web
counter
 

The Winter of Our Discontent by John Steinbeck

By Kriegerfrau | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (38)



7f5j0qCEPqjc9k8sQcbPTADYo1_500.jpg

This was Steinbeck’s last complete novel, published in 1961. I had never heard of it before I discovered it when rifling through the bargain bins at Half Price Books. I had to look at his picture in the back to make sure it was the John Steinbeck. (I also discovered his younger son — the only surviving one — is a published writer. Did anyone know that?)

A quick rundown: Ethan Hawley is a Long Islander who comes from a long line of once great men, whalers and men of commerce and banking and business. He once owned the grocery store and many other things, but hard financial times means he is now the clerk at the store, and an Italian man owns it. His wife, though a very pleasant, devoted woman, is disappointed in this turn of events, and his children seethe and resent their lower place on the social ladder. They are outwardly kind and loving to Ethan, but he knows they are unhappy and they know he knows. Opportunities come along for Ethan to correct this, all of them asking him to compromise his morals in order to regain his lost position in the world.

I don’t regret reading it, but I’m not terribly glad about it, either. There’s something missing here. Steinbeck is off his game, that much is clear. I could never figure out why parts of the book are told from the third person point of view and parts are in first person. That would be an intriguing stylistic choice if there seemed to be some motivation, some larger meaning driving it, but I could find none. Perhaps it was too far beyond my understanding, who knows? It felt random, almost unintentional and sloppy. I’ve loved Steinbeck so much, I almost feel ashamed using such descriptors, but there it is.

(As I was reading this, I would sometimes remind myself that the same person wrote East of Eden. I almost couldn’t believe it.)

Instead of allowing the characters’ words and actions to tell the story as he did so well in his earlier works, Steinbeck engages in long soliloquies (appropriate given the title?) that I found myself rushing through. This was the first time I ever felt impatient with Steinbeck.

So stylistically, we have those two problems—the first fairly minor and the second severe enough to interfere with the enjoyment of the story.

But there’s also the tone: high-handed, moralistic and cynical. Now Steinbeck can definitely deliver a swift moral blow; just read The Grapes of Wrath. But in his prime, he did it through the characters and without the long sermons. He did it with a light enough touch that, even when dealing with very serious issues, the reader got it without being bludgeoned by it.

As much as I hate to say it, Steinbeck seems to have gotten that old man disease of thinking the world has rotted and gone to hell all around him and no one is good anymore and no one ever will be again—the time of good men and good women and honesty and etiquette and moral strength has passed and will never again reappear. It happens to the best of us. (I’m looking at you, Ray Bradbury.) You feel it on every page of this novel and it’s my theory that this is what tripped him up, this is what threw off his writing game in the end—the preoccupation with delivering a withering sermon in his final novel.

Still, I suppose it’s good to find out that the writer I thought just couldn’t mess up finally did. When I look at his larger body of work, it’s clear that The Winter of Our Discontent does not take anything from the beauty and power of his earlier works.

And that is what I will hold onto.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. For more of Kriegerfrau’s reviews, check out her blog.









Blog Trends from My Bunk 02/04/10 | Mutants Trailer













Comments

When I saw the pic of Steinbeck, I thought "hey! What the hell? Why's my favorite American author on Pajiba? A NEW FILM ADAPTATION???"

Then I saw that it was my damn review. I'm so dense sometimes.

Wow. I'm blown away to see it here. And like a nerd, I'm super curious to know what anyone else thinks who has read it, though I would imagine not many people have.

I want to add that I still think Steinbeck at his worst is still better than most writers at their best.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 4, 2010 11:34 PM

I love this book purely because of its title being quoted in Reality Bites, moreover by Ethan Hawke when the main character in the book has such a similar name. Oh man nerdy.

Good review though. I often wonder if the "last published novels" should be part of Stephen King's infamous 10% rule. But instead of cutting 10% out of each book, writers should just HOLD the last novel and never publish it.

Posted by: caroline at February 4, 2010 11:43 PM

caroline You reminded me, isn't Salinger's unpublished stuff supposed to be released now?

I think I need to re-watch Reality Bites now, I saw it once many many years ago and hardly remember it.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 4, 2010 11:46 PM

I've rejected Steinbeck because of being forced to read it in grade nine. While I don't think I'll read this one, I believe I should give him another try. I was kind of an ass in high school. (nothing's changed)

Posted by: admin at February 4, 2010 11:55 PM

adminI bet it was Of Mice and Men you were supposed to read.

If you aren't totally against the idea, I'd say that would be the best one to try again. For some reason, it's much better the older you are.

Or there's The Pearl. Pretty darn good, too. And so short, it barely qualifies as a novel!

I would say Cannery Row, but Of Mice and Men and The Pearl are both better, IMO.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 12:02 AM

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/george-and-lenny/669622/

That's the recently discovered alternate ending to Of Mice and Men in video form.

:)

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 12:15 AM

I actually read Of Mice and Men together with Cannery Row a couple of months ago, and favored the latter in some respects. I'm gonna stay away from this one, but once Balls Jr is over East of Eden is on my list.

Posted by: SaBrina at February 5, 2010 1:51 AM

Steinbeck is my favorite author of all time. Of Mice and Men is my favorite book of all time. I can't even get through the first chapter without sobbing like someone seeing the human centipede for the first time.

I've never read this one and I'm sad to hear that it wasn't that good.

But I'll always have OM&M. *runs sobbing to the nearest corner*

Posted by: Jelinas at February 5, 2010 5:19 AM

After having read OMaM, I just cannot bring myself to read more Steinbeck. This (great!) review doesn't further entice me either.

Posted by: Cindy at February 5, 2010 9:02 AM

Oh, anyone can read Cannery Row. It's a lot lighter. And, it introduced America to the concept of the Beer Shake.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 5, 2010 9:45 AM

Cindy Because you hated it?

The Winter of Our Discontent is literally the only Steinbeck I didn't love.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 10:30 AM

I really enjoyed your review Kriegerfrau. I just wanted to chime in and add Travels with Charlie as a good Steinbeck read. It and Cannery Row are two of my favorites. So, um, yeah, that's all.

Posted by: HarperJay at February 5, 2010 10:59 AM

HarperJay I also reviewed Travels With Charley on the same blog!

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 11:05 AM

Ha! Enjoyed that review too! With that, I can see that a re-read is in order. I will confess to having a black standard poodle (who, sadly, does not make the sound pfft pfft) partially because of my love for this book. Oh dear, that makes me total dork doesn't it? At any rate, thanks for reminding me of this book and what a truly great author Steinbeck is.

Posted by: HarperJay at February 5, 2010 11:29 AM

LOL, is there now a game to somehow insert the Human Centipede into every comment section here or something? (And, I almost did sob that first time...)

John Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors of all time, with East of Eden being one of my favorite books. Now I know to skip this particular book, which is actually on my shelf also thanks to a bargain bin at a used book store. But I haven't read it yet, and won't now. Just don't know if I can handle the disappointment.

Posted by: Eva at February 5, 2010 11:32 AM

I too endorse the Travels with Charlie recommendation!! Great one.

Posted by: Eva at February 5, 2010 11:33 AM

Eva You never know, you may like it. But most haven't, even at the time it was published.

But here's a question: when an author has already published some incredible works, does it make it harder for him or her when they publish something mediocre? Are they being judged by their own yardstick?

Because honestly if some first-time author had written this, I wonder if it would have been considered as bad. It still wouldn't be GOOD, don't get me wrong. It's still too meandering and preachy in places, but I think it would be considered "not bad for a freshman effort," if that makes sense.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 11:47 AM

I was just going through your blog, Snuggiepants, and I was really excited that you reviewed Steinbeck. I haven't read The Winter of Our Discontent, and I probably won't. He's my favorite author of ALL TIME and I love him so much. It's funny because even though I've read books of his that I really didn't like (The Moon is Down - booo) it still doesn't take away from any of his other works that I love love so much (Travels with Charley, YEA!!! Of Mice and Men, Cannery Row, East of Eden is my bible) and it doesn't lessen my appreciation of him.

And he's soooo good looking. I recently got a Kindle (in November, but Ive only read a couple books on it) and when you put it to sleep mode, a picture of an author will pop up. I keep sleeping and unsleeping it until I get Steinbeck!

Posted by: dene at February 5, 2010 12:01 PM

I forgot to add, good review, and I'll probably stay away from this one.

Posted by: dene at February 5, 2010 12:02 PM

when an author has already published some incredible works, does it make it harder for him or her when they publish something mediocre?

I'm not so sure, Snuggie. Or at least, I can see it going both ways. I know that there are a lot of times when I am inclined to be more forgiving of a mediocre work when it comes from an author I really like. He gets the benefit of the doubt, some residual goodwill from the prior masterpiece that makes me more forgiving. [recent example: Dave Eggers] If it were a new author, I'd be much quicker to write him off for giving me something substandard, and less likely to finish a book that wasn't working.

As you have probably noticed, I like taking up the causing of defending books/movies/music if I feel they are being judged to harshly. If I like the author, I will often find myself looking harder for a reason or excuse for the parts that didn't work. I'll try a little harder to 'get' what the author was trying to convey. Authors I have no attachment too don't get that benefit of the doubt, that extra effort.

On the other hand, I could see the danger of setting expectations too high and the resulting disappointment. For me this is more likely with authors I haven't read, but who everyone else likes. I grow impatient if the book isn't working for me, and I probably judge too harshly myself. [recent example: Jonathan Safran Foer)

Then again, with so much on me potential reading list I usually don't try to go through an author's entire body of work. Like Don Delillo. I read White Noise and liked it. I want to read Mao II and, eventually, work my way up to Underworld. But beyond that I can's see myself reading the 'less than four stars on Amazon' books because I'm too busy with other authors. Or take recent Book Club pick Vlad Nabokov. Lolita and Pale Fire, absolutely. I also have a collection of his short stories and I want the autobiography Speak, Memory. But that's it. I have no desire to read a dozen other, lesser novels to get my Nabokov merit badge. Maybe I'll think differently when I'm older and running low on things to read (ha!) but for now, time to move on. No time for mediocre works. Give me the greatest hits and the trendy compilations.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 5, 2010 12:39 PM

I think Steinbeck is the only author besides Shakespeare that I've read pretty much everything he's written, intentionally.

(Well, Shakespeare wasn't exactly intentional. More like assigned. English major and took Shakespeare as my year-long senior seminar.)

I have to REALLY love an author to do that, and apparently I only love one enough.

(This does not include poets. Robert Frost and Langford Hughes--if you know of anything they didn't publish I can get my eyes on, please tell me.)

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 2:48 PM

When an author has already published some incredible works, does it make it harder for him or her when they publish something mediocre?

As usual, I'm with Yoss on this one.

To me, it's a matter of whether or not it's the first work I'm reading by the author. For example, if the first Jane Austen work I'd ever read was Northanger Abbey, I might have liked it more. But by the time I actually got around to it, I'd already read all of her other works, and it currently sits on the bottom of my Austen pile. I probably wouldn't hold it in such disdain if I weren't constantly comparing it to Emma.

I think it depends, too, on how much you know about the author before you read the book. Everyone I knew was raving about Harry Potter before I finally gave in to the hype and read the book. I'd heard it compared to The Chronicles of Narnia, which I love, so my expectations were pretty high going in. And after I read it, I agreed that the story was compelling, but I personally thought that the writing wasn't very good. Don't get me wrong; I still enjoyed reading the books. But I balk at the comparisons to C.S. Lewis. The man was an Oxford don and had a wicked wit. His writing was just as amazing as the story he told. I personally think J.K. Rowling doesn't quite hit the Lewis Standard, there, so I was a little disappointed by that.

On the other hand, I recently read War and Peace. I knew very little about Tolstoy. I'd heard that the book was a classic -- and also that it was a veritable doorstop and difficult to plow through. I'd also seen the film as a child (check out my review -- linked above -- for that backstory), and it bored me to death. So when I finally took the plunge and read it, I was pleasantly surprised to find it totally readable -- gripping, actually.

But I guess you could call it Shyamalamadingdong Syndrome. After Shyamalamadingdong started with The Sixth Sense, none of his other works could compare, even though some of them were pretty good. I think we also came to expect his "retarded twists," as someone so eloquently described them in another thread. I think this Syndrome can afflict authors, too.

Posted by: Jelinas at February 5, 2010 3:23 PM

And, btw, Snuggie: I love Langston Hughes; he's my favorite poet. I have this ossom collection of his work. You can check out my review of the collection for more info.

Posted by: Jelinas at February 5, 2010 3:41 PM

I was re-reading my comment, cringing at my typing errors, cursing Pajiba for not having an 'edit comment' button, and wondering why I sound like a pirate in that last paragraph and wondering what you all must think of me if I can't manage simple verb agreement

but than Snuggie said her favorite poet was Langford Hughes, so it's all ok.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 5, 2010 4:03 PM

OH MY GOD Yossarian!! I am LAUGHING SO HARD. Seriously, I have to stop. I'm going to choke or wet my pants or something.

I read and re-read your comment, thinking "what in the hell is wrong with Langford Hughes? What's Yossarian's problem? I've never known him to be snarky like this! I mean, seriously, what's wrong with Lang--"

Then I glanced over at my well-loved "The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes."

Well. You see, Langford Hughes is Langston's less well-known third cousin. His seminal work "I Always Liked America, So There" is an underground fave, seriously.

(I blame the Benadryl I'm taking to stave off the world's most awful sinus headache. Also, Teacher Brain. It's like Swiss cheese, seriously. I told a group of seventh graders yesterday not to fall into a particular writing "snarepit--no trapfall--no pit..trap?" I gave up. I confused them more than they already were. Yay me.)

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 4:11 PM

I'm such a retard; I don't know why I was thinking that you've hadn't read much Langston Hughes or Robert Frost when it's quite clear that you love them and have the exact same volume of Hughes that I was so condescendingly recommending to you in my comment.

*sigh*

I feel very, very stupid for my silly mistake. But then I remember "Langford Hughes" and Yoss' pirate comments and I feel better. I'm in good company, here, today. :)

Posted by: Jelinas at February 5, 2010 4:25 PM

Yes. It's mentally deficient day for me, Jelinas, no worries.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at February 5, 2010 7:54 PM

Interested in a discrete and mutually beneficial relationship? http://AgelessOnly.com gives you a chance to make your life better.

Posted by: Patty at February 6, 2010 11:24 AM

Cannery Row is probably the easiest of Steinbeck's works to get into. It's got that joyful squeeze every drop of life out of a day feeling to it that many of his other books lack, as brilliant as they are.

The Winter of Our Discontent has sat on my shelf for years (along with The Wayward Bus - any comments on that one?), and I'm not sure I'll ever get to it. I kind of feel like I won't read anything by him ever again, but I'm not sure why. I've loved almost everything I've read of his excepting Cup of Gold, which was very pulpy, but I just can't seem to get excited about him anymore. Might have to re-read Cannery Row to find inspiration.

Posted by: Brenton at February 6, 2010 6:32 PM

Ah, Steinbeck. Since no one's mentioned it, I'm going to throw my love for To a God Unknown out there. Woo, pagans!

Brenton, I found The Wayward Bus to be pretty solid. Not really happens, but it's basically well-written, interesting characters hanging out in Steinbeck Country. You can't really go wrong.

Posted by: Kim at February 8, 2010 12:26 AM

...that is to say, "not much really happens."

Posted by: Kim at February 8, 2010 12:28 AM

Just because a reviewer says its bad does not make it so...Aside from Grapes of Wrath, I have only read a handful of Steinbeck's short stories. My plan is to read this novel without having any expectations of what a Steinbeck novel should be.

Posted by: Dorothy Parker's Ghost at February 8, 2010 1:43 PM

Thanks, Kim. I think I'll try to re-read a few shorter novels first, then I'll take a look at it.

Posted by: Brenton at February 8, 2010 2:24 PM

I just finished The Winter of Our Discontent minutes ago & was re-reading parts of it because I loved it so... & I got on the computer to get a few lines translated from Latin.

I too was puzzled about the switching back & forth from first to 3rd person perspective, but lots of modern authors change perspective, so I started asking what is gained by it. If it was all 3rd we would not know the inner temptations, conniving of Ethan. We also need to see his disgust for the dishonest & his rationalizations for becoming so himself. The rationalizations that per Steinbeck "everybody does" to get things they think are more important than their soul.

We also need to see him as his peers see him in the 3rd person & through Margie's eyes to understand why he gets the offers he gets.

The world only sees us through 3rd person point of view & their own translations of it, but in order to understand ourselves we must be willing to think, to be introspective & analytical. Steinbeck even tells us that those who have no time to think are choosing not to. Why do we rationalize? Why do we do things that we would not accept in others? Why do we think things are morally acceptable because "everybody does" them?

Reading The Winter of Our Discontent tells us many reasons why.

Posted by: debbie at February 24, 2010 10:22 AM

Actually, I loved The Winter of Our Discontent. I have read it through three times now, and I will likely read it again. Of course I have also made it through East of Eden twice, read Cannery Row and enjoyed, along with Of Mice and Men and numerous other works. But strangely, and with all due respect, this is one of my favorite of Steinbeck's works. The switches between third and first person actually struck me more this last time through than others. And with a better knowledge of the story line, they made more sense to me than ever. It felt purposeful. At one point, I remember even setting down the book in astonishment for a moment when I realized why the switch of person furthered the story in a powerful way. I am not going back to re-read and find that place and post it. Just wanted to offer a minority report. I think the Winter of Our Discontent is a great read when it is taken for what it is, not what we think it should be, or what Steinbeck should be.

Posted by: Dave Ward at April 5, 2010 3:10 PM

Wow. Had to pause here to laugh-laugh-LAUGH at the criticism here.

Now Steinbeck can definitely deliver a swift moral blow; just read The Grapes of Wrath. But in his prime, he did it through the characters and without the long sermons.

Have you read that book? It's chock-full of sermons. In case you missed them, you might find one or two delivered by the preacher character. If you've never been impatient with Steinbeck, and never found him to say instead of show, I wonder if you skipped the first third of Grapes of Wrath, which is bloated with exposition and starving for action.

Steinbeck seems to have gotten that old man disease of thinking [...] the time of good men and good women [...] has passed and will never again reappear.

Well, maybe, except for the role of Ethan's daughter in the story's end as "another light"; not only is the future still in play, Ethan decides to contribute to it. Even Allen, who precipitates Ethan's final despair by circumventing legitimate work, looks "at last ready to fight a broom." This book is consistent with Steinbeck's belief as articulated in his other books that human life is an ongoing struggle through time and, as such, there are always losses to look back at, even as there are potentials to look forward to. Steinbeck's "cynical" view of money in this book is no different than in his Dustbowl books; in fact, he makes more room in this book than others for the role of goodwill in commerce. And instead of pitting good victims against bad monsters as in many of his other works, in this book Steinbeck asks how a good-and-bad person can live in a world of good-and-bad.

I could never figure out why parts of the book are told from the third person point of view and parts are in first person.

The third-person chapters begin Parts I and II; as each section picks up steam, third transitions to first person. To my view, the transition highlights the framing of the story; one could make more specific interpretations, about events and states of mind, which I think in turn would constitute interpretations about what sets the story off. But, whether or not this stylism really works for Steinbeck in this book, I would ask how the perspective here compares to East of Eden. I mean, that book is nominally written in first-person, which is harmless enough until suddenly Steinbeck comes out fully, and not even as a fictional narrator, but as an affectation of himself the author! He claims to be writing about his ancestors, and at one point even avoids telling us details of an event by claiming he could never find out the details himself. But how can we take that perspective seriously when almost all of the book is for practical purposes written with a third-person omniscient narrator?

-

Anyhow, I don't think The Winter of Our Discontent is Steinbeck's best work. I just don't understand why the complaints here apply specifically to this book. I might even point out that in some respects this book exhibits mastery that earlier books don't. For example, in this book's dialog, Steinbeck doesn't bother appending Mary said or I asked to characters' lines; each person's voice comes through so clearly that it is unnecessary.

Posted by: Yothgoboufnir at October 14, 2010 3:43 PM

Thanks i like your blog very much , i come back most days to find new posts like this.

Posted by: Matthew C. Kriner at March 15, 2011 5:31 PM

What a rubbish. How can you call it a website. Change the skin, so it will be a bit more interesting

Posted by: mocneseo at March 20, 2011 7:00 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time