posted
I haven't read Steinbeck in a long time, but I always liked what I read of his. Of Mice and Men sticks with you for a long time.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mice and Men was good, but it felt "forced" to me. Steinbeck used a lot of cliche (IMHO) in that short book. We were happy when we were supposed to be, and we cried when we were supposed to be.
Still a good story though.
Ever read "Travels with Charlie"? What a funny book. I don't often laugh out loud when reading, but that book had me in stitches.
posted
The only Steinbeck book I'm sure I've read is his posthumous King Arthur book, and that for its fantasy associations. I can't recall him popping up as required reading in English classes, and though I've seen several movies-from-his-novels I've never been drawn to read the books-from-which-the-movies-came.
I suppose Steinbeck is one author who's fallen through the cracks of my mind. Though I've read some of his near-contemporaries fairly extensively (Hemingway and Fitzgerald come to mind), I've just missed his work.
posted
Hi all, sorry to be so long to respond after starting the thread. Rcorporon, yes Mice and Men is forced. It's also a collection of other descriptions (the river) from other works. I think the reason it may get brought out in high school english classes so much IS because it's pretty tame stuff, but has strong characters, and a well conceived plot.
I sure agree with you about Cannery Row's being funny in places. But I think it's kinda tragically so. As in a Chaplin film. The character of Doc was particularly interesting. Recall his trip down the California coast stopping every few miles for a hamburger and a beer. When he arrives in La Jolla he finds a murdered women in the tide pools? Yet the stuff is so innocuous. Heck, I'd let my daughter read it as a first book.
Robert Nowall, if you dont read Grapes of Wrath you are missing one of the better novels of the 20th. The film is right in there to. John Ford, or Howard Hawks their style is so similar I cant tell the difference. :-P
posted
John Ford, as I recall. You can always tell the difference between Ford and Hawks by how they use their settings. With Ford, the settings usually seem so lively that they're almost characters in themselves (think "The Quiet Man" or "The Searchers.") With Hawks there's never any more of the setting than is needed for the story (think "Rio Bravo" or "Bringing Up Baby.")
None of which has much to do with Steinbeck...I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" when they ran it for us in high school. Good stuff...but I wasn't tempted to check the novel out of the library...
posted
Robert, there's an good comment if ever I heard one. Well, Ford certainly gives us a beautiful if not sometimes contrived road trip across America in Grapes. Thinking of the Indian s in New Mexico with their sheep and the woman with the papoose as the man makes jewelry over an anvil.
I must admit I know very little of Hawks. His only film I am familiar with is The Thing. I cant really say I feel strongly about it. You probably think me a little silly. There is allot of simple intelligence in the scene where they figure out it was a flying saucer. The frightening stuff remains well, frightening. Mostly because of the way it's edited and the element of surprise is used. The staging reminds me a bit of Jack Arnold. Simple, theatrical.
BTW, I should have said I get the names confused. Dont sound quite as smart do I? :-P
Books like this one get my red Marxist heart pumping all fast, and the good Communist blood flowing through my veins! Steinbeck either was a good old lefty, or had an excellent understanding of the working mans feelings and organized labour.
posted
rcorporon, yes he was a lefty. It might interest you a little to know that I grew up in the places where those conflicts had their origins. There is a very interesting book "The King of California" gos into more detail. I was raised by a pack of liberal wolves myself ;-) I'll have a read of it then get back w/you for a discussion. I look forward to it.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hoptoad! Those are just the most interesting choices. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank you for what are very thoughtful and right on the money suggestions. IMO
I dont suppose you would be interested in reading work by would be writers who are desperate for feedback, and could really use the help. (spoken in a voice like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz ;-)
posted
East of Eden is glorious. It's my favorite Steinbeck novel, and it's almost my favorite book. The characters were rich and important, the themes provocative, and writing was interesting and honest.
There were a few tangents, like Olive's adventure in the airplane, that I could do without, and Cathy did seem too comic book villian to be real, but overall, the book was astounding.
I've read a wheelbarrow full of Steinbeck and Cannery Row is what I would call his most technically perfect novel. Doc makes an excellent hero and a straightman, but with respect to ambition, East of Eden is awesome.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited November 15, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
