I felt that John Steinbeck did a great job of portraying the American ideals (or lack of) in Travels with Charley. However, I felt betrayed in that most of his story was fictionalized. In my opinion, there is a fine line between non-fiction, creative writing and fiction. What he did here was fiction. The book lost all its authenticity when I heard what actually happened. I guess it's ok to say, for example, that a man was driving a porsche instead of his beat up camry but to fictionalize the very basis of a story is just tasteless to me.
On a more positive note, I did feel that my knowledge of parts of America (its history and people) were enchanced. The world Steinbeck sees was beautifully crafted for us and that is something I will give to him regardless of where he spent most of his nights.
Phil
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Charley and co.
I have a couple of thoughts on the topic of whether one should be upset upon learning that Steinbeck fabricated a good deal of "Travels with Charley". First, I think it's important to put the whole purpose of his trip into context. So he got a fancy custom made camper fabricated and then the idea was to drive to different towns, spend a couple hours there interacting with a person or two before shipping out and expect to derive some truth about America from these extremely brief encounters? There is something to be said about an outsider's view, unembedded, a survey of the country (hell, my films are all about being an outsider)... but from just HOW little time he spent in each place it seems a bit preposterous to think one could really get a sense of the town that was anything beyond superficial. This is all to say, I really don't think it makes much of a difference whether he was staying in hotels with his wife or not.... I don't think him in his camper really gets us closer to "AMERICA". Secondly, the book seemed to me to be less about truth with a lower case "t" and more about truth with a capital "T" as we discussed in class. Less about these individual places and characters than in Steinbeck's insights into life- which is something he gained from having a few years on him--- the trip (or trip as a narrative strategy) was really just a spring board for thought.... at times very reminiscent of Twain. Unromantic, grumpy-sure, darkly humorous... but True! We know these characters. Okay... so the whole lying to us I don't quite get- obviously it was a move to sell books. But, why couldn't it just have been a fictional travelogue based on "research"... his insights into America through these characters he created or adapted from real life. Though, I guess it's fun to imagine a grumpy old man riding around the country looking for the "Truth" and yet kind of lazy about it. Or maybe just tired. That's kind of a sad note to end on.
mm
mm
Hello, I am MMM
Hello All,
I am a second year MFA student in the Moving Image department. This means: I am in the final and craziest semester of my educational career, so bouts of stressed-out muteness and streams of sleep deprived ?insight? are events that you are likely to witness over in my direction of the classroom. As for where I began... I grew up on a dead end road in Vermont surrounded by state land: my neighbors were beavers, bears, and the occasional moose who would mistake my father's makeshift ice skating rink as a drinking pool. (My father couldn't bare to break the rink down in the spring once he saw the frogs had already come and made it their home.) I moved out to Chicago from Montréal where I studied film as an undergraduate and spent a few years living on cheap rent and croissants. Luckily, I live next to a café run by French-trained bakers now, so a tasty pastry still occasions my life.
Right now, I am working to finish my thesis film which will be on exhibition in Gallery 400 during the first week of April (come!), as well as working on the written component which will be an artist's book of sorts- a collage of critical writings on my work, prose, storyboard sketches, photos, and meandering thoughts of which I have a great many. I make work that focuses around landscape as a site of loss and longing... yah know, like Spielberg and shit.
You can check out some excerpts of past work on my website: http://mariannamilhorat.com/ or vimeo account: http://vimeo.com/tenderbuttons.
I am excited about this class because, along with making films and videos, I have a great passion for the written word. Yep, a good sentence is a damn sexy thing.
Anywho,
That's all for now.
Yer fellow classmate,
mm
I am a second year MFA student in the Moving Image department. This means: I am in the final and craziest semester of my educational career, so bouts of stressed-out muteness and streams of sleep deprived ?insight? are events that you are likely to witness over in my direction of the classroom. As for where I began... I grew up on a dead end road in Vermont surrounded by state land: my neighbors were beavers, bears, and the occasional moose who would mistake my father's makeshift ice skating rink as a drinking pool. (My father couldn't bare to break the rink down in the spring once he saw the frogs had already come and made it their home.) I moved out to Chicago from Montréal where I studied film as an undergraduate and spent a few years living on cheap rent and croissants. Luckily, I live next to a café run by French-trained bakers now, so a tasty pastry still occasions my life.
Right now, I am working to finish my thesis film which will be on exhibition in Gallery 400 during the first week of April (come!), as well as working on the written component which will be an artist's book of sorts- a collage of critical writings on my work, prose, storyboard sketches, photos, and meandering thoughts of which I have a great many. I make work that focuses around landscape as a site of loss and longing... yah know, like Spielberg and shit.
You can check out some excerpts of past work on my website: http://mariannamilhorat.com/ or vimeo account: http://vimeo.com/tenderbuttons.
I am excited about this class because, along with making films and videos, I have a great passion for the written word. Yep, a good sentence is a damn sexy thing.
Anywho,
That's all for now.
Yer fellow classmate,
mm
Travels with Charley... ??
I didn't feel as if I was being lied to, a lot of the details in the story seemed a bit off to me. I enjoyed the story, nonetheless. I think that in a way, writers wish they can manipulate their life to fit something like the details they can create within their stories, sometimes it is possible and sometimes it is not. Given the history of what Steinback was going through in his life at this time, why not create a story of things that have happened within his lifetime? Even though they didn't happen all together, the experience is still good enough to write about. I was researching and found this article in the Washington Post, the author said "The truth of the book was in those memories and conjectures." Which, I can agree with. Just because a few minor details were adjusted doesn't make it false and a lie. It is just a version of the truth.
Here is the link to the article in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steinbecks-true-enough-travels-with-charley/2011/04/14/AFE0pQkD_story.html
He goes on to give another side to the story that he wanted Steinback to have traveled to all the places that he did, but I like the way he put it, in that sentence that I quoted.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Travels With Charley: Not a Total Liar
After I read about the expose of Steinbeck's book, I went to the source and read what the other writer uncovered about Steinbeck's journey, and compared it with what Steinbeck actually wrote. I found that he lied about some things but not about others. It was a good lesson to me to be careful about what I read, the conclusions I draw, and what I believe from others.
The writer who investigated this estimated that he spent about 1/3 of the journey alone with Charley, and believed that Steinbeck didn't camp often. I noticed in the book that after the initial set-up of the traveling/camping theme in Steinbeck's first chapter, he doesn't exactly say he's alone all the time, and he doesn't state where he's sleeping every single night. So this is an omission for the sake of the story not an outright lie.
Would it make a difference to me to know that his wife was likely sitting next to him on the journey and that he stayed in nice hotels? I think it would have changed the flavor of the book slightly but I don't think it is a big deal by itself.
More important to me is the idea that he might have made up whole scenes. The writer who re-created his journey says a few of the episodes did not happen when and where Steinbeck said they happened, but no one can say whether they happened or not. I don't think that makes the whole book a lie, but it casts doubt on the book. Perhaps he had these experiences in different times and places and brought them together in this book, or perhaps he just misremembered dates and places. Or maybe he made them up altogether. We are never going to know.
I think about this issue in conjunction with the next book we read, "In Cold Blood". The book says the killer Hickock had a great memory, and I'm certain the police took excellent notes. However, there is so much of the book that Capote must have made up. How could he, for example, know that Mr. Clutter ate milk and an apple the day he died, when the man was alone at breakfast?
These details made me wonder how much artistic license Capote took as well. And how much of it matters?
The writer who investigated this estimated that he spent about 1/3 of the journey alone with Charley, and believed that Steinbeck didn't camp often. I noticed in the book that after the initial set-up of the traveling/camping theme in Steinbeck's first chapter, he doesn't exactly say he's alone all the time, and he doesn't state where he's sleeping every single night. So this is an omission for the sake of the story not an outright lie.
Would it make a difference to me to know that his wife was likely sitting next to him on the journey and that he stayed in nice hotels? I think it would have changed the flavor of the book slightly but I don't think it is a big deal by itself.
More important to me is the idea that he might have made up whole scenes. The writer who re-created his journey says a few of the episodes did not happen when and where Steinbeck said they happened, but no one can say whether they happened or not. I don't think that makes the whole book a lie, but it casts doubt on the book. Perhaps he had these experiences in different times and places and brought them together in this book, or perhaps he just misremembered dates and places. Or maybe he made them up altogether. We are never going to know.
I think about this issue in conjunction with the next book we read, "In Cold Blood". The book says the killer Hickock had a great memory, and I'm certain the police took excellent notes. However, there is so much of the book that Capote must have made up. How could he, for example, know that Mr. Clutter ate milk and an apple the day he died, when the man was alone at breakfast?
These details made me wonder how much artistic license Capote took as well. And how much of it matters?
I see what you did there, Travels with Charley!!
I don't feel like I was being lied to or a need to go yell at Steinbeck like Oprah did to that author, which was funny by the way. After we all found out, I looked around the room and some of you had your mouths open, some of you looked mad, and some didn't react at all. I thought he was brilliant. It didn't seem like a trick or an "ah ha! gotcha!" move. It just was made for you to step back and really think about it. Who cares if he left stuff out or worked with what he had to create a good book? That's the important part. He might have met those people or experienced those things during his lifetime. Crafting all of them to fit into this scenario still takes some skill. And that's what we should celebrate. And honestly, whether we believe it or not, we do the exact same thing. When you tell stories, you can't tell me that you haven't crafted some part of it to make it a little better, no? Exactly. Let the one with no sin cast the first stone. Yes, I went there. But seriously, lets give Steinbeck a break and celebrate the fact that this still takes skill. He wasn't hurting anybody. He was just an aging dude who felt left out of the real and literary world. Ya can't blame him. He was good. He was good. Plus, Charley? Ah, amazing.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Liar!
Even though we know that Steinbeck lied about everything, I am going to chose to forget that small detail. I really want to believe that Steinbeck ran out in the middle of a hurricane to save his boat. I also want to believe that Charley was with Steinbeck for the whole trip. Charley was by far my favorite character in the book. The parts that I enjoyed the most were the ones when the man and the dog were having conversations. Maybe I was enthralled by how smart Charley is, as compared to my dog who is very dumb.
I mean, who cares if Steinbeck did not really take the trip. It is still a great book. And, if you think about it, it's not entirely made up. He did, after all, meet the people in the book once during his lifetime. Lets give the guy a break. He was falling behind, getting forgotten, and he just wanted one last hurrah. Just enjoy the book.
I mean, who cares if Steinbeck did not really take the trip. It is still a great book. And, if you think about it, it's not entirely made up. He did, after all, meet the people in the book once during his lifetime. Lets give the guy a break. He was falling behind, getting forgotten, and he just wanted one last hurrah. Just enjoy the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)