Printable View
After reading Of Mice and Men for the gazillionth time, I teared up again.
However, I have a couple of friends who absolutely can not stand Of Mice and Men and other works by Steinbeck.
So I was wondering.... Am I weird in enjoying reading Steinbeck? Please tell me I am not alone! :confused5:
I liked The Grapes of Wrath pretty well. I've never read Of Mice and Men, despite it being apparentyly required at most high schools.
I'm a fan. Of Mice and Men is one of my all-time favorites. I also enjoyed Grapes of Wrath, Travels with Charlie, East of Eden, and The Pearl. I haven't read his other stuff yet, but intend to get to it someday.
I think the reason that some people (or at least, the people I've discussed it with) don't like Steinbeck is because no one can ever accuse him of writing happy endings. Many of his books are sad and depressing. In the modern world of hollywood movie endings, where they even gave Count of Monte Cristo and I Am Legend happy endings, a lot of people believe that is how stories should end. They oftentimes fail to see the beauty in a sad ending.
I am not a fan of Of Mice and Men, but I have loved everything else I have read by him. I find the things that make East of Eden or Grapes of Wrath as good as they are, are not fully present in OMAM. The characters are not as vivid as they are in his other works, and the sweeping visual imagery is not as prevalent. I didn't find I cared enough about the characters or story to appreciate the ending.
There are four American writers that are representative of USA in a fairly well defined manner: Mark Twain, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck and Harper Lee. They do of course have competition but they have been difficult to overcome in the representative description of the nation.
I have always loved John Steinbeck the most, and he was one of my first favorite authors. My love for him eventually led to me really appreciating Faulkner's work.
I would say that it is generally a lot more acceptable to enjoy authors like Faulkner than it is Steinbeck. I do love him a lot, and you are certainly not weird for enjoy his work, but a lot of people don't really seem to "get" Steinbeck. Like Dickens' work, I would say that people generally find Steinbeck to be a bit dull for their tastes.
EDIT: I'd also agree Of Mice and Men is one of his weaker works, though it was the first book of his I read. I like Travels With Charlie and The Grapes of Wrath best.
Steinbeck was one of the first authors I read when I started reading "literary stuff", so I'm still attached to him.
My favourites are "Cannery Row" and "Tortilla Flat". I really like the atmosphere of these two books.
And of course "Grapes of Wrath" is great either.
I think the same might be true for a lot of people, and it certainly is for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by loe
We were forced to read "The Red Pony" in both 7th and 8th grade, and I despise that book. I also despise "The Pearl." I think it's because they have to do with children, and it causes me more heartache than I can handle to think of the lack of hope that is present in these two novels.
I do agree with you, Charles, that, in Hollywood especially, they don't get tragic endings. What would "Death of a Salesman" or "A Streetcar Named Desire" or "The Glass Menagerie" be without their tragic endings?
I like "East of Eden" and "Of Mice and Men." I just re-read that one last month. It's seems more like a novella than a full-length novel; in fact I read somewhere that Steinbeck wrote it to read almost like a play, and it has been performed as such, which is probably why it's lacking the visual imagery you were speaking of. Charles. It is indeed, beautifully tragic, and no, Rei Abe, you are not wrong to enjoy Steinbeck.
My first encounter with Steinbeck was this school year, we had to read Of Mice and Men as it was part of our coursework and exam. I thought it was a very good book, and it makes me glad that our class actually had a brilliant English teacher who managed to make even the most 'anti-reading' kids enjoy the books we study. I'll hopefully get around to reading some more by Steinbeck over summer.
The only Steinbeck book I have read is The Grapes of Wrath. I wondered while I was reading it whether it was written to win prizes rather than to be enjoyed. It reminded me of Joseph Conrad's miserable books. I thought Woody Guthrie dealt with the subject much better with his folk music. Then I heard that Guthrie had been inspired to write those dustbowl songs by reading The Grapes of Wrath, so I forgave Steinbeck a little.
Many many moons ago John Steinbeck set me on the road to reading good novels, I thank this author for setting me on the right track.
Steinbeck has always been a gateway author, an author who introduces the reader to serious literature, for me. As others have mentioned, his style can be quite dry at times, but none can deny his contributions to American literature. I might have enjoyed his work more if other authors hadn't already fulfilled that role for me before I read my first Steinbeck novel.
The first novel I read was Of Mice and Men, and I had the benefit of reading that in high school with an excellent teacher. My opinion of it probably distorted. The novel was thrilling to read; however, I don't doubt that a large part of that was due to the teacher. The only other Steinbeck novel I've read is East of Eden. While the novel is interesting, Cathy is too unbelievable as an antagonist for the novel to earn a spot among my favorite works of literature on my bookshelf. Also, Steinbeck places an emphasis on the Hamilton family that is unnecessary to the novel's actual story.
I had to read Of Mice and Men twice for school and I could not stand that book either time ( and it was not just because I had to read it for school, I enjoyed most of my school reading and actually got excited about required reading).
After that I did have it in my head that I did not like Steinbeck, but I do not like to judge an author by only one book, and so I decided to read Grapes of Wrath and while I did enjoy it more than I expected to, at the same time when I think about that book the thing I remember the most was the fact that it took like 20 pages to describe a turtle crossing the dang road.
I am in the process of reading East of Eden. I have been kind of reading it off an on as I keep getting distracted away from it, but I have to say I am actually really enjoying it. I do feel like he rambles on a lot less in this book then he did in both Of Mice and Men and Grapes of Wrath, and I find Cathy absolutely fascinating.
Steinbeck did write "Of Mice and Men" with the intention of seeing it filmed/ dramatised and if you read carefully you will notice descriptions of "sounds off" and references to colours etc which could translate fairly easily to a drama script or screenplay. That may partly explain the time compression of the text and the lack of depth in the sense of background to the characters. It is a book I admire. I've probably read it eight times. "The Pearl" was made into a film (in the late thirties?)
John Steinbeck is a great American writer. The people who are "weird" are the ones that do not enjoy reading him. East of Eden, Grapes of Wrath, Cannery Row, Of Mice and Men, and The Pearl are all "must reads" in American literature.
Harper Lee "representative of the nation" with only one book? Since you say "American writers" and not "American novelists" then I would say Walt Whitman might be more representative. Or maybe another novelist: Toni Morrison maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
It is quite daring to say that four writers (all of whom I like) represent a diverse continental state with such a varied history and huge population. I guess I could say what about Tom Dick andHarriet... But that would be to split hairs with an innocuous statement - again!
Yes, those Grapes, Mice, Easts, Tortillas and Red Ponies, but Charley will always be my darling.
Read the description of Hurricane Donna’s fury at landing on Long Island prior to Steinbeck’s departure to travel America and any lingering doubts about his genius will soon be dispelled by a briny wave of his quill.
Yes, Travels With Charley definitely needs to be taken with a pinch of sea salt with regards to the sequence of events, the people he runs across and the discourse that ensued, but by the trident which Cyclopes bestowed on Poseidon, John Ernst Steinbeck, Jr. had the cockles and mussels alive, alive-o!
Anyone he sets off in a pickup truck named, Rocinate with a poodle for company to see his country one last time in old age has my full attention.
I have Travels With Charley. I think I'll dig it out and finally read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Smiles
Not to like Steinbeck is to miss out on a very good writer able to bridge the gap between writing for the masses and for the serious reader. Agus Ennison mhuthaich mi fhein gun robh "sounds off" aig Of M&M s nis tha fios am carson. Taing dhuit
Papillondemai, a splendid idea! I am sure you will enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by papillondemai
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/d...l/IMG_1660.jpg
Well as you can see, about 44 years before the Jedi, Ewan set off on his travels in the Long Way Round with his mate Charley, someone else had already beaten him to the punch.
I finished reading Of Mice and Men for the first time last night. I can safely say, that I like his writing. While the background of the characters was abit weak, I felt like the relationship between George and Lennie was almost archetypal of so many friendships in life, and going even further, bad habits we have, but have a hard time letting go of, making excuses for them. That's me reading heavily into the story, perhaps in the wrong direction, but I definitely felt there was more going on with the symbolism of the two lead characters, than what was immediately obvious.
If this is representative of his weaker writing, then I am really looking forward to East of Eden and The Grapes of Wrath.
Steinbeck? Great . None of his novels are long. No fancy writing. But he is a fantastic writer. The Pearl is only
six chapters long. Simple not simplistic and structurally well made. He called it a parable. He said there was only black and white but it is a novel of superb colour both local and intellectual. Right wing thinkers will obviously hate Steinbeck but well, f em.