I think I agree with where you end up at in this essay. I've read (and re-read) his entire oeuvre and Steinbeck doesn't maintain a more consistent moral basis beyond his belief that there is inherent value in human beings and it's valuable to understand them. Sometimes he takes a stronger stand (EoE, GoW, The Moon is Down, Cup of Gold, etc.) and sometimes much weaker or nuanced.
As a committed believer in both morals and quality fiction, Steinbeck scratches an itch that nobody else comes close to for me, in that his writing is phenomenonal, his people are real, and his settings are beautiful. You get to see people as they really are or really could be without being brow-beaten into a moral stance, but that's not the same as meaninglessness.
I agree that when people are at their best, it's the Divine spark within them. And they are all in need of Christ's love, which is only faintly mirrored in the love shown by the most good and heroic of Steinbeck's characters. But nobody seems to write real, modern people like he does.
I really appreciate this look into Of Mice and Men, as I recently just read it myself and DIDN'T draw the same conclusions! It's so cool how different minds perceive different aspects of the same work.
It's also funny that you should mention the "stodgy moralist" sentiment, as this sentiment in me just caused me to have to DNF The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway because I couldn't take another page of hedonistic meandering... Perhaps there's a meaning that I'm yet too foolish to ascertain.
I personally don't understand the popularity of "meaninglessness AS meaning" in much of American literature (I also DNF'd Blood Meridian, for example). Compared to works like Tolkien, Dostoevsky or even Herbert, I can't help but wonder if modern literature has joined the other mediums as a means of entertainment and "world building", rather than transcendence.
That being said, this article has helped me to see how God might use arbitrariness in our lives as a means of spiritual formation, so thank you for that! In that light, I can see why some might enjoy the Blood Meridian(s) of the literary world.
I, personally, still like a definitive "answer" - Raskolnikov DOES end up going to Siberia, after all (LOL).
Thanks for this rumination on this excellent book.
One aspect that sticks out to me is its heavy reliance on dialogue to carry plot, emotion, characterization, and more. If I'm recalling correctly, Steinbeck wrote that he wanted to craft a book as close to a stage play's script as possible, and this was the result--and it works so well. It both creates an engaging, driven story in which the characters practically tell it of their own accord, and because their "lonely" voices dominate--instead of the narrator's, who generally keeps his distance, using flat, basic language.
John Steinbeck never judges people. In his book Of Mice and Men he shows some of his characters to be in a state of hell where hell is lack of love, acknowledgement or affirmation. Yet he also shows the possible leadership and true caring of those remarkable for ensuring their survival and an understanding of all necessities. He warns us to be more vigilant in our assessment of those we accept as leaders in commerce and in politics. And he wants us to be more sympathetic to our fellow travellers in life.
I think I agree with where you end up at in this essay. I've read (and re-read) his entire oeuvre and Steinbeck doesn't maintain a more consistent moral basis beyond his belief that there is inherent value in human beings and it's valuable to understand them. Sometimes he takes a stronger stand (EoE, GoW, The Moon is Down, Cup of Gold, etc.) and sometimes much weaker or nuanced.
As a committed believer in both morals and quality fiction, Steinbeck scratches an itch that nobody else comes close to for me, in that his writing is phenomenonal, his people are real, and his settings are beautiful. You get to see people as they really are or really could be without being brow-beaten into a moral stance, but that's not the same as meaninglessness.
I agree that when people are at their best, it's the Divine spark within them. And they are all in need of Christ's love, which is only faintly mirrored in the love shown by the most good and heroic of Steinbeck's characters. But nobody seems to write real, modern people like he does.
I really appreciate this look into Of Mice and Men, as I recently just read it myself and DIDN'T draw the same conclusions! It's so cool how different minds perceive different aspects of the same work.
It's also funny that you should mention the "stodgy moralist" sentiment, as this sentiment in me just caused me to have to DNF The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway because I couldn't take another page of hedonistic meandering... Perhaps there's a meaning that I'm yet too foolish to ascertain.
I personally don't understand the popularity of "meaninglessness AS meaning" in much of American literature (I also DNF'd Blood Meridian, for example). Compared to works like Tolkien, Dostoevsky or even Herbert, I can't help but wonder if modern literature has joined the other mediums as a means of entertainment and "world building", rather than transcendence.
That being said, this article has helped me to see how God might use arbitrariness in our lives as a means of spiritual formation, so thank you for that! In that light, I can see why some might enjoy the Blood Meridian(s) of the literary world.
I, personally, still like a definitive "answer" - Raskolnikov DOES end up going to Siberia, after all (LOL).
Great response, Matthew! I would echo nearly everything you said.
Thanks for this rumination on this excellent book.
One aspect that sticks out to me is its heavy reliance on dialogue to carry plot, emotion, characterization, and more. If I'm recalling correctly, Steinbeck wrote that he wanted to craft a book as close to a stage play's script as possible, and this was the result--and it works so well. It both creates an engaging, driven story in which the characters practically tell it of their own accord, and because their "lonely" voices dominate--instead of the narrator's, who generally keeps his distance, using flat, basic language.
John Steinbeck never judges people. In his book Of Mice and Men he shows some of his characters to be in a state of hell where hell is lack of love, acknowledgement or affirmation. Yet he also shows the possible leadership and true caring of those remarkable for ensuring their survival and an understanding of all necessities. He warns us to be more vigilant in our assessment of those we accept as leaders in commerce and in politics. And he wants us to be more sympathetic to our fellow travellers in life.