Steinbeck’s The Winter of Our Discontent was published in 1961 and was to be his last work of fiction. During the 1950's he suffered in his writing process to bring something new to his readers that he had not already accomplished within East of Eden and what resulted were some more experiential modes for The Winter of Our Discontent. Unfortunately, the critics, more than not, responded negatively to the new approaches and erroneously dismissed the efforts as poor writing rather than seeing them as artistic innovations.
The components of the narrative are as American as any of Steinbeck’s books, the setting being a small seaside village populated with a few generations of families and a culture composed of both Puritanism and pirates. The narrator is Ethan Allen* Hawley and, despite his liberal arts education at Harvard, he finds himself at age 40 as a lowly grocery clerk and at the end of several generations of wealth that were enjoyed by his family. In some respect, Ethan is labeled as a sad sack, although still with loving wife, son and daughter. As his town succumbs to the grey areas of greed and corruption, Ethan finds the social pressures too great to ignore his rank any longer and formulates a plan to better his standing within the community (and choosing to do so during an ironic Easter weekend). So far the story is classic Steinbeck. But where Steinbeck deviates is both in the narrative voice and an ending that focuses more upon the progression of his character rather than a final conclusion.
For the narrative voice, Steinbeck chose not to utilize consistency and realism. Instead Ethan’s internal thoughts are filled with Shakespearean soliloquies (produce and grocery stocked shelves being the audience), intertextual references to classical studies (for which there is a reference guide in the back), questing drama one would expect from an Arthurian Knight, witty romantic banter with his wife, existential late night strolls in the shoes of J. Alfred Prufrock, and so on. In other words, while Ethan is a character within the story, he also becomes a literary vehicle for Steinbeck’s imaginative play. Which didn’t go over too well with the critics at the time but could now be recognized as an early technique of post-modern literature.
For the character development and the conclusion, Ethan, again, becomes more conceptual than definitive. When first meeting Ethan, his self-definition is based upon how he interacts with his community rather his acquirements and status. He's a good guy. However, when he makes the choice to change his lot in life (as a result of not having a strong enough personality to withstand the surrounding social pressures), the effectuating gusto required resurrects Ethan into a much stronger, chiseled, personality-- one now more capable of confronting life’s challenges. Only, Ethan has also entered into the realm of the morally ambiguous in order to improve his conditions in life.
In this, Steinbeck is providing comment upon American culture. However, he avoids didacticism by broadening his work to the conflicts that can be found within the Darwinian rules of survival, how the more equipped we are to survive, the more likely we are to be doing so at the expense of another. Which raises the question of the extent to which morality is offset by doing what one can to better the chance of personal survival. Is this an inevitable tradeoff? Or is it only a result of American culture and/or a capitalist mind set? Will the moral always be destined for irrelevancy? Obviously these are issues that get more into the unsolvable paradoxes and conflicts within the human experience and are without clear answers. Appropriately, the novel ends with open-ended irresolution, which the critics slammed, but I loved.
*The historical Ethan Allen was both a leader within the Revolutionary War but also cited for treason.
The components of the narrative are as American as any of Steinbeck’s books, the setting being a small seaside village populated with a few generations of families and a culture composed of both Puritanism and pirates. The narrator is Ethan Allen* Hawley and, despite his liberal arts education at Harvard, he finds himself at age 40 as a lowly grocery clerk and at the end of several generations of wealth that were enjoyed by his family. In some respect, Ethan is labeled as a sad sack, although still with loving wife, son and daughter. As his town succumbs to the grey areas of greed and corruption, Ethan finds the social pressures too great to ignore his rank any longer and formulates a plan to better his standing within the community (and choosing to do so during an ironic Easter weekend). So far the story is classic Steinbeck. But where Steinbeck deviates is both in the narrative voice and an ending that focuses more upon the progression of his character rather than a final conclusion.
For the narrative voice, Steinbeck chose not to utilize consistency and realism. Instead Ethan’s internal thoughts are filled with Shakespearean soliloquies (produce and grocery stocked shelves being the audience), intertextual references to classical studies (for which there is a reference guide in the back), questing drama one would expect from an Arthurian Knight, witty romantic banter with his wife, existential late night strolls in the shoes of J. Alfred Prufrock, and so on. In other words, while Ethan is a character within the story, he also becomes a literary vehicle for Steinbeck’s imaginative play. Which didn’t go over too well with the critics at the time but could now be recognized as an early technique of post-modern literature.
For the character development and the conclusion, Ethan, again, becomes more conceptual than definitive. When first meeting Ethan, his self-definition is based upon how he interacts with his community rather his acquirements and status. He's a good guy. However, when he makes the choice to change his lot in life (as a result of not having a strong enough personality to withstand the surrounding social pressures), the effectuating gusto required resurrects Ethan into a much stronger, chiseled, personality-- one now more capable of confronting life’s challenges. Only, Ethan has also entered into the realm of the morally ambiguous in order to improve his conditions in life.
In this, Steinbeck is providing comment upon American culture. However, he avoids didacticism by broadening his work to the conflicts that can be found within the Darwinian rules of survival, how the more equipped we are to survive, the more likely we are to be doing so at the expense of another. Which raises the question of the extent to which morality is offset by doing what one can to better the chance of personal survival. Is this an inevitable tradeoff? Or is it only a result of American culture and/or a capitalist mind set? Will the moral always be destined for irrelevancy? Obviously these are issues that get more into the unsolvable paradoxes and conflicts within the human experience and are without clear answers. Appropriately, the novel ends with open-ended irresolution, which the critics slammed, but I loved.
*The historical Ethan Allen was both a leader within the Revolutionary War but also cited for treason.
0 comments:
Post a Comment