MobileRead Book Club April 2015 Discussion: Cannery Row (spoilers)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Sounds like a great travel book.

Would be a heckofa road trip!

http://truthaboutcharley.com/travels...rley-timeline/

[WT Sharpe]

Thanks for the link. So Steinbeck "took no notes and left no expense accounts" during his travels with Charlie? That means me had to rely upon his memory, and as we all know, memory (with the possible exception of the memories of Marilu Henner and maybe 11 other people) lies. No wonder Mr. Steigerwald had such a hard time retracing his journey step by step.

[BelleZora]

I read Dogging Steinbeck a couple of years ago, and I was not surprised. It was the many attempts to create my own Travels with Charley that clued me in that Steinbeck was a great embellisher. Here is my Goodreads comment which was 'liked' by Steigerwald:

Spoiler:

I read just about every American travelogue and "Travels with Charley" was my first and favorite. I was a believer through the first couple of readings, but after decades of long road trips I began to be suspicious. Dogging Steinbeck confirmed my doubts. I never learned much during days spent just rocketing over highways except that this is a vast country sparsely populated with mostly kind, helpful people. The best conversations, comparable to the ones Steinbeck apparently enjoyed daily, generally occur only in hostels or while soaking in remote hot springs.

I believe Steinbeck did not set out to perpetrate a fraud. He could not have known that he couldn't learn much in his mode of travel over just 11 weeks. Finding knowledge, adventure, and joy in a road trip takes skill and a propensity to dawdle.

Just as Steinbeck's fraudulent account was not premeditated, Bill Steigerwald's book was not motivated by the desire to unmask Steinbeck. No experienced road-tripper could miss the fictional aspects, especially armed with Steinbeck documents detailing the actual trip as was Steigerwald. One critical reviewer who obviously has not read Dogging Steinbeck called it a hatchet job. It is most certainly not. The author's respect for both the truth and Steinbeck is obvious.

I wish John Steinbeck had been healthy and free enough to apply his wonderful literary skills to the kind of trip he needed to take to write the book that he initially envisioned. But if the book we got was the only one he could write, I forgive him. Because of Travels with Charley my life has been richer, happier, and, while traveling, I have attended Sunday services from cathedrals to adobe missions to inner-city converted store fronts, even though I otherwise rarely darken the door of a church. Still, Charley is the only fictionalized travelogue I will forgive. A travel book is only one perspective of one journey, and Steigerwald is right to insist that readers are owed a true account.

I felt that Steigerwald's account of his trip and his research was as honest as he could make it. His political opinions do not detract from the book: although he did not make his book about himself, he did tell us who he is and that can only help readers to understand his perspective. I recommend this book to all who enjoy American road trip literature.

John Steinbeck was a product of the American West who took the side of those who suffered most during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, not only in his books, but also in his life. He was reviled as a Communist and socialist until he no longer felt at home there. People have a long memory and probably no other author is so beloved in the land of his birth, the central California coastal region. The National Steinbeck Center is the only U.S. museum dedicated to a single author. I was there only a few weeks ago, and there are well-visited statues and memorials everywhere. I can only imagine how bewildering the intense love of Steinbeck can be for those who don't enjoy his writing or understand his iconic status.

I know Travels with Charley was something of a fraud, he was an alcoholic, and had conflicted children. Still, 'Bah Humbug Steinbeck' statements affect me something like "Niagara Falls" in the old Abbott & Costello skit: "Slowly I turned...step by step...inch by inch... "

I re-read Grapes of Wrath with the club, but wisely refrained from taking part in the discussion.

[caleb72]

This is more a comment about Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, but I have trouble talking about that novel without choking up. It starts when someone asks me what it's about and I try to describe the Dust Bowl era and what happened to people as a consequence, both with the banks taking over farms in the east and the exploitation of workers in the west.

That's bad enough and I can have difficulty expressing my thoughts about this without becoming emotional. But then I try to explain how through this, Steinbeck portrays a family in a way that demonstrates his love of the people who were caught up in this mess. He leads us through the demoralisation and the dehumanisation of these people while also elevating them to us through the main characters. But I can't quite get it out. I have to stop myself.

Luckily, in Cannery Row, I get a similar feeling from Steinbeck's portrayals without the side effects.

Had to throw this out there because I was questioned again about Grapes of Wrath last night and I had the now familiar experience of not being able to express myself clearly without consequence.

[kennyc]

Yes caleb this is steinbeck at his core!

[CRussel]

Grapes of Wrath was undeniably one of the great American novels of the 30's. It told a simply terrible story that was representative of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of stories, but it told it with love and respect for the people. No matter how great a novel it is, it's not an EASY novel.

Cannery Row, OTOH, is perhaps not one of the great American novels, though it is certainly a superb novel. But unlike Grapes of Wrath, it IS an easy novel. Very accessible, the story is one certainly of poverty and limited prospects, but not at all of tragedy.

I'm glad I've read both of them. I'll never read Grapes of Wrath again. I know how it ends, I know who the villains are, and I don't need to be reminded. It's in the same category as The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. A book I'm glad to have read, and really glad was written, but not a book to revisit for pleasure.

Cannery Row is a book I can well imagine revisiting for pleasure. I'm really glad we read it this month. Thanks to whomever nominated it.

ETA: sun surfer nominated Cannery Row. Excellent. I'd give you some K, but apparently I have done so too recently.

[samhy]

It took me longer than expected but I read it
First thing, I really like it, but I think I will be able to explain why in a better way if I take time to gather my thoughts.

However, I was following the story, mostly, until the last chapter. There, I have to admit that I got lost. Can someone explain how it ends? Does the fact that Doc goes back to reading the poem mean that despite his efforts to "disaster-proof" his house, everything went wrong and he's going to keep going on as he always does? Did I miss something?

[kennyc]

I loved chapter 31 ... penultimate ... about the gopher!

[kennyc]

Today would be Steinbeck's Birthday. Read Cannery Row!!

[CRussel]

Oh, but I already did. And watched the movie. All last year when we read this for the Book Club. I'm not quite ready for a re-read.

[AnotherCat]

Continuing the resurrection of this thread I don't see Steinbeck's Sweet Thursday mentioned (apologies if I have missed it).

Those who enjoyed Cannery Row will likely like it, those that did not will certainly not (which for my tastes would be a recommendation )

[CRussel]

Not one I have read, and at $12.99 on Amazon, not one I'm going to be buying right now, even though I'm sure I'd like it. And, sadly, not available in the BC Library.