Quick Steinbeck Comments

Oh man. I am usually pretty immune to tech blunders but I just lost my post. This is my substitute post. Mostly this is just my demonstration that I'm still participating and enjoying this forum.

Thanks to Karl for picking the book; I loved it.

Writing - I agree that Steinbeck is a fantastic writer. I have given some thought to re-reading his books I read long ago; I may like them much more as an adult.

Timshel - My old post was longer; the point is I think that the exercise of agency is a vital part of life. We can't buy our own salvation, but can do something great nonetheless. An unrelated example of this comes from the medical world: it is sad how many people live their lives as a "victim," medically speaking. Obesity (possibly the single biggest epidemiologic challenge facing America), diabetes, lung disease, HIV, and several other conditions are largely avoidable, and yet the incidence grows. Why? A bad decision made, nobody chooses to reverse course. It's easier to be a victim. Oh, and I love the seminary video reference, Peter.

Prostitution - also longer in my lost post, I just wanted to say that I think someone with Steinbeck's abilities could have written this story without the promiscuity. I know prostitution is common today and was then (and promiscuity without payment is nearly ubiquitous). This is art and a representation of things as they are in the eyes of the artist. But I personally don't want to read about it.

Caricature - I usually get sucked in to a story this long and well-written. The thing that kept me from "believing" this book was the fact that all the characters are one-dimensional, basically representing one part of human nature. Of course I'm sure this is on purpose and did make me ponder what in my nature is represented by a Charles, an Adam, a Kate, or a Lee. But I do not find any of the characters believable as individuals.

Marriages - There are a few uplifting relationships in the book, mostly involving Lee and others, or Sam Hamilton and others. But it seems like every marriage in this multigenerational, multi-family saga is a shell of a relationship. I actually began to wonder if Steinbeck himself was unaware of how good a marriage can be. Kate was blind to goodness; was this Steinbeck's blindness? Like I said above, he's really caricaturizing, but it does always tend to be in the direction of less-meaningful marriages.

Religion - Although there are multiple references to religious individuals, there is no reference to uplifting religiosity. I again questioned whether this was a little of Steinbeck's personal bias slipping through.

Anyway, this was a fun read. I look forward to David O. McKay, which I will start reading as soon as we unpack in North Carolina. Becky packed the bookshelf before I could nab the book.