next »

[t_folk]

After reading this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703994.html) I was struck by how much the author's view of Steinbeck differed from my own. What he views as "artless" I read as concise and quite a demonstration of Steinbeck's craft. What he reads as humor that is "stained" and "dated" I read as relevant and still quite funny. In fact, I just finished Cannery Row again - probably the seventh or eighth time I've read it - and I find that it is just as charming and funny as it was when I first read it as a 10th-grader.

What do my fellow forumites think? Is Steinbeck artless as the article's author wants us to believe or is it, perhaps, that he doesn't see the art of Steinbeck's craft? Thoughts?

[bacardiandlime]

Steinbeck sucks. He and his fellow 'luminary' of the 1930s middlebrow canon, Pearl Buck, both trade in stereotypes and patronising romanticising of the 'working man'. Plotted like a handwringing newspaper op-ed, and written with all the vehemence of a teenager.

[king_ghidorah]

I think there are so few responses to this thread partly because Steinbeck is a little out of vogue, and partly because it is simply silly to suggest that a literary giant such as Steinbeck is ever truly overestimated.  The simple fact of his longstanding prominence - albeit now in the HS canon - should be indication enough.  Every once in a while a journalist or some minor critical figure comes along and attempts to make a name by challenging the reputation of those they should reverence because the old masters don't fit the transitory ethos of the time.  We are a bit cynical for Steinbeckian morality, but that's not really Steinbeck's fault. 

[the_honey_badger]

Basically, I like Steinbeck. Haven't read him in years except for "The Grapes of Wrath" but for that one book alone I consider him a giant. "The Grapes of Wrath" is probably one of the three greatest American novels.

As for dated? Austen, Dickens, Hawthorne, or just about anyone you can name is dated in some way. Because someone might like to escape into early nineteenth-century England and not mid-twentieth century America doesn't mean Austen is any less an artifact of the attitudes, humor, or expression of her time.

[pclark]

King Ghidorah, Yankeedan, posting way after anybody is probably reading this, but I agree with both your comments.  The Iliad and the Odyssey are part of the HS canon as well--are they artless?  I don't think anyone has ever said that with a straight face.

[mended_drum]

I love Steinbeck and find him quite artful. 

[not_a_gradstudent1]

"The Grapes of Wrath" is probably one of the three greatest American novels.

What are the other two?

[larryc]

Is "artless" the same as "overrated?" Because if so I agree completely.

[aandsdean]

"The Grapes of Wrath" is probably one of the three greatest American novels.

What are the other two?

Wieland
The Last of the Mohicans

<kidding>

[the_honey_badger]

"The Grapes of Wrath" is probably one of the three greatest American novels.

What are the other two?

I'd give Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" a spot on my personal shortlist. As for the third? It varies according to my mood but Richter's "The Trees," or AB Guthrie's "The Big Sky," Dreiser, "An American Tragedy," Harper Lee, "To Kill a Mockingbird," Robert Penn Warren, "All the King's Men,  John Dos Passos, "U.S.A.," Sinclair Lewis, "Main Street," would be on it.  Richard Wright, Ernest Hemingway, or James Fennimore Cooper probably would rank higher for most people but I have to say they just fall flat for me in capturing something essential about American character and culture.

[reslifeguy]

I dislike Steinbeck. I once said that anyone who forced a student to read anything by Steinbeck ought to be decapitated and buried in a shallow grave, but I've become less severe about the matter in recent years.

[dr_dre]

I adore Steinbeck. I do not adore Hemingway.

[aandsdean]

"The Grapes of Wrath" is probably one of the three greatest American novels.

What are the other two?

I'd give Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" a spot on my personal shortlist. As for the third? It varies according to my mood but Richter's "The Trees," or AB Guthrie's "The Big Sky," Dreiser, "An American Tragedy," Harper Lee, "To Kill a Mockingbird," Robert Penn Warren, "All the King's Men,  John Dos Passos, "U.S.A.," Sinclair Lewis, "Main Street," would be on it.  Richard Wright, Ernest Hemingway, or James Fennimore Cooper probably would rank higher for most people but I have to say they just fall flat for me in capturing something essential about American character and culture.

I'd actually go for Huckleberry Finn and Moby Dick or The Scarlet Letter or The Great Gatsby, if we're looking for books that say something really important about "national character" and mythology.  Moby Dick has a great deal to tell us about the current administration, for example...("And I alone escaped to tell thee....")

I'd also put in a word for The House of Mirth, Native Son, and a few others.  I'm with Yankee on liking Dos Passos, though I wonder if U.S.A. is one novel or three? 

Cooper really does suck, but he also is a if not the founder of the whole "frontier myth" thing. 

[pclark]

Moby Dick, certainly one of the greatest, though Billy Budd garners a lot of attention.  Gatsby, Huck Finn, sure.  I still like catcher in the Rye, too, but it's not one of the greatest. 

[scheherazade]

I mentioned in another thread that Steinbeck is the only assigned book in high school I hated.  Everything else I read and (at least mostly) liked (I'm easy, but don't tell anyone) - Crime and Punishment, Les Miserables, Scarlet Letter, Hamlet, The Great Gatsby...you name it.  Grapes of Wrath?  Blech.  Boring, mind-numbing, obvious...