Some authors seem immortal, others sink into oblivion. After a while, what’s left? In its monthly series Should we reread…?, The duty revisits one of these writers with the help of admirers and attentive observers. Today, place for a novelist rarely fooled by the great myths of his country. John Steinbeck (1902-1968) preferred to describe the American nightmare, the one that so afflicted the farmers of the Midwest (Grapes of Wrath) than Spanish-speaking immigrants (Tortilla Flat). With them, he crossed the 20the century by maintaining his ideal, holding his pen as a symbol of freedom.
If he lived in our time, John Steinbeck would not be classified as a “media writer.” Not to mention that he hardly had the flamboyance of Truman Capote or Ernest Hemingway. However, unlike JD Salinger, seclusion and silence are very little for him; in addition to writing, he loved traveling, observing, going where others never set foot.
This Californian worked several jobs, including farm worker and fruit picker, abandoned his university studies at Stanford in 1925 and combed the United States, seeing poverty almost everywhere. These multiple experiences will never cease to fuel his imagination and his desire to tell the world as he saw it. He will do this through literature, but also as a journalist, essayist, committed intellectual, even lobbyist with Washington politicians, fervent defender of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. From there to seeing the emergence of a communist in Steinbeck, many did not hesitate to take the plunge.
This perception is fueled by his most famous writings. After a few confidential novels (The Pearl, The golden cup) and a book that piques curiosity (Tortilla Flat), John Steinbeck strikes a first big blow with Of mice and Men (1937), a powerful work about friendship, wandering, as well as a charge against segregation and racism. Steinbeck quickly transformed this long short story into a play, which contributed to its influence. We can no longer count the adaptations, both in comics and in opera. Of mice and Men was also one of Radio-Canada’s most famous teletheats, directed by Paul Blouin in 1971 and starring Hubert Loiselle and Jacques Godin, respectively in the roles of George and Lennie. This mismatched duo, the frail perceptive and the simple-minded colossus, wander from one ranch to another in search of odd jobs, nurturing impossible dreams until one tragedy sparks another…
The tragedy behind the myth
A story often placed in the hands of students, it contains no surprises as to its outcome, but always provokes a lot of emotion. This was also the conviction of Jean-Philippe Lehoux, actor and playwright (Normal, Fake ball). In 2018, to mark the transition between the artistic direction of Michel Dumont and that of the duo formed by David Laurin and Jean-Simon Traversy, the Jean-Duceppe theater presented Of mice and Men, a nod to the company’s glorious past. The one who is also a translator was entrusted with the task of revisiting this text.
“The director Vincent-Guillaume Otis and I wanted a play with a relatively contemporary style, without folklorism, aware that everyone knows the ending,” emphasizes Jean-Philippe Lehoux. And since everything hinges on this ending, we focused on the implacable nature of the tragedy. » To get there, the translator saw fit to streamline the piece, deployed in 90 minutes, an exercise which was far from dangerous. “Brevity was one of our biases,” emphasizes the one we saw in the series Alerts And The escape. There was a lot of dross, authorial crutches announcing what the characters were going to say. In short, I cut out everything that was not part of this tragic bubble. »
As the piece was not yet in the public domain, Jean-Philippe Lehoux did not have all the freedoms. “I discovered in Steinbeck his fascination with peasants, workers of mixed origins, Indigenous people, Mexicans, etc. I can very well imagine a new adaptation where George and Lennie would be Spanish-speaking seasonal workers. These two characters are very strong, and they highlight a certain decline in America, a great dream of which we can no longer be fooled. »
As striking and popular as it is, the novel Of mice and Men is not always the key to discovering John Steinbeck. Literature professor at the Sherbrooke CEGEP, Jean-François Létourneau vaguely remembers this “compulsory reading” in high school. He was later struck, in the original language, by the news The Chrysanthemums (1937), but especially by the novel East of Eden (1952). This work with biblical overtones, cultivating the notions of good and evil, presents a pessimistic portrait of an America apparently triumphant through two large families with intertwined destinies. Even today, Elia Kazan’s 1955 film adaptation often comes down to the image of actor James Dean, the film which would lay the foundations of his (short) career, but above all of his legend.
Jean-François Létourneau rather remembers Steinbeck’s great literary mastery. “I couldn’t believe the way he managed to illustrate the life of a man within a novel, to ensure this passage of time and decades. This is one of my most memorable reads. From that moment on, thanks to John Steinbeck, literature would not be on the periphery of my life, but at the center,” says the man who is also a novelist (The wild territory of the soul), essayist (The territory in the veins) and storyteller.
He even pushed the devotion by traveling several times on roads taken by Steinbeck. “I was planting trees in northern Ontario and at the end of the contract, a friend and I headed to California to Salinas, where he was born. A center is dedicated to John Steinbeck, we celebrate his memory, and I remember that I in turn wanted to discover this America of seasonal workers, of migrants, of the excluded. His memoirs, Journey with Charley (1962), where he evokes a road trip across the United States in the company of his dog, had also left an impression on me. »
Steinbeck, this politician
Many said, even decreed, that John Steinbeck belonged to the past of American literature when he was awarded the Nobel in 1962. East of Eden had not charmed the critics as much as his previous books — Grapes of Wrath was going to win the Pulitzer — and he seemed at odds with a new generation of writers, intellectuals and activists, particularly those who were fiercely opposed to the Vietnam War, while Steinbeck justified it.
No, his career is not limited to a few successful books. This is the conviction of Dominic D’Amour, doctoral student in history at UQAM. In 2006, he signed a master’s thesis on his life, his work and his political commitment during the second half of the 20th century.e century. “He was an intellectual who was neither a socialist nor a communist,” explains the doctoral student. He did not want to change the system, but to modify it. People who take advantage of the misery of others to enrich themselves outraged him, and it is a recurring theme in his work. »
He not only launched calls for denunciation, he also sought to influence the social policies of his country, writing speeches for certain American presidents, having his entries into the White House. Pretentious, John Steinbeck? “He loved making contacts, but not being the center of attention,” emphasizes Dominic D’Amour. Being in the background allowed him to maintain his independence. But let’s face it: he wasn’t very charismatic. His Nobel acceptance speech is brilliant, but we see that he prefers the shadows. »
Far from experiencing a decline at the time he received this great honor, Steinbeck continued to make a positive contribution to the world of letters, and to the world in general, according to Dominic D’Amour. “He wrote important books during this period, including America and Americans (1966), Journey with Charley (1962) and The winter of our discontent (1961). In this novel, he denounces materialism and immorality. He was discouraged that all this was normalized, even if he showed a certain optimism. » This book, the academic considers to be still relevant today, especially for young readers, because the author denounces wealth acquired too quickly, as well as stardom.
Others prefer to return, again and again, to Grapes of Wrath. Even Bruce Springsteen drew inspiration from this powerful Great Depression novel for his album The Ghost of Tom Joad (named after the hero played on screen by Henry Fonda), published in 1995. “I listen to it regularly,” says Jean-François Létourneau. It’s a great album, in perfect coherence with Steinbeck. Even the group Rage Against the Machine covered the title song: it’s on a completely different register — with more noise! —, but the political discourse remains the same. »
In his diary in 1938, John Steinbeck seemed to sum it up this way: “Try to understand one another. We cannot hate men once we know them. »