he should have shot the dog because the dog knew him and it was his responsibility. (I don't have the book on hand so no exact quote) In the same way George thought he was the one to shoot Lennie because he was known and trusted by Lennie and he had always taken responsibility for him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for Candy's dog being killed, I highly doubt that it was solely because the dog ate the manuscript, if at all.

LOL...

Ah... c'mon.

My comment was a quip.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

You might want to read through the Cliff Notes for Of Mice and Men, especially the parts about symbolism and theme. Frankly the observations are fascinating, especially if you want to write. (btw - I thought about Cain and Able before looking at this.)

Here is a quote that has a direct bearing on plot.

Steinbeck is often described by critics as a believer in a “non-teleological world.” This is a world where chance plays a major role. It is chance, for instance, that Slim happens to be in the barn when Curley comes into the bunkhouse looking for his wife. It is also chance that George is absent from the barn when Lennie is burying his pup and Curley’s wife comes in. Steinbeck tries to show that man cannot understand everything that happens, nor can he control the world around him. For this reason, events often appear to be random.

George’s Solitaire game in the bunkhouse is exactly that. It symbolizes the random appearance of events just as cards are drawn out at random from the deck. All is a matter of chance in Solitaire, and the same is true of the events in the book that Steinbeck thought about titling “Something That Happened.” The isolation of the ranch and the interplay of personalities in the bunkhouse also contribute to the idea of chance. The world is unpredictable, and in this setting, plans often “go awry.”

Maybe this is the reason he foreshadows so much: to provide some kind of artistic unity to the randomness.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

I really don't care why he foreshadows so much. I just know that he does foreshadow so much and because of that his writing is sub-par to put it nicely. Never helps to have his books shoved down your throat either.

But man, I'll tell ya, "The Pearl" was the worst of them all. Steinbeck has a poor man find a giant pearl that will make him rich, then proceeds to have him go through troubles, such as being attacked, and blames it on the pearl instead of the morality of the men. At the end the main character decides the pearl is evil. This, another slow moving novel with too much symbolism and too much foreshadowing, added in an element of sheer irrationality that goes with most socialists. Also, I have at least one more Steinbeck novel that will be shoved down my throat before high school is over.

I wish Rand could get three books in schools for required reading. Just even the playing field a little bit. Doesn't help that when I brought my copy of Atlas Shrugged to class my english teacher announced that Ayn Rand is his least favorite author. Being a capitalist in the American public school system feels somewhat akin to what I would guess that being bludgeoned across the head once or twice daily feels like.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I certainly feel your pain. You remind me of me at your age. You made me remember that I had a very negative reaction to Tom Jones by Henry Fielding in high school. Now, for the life of me, I can't remember what that was all about. I probably subconsciously blanked it out from the pain of the boredom--and it was excruciating at the time.

I have been trying to give you hooks for you to use your mind actively and stave off the boredom.

For all Steinbeck's intended profundity, he is a Naturalist according to Objectivist classification. Artistically, he is a master artist for what he wants to achieve, so he is a great writer in that respect. You are reacting to what he wants to achieve (his message) and I more than sympathize with you.

Here is a good way to approach it. Suppose you are a medical student and you need to study dissected corpses in order to learn how to cure illnesses. Models and drawings are used nowadays instead of corpses, but that does not alter the need to study the parts separately.

Instead of studying the human body, you are given a possum or jellyfish to dissect. You will never work at saving the lives of possums or jellyfish, but if you think about it, there are things these creatures have in common with the human body. When you use a mental filter to focus on those aspects, it gives purpose to learning about possums or jellyfish. Otherwise, it is very easy to get into a negative attitude and learning becomes torture.

The same goes for Naturalist literature. Once you have identified Steinbeck's message (and quite correctly rejected it), you can still gain something useful from studying his work if you concentrate on his techniques. This will help you see the same things in art you enjoy. You have correctly noted a heavy-handed use of foreshadowing, but there are many things Steinbeck does well. My suggestion is to learn them from his work since it is on your plate. Recognizing these techniques will enrich your life and this will save you from having to learn them elsewhere. And believe me, there are many poor artists out there to sift through who don't get them right.

One of the strongest techniques Steinbeck uses is putting a new spin on an old cliché (which is a technique songwriters use). In his case, it is wedding Naturalism (with a communist slant) to Biblical stories.

Rand does this with love triangles. Her spin could be called "three men and a woman." In The Fountainhead, Keating/Wynand/Roark get Dominique, and in Atlas Shrugged, D'Anconia/Rearden/Galt get Dagny. She does this with other things, too.

btw - I find several items in the Cliff Notes to be forced--like that business of the symbolism of hands. It seems that once a person gets into crossword puzzle mode (and I mean by that looking for hidden connections and filling in the blanks), he finds connections everywhere, even where there are none. I wouldn't be surprised one day if someone counted the number of times Steinbeck wrote "the" and "a" and "and" and gave it a special significance.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; On Ayn Rand in schools the news is getting better. More schools are putting Atlas and Fountainhead on reading lists. Ayn Rand has never been liked by intellectuals or would-be intellectuals like your high school English teacher. So she is resisted.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Chris Grieb

[Danneskjold]

Actually I'm about to go to that class right now. I'm gonna confront him about his negative views towards Rand again because, like most, his reason for disliking her was hardly a good one.

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Good for you! Be careful! He maybe an irational person who can give you a bad grade.

[Danneskjold]

Ya, I wrote what I thought was an excellent essay, at least as far as in-class essays go, about how you should only be your brother's keeper if it is in your rational self interest on it. He gave me a mid to low B. I showed it to one of my peers ( although sometimes I'm reluctant to call them that) and the only problem he had with it was that he said it didn't address the issue of being your brother's keeper. I then figured out that he didn't know what altruism was. Other than that most people I asked thought my essay was deserving of a far better grade than the mediocre one which I was given.

Funny story about an English teacher who have me that she disliked Atlas Shrugged because of unrealistic characters and how polarized they were.

Well, this teacher happened to be obsessed with the book To Kill a Mockingbird. I personally found the book pedantic beyond all reason, but that's just me. She had gone so far as to name her son Atticus. So, I asked her if she thought the character of Atticus was realistic, she tried to explain, so I paralleled Atticus to Galt. She said that this didn't change the fact that all the rest of Rand's characters were also static. I then proceeded to parallel Scout to Dagny, Scout's little boyfriend guy to Reardon (althought in doing so I did Reardon an injustice), and the racist man who's name is slipping my mind to Meigs. Finally she was forced to drop the argument altogether.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Jeff Kremer

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; I'm sorry about your not doing as well with the essay. On To Kill a Mockingbird a book I have never read I have only seen the movie your comparisons are good literary analaysis. You have an excellent mind and I say that not because you like and read Ayn Rand. A former secretary of Defense (not Rumsfeld) had a Latin motto on his desk which the transletion was "Don't let the bastards get you down". You might reread Kipling's poem If which was read at Ayn Rand's funeral. Those would be my advice to you as you complete high school.

[Danneskjold]

Haha, thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I strongly dislike the majority of my english teachers. Too many hypocrits that try to find literary reasons to backup their dislike for books that they really don't like for political reasons. This is in spite of the fact that they praise books that are similar as far as literature goes.

[Rich Engle]

Welly welly welly, what have we hyeah?

I'm not a huge Steinbeck fan, outside of Grapes of Wrath, but even then I'm not sure if the film wasn't better.

Still, I think you're being a bit rough on him. For one, it looks like you are limited in view to an extremely linear approach as far as "plotwriting," or development in general. Try reading William Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" to get over that (not to mention it will piss you off even more).

MSK is dead-on as far as him being considered a Naturalist in O-world. That's basically equivalent to telling someone they are a sexual pervert, or at least a shoplifter. There's a lot to be said for naturalistic and even transcendental perspectives, if integrated properly.

Steinbeck also was very New-Deal in his thinking, and that's because he was dealing with being a writer who saw The Great Depression. There was a lot of socialistic thinking going on.

You did not say a word about his imagery, which I think is bordering upon if not totally stunning. He also had a very strong eye as far as characterization goes. No, they aren't powerhouse prime movers like Galts or Roarks. It's a different point of view. I don't recall reading anything Miss Rand said about him, but if I had to guess he probably made her puke.

In terms of general writing "flow," I think he had it, but could bog down or sidetrack at times, as you intimated.

But still, there is only one Steinbeck, and many imitators. He is not my favorite author by any means, but he is for sure a classic American writer, as is Hemingway (another overrated one, for that matter).

Certainly not worth getting your panties in a bunch over. Notice the good parts (they are there), throw the rest away.

QUICK EDIT ADD-ON: There are worse lit reading assigments. Did you get The Scarlet Letter shoved up your hole yet? I did. My otherwise very good lit teacher decided there were "X" cases of symbolism in the book (I forget how many but it was enough) and our objective was to ID all of them. That gets very subjective. Talk about ruining an already marginal piece of writing...Yikes. But then again, I thought "The Village" was a totally suck-ass movie too...

rde

gimme a big Hoo Yah.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[John Dailey]

~ Hmmm...a thread about Steinbeck segueing into "Authors I Hate." Fielding, Lee (and, Shyamalan, fer Pete's sakes?)

~ Well, I hate James Michener; the plodding, neverending constructing of surrounding 'ambience', chronically filling (or more properly, used as 'filler'?) his whole story. Hawaii was enough, though his Caravans was...finally...barely interesting. Enough! Leon Uris runs a close second, though it seems he's more interesting when doing screenplays such as Battle Cry, QBVII (no comment on Exodus.)

~ Now: any thoughts on Hawthorne, Poe, Hemingway, Clarke, Heinlein (re plot, symbolism, 'style', etc.)? Or, pick your favorite (er, UN-favorite) author (or screenwriter/producer.) --- Chrichton, anyone?

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 27, 2006 by John Dailey

[Judith]

~ Hmmm...a thread about Steinbeck segueing into "Authors I Hate." Fielding, Lee (and, Shyamalan, fer Pete's sakes?)

~ Well, I hate James Michener; the plodding, neverending constructing of surrounding 'ambience', chronically filling (or more properly, used as 'filler'?) his whole story. Hawaii was enough, though his Caravans was...finally...barely interesting. Enough! Leon Uris runs a close second, though it seems he's more interesting when doing screenplays such as Battle Cry, QBVII (no comment on Exodus.)

I very much like Leon Uris. I've never seen the "Exodus" movie, but I did see the film of QBVII. The book is better. After I saw the film (which I watched because I've been an Anthony Hopkins fan since about 1980), I dug up the book, and after reading that book, I read everything by him I could get my hands on.

Judith

[Rich Engle]

An interesting Uris book involving the exploration of pornography: "The Seven Minutes."

Michener, I loved "Hawaii." After that, I was just elsewhere.

[Chris Grieb]

Rich; I think The 7 Minutes is by Irving Wallace. Let's not get our trashy novelist confused.

[C. Jordan]

Jeff: This question has been bothering me now for some time. Exactly WHY did you see a dog dying at the beginning and ASSUME that something like this must happen at the end? I don't see an obvious reason, except the possibility that this was one of Steinbeck's personal techniques.

If it is, by the way, I consider it a horrible one. Is Steinbeck trying to write a novel or a riddle for us to solve?

You have reminded me why I hated literature classes, by the way. For one thing, when I asked that above question I never got an answer.

Michael: Your description of Jim Casey as a parallel for Jesus Christ doesn't sound like symbolism to me; it sounds like plagiarism. At the very least like copying. Let me draw one example: in the Harry Potter universe, the evil wizards such as Voldemort and Grindewald were obviously inspired from Hitler. But while young Draco is blond (like a Nazi) he has a British and not a German accent. Though Grindewald was said to have committed atrocities (presumably similar to the Holocaust) he was not portrayed as looking like Hitler, or as resembling Hitler in any particular way.

What is the difference? From what you are telling me, Steinbeck went way too far. It also sounds as though he were more interested in putting in those references than in writing the story.

But then again, because all he had to do was re-read the Bible and re-draw the characters in familiar terms, the story was already half-written for him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chyrs,

If you keep thinking like that, you will hate all of Shakespeare. He lifted a good number of his plots from other works.

Plagiarism is a bit more specific and serious. (Rand certainly leaned on myths in the manner Steinbeck did. Don't forget, she learned much of her literary craft in Hollywood, too.)

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

I've been an Anthony Hopkins fan since about 1980)

Judith

Judith, were you in a coma before 1980? I think Hopkins is far and away the finest actor doing movies today. He even made "Nixon" fascinating! But one day Liam Nesson might catch up with him.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; Anthony Hopkins has been known to me since The Lion in Winter when he played Richard the Lionhearted. He the best actor going.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

I've been an Anthony Hopkins fan since about 1980)

Judith

Judith, were you in a coma before 1980? I think Hopkins is far and away the finest actor doing movies today. He even made "Nixon" fascinating! But one day Liam Nesson might catch up with him.

Barbara

He turned me into a gourmet.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; He made the phase "I'm having an old friend for dinner." take on a whole new meaning.