Zoom into Monterey Library’s “Cannery Row Days” Party

pulitzer-prize-finalist-william-souder

William Souder, John Steinbeck Biographer

susan-shillinglaw-john-steinbeckThe author of Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck (William Souder, above) joins an all-star speaker lineup for the Monterey Library’s 75th anniversary publication party for Cannery Row, the “poisoned cream puff” of a novel resented by locals when it appeared but revered by readers ever since for its humorous depiction of human society—high and low—along Monterey’s historic waterfront. The six-week-long celebration kicked off on September 16 with a Zoom webinar led by veteran Steinbeck scholars Robert DeMott and Susan Shillinglaw (in photo left) and by Gerry Low-Sabado, a fifth generation Monterey native and well-known Chinese-American community preservationist. The six-week-long celebration includes lectures, films, and special events and ends on November 7 with public readings, virtual tours of Cannery Row, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Ed Ricketts’s Pacific Biological Laboratories—the latter led by Shillinglaw and Mike Guardino of the Cannery Row Foundation—and a panel discussion of “Why We Read Cannery Row in 2020” that includes Souder; Donald Kohrs, librarian and archivist of the nearby Hopkins Marine Station; and Katie Rodgers, the pioneering editor of Ricketts’s letters, Renaissance Man of Cannery Row, and of Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts. Registration for California’s “Cannery Row Days: A Novel Celebration” is free and open to the public (thanks to Zoom) wherever in the world COVID-19 days may have you cornered. Sessions in the series will be recorded and available for viewing at the Monterey Library website.

New Life of John Steinbeck for a New Age: Book Review

 john-james-audubon-rachel-carson-john-steinbeck-biography

What is there left to say about the complicated life of John Steinbeck? In a blurb for Jackson Benson’s magisterial 1984 biography, The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer, Steinbeck’s friend John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard economist who became John Kennedy’s ambassador to India, claimed that “There will never be another book like it”—adding, “nor will we need one.” The first half Galbraith’s prediction proved to be accurate. Benson—now 90 and Professor Emeritus of English at San Diego State University—began his 16-year project of research and writing on Steinbeck’s life eight months before Steinbeck’s demise on December 20, 1968. In the aftermath of the author’s death, Benson had direct personal access to scores of Steinbeck’s friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, many of whom were dead by the time the next full-scale life of Steinbeck—John Steinbeck: A Biography, by the Middlebury College professor and poet Jay Parini—appeared in England in 1994 and in America in 1995. With its massive assemblage of meticulously researched primary material, Benson’s ambitious life of John Steinbeck is still the source no serious student of the author can afford to ignore.

With its massive assemblage of meticulously researched primary material, Benson’s ambitious 1984 life of John Steinbeck is still the source no serious student of the author can afford to ignore.

Given the scope, depth, and durability of Benson’s accomplishment—and the persistence of Galbraith’s doubt that another book like it was needed—the question of what’s left to say about Steinbeck, 36 years after the publication of The True Adventures of John Steinbeck, Writer, is deserving of an answer. Given the complex, controversial, and consequential character of Steinbeck’s life and reputation, the answer to the question is plenty. The reasons for this are both general to biography-writing and specific to Steinbeck studies. In addition to new material not previously available, newly important details may have been slighted or misinterpreted by previous biographers, and the passage of time typically requires a fresh perspective on familiar facts and old assumptions. Even when details of important events and relationships in a subject’s life story are already well-known—as they are with Steinbeck, thanks to Benson—there is the delight of anticipation in recalling them again in a new rendering, much like looking forward to a favorite passage of music when listening to a familiar piece played by a new performer. New biographers, having the advantage of time, can also address the question—especially thorny in the case of a figure like Steinbeck—of how the subject’s critical and popular reputation has fared through the years. Which works have endured and which have lost their relevance for readers?  What are the major reassessments, if any, of an author’s writing? Finally, there is the matter of accessibility and appeal in an age, like ours, of short attention spans. Benson’s biography of Steinbeck exceeds 1,100 pages. Parini’s is less than half as long. William Souder’s Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck totals 446 pages, revealing much that was unknown, or off limits, to Benson and Parini.

mad-at-the-world

To its credit, Jay Parini’s life of John Steinbeck included information which was unavailable to Benson or which Benson decided—or was advised—to leave out. Most notable, perhaps, was Parini’s revelation that Steinbeck’s first wife, Carol, had an affair, or at least an intense infatuation, with the future mythologist Joseph Campbell. The beginning of the deterioration in the Steinbeck marriage coincided with Campbell’s 1932 move to Monterey, where the young Ivy League graduate became friendly with the Steinbecks, their boon companion Ed Ricketts, and the bohemian circle that gathered regularly at Ricketts’s marine lab on Cannery Row. Parini reports that Carol, at Steinbeck’s insistence, had a botched abortion that required a hysterectomy, further contributing to the breakdown that led to the Steinbecks’ divorce in 1942. Although the biography adds little to our understanding of Steinbeck’s involvement with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam in the 1960s, Parini reflects the tenor of the 1990s by offering a more critical appraisal (Steinbeck “fell hook, line, and sinker for an old-style patriotism”) than Benson did a decade earlier.

To its credit, Jay Parini’s 1994 life of Steinbeck included information which was unavailable to Benson or which Benson decided—or was advised—to leave out.

In keeping with greater gender-sensitivity, Parini is also less forgiving of Steinbeck’s treatment of women in the novels and stories, pointing, for example, to the stale stereotyping of women intruding upon an Edenic male world and contributing to its destruction, as Curley’s wife does in Of Mice and Men—stereotyping that was raising eyebrows even before Parini wrote. Without disparaging Benson, reviewers were generally positive about Parini’s book when it appeared, pointing out its appeal—especially to non-academic readers—and praising its economy, pacing, and novelistic approach to Steinbeck’s life. Despite Galbraith’s assessment of Americans’ reading stamina, it seems likely that more non-specialists have been introduced to Steinbeck through Parini’s short life than through Benson’s longer one—until now. Disproving Galbraith’s claim that no new life of Steinbeck would ever be needed, Mad at the World seems certain to join existing biographies on the bookshelves of present and future Steinbeck fans, especially in America, a country whose history pervades William Souder’s writing, as it did Steinbeck’s.

Despite Galbraith’s assessment, it seems likely that more non-specialists have been introduced to Steinbeck through Parini’s short life than through Benson’s longer one—until now.

pulitzer-prize-finalist-william-souderA 71-year-old resident of rural Minnesota who began his career as a journalist reporting on science for the Minnesota Daily, Souder later wrote for major publications including The Washington Post, the New York Times, Smithsonian, and Harper’s. He is the author of three previous books that reflect his interest in science and its intersection with social justice, art, and culture: A Plague of Frogs (2000), Under a Wild Sky: John James Audubon and the Making of The Birds of America (2004—one of only two Pulitzer Prize finalists for biography that year), and On a Farther Shore: The Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson, Author of Silent Spring (2012).

In a 2015 interview with Steinbeck Now Souder explained that he was conducting research on Ed Ricketts for his book about Rachel Carson when John Steinbeck “found” him while he was reading about the 1940 “voyage of discovery” made by Steinbeck and Ricketts to the Sea of Cortez. As he became more familiar with Steinbeck’s life, he was fascinated by the way Steinbeck’s career “cuts right across the headlong march of 20th century American history. . . . [He was] born just after the close of the Victorian era—and he dies a few months before Neil Armstrong steps onto the moon. So that was his material. I was hooked.” Steinbeck was personally attractive as a subject, says Souder, because he was “far from perfect—as a man, a husband, a writer, he had issues. . . .  He had a permanent chip on his shoulder. Some of his work is brilliant and some of it is awful. That’s what you want in a subject—a hero with flaws.” When asked “What does your biography bring to the table?” Souder responded, “My way of telling a story.”

When asked ‘What does your biography bring to the table?’ Souder responded, ‘My way of telling a story.’

a-plague-of-frogsLooking for what was causing grotesque deformities in frogs across areas of the northern United States and southern Canada in the mid-1990s, the investigators in A Plague of Frogs confront not only the challenges of ambiguous and contradictory scientific data, but also the roadblocks thrown up by government agencies fearful of the potential economic impact of their inquiry. As in a Steinbeck novel, the investigators are forced to deal with personal and professional conflicts that further complicate their relationship with power. Souder guides the reader through a maze of technical and scientific detail, evoking landscapes and bureaucratic imbroglios with equal drama and transforming what might have become a tedious head-scratcher into a page-turning “what dunnit.”

under-a-wild-skyIn Under a Wild Sky Souder gives contemporary readers a vivid sense of the pristine beauty of the late 18th and early 19th century American countryside—a world that was already vanishing during Audubon’s lifetime—along with a sense of the challenges of travel and communication in the vast and largely undeveloped American wilderness. Describing the distances between far-flung settlements like Louisville, and the effect of isolation on the domestic lives and the intellectual development of families like the Audubons, Souder helps us understand the lengthy, and to modern minds inexplicable, family separations that characterized the era.

john-james-audubon

Souder’s attention to Audubon’s rival—a less accomplished artist whose well-connected friends protected his reputation at Audubon’s expense—serves to fill out Souder’s portrait of a rugged artistic genius determined (like Steinbeck) to do things his way and insisting, despite publishers and other doubters, on doing expensive life-sized color images for his magnum opus, Birds of America. Souder captures the contradictions and conflicts of a man who loved animals but shot them, often dozens at a time; who had no qualms about subjecting his dog Dash to an experiment he knew might prove fatal; who, despite his commitment to scientific inquiry, voiced dubious theories and made absurd claims to a prestigious and surprisingly credulous Scottish scientific society. The most ridiculous was a story about a rattlesnake chasing a squirrel up a tree, keeping pace with it as it leapt frantically from branch to branch, and finally catching and swallowing the exhausted critter.

on-a-farther-shoreOn a Farther Shore: The Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson displays the same gift for psychological insight and dramatic presentation, in this case involving the challenges faced by a doggedly determined yet extremely sensitive scientist working for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries during a time of gender inequality, social conformity, and widespread disregard for the dangers of industrial chemicals like DDT applied indiscriminately as pesticides. Rachel Carson was blessed, like John Steinbeck, with a talent for lucid scientific observation rendered in the language of poetry. A woman working in a field dominated by men, she encountered problems peculiar to her situation as an unmarried and unaffiliated agent of social and political change. Like Audubon and like Steinbeck, she was assertive and convincing enough to get her way. In her fashion she defied convention as dramatically as they did, spending the happiest days of her adult life in a long-lasting love affair with a married woman. A masterful blend of empathy and objectivity, Souder’s portrait of Carson foreshadows his psychologically astute treatment of Steinbeck—as an American individualist opposed to those in authority who abuse nature or other people in the name of power or greed.      

A Life-Sized Portrait of a Flawed Hero

salinas-valleyMad at the World opens with a lyrical description of the 90-mile-long coastal California valley between the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountains where, on February 27, 1902, Steinbeck was born to children of Scots-Irish and English-German immigrants in Salinas, the agricultural town he called home until he left for Stanford in 1919. It is a region remarkable for its sere, rolling hills, rugged mountain vistas, endless fields of lettuce, and pervasive morning fog—in the winter “so dense that you cannot see your feet on the ground,” in the summer a “sea-born fog [that] does not lie still on the land, but seeps over the folded hillsides, rising and falling along the river bottom.” It is country with a storied past, where nomadic Indians ranged for millennia before Spanish explorers arrived, early in the 17th century, in the name of their Christ and their King. When they reached the Salinas Valley they were unimpressed, reporting that its soil was “poor,” its pastures “scant,” and its footing “treacherous.” This proved to be a serious misapprehension about a land where later settlers said “almost anything would grow”—and where generations of agricultural wealth created the power structure Steinbeck complained about, often bitterly, in his writing.

Mad at the World opens with a lyrical description of the 90-mile-long coastal California valley between the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountains.

Many of the details of Steinbeck’s childhood are unusual, and Souder parses them carefully, peeling away layers of appearance to reveal how misleading mere facts can be. In his senior year of high school Steinbeck acted in a school play, served as associate editor of the yearbook, ran track, made the basketball team, and became class president. Despite the image of a popular all-American boy suggested by the official record, Steinbeck’s friends from that time remember him as shy, reclusive, and withdrawn. As Souder notes, his election as class president “astonished everyone,” and he never actually played in a basketball game. In fact, he “didn’t like going to ballgames.”

Many of the details of Steinbeck’s childhood are unusual, and Souder parses them carefully.

In his judicious selection of telling details, Souder benefits not only from his own research but also from Steinbeck scholarship in the quarter-century since Parini’s biography. Two books published in the last decade—Susan Shillinglaw’s insightful Carol and John Steinbeck: Portrait of a Marriage (2013) and former investigative reporter Bill Steigerwald’s incendiary Dogging Steinbeck: Discovering America and Exposing the Truth about Travels with Charley (2012)—have special bearing on Souder’s reassessment of Steinbeck’s character. Shillinglaw’s study suggests that Carol and John’s lives were even more transgressive and untraditional than previously thought—a view that also emerges in Souder’s portrait. Biographers are allowed to judge, and Souder seems at times to admit being disturbed by Steinbeck’s behavior. He reports “disconcertingly” on the sexual braggadocio regarding Steinbeck’s relations with Carol that Steinbeck employed in his letters to Kate Beswick, a friend and lover from Stanford days. Souder’s response to Steinbeck’s writing to Beswick that his looks were getting worse, but that “my body just now is nearly perfect” is—uncharacteristically—to throw up his hands. “Why Steinbeck kept telling Beswick things like this can’t be explained in any way that makes sense,” writes Souder. “It was simply in his nature.” One thing that can be explained by “things like this” is why Steinbeck didn’t want biographers “mucking around” in his personal life.

Biographers are allowed to judge, and Souder seems at times to admit being disturbed by Steinbeck’s behavior.

It is unlikely that some of the personal details revealed here could have been published earlier—certainly not by Benson and probably not by Parini—even if they were known. Mad at the World is the first major Steinbeck biography published since the death of two surviving members of the Steinbeck family: Steinbeck’s widow Elaine, who died in 2003, and his son Thomas, who died in 2016. Among other disturbing particulars, Souder reports that “Steinbeck forced [Steinbeck’s second wife, Gwyn] to have a number of abortions and had not wanted her to have John IV,” his other son; that John IV at age five got so drunk on champagne at a New Year’s Eve party that he blacked out and woke up the next day “in a little ring of vomit”; and that in his mid-teens John IV “loaded his .22 rifle and held it to the head of one of Gwyn’s boyfriends as they lay drunkenly asleep.” These are the kind of sordid and potentially hurtful details that Jackson Benson removed from the manuscript of his 16-years-in-the making biography, publication of which stalled while lawyers wrangled over objections and possible grounds for litigation raised with Viking Press, which in turn pressured Benson, who vented in his 1988 book Looking for Steinbeck’s Ghost, an account of the interference he encountered in the process of writing the biography that others—not he—claimed was “authorized” by Steinbeck’s family. Benson was understandably embittered by last-minute objections to events which were both true in the telling and, he believed, essential to a full understanding of just how low a point Steinbeck’s life had reached when they occurred.

It is unlikely that some of the personal details revealed here could have been published earlier—certainly not by Benson and probably not by Parini—even if they were known.

Souder devotes two full pages to facts about the writing of Travels with Charley discovered by Bill Steigerwald and revealed in Dogging Steinbeck. In the course of retracing Steinbeck’s 1960 road trip “In Search of America,” Steigerwald demonstrates pretty convincingly that at the very least Travels with Charley is not the nonfictional travel journal that it originally claimed to be. For example, he concludes that in fact Steinbeck “rarely camped in Rocinante, preferring comfortable motels, cozy country inns, and the occasional five-star hotel.” Moreover, he says that for 45 of Steinbeck’s 75 days on the road his wife Elaine accompanied him—decidedly not the impression a reader is left with by Travels with Charley. More troubling for Souder are Steigerwald’s suspicions, mostly buttressed by evidence, that conversations Steinbeck claimed he had with people he supposedly met at key points in the narrative were created from whole cloth—nicely woven, but fabricated from Steinbeck’s imagination.

Souder devotes two full pages to facts about the writing of Travels with Charley discovered by Bill Steigerwald and revealed in Dogging Steinbeck.

Perhaps with Steigerwald’s findings in mind, Souder gives more emphasis than Benson to the claim made by Steinbeck in another work of nonfiction, Sea of Cortez, that, while aboard their research vessel The Western Flyer, Ed Ricketts delivered a monologue on Easter morning which Steinbeck later inserted into Sea of Cortez as the “Easter Sermon.” Benson’s account of the “sermon” quotes a letter Steinbeck and Ricketts sent to Viking to explain the nature of their collaboration on the book they were co-authoring. The letter mentions matter-of-factly that “in one case [in Sea of Cortez] a large section was lifted verbatim from another unpublished work [an essay by Ricketts on nonteleological thinking].” Benson explains that the reference being made is to the “Easter Sermon.” Souder is blunter, calling Steinbeck out for making up facts to suit a fiction by noting that “there was no Easter Sunday Sermon. . . . Steinbeck invented this session, inspired by an unpublished essay by Ricketts on the subject of nonteleological thinking.” He questions other Steinbeck “inventions” as well, though usually in a spirit of sympathy for the creative types who do such things, and with the understanding that Steinbeck naturally inclined toward tall-tale prevarication and embroidery, often but not always in jest.  Writers of fiction do, of course “invent things,” but Souder defends Steigerwald, a fellow journalist, by insisting that the author of Dogging Steinbeck “could be forgiven for applying the rules of journalism to a work that purported to be journalism. First among those rules is that facts matter.” His vindication of Steigerwald’s work notes that it mattered enough to Viking’s parent company, Penguin Group, to call for a caveat in Jay Parini’s introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of Travels with Charley: Steinbeck “took liberties with the facts,” admitted Parini, and his book of nonfiction was “’true’ only in the way that a well-crafted novel is true.”

Perhaps with Steigerwald’s findings in mind, Souder gives more emphasis than Benson to a claim made by Steinbeck in another work of nonfiction, Sea of Cortez.

The economy of Souder’s biography in comparison with the books of Benson and Parini has another advantage: dramatic details of character and behavior stand in starker relief when they aren’t crowded by a plethora of other data, however engaging to specialists or essential to scholars of Steinbeck’s life and times. This is not to suggest that Souder is less than scholarly, or that his research was less than thorough. The helpful notes he provides for the 16 chapters in his book span 48 pages, and his index takes up another 15. His acknowledgement of sources is meticulous, his skepticism about received wisdom is healthy, and his interpretations and assessments of Steinbeck’s writings, where given, are sound. Unlike Benson and Parini, he includes a list of works cited—a scholarly desideratum inexplicably missing from their biographies of John Steinbeck.

Dramatic details of character and behavior stand in starker relief when they aren’t crowded by a plethora of other data, however engaging to specialists.

Souder’s treatment of Steinbeck’s character and conduct is sympathetic but not sugar-coated; admiring, but assuredly not adulatory. The portrait that emerges is that of a young boy raised in a proper post-Victorian household, a young church-going Episcopalian who loved his home but remained stubbornly unconventional, even when he behaved. A boy who loved nature and animals but remained aloof from his peers, few of whom could claim to have known him very well. A boy who, in the parlance of the day, would have been called peculiar; a self-styled outcast who preferred the company of other outsiders. A boy with an inner intensity betrayed by a “piercing gaze . . . [which] set him apart even more.” (In a 1981 interview with this reviewer, Steinbeck’s friend Bo Beskow, the renowned Swedish artist who painted three portraits of Steinbeck between 1937 and 1957, recalled his eyes as his most arresting feature.) The well-behaved albeit strange boy with the bright blue eyes developed into a young man whose bohemianism would put the Sixties to shame—a highly successful yet deeply troubled writer whose personal life was frequently in disarray; a deeply sensitive man who could be highly insensitive to others, including family and friends, beset with debilitating self-doubt and afflicted by celebrity which, like Kino’s pearl, proved both a blessing and a curse.

Souder’s treatment of Steinbeck’s character and conduct is sympathetic but not sugar-coated; admiring, but assuredly not adulatory.

Still, Souder’s emphasis on the virtues that attracted him to Steinbeck goes far in explaining why this “hero with flaws” remains more relevant than ever for audiences familiar with the vocabulary and values of environmentalism, equality, and the other causes espoused by Steinbeck in his life and writing. Among those virtues is the sheer variety of Steinbeck’s interests. More than any other major writer of fiction in English in the middle third of the 20th century, Steinbeck made science a pursuit and a cause—one that closely aligned with his phalanx theory of human behavior, developed by analogy with the behavior that he and Ed Ricketts observed in the intertidal organisms they collected and celebrated in the course of their collaboration. Their proto-ecology was prescient, anticipating by two decades the courageous pioneer who gave birth to the modern environmental movement—Rachel Carson. Thanks to their biographer, William Souder, Steinbeck and Carson can be seen as reverse images of one another: Steinbeck the professional writer with a serious interest in science, Carson the professional scientist with a gift for writing that made her a model of graceful style for generations of students versed in the profound simplicity of Silent Spring and Of Mice and Men.

Souder’s emphasis on the virtues that attracted him to Steinbeck goes far in explaining why this ‘hero with flaws’ remains more relevant than ever.

Steinbeck’s anger at social, environmental, and economic injustice resonates with fresh force in the age of COVID-19. As Souder notes in his splendid concluding chapter, a number of Steinbeck’s works are still very much alive today, thanks to their relevance and readability. The creation of memorable characters may be the single most important legacy any storyteller can leave. Whether Steinbeck deserves to be ranked in the company of Dickens, Twain, and Faulkner is a question of individual taste and perception. But like Pickwick, Tom Sawyer, and the Compson clan, Steinbeck’s characters have had a life of their own, beyond the pages of Cannery Row or The Grapes of Wrath. They have survived for the better part of a century and their health remains robust.

Steinbeck’s anger at social, environmental, and economic injustice resonates with fresh force in the age of COVID-19.

Mad at the World is a more than an addendum to the Steinbeck story, challenging Galbraith’s claim that nothing need be written or read after Benson with regard to the life and adventures of John Steinbeck, writer. A brisk and engaging account by a highly-regarded biographer whose estimation of Steinbeck’s importance a half-century after his death is itself testimony to his durability as a writer of fiction and critic of our world. Readers unfamiliar with Steinbeck’s story will come away from Souder’s rendering with a forceful first impression. Those who feel they already know the story well enough can anticipate the pleasure of traveling down a newly-opened road through one’s home town: the general landscape is familiar, but the perspective is novel and the trip its own reward.

Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck will be released by W.W. Norton and Company on October 13.—Ed.

Like Steinbeck, Short Stories By Michael Katakis Show How Dangerous Men Can Be

hunters-moon-daily-express

John Steinbeck said Montana was the state he’d pick to live in if he hadn’t been born in California, or become a citizen of the world who now called Manhattan home. In the early short stories of The Pastures of Heaven (1932) and The Long Valley (1938), the author of The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden showed how vast spaces, violent events, and the struggles of victims and villains conspire to make good men dangerous and dangerous men deadly, stripping the veneer off civilization to expose the coarseness, and the fineness, of the essential human grain. Like Steinbeck, the American writer Michael Katakis can claim global citizenship (Carmel, Paris, London), international connections (as a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and executor for Hemingway’s literary estate), and—as demonstrated in his latest book, Dangerous Men—an ability to transpose personal loss (the tragic death of his young wife, the anthropologist Kris L. Hardin) into a particularized locale (rural Montana) as remote from most readers’ experience as Hemingway’s Pamplona or Steinbeck’s Big Sur.

dangerous-men-michael-katakis

Dangerous Men is Michael’s first work of fiction, and “Hunter’s Moon”—the most nakedly autobiographical of the interconnected short stories in the collection—was written in Montana 16 years ago, long before Kris died from a brain tumor. Much of the rest of the writing was done over coffee or an appertif at a Paris-boulevard café, in a process of self-recovery that one doubts is finished, or ever will be. The result is a work whose dark tone and deadly theme are announced in the epigraph from The Pastures of Heaven that opens “The Fence,” the first story; the second, “Home for Christmas,” ends with a bitter reversal worthy of O’Henry, or the occasional Steinbeck. The remaining stories recount the revenge odyssey of a wandering hero with the wonderful name of Walter Lesser, a latter-day cowboy and Gary Cooper lookalike who ends up, like Tom Joad, as a larger-than-life legend. Raja Shehadeh, the author of Palestinian Walks: Notes on a Vanishing Landscape (2008), has described Dangerous Men as “a work of great sensitivity and lyrical beauty.” For fans of John Steinbeck, the Montana short stories of Michael Katakis are also a form of continuing communion with the spirit of The Pastures of Heaven—a place where violent events play out against vast spaces under the sign of the Hunter’s Moon. Highly recommended for Steinbeck readers and others safe-sheltering from the dangerous men in Washington, D.C.

Hunter’s Moon photograph courtesy of the Daily Express.

Flight: A Play in One Scene by Steve Hauk

 cave-of-dreams(2)

J.S., older, at his writing desk in his New York City apartment. Corduroy sport coat, plaid shirt open at the collar. Several pads of lined yellow paper and unopened letters on his desk. A hallway stage left, the front door to the apartment stage right. In the back wall, but not behind him, a window looking out onto the dark, some illumination from city lights. It is late night.

A bookcase close by. On top, a tape recorder, lighting making it slightly more noticeable. He snubs out a cigarette, looks at recorder. He clicks it on, clears his throat, changes his mind, clicks it off.

He is tense. Picks up a letter, puts it down. Turns and stares at window. Stands, goes to it, looks out. Paces, return to desk, opens a letter. Leans forward, reads to himself.

Hears a sound from outside the door, starts, gets up, goes to door, listens, tries   knob to make sure it is locked, returns to desk, sits, opens desk drawer, pulls out a revolver. Checks if it is loaded, sets it on the desk. Picks it up again, checks it again, smiles at his fear, returns it to desk top, facing the barrel toward the door.

Picks yellow tablet, looks at something he has written, takes a pencil, adds a word or two, scratches one out, clears his throat, reads from it:

J.S.: “He felt it intensely, in the tainted land, in houses, in small towns and . . .”

Looks at tape recorder, considers, switches it on, a slight whirring sound.

J.S. (Looks at tablet, clears his throat, reads again, to the tape recorder): He felt it intensely, in the tainted land, in houses, in small towns and large cities, on plains and rolling hills, a kind of evil –

A Man’s Voice (Interrupting): John, who’re you talking to . . . ?

He starts, looks up from his tablet. The Gaunt Man is standing downstage, half in and out of the light, in overalls, chewing on a toothpick.

J.S.: Tom!

Gaunt Man (Laughs): First time I ever scared you!

J.S.: Nah, you didn’t scare me.

Gaunt Man: You sure ‘n hell jumped! (Grins) Something you wrote – scare yourself?

J.S. (Smiles): I’ve done that.

Gaunt Man: Damn good writer who can scare himself.

J.S. (Furtively covering the revolver with a yellow pad): Well, I admit you surprised me, Tom – it’s been a while since your last visit.

Gaunt Man: You were doing okay there for a time – didn’t think you needed me.

J.S.: Don’t take this wrong, Tom, but don’t think I do now.

Gaunt Man: Course you do or I wouldn’t be here – you called for me.

J.S.: You always say that . . .

Gaunt Man: Cause it’s true. (Chews on toothpick, shakes his head) Beats me why anyone’d question those gone before them! . . . Like an infant questioning how her mama shells peas. Makes no sense. The infant hasn’t shelled a pea – and you haven’t been where I’ve been. (A beat) What’s that there?

J.S. (Thinking initially he means the revolver, puts his hand over pad): What’s what?

Gaunt Man (Pointing at the tape recorder): That – that thing goin’ round?

J.S. (Relieved): Oh, that’s called a tape recorder. I didn’t have it last time you visited?

Gaunt Man: I’d sure remember something goin’ round like that . . . does it do anything else?

J.S.: Copies your voice . . . when you play it back, you hear what you just said.

Gaunt Man: If you just said it, what’s the point?

J.S.: Well . . .

Gaunt Man: Why not just get a parrot?

J.S.: I got a talking myna bird, Tom, why would I want a parrot?

Gaunt Man (Looking around): Thought it was quiet in here. Where is he – where’s John L?

J.S. (Fingers to lips): In the bedroom, snoozing. Don’t get him started. John L kibitzes, I kibitz back, nothing gets done.

Gaunt Man: Keeping Elaine up?

J.S. (A beat, bordering on a mumble): Elaine’s gone a few days.

Gaunt Man (Pause): So that’s what you were doing when I came in, copying your voice?

J.S.: Well . . .

Gaunt Man: Tell me about it.

J.S.: It’s like a Dictaphone machine, Tom – you ever hear of those?

Gaunt Man (Nodding): Sure, like a parrot.

J.S. (Nettled): But you don’t have to be as close to be recorded, so it’s different. This thing can hear you clear across the room.

Gaunt Man: So can a parrot. This something new in the world?

J.S.: Been around a while, but now a little more affordable . . .

Gaunt Man: Even for Okies?

J.S.: Not back then. But the Okies today – if they can afford a radio, they can probably afford one of these.

Gaunt Man (Staring at it): Yeah, sure, but is it a waste of money?

J.S.: Not sure yet . . . still trying it out.

Gaunt Man: To do what?

J.S.: I read the words I’ve written into this, to see how they sound.

Gaunt Man: That’s what you were doing when I came in?

J.S.: Starting to . . .

Gaunt Man: That so important, how the words sound? Do your readers read your books out loud? Isn’t that for children’s books?

J.S. (Irritably): Listen, Tom –

Gaunt Man: I don’t get it, that’s all.

J.S.: It’s a rhythm thing . . . probably more than a sound thing.

Gaunt Man (Skeptical): Uh, okay . . . and what’s the excuse for the gun under your yellow writing pad . . . or do you think I missed that clever move of yours?

J.S.: That, Tom, is none of your business.

Gaunt Man: Come on – you wanted me to see it, so talk about it.

J.S. (Stands, paces): I didn’t want you to see it, and I don’t want to talk about it.

Gaunt Man: You sure about that?

J.S. (Felt): I’m clumsy, that’s all. Always have been, you know that. (Suddenly morose): Sorry, Tom, just tired . . . taking it out on you.

Gaunt Man (Curious, cocking his head): Tired? You are the one man I know never gets tired. What makes you tired now?

J.S.: Riling people, I guess.

Gaunt Man: Hell, John, riling people’s what makes you tick.

J.S.: Well then, I’m tired of people I riled threatening me and mine.

Gaunt Man: That happen?

J.S.: All my life, from the California days on.

Gaunt Man (Pause): Recently too?

J.S. (A beat): Sure . . .

Gaunt Man (Pushing): When?

J.S.: . . . few days ago. . .

Gaunt Man: That’s why the gun?

J.S.: Had guns before, after those cowboys came after me – about the time you were coming into being, Tom.

Gaunt Man (Gently): I know that story alright, you told me enough times – they kill you, no me, no Tom. We settled that . . . Now tell me about this one.

J.S.: Not much to tell – guy calls – soft voice – says don’t be thinking you’re safe just because you’re three thousand miles away. I’m coming for you.

Gaunt Man: Maybe a bill collector?

J.S. (Laughs): Could be.

Gaunt Man: Anything more this guy says?

J.S.: The usual – calls me a Commie. (Smiles ruefully) Well, J. Edgar would agree with him.

Gaunt Man: Hoover?

J.S.: Yeah.

Gaunt Man: Then what – about the call, I mean.

J.S.: Nothing more . . . he hangs up – softly.

Gaunt Man (A beat): Call’s from California?

J.S.: Three thousand miles . . . so works out . . . unless . . .

Gaunt Man: Unless?

J.S.: Unless he’s already here . . . the distance remark making me think I’ve got some time . . . be clever of him.

Gaunt Man (The gun): Why you have this ready to go?

J.S.: Be a fool not to, Tom.

Gaunt Man (Studies him, chews on toothpick): You get lots of threats, why this one bother you?

J.S.: The softness of the voice . . . something about it . . . reminded me when I was a kid and a soft wind blew up the valley, rustling the leaves outside my house . . . (Goes to window, looks out, pause) . . . in the afternoons, day after day. . . I told you before . . . don’t know why, but that scared me as a boy in Salinas . . . still does . . . this voice had that quality . . . like the soft wind through the trees . . .  and then . . . well . . . (Change of mood, shrugs his shoulders) . . . well, kind of a funny thing now . . .

Gaunt Man: Funny?

J.S.: Hoover’s men tailing me been driving me crazy lately – but since that call, I’m glad they are . . . doing me a favor – when I’m followed like this afternoon, and see it’s one of Hoover’s boys, I breathe easier . . . (Smiles) Hoover’d have a fit if he thought he was doing me a favor    . . .

They are quiet a moment as he looks out window meditatively. The Gaunt Man shifts his weight restlessly.

Gaunt Man: Watching you now? . . .

J.S. (As he moves away from window, back to desk): Across the boulevard . . . government’s renting a hotel room . . . a suite, probably.

Gaunt Man (Still skeptical): Watching you through that window?

J.S.: Yep.

Gaunt Man: John, you been drinking? (Goes to window, hand in an overall pocket, casually looks out, chewing on his toothpick) Can’t see nothin’ . . . just a big building . . .

J.S.: That’s a hotel. They’re there, Tom.

Gaunt Man: You sure?

J.S.: Third floor, fourth window from the left.

Gaunt Man: You seem pretty cool for a man being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

J.S.: They’ve investigated me since the Thirties.

Gaunt Man: Get anything on you?

J.S.: Not much.

Gaunt Man (Looks out again): You think they’re lookin’ at me now?

J.S. (A beat): Better question is, can they see you?

Gaunt Man: You mean `cause I’m what some people call a apparition?

J.S.: That’s what I’m wondering.

Gaunt Man: Maybe I should wave . . . (Looking again) What floor you say?

J.S.: Third floor, fourth window from the left . . . almost straight across . . . should be dark so you can’t see them.

Gaunt Man (Looking): I’ll wave . . . (Does so, lazily, waits, turns back) And if they saw me? . . .

J.S.: Immediate report to J. Edgar – “Boss, the writer’s hanging out with a Commie in overalls.” Hoover’d say, “That figures,” might even laugh . . .

Gaunt Man: But you’re glad they’re watching you now . . .

J.S.: Someone kills me in this room, maybe they’ll see it, get the bastard . . . more important, get my body out of here before Elaine returns. (A beat) Hoover long ago . . . my California days . . . we go way back, you know . . . both of us young . . . sent me a typewritten note, unsigned, but I knew it was from him . . . wrote there were people wanted me dead . . . told me to be wary of strangers, maybe even some people I knew . . .

Gaunt Man: You take that as a threat?

J.S.: A warning – he wanted me for himself, wanted to be the one to get me to crack. I sent a return note thanking him, signed my name, never got a reply ­– think he was embarrassed he might have done something nice.

Gaunt Man: All this why Elaine’s gone? For your woman’s safety?

J.S. (Nodding): Sent her off for a while.

A Voice (From off, plaintiff tone): Elaine! Elaine!

They both look toward hallway.

J.S.: We woke him.

Gaunt Man: Bring him out?

J.S.: I don’t want him here . . . in case . . .

Gaunt Man: The man with the soft voice?

J.S.: Be the same as a child seeing it . . . animals know about death . . . maybe he’d kill John L too . . . sounded like someone who’d find pleasure doing something like that . . .

A Voice (Pleadingly): John! Elaine! John!

Gaunt Man (Pause, gesturing toward John L’s voice): Well?

J.S. (Pause): Not yet – I want him to get used to us not being around, not at his beck and call.

Gaunt Man: You goin’ somewhere?

J.S.: We’re flying to Europe soon, maybe after I’ll push on to Vietnam. (Pause, softer) John L doesn’t know it, but he’s leaving us . . . going to Hollywood, has a new home waiting with Fred, a movie man . . . makes damn good movies, Fred does.

J.S. looks off, then moves tablet, almost absently picks up the revolver, studies it.

Gaunt Man (Waits, then): How it feel?

J.S. (Noncommittal): Okay . . .

Gaunt Man: Colt automatic?

J.S.: Got two, one for here, the other (Pats his chest) for carry.

Gaunt Man: Licensed?

J.S.: (Nodding): Wasn’t easy . . .

Gaunt Man: Character witnesses?

J.S.: Needed four . . . had to scramble . . . Some friends backed off . . . that hurt some . . .

Gaunt Man: . . . should have expected . . .

J.S. (Nodding): I did . . . hurt anyway, you know? . . . One signed without hesitation – John L’s vet’ in Nyack, man named Morris Segal . . . said he likes the way I treat animals, doesn’t give a damn about my politics . . .

A Voice: John L’s hungry! John L’s hungry!

J.S: (Calling): Be there soon, John L . . . (A beat) Likes celery and bananas, John L does . . . and a thick piece of wheat bread spread with butter. (Pause) You know, Tom, the Irish have this belief if there’s a bird in your home the day after you die, your soul flies free . . .

The Gaunt Man turns away, looks off, with his hands in his overall pockets, chews restlessly on his toothpick.

J.S.: . . . they say a wild bird . . . but not many birds given the chance won’t take flight . . . why we clip their feathers and keep them in cages . . . denying them freedom.

Gaunt Man (Trying to sound offhand, but tense): Tell you, John, freedom hasn’t done much for me – I’m free but I killed a man and can’t forget it . . .

J.S.: Tom . . .? Tom, I wrote that.

Gaunt Man (Turns back to face him): You wrote it, but it happened to me.

J.S.: Needed to do it . . . you had to suffer . . .  thought you understood, thought we talked all this out long ago . . .

Gaunt Man: Talkin’ don’t make it go away. Sometimes I try imaginin’ that man – what he done to make me so angry . . .

J.S. (Pause): You bump into him out there?

Gaunt Man: Not yet . . . but keep an eye.

J.S.: You think he’d want revenge?

Gaunt Man: We’re beyond revenge out there but not above letting the other know. I keep an eye for cops, too, you havin’ me say wherever a cop was beating up a field worker and, well, the rest of that stuff, that I’d be there . . . don’t see me or anyone else lasting long sayin’ stuff like that . . .

J.S.: Don’t forget, Tom, I made you resourceful.

Gaunt Man: Yeah, maybe . . .

J.S. (Pause, studies him): . . . and gave you ideals . . .

Gaunt Man: I guess . . .

J.S. (Conceding): I’m sorry, Tom . . .

Gaunt Man (Nods acceptance, chews on toothpick, looks away, pause): It’s okay . . . I’m tired, that’s all . . . so takin’ it out on you, I guess.

J.S. looks at him with a kind of sorrow. There is a silence, then:

The Voice: John L’s lonely! John L’s lonely!

J.S. turns away, goes to window, looks out.

J.S.: John L realizes we’re coming to the end . . . Elaine, him, me . . . (Pause) . . .     would have liked him here the day after I die . . .

Gaunt Man (Looking toward door): He might be, you’re not careful.

J.S.: I named him after John L. Lewis . . . champion of the working man . . . not unlike you, Tom. (Looking out window, trying to lighten the mood) You can bet an agent’s dialing Hoover right now – “Hey, boss, no reason to worry about that writer anymore – he’s talking to himself again.” And Hoover says, “Imbecile, those are just the kind we need to worry about – the crazy ones.”

Gaunt Man tries to smile, can’t. They are silent a moment, awkward with each other for the first time. Footsteps heard. Then silence. They look toward door.

J.S.(Pause): You’d better go . . . just in case . . .

Gaunt Man: You sure?

J.S.: You being here would destroy something . . .  some kind of balance we shouldn’t fool with . . .

The Gaunt Man takes a few steps back, gesturing toward the window.

Gaunt Man: Use your head – shoot straight and keep the lights on and the blinds up . . . (Indicating tape recorder) . . . and that parrot machine goin’ round . . .  might prove handy somehow . . .

J.S: So maybe it’s good for something after all?

Gaunt Man: Maybe . . . (With a sudden cock of his head) You think it’s hearing me . . . hearing what I’m saying?

J.S. (Looking over at it, same curious attitude): I don’t know, Tom.

The Gaunt Man disappears into the darkness.

Gaunt Man’s Voice (Trailing off): . . . hearing my voice . . .

J.S. waits a moment, then approaches his desk.

The Voice: John L is lonely! John L is hungry!

J.S. (Sotto voce): I’m coming, John L. I’m coming with celery and a banana – maybe even a nice piece of wheat bread.

J.S. looks at the tape recorder. Sets the revolver on the desk pointing toward the door. He puts the recorder on rewind. The sound is intense. He waits, nervous, an eye on the door. The recorder lurches to a stop. The door is tried. J.S.  flips the recorder on play, without looking picks up the gun and holds it ready.

The Tape Recorder (After a few seconds of silence): “He felt it intensely, in the tainted land, in houses, in small towns and large cities, on plains and rolling hills, a kind of evil – “

Gaunt Man’s Voice (Interrupting): “John, who’re you talking to . . .?”

Blackout.

Gavin Jones Revisits Steinbeck@Stanford

gavin-jones-stanford-university

If Gavin Jones had been a professor there 100 years ago, would John Steinbeck have stayed at Stanford University long enough to finish? Probably not, according to Jones, who addressed the fraught subject of Steinbeck@Stanford at the Stanford University Library on January 30. Jones—who holds the Frederick P. Rehmus Family Chair in Humanities in the Department of English—spoke to a capacity crowd of 200 at the evening event, which was sponsored by the Stanford Historical Society and included a pop-up exhibit from the library’s collection of Steinbeck manuscripts and memorabilia. Credited with contributing to the revival of campus interest in Steinbeck, who enrolled intermittently between 1919 and 1925, Jones used examples of Steinbeck’s early writing to show how Stanford’s emphasis on creativity, collaboration, and interdisciplinary learning shaped the character, context, and content of works like To a God Unknown and Cannery Row—manuscripts of which, in Steinbeck’s hard-to-read hand, were on display at the event. Although he left without earning a diploma and refused to accept an honorary degree, “Stanford was always on his mind,” said Jones. Assuming “the mythology of a misfit” early in his career, Steinbeck was a life-long experimenter whose insights into ecology, empathy, and eugenics—all shaped by Stanford—were, Jones added, ahead of their time and set him apart from literary figures like William Faulkner, who dropped out of Old Miss, and Ernest Hemingway, who skipped college to work as a reporter.

Sketches of John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts Resurface in Carmel, California Collection

john-steinbeck-ed-ricketts

Numerous artists drew, painted, or photographed John Steinbeck, but artistic images of his friend Ed Ricketts are relatively rare. This made the chance discovery of a drawing of Ricketts by Ellwood Graham—in a Carmel, California art collection that also includes Graham’s sketch of Steinbeck—especially exciting. Both drawings are discolored and have acid burn, but Graham’s lines are vivid and the impression in both, even before restoration, remains strong.

edward-ricketts-ellwood-graham

john-steinbeck-ellwood-graham

In 1991 Graham penned his remembrance of doing the two drawings (shown here) around 1940-41, and in 1995 they were included in a Monterey Museum of Art exhibition, curated by Richard Gadd and called “Monterey Life: The Steinbeck Years.” Ironically, when I came across the pair on my first visit to a Carmel collector’s home several months ago I was writing The Willow Grave, a screenplay on Graham and his wife Judith Deim. Ricketts and Steinbeck are significant characters in the story.

“Doing John’s Portrait Was an Unusual Luxury” for Artist

Graham’s recollection of sketching Steinbeck was still fresh when he wrote this note:

Doing John’s portrait was an unusual luxury in this way. A portrait subject usually sits stiffly several times at best. But since John was present in my studio for hours of many days, I had ample time to exploit the project in many ways and mediums. This particular drawing was done in the manner of a technique called silverpoint – which attempts to suggest much with little, a simple clarity of line. This work is not true silverpoint but very similar in intent and result. I should have mentioned that the reason for this “artists” luxury was John’s longhand writing of “The Sea of Cortez.” Therefor several studies were made.

ellwood-graham-john-steinbeck

Equally strong was Graham’s memory of sketching Ricketts:

The drawing of Ed was done quickly during a brief posing period. Later in my studio, and drawing on my memory and experience, a more complete three-dimensional work was done and I am quite certain hangs in the Steinbeck library in Salinas. I planned on doing an oil but that project was never accomplished.

ellwood-graham-edward-ricketts

Ellwood Graham and Judith Deim—then going by her given name of Barbara Stevenson—were artists from St. Louis, Missouri, who made their way to California on Route 66 during the Dust Bowl days of the Great Depression. By chance in Los Angeles they met Gordon Grant, the California artist who was creating murals under the auspices of the Federal Art Project, and he hired them. They were working on the mural in the Ventura, California post office when—again a chance meeting—they met Steinbeck and Ricketts, who were passing through on their way to Mexico. Before parting, Ricketts and Steinbeck invited the young artists to visit Monterey, which, of course, they eventually did. Deim was to do her own portrait of Steinbeck (shown here). It is in the collection of the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies. Graham also did an oil portrait of the writer, but it was lost and its whereabouts are unknown.

john-steinbeck-judith-deim

Newlyweds, Deim and Graham (shown with their children in this undated photo) met as students in the School of Fine Arts at Washington University and went on to distinguished careers in California and Mexicao. Deim exhibited at the San Francisco Museum of Art, the Palace of the Legion of Honor, and the Patzcuaro Museum (she spent the last years of her life in Mexico’s Michoacan). Among many honors, she was the first artist given a solo exhibition at the Carmel Art Association, in 1946. Graham has work in the Whitney Museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the De Young Museum, and the Monterey Museum of Art. Among dozens of exhibits and solos, he had work in the 1939 Golden Gate International Exhibition in San Francisco. Deim spent her last years in Mexico. Graham died in Oregon.

judith-deim-ellwood-graham

An art dealer in Los Angeles who specializes in early modernism told me he knew Graham had a strong sense of his worth as an artist, “because when I find his old paintings, they usually have a pretty high price—for the time—on the reverse side.” Steinbeck and Ricketts believed in Graham and Deim’s talent; Steinbeck, for instance, felt easy enough in their presence to write while they painted him. Luck brought Graham and Deim to the attention of Gordon Grant in Los Angeles and Ricketts and Steinbeck at the Ventura post office. I, too, was fortunate to happen upon Ellwood Graham’s drawings in that Carmel collection.

Ellwood Graham’s recently rediscovered sketches of John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts courtesy of private collector in Carmel, California.

 

Cannery Row, Sea of Cortez Still Making Waves—On Both Sides of the Ocean—in 2019

john-steinbeck-from-the-guardian

Anticipating the 80th anniversary of John Steinbeck and Edward Ricketts’s expedition to the Sea of Cortez, and the 75th anniversary of the publication of Steinbeck’s novel Cannery Row, new profiles by or about a pair of writers born in England brilliantly reflect the role played by Steinbeck, Ricketts, and their free-range relationship in marrying literary imagination with marine biology to create modern ecological consciousness.

john-steinbeck-ed-ricketts

“John Steinbeck’s Epic Ocean Voyage Rewrote the Rules of Ecology”—a thoroughly researched and well-written feature by Richard Grant in the September 2019 issue of Smithsonian Magazine—recounts the 1940 journey that resulted in Sea of Cortez, the 1941 book co-authored by Steinbeck and Ricketts, and the ambitious project to restore The Western Flyer, the boat they used for their “voyage of discovery” to the waters and shores of Baja California. The fact-filled text by Grant, a British journalist based in Mississippi, is creatively complemented by photographs (like the one above) by Ian C. Bates, who lives near Port Townsend, Washington, where work on The Western Flyer continues, with an eye toward relaunch off Cannery Row in 2020.

How Cannery Row Became California

oliver-sacks-everything-in-its-place

The British literary naturalist and neurologist Oliver Sacks died from cancer in August of 2015, but the prolific polymath’s debt to Sea of Cortez, Cannery Row, and the Steinbeck-Ricketts collaboration is detailed in a pair of books published in the first half of 2019. Everything in Its Place: First Loves and Last Tales, the “final volume” of essays on life, death, and Planet Earth by Sacks (who published 15 books, including  Musicophilia and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat) contains this paragraph about coming to Steinbeck country from Canada in 1960:

I was twenty-seven. I had arrived in North America a few months before and started out by hitchhiking across Canada, then down to California, which I had been in love with since I was a fifteen-year-old schoolboy in postwar London. California stood for John Muir, Muir Woods, Death Valley, Yosemite, the soaring landscapes of Ansel Adams, the lyrical paintings of Albert Bierstadt. It meant marine biology, Monterey, and “Doc,” the romantic marine biologist figure in Steinbeck’s Cannery Row.

How Melville and Steinbeck Became Bookends

oliver-sacks-lawrence-wechsler

By 1982 Sacks had achieved fame as a medical renegade with literary genius for his book Awakenings, a suspenseful history of the set of post-encephalitic parkinsonian patients temporarily unfrozen by experimental L-dopa at the Bronx psychiatric hospital where Sacks worked, not without controversy, after he moved to New York. In 1982 Sacks was accompanied by the American journalist Lawrence Wechsler (at right in photo with Sacks) on a trip home to England for a New Yorker magazine profile of Sacks that never appeared. And How Are You, Dr. Sacks?—Wechsler’s memoir of the 35-year friendship that developed between the two men—records the following exchange, about influences, after a visit with Sacks’s 90-year-old father, a genial general practitioner in London who introduced his four precocious sons early (three became doctors) to the pleasures of science and reading:

Later, conversation with Oliver reverts to his childhood and school years. I ask him what sorts of books captivated him as a youth.
      “Moby-Dick,” he replies, without a moment’s hesitation. “What can you say about Moby-Dick? There’s Shakespeare and there’s Moby-Dick and that’s that.
      “We liked Cannery Row and Sea of Cortez, for the marine biology.” (Funny that, as bookends go: Moby-Dick and Cannery Row.)

Shakespeare, Melville, and marine biology also fired John Steinbeck’s mind. As bookends go, Oliver Sacks and Smithsonian Magazine make splendid specimens of the exultation expected in 2020 around Sea of Cortez, Cannery Row, and the marriage of marine biology and literary imagination—on both sides of the Atlantic.

New Light on John Steinbeck at Stanford’s Green Library

steinbeck-karsh

John Steinbeck © 1954 Yousuf Karsh

A trove of documents donated to Stanford University—the S.J. Neighbors collection of John Steinbeck papers, 1859-1999—adds dramatic detail to a literary life story that started in 19th century Germany and Palestine and became synonymous with 20th century California and America. Totaling 256 items, the acquisition is the largest since 1999, when Wells Fargo funded the addition of a major collection of Steinbeck material to the holdings of the newly renovated Green Library, which first opened in 1919, the year Steinbeck enrolled at Stanford as a freshman. The new collection includes correspondence to and from John Steinbeck, notebooks kept by his American grandmother, Almira Steinbeck, and lecture notes written by her earnest, German-born husband about their missionary work in Palestine and the attack on their compound in Jaffa that sent them packing for the United States, just in time for the outbreak of the Civil War. According to Rebecca Wingfield, curator of British and American literature, the addition of the S.J. Neighbors collection makes the Stanford University Library the most important resource anywhere for research on Steinbeck’s roots. Her colleague Ben Stone, curator of American and British history, notes that the school’s commitment to Steinbeck includes access to the collection by regular readers of the restless American writer who never got around to telling his grandparents’ back story and disappointed his family by leaving Stanford without a degree.

Exhibit, Conference Show Steinbeck is in Good Hands

elaine-john-steinbeck

The local link between Ludwig van Beethoven and John Steinbeck, a man who loved Broadway but preferred Bach, gave minds at San Jose State University—where the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies shares space with the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies—the bright idea for The Art of Biography, an exhibit of images and objects from the two collections that runs through July 6, 2019 on the fifth floor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library. Timed to coincide with the 2019 Steinbeck conference, held May 1-3, the exhibit’s Steinbeck content was created by Alexandra Mezza and Allison Galbreath, graduating students in the MFA creative writing program directed by Nick Taylor, who also serves as director of the Steinbeck center.

The local link between Ludwig van Beethoven and John Steinbeck gave San Jose State University the idea for an exhibit of images and objects from the two collections.

Like this exhibit photo of Elaine Steinbeck, taken at Cannery Row in 1975, the 2019 conference field was dominated by women with a special touch for John Steinbeck. Speakers included Mary Papazian, the Milton scholar who became San Jose State University’s president since the last Steinbeck conference was held three years ago; Noelle Brada-Williams, the new chair of the university’s English department; Susan Shillinglaw, English professor and author of the artful biography, Carol and John Steinbeck: Portrait of a Marriage; Marisa Plumb, also of the English department; Barbara A. Heavilin, professor emeritus at Taylor University and editor-in-chief of Steinbeck Review; Mimi Gladstein, the University of Texas, El Paso, superstar who writes about Steinbeck, Hemingway, and Faulkner’s women; Cecilia Donohue, a retired professor of English at Madonna University; Elisabeth Bayley, who teaches at Loyola University in Chicago; Aya Kubota, a professor at Japan’s Bunka Gakuen University; Lori Newcomb, a teacher at Wayne State College; Naama Cohen of Tel Aviv University; Danica Cerce, a member of the faculty of the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia; Debra Cumberland, a teacher at Winona State University; Robin Provey, a graduate student at Western Connecticut State University; Jennifer Ren, an entering law student at the University of Houston; and Audry Lynch, the veteran educator from Boston who had the unusual experience of interviewing each of Steinbeck’s three wives in California.

Like the exhibit photo of Elaine Steinbeck taken in 1975, the 2019 conference field was dominated by women with a special touch for John Steinbeck.

Women also filled the stage for after-hour attractions during the conference. Three 2018-19 Steinbeck Fellows in Creative Writing at San Jose State University—Katie M. Flynn, Kirin Khan, and Christine Vines—read from their fiction on opening night. When the formal program closed on Friday, 20 of 50 conference attendees boarded the bus for Salinas, where Susan Shillinglaw led a look-and-listen tour that included the Red Pony Ranch, the Steinbeck House, and the National Steinbeck Center, where Michele Speich—a nonprofit professional from Monterey—recently succeeded Shillinglaw as the Salinas organization’s executive director. Steinbeck House dinner was served by members of the Valley Guild, the group of mostly female volunteers who bought the home in the 1970s and pay the bills by running the restaurant and encouraging donations. If Martha Heasley Cox had such women in mind for the future of John Steinbeck’s legacy when she started the center that bears her name, also in the 1970s, today’s results would have to make her happy.

Photograph by John Bryson courtesy of the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies.

Profile by Martin Chilton Best Writing on Steinbeck in 2018

martin-chilton

A December 20, 2018 piece published by The Independent to mark the 50th anniversary of John Steinbeck’s death could be the best writing about Steinbeck in a milestone year for journalism devoted to an author who still makes waves. The compelling profile of Steinbeck by Martin Chilton, culture editor of England’s Telegraph chain, describes “a flawed genius” who was chronically ill, frequently angry, but never inconsequential. “When I met the singer and actor Harry Belafonte,” recalls Chilton, who also writes about sports and music, “he told me Steinbeck ‘was one of the people who turned my life around as a young man,’ inspiring ‘a lifelong love of literature.’” Chilton’s take on Steinbeck’s life turns on milestone events—brushes with death, bouts of depression, divorces and disappointments—whose cumulative weight made Steinbeck “Mad at the World,” the title of the biography by William Souder scheduled for publication by W.W. Norton in 2019. A quotation from our 2015 interview with Souder includes a hyperlink to Steinbeck Now, making 2018 a milestone year for us too.

Photo of Martin Chilton courtesy of the Telegraph newspaper group