Book club selection (via Chris; August 30, 2015).
As discussed here, I'm a fan of this novel. Well-received in the book club.
Too often I read a book, and then quickly forget most of it (or all of it, for less memorable works). I'm hoping this site helps me remember at least something of what I read. (Blog commenced July 2006. Earlier posts are taken from book notes.) (Very occasional notes about movies or concerts may also appear here from time to time.)
"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))
Showing posts with label Steinbeck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steinbeck. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2015
Friday, April 18, 2014
The Moon is Down (John Steinbeck, 1942)
This was quite unusual, and I didn't even know anything like it existed. Steinbeck, of all people, as government propagandist? CPG (Steinbeck fan) recommended. It's a short book, and the plot involves a takeover of a northern European country by an aggressive neighboring power. Pretty clearly: Norway and Germany. The locals fight back, surprisingly effectively.
As I read it, I was pulled up regularly by the notion that it wasn't the great writing I normally associate with Steinbeck - somewhat cheapened by what seemed like obvious propaganda dimensions. (Also: we've since learned that a large percentage of the population in the occupied countries were all too happy to collaborate with the occupiers - even if they all claimed to be resistance or partisan heroes after the war. So that makes it a little tougher to accept the images of heroic resistance that suffuse this book. (And I say this without the slightest negative judgment on anyone in those circumstances, I'm mostly grateful I never had to face those choices.))
And who would ever have thought of Steinbeck as a propagandist in the first place? Even further: he had no special knowledge of Europe or the war or the conditions in the occupied countries. Yet it is clear that somehow this book hit a responsive chord across Europe. It was translated into many languages; outlawed by the Reich; smuggled regularly; etc. I don't know if these things can be predicted or planned, but Steinbeck somehow "got it" in terms of communicating effectively with Europeans in occupied countries, in a way that the professionals at this sort of thing simply didn't.
So that's pretty cool, even if the book will be remembered as effective propaganda rather than a grand literary achievement.
Which means it met the author's goal.
As I read it, I was pulled up regularly by the notion that it wasn't the great writing I normally associate with Steinbeck - somewhat cheapened by what seemed like obvious propaganda dimensions. (Also: we've since learned that a large percentage of the population in the occupied countries were all too happy to collaborate with the occupiers - even if they all claimed to be resistance or partisan heroes after the war. So that makes it a little tougher to accept the images of heroic resistance that suffuse this book. (And I say this without the slightest negative judgment on anyone in those circumstances, I'm mostly grateful I never had to face those choices.))And who would ever have thought of Steinbeck as a propagandist in the first place? Even further: he had no special knowledge of Europe or the war or the conditions in the occupied countries. Yet it is clear that somehow this book hit a responsive chord across Europe. It was translated into many languages; outlawed by the Reich; smuggled regularly; etc. I don't know if these things can be predicted or planned, but Steinbeck somehow "got it" in terms of communicating effectively with Europeans in occupied countries, in a way that the professionals at this sort of thing simply didn't.
So that's pretty cool, even if the book will be remembered as effective propaganda rather than a grand literary achievement.
Which means it met the author's goal.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The Winter of our Discontent (John Steinbeck, 1961)
This was a recommendation from CPG, who has been going through various Steinbeck novels. I liked it - it's one of Steinbeck's later works, and I think it was rather complicated and interesting. Definitely worth reading.
I had gotten a bit tired of Steinbeck - found him a bit preachy, negative - but need to re-think that. East of Eden certainly was a good work.
This book included a taste of Steinbeck's judgmental side - looking askance at American society entering the '60s with a streak of materialism; and Steinbeck does love to find bad behavior in business persons. I think he, like plenty of others, mistakenly believes in some mythical time when we were free of materialism (whatever that means). The way I wrote that sentence makes it obvious how I feel - every modern society has its pressures.
And I recognize there are plenty of instances where business persons cut corners - for all sorts of reasons. But I do not think it's rampant, certainly not in my experience.
Anyway - the protagonist resides in a New England village; has a dual heritage (Pilgrim/pirate); lost the family money and is struggling as a grocery clerk; sees opportunity to improve his financial lot. But this involves a series of unpleasant decisions involving his employer, his childhood friend, his buddy who works at the bank, etc. And his high school aged son turns out to be a corner-cutter.
The book is titled after the opening line in Richard III, so that's pretty neat.
I had gotten a bit tired of Steinbeck - found him a bit preachy, negative - but need to re-think that. East of Eden certainly was a good work.This book included a taste of Steinbeck's judgmental side - looking askance at American society entering the '60s with a streak of materialism; and Steinbeck does love to find bad behavior in business persons. I think he, like plenty of others, mistakenly believes in some mythical time when we were free of materialism (whatever that means). The way I wrote that sentence makes it obvious how I feel - every modern society has its pressures.
And I recognize there are plenty of instances where business persons cut corners - for all sorts of reasons. But I do not think it's rampant, certainly not in my experience.
Anyway - the protagonist resides in a New England village; has a dual heritage (Pilgrim/pirate); lost the family money and is struggling as a grocery clerk; sees opportunity to improve his financial lot. But this involves a series of unpleasant decisions involving his employer, his childhood friend, his buddy who works at the bank, etc. And his high school aged son turns out to be a corner-cutter.
The book is titled after the opening line in Richard III, so that's pretty neat.
Friday, June 03, 2005
East of Eden (John Steinbeck, 1952)
Trask family: father is Civil War
fraud; Adam goes into army, returns, ends up in Salinas; Charles is violent, stays on farm,
dies there. Adam’s children (Charles’)
with Cathy = Aron, Caleb. Cathy/Kate:
user, eventually commits suicide. Hamilton family: Samuel as elder; wife is
religious/hard-nosed; multiple children.
Lee: Chinese housekeeper etc.,
central character. Abra – falls in love
with Aron and Caleb in turn. Caleb dual
nature; through Lee’s intervention, receives Adam’s blessing (“thou mayest”)
after Adam has a stroke following Aron getting killed in WWI (after enlisting
because Caleb showed him his mother).
Read at La Camarilla.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
