Thoughts on Cannery Row

Cannery Row, like every place else is not superstitious, but will not walk under a ladder or open an umbrella in the house. (pg. 143)

The first thing I thought of when I read that was Michael Scott when he said, "I'm not superstitious, but I'm a little stitious."  :)
...

I really enjoyed this book. I loved the structure, how it alternated between broad descriptions of Monterey to detailed vignettes of its inhabitants.  Not to mention that just the idea of a beer milkshake, just the idea of giving someone 25 cats for a birthday gift, just the idea of pin cushion art (entitled Pre-Cambrian Memory) among other things (phrases like "spurious landman's toilet") all made me laugh. While part of me thought it was too short, the other part of me realized that to write something so concise and so sensitive and so full of memorable characters and so well-crafted surely is the mark of someone who won the Nobel Prize for literature.  Speaking of which, on the Nobel Foundation website, it says that he was awarded the prize "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception."  In his acceptance speech, Steinbeck said something I think worth sharing:

Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.

The skalds, the bards, the writers are not separate and exclusive. From the beginning, their functions, their duties, their responsibilities have been decreed by our species.

Humanity has been passing through a gray and desolate time of confusion. My great predecessor, William Faulkner, speaking here, referred to it as a tragedy of universal fear so long sustained that there were no longer problems of the spirit, so that only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worth writing about.

Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being.

This is not new. The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.

Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.

I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.

(You can read the whole speech here.)

This is what I love about John Steinbeck--how he balances harsh reality with redeeming humanity in his writing. He contrasts weakness with strength, fear with resolution, and despair with hope.  No matter how dire the oppressive circumstances or how grim the prospects, he is generally hopeful. Maybe this is something we can discuss?

I also might be kind of biased as to liking this book as well.  Every time he mentioned Salinas and Point Lobos I got all nostalgic for places of my childhood! (Hil, you go to the CA coast more than the rest of us...please visit Point Lobos someday.  It is SO beautiful!)

Is everyone still up for this Tuesday?? Hope so!  If not, let me know.  I'd love to know what you all thought of the book (even if you didn't like it), so please post!