ALL Book Club: March '12

[SophiaGrace]

I didn't like the novel and wouldn't read it again. It was dull for me. Each page was humdrum, intersperced with humor. I. Would not reccomend this work to anyone.

When liley mentioned how the book focused on suicide I was confused. What suicide I asked myself but as I read futher in her review I realized where it came from. I do not think he book focused on death or suicide though. Although now I can recall a second suicide committed by one of the bar bouncers. The book was about thowing a party for doc, not about death.

I found it funny how mack's first attempt at doc's party went so wrong, but then it went wrong AGAIN the second time, only that time it was sanctioned by Doc himself. Everything in the book was done in a sort of bumbling humorish way.

But yeah it was boring and not something id read again. John steinbeck is not one of my favorite authors.

 

[The Good Citizen]

I agree the book has no plot as such aside from the loose narrative of the party on which it hangs. It reminds me of Dubliners in that sense, where Joyce combines a collection of short stories on local folk in Dublin, so does Steinbeck here although they are more interlinked in Cannery Row. Its essential just a short collection of stories about local folk in the Salinas Valley where I think Steinbeck grew up and a lot of his books are set.

I never find the language of Steinbeck's novel's overly elaborate, its plain speak from a writer without any heirs or graces or artistic pretensions (as a result they are easy to read and probably why they are so often read in school (well, my school)). He is a natural born story teller though and I find it all the more effective through the simple prose he uses. He is capable of breathing a lot of life into the characters and settings he constructs. He always manages to create very vivid and well formed images for me and I quickly forget the fact I'm reading the words off the page. His characters are always well formed and I could quickly picture Mack, Doc and Lee perfectly as he introduces them.

Again central to this book as other Steinbeck novels is poverty and the lowest ranks of American society. There is a distrust of wealth and its ability to corrupt running through Cannery Row; the couple who become less happy with life as they establish an income and the wife insists on drapes, Mack's friends' questioning why he would ever wish to be the president when he is essentially free to do as he wishes as he is. This is also summarised by Doc as he watches them on the day of the parade from his window. This is very much a nostalgic, rose tinted view of poverty where the poor are portrayed as the truly free. The essential decency of the human spirit shines through, the poor are all loveable rogues and the rich are good willed benefactors who suffer the flophouse crew's escapades in good humour.

In this sense Cannery row is for me a less satisfying novel. In Grapes of Wrath the harsh reality of poverty, the intense description of hunger, the labelling of the poor as sub-human 'Oakies', infant death and the fruitless search across America for work during the dustbowl era is written in stark detail. But this is offset against an irrepressible human spirit to survive and the ability of family bonds to endure. So while being at times brutally bleak, it still has a stoic, defiant and humane spirit at its core which for me made the book so profound. The tone of Cannery Row however is far lighter and for the most part humorous. It deliberately ignores the harsher realities of poverty and the character flaws in the individuals. Domestic Violence for instance is mentioned in passing in an almost slap stick situation where the wife beats the husband in his sleep and he beats her back occasionally to save face. Steinbeck alludes to social ills but determines that he is not going to discuss them in detail in this book. In the main he concentrates on the ingenuity of the poor to create a living space in the most humble of surroundings and the apparent ease in which they are always able to locate food and beer by one means or another. They live in a sub-society which is free of the burdens of social convention but not of common decency and in this respect they are free.

So it is as vivid and well crafted as ever but certainly I think an attempt at a more light hearted look at the comings and goings of life in the Salinas valley. So just as a comedy never wins the Oscar this would never for me be comparable to Grapes of Wrath or East of Eden as the best Steinbeck had to offer but an enjoyable read nonetheless. 7/10

 

[Drama]

I didn't like the novel and wouldn't read it again. It was dull for me. Each page was humdrum, intersperced with humor. I. Would not reccomend this work to anyone.

When liley mentioned how the book focused on suicide I was confused. What suicide I asked myself but as I read futher in her review I realized where it came from. I do not think he book focused on death or suicide though. Although now I can recall a second suicide committed by one of the bar bouncers. The book was about thowing a party for doc, not about death.

I found it funny how mack's first attempt at doc's party went so wrong, but then it went wrong AGAIN the second time, only that time it was sanctioned by Doc himself. Everything in the book was done in a sort of bumbling humorish way.

But yeah it was boring and not something id read again. John steinbeck is not one of my favorite authors.

I said the novel was focusing on death and suicide as a theme. Death was mentioned like 2 or 3 times in the novel. And that is focusing enough on the theme. I hope that you know what i mean by theme

This novel isnt about just reading the words . It's about reading between the lines too. It contains a lot of irony, sarcasm and black humour.And that makes it 100 times more interesting than a novel with a shallow plot, imo of course.

---

I agree the book has no plot as such. It reminds me of Dubliners in that sense, where Joyce combines a collection of short stories on local folk in Dublin, so does Steinbeck here although they are more interlinked in Cannery Row. Its essential just a short collection of stories about local folk in the Salinas Valley where I think Steinbeck grew up and a lot of his books are set.

I agree. Tho I'd prefer to read Steinbeck than Joyce. The interlinked storied in CR makes it more vivid and interesting to read, imo.

I never find the language of Steinbeck's novel's overly elaborate, its plain speak from a writer without any heirs or graces or artistic pretensions (as a result they are easy to read and probably why they are so often read in school (well, my school)). He is a natural born story teller though and I find it all the more effective through the simple prose he uses. He is capable of breathing a lot of life into the characters and settings he constructs. He always manages to create very vivid and well formed images for me and I quickly forget the fact I'm reading the words off the page. His characters are always well formed and I could quickly picture Mack, Doc and Lee perfectly as he introduces them.

I agree here too. But I wouldnt say that he has no artistic features.

Again central to this book as other Steinbeck novels is poverty and the lowest ranks of American society. There is a distrust of wealth and its ability to corrupt running through Cannery Row; the couple who become less happy with life as they establish an income and the wife insists on drapes, Mack's friends' questioning why he would ever wish to be the president when he is essentially free to do as he wishes as he is. This is also summarised by Doc as he watches them on the day of the parade form his window. This is very much a nostalgic, rose tinted view of poverty where the poor are portrayed as the truly free. The essential decency of the human spirit shines through, the poor are all loveable rogues and the rich are good willed benefactors who suffer the flophouse crew's escapades in good humour.

In this sense Cannery row is for me a less satisfying a novel. In Grapes of Wrath the harsh reality of poverty, the intense description of hunger, the labelling of the poor as sub-human 'Oakies', infant death and the fruitless search across America for work during the dustbowl era is written in stark detail. But this is offset against an irrepressible human spirit to survive and the ability of family bonds to endure. So while being at times brutally bleak, it still has a stoic, defiant and humane spirit at its core which for me made the book so profound. The tone of Cannery Row however is far lighter and for the most part humorous. It deliberately ignores the harsher realities of poverty and the character flaws in the individuals. Domestic Violence for instance is mentioned in passing in an almost slap stick situation where the wife beats the husband in his sleep and he beats her back occasionally to save face. Steinbeck alludes to social ills but determines that he is not going to discuss them in detail in this book. In the main he concentrates on the ingenuity of the poor to create a living space in the most humble of surroundings and the apparent ease in which they are always able to locate food and beer by one means or another. They live in a sub-society which is free of the burdens of social convention but not of common decency and in this respect they are free.

I wouldnt say that The novalist is being careless with these details. Like joyce, he is portraying poverty, insanity, violence etc in an ironic way. And that is his artistic way to 'mock' society. A society that is searching for money, easy life, power etc without really wanting to go through the hard part of getting there. When Doc was talking, for example, about how Mack and his friends are free, he was completely mistaken (that is ironic). They werent feeling free. They were feeling rejected by society which was looking at them as troublemakers, useless etc. and society was concidering them that way because they tried to do something useful and make Doc a party which turned into a disaster. It was ironic that they got rejected by society when they were trying to do what society would have want them to do. (idk if im being clear here)
Thing is you should regard the novel as an ironic writing. humour in it isnt innocent, it is placed there to mock (idk if the word mock is the right word to use)... I think it would have been more enjoyable to you if you read it as such but again this is just my humble opinion.

 

[The Good Citizen]

I thought the discovery of the girls body by Doc was going to be more central to the story to be honest but it seemed to be forgotton as soon as it was brought up which I found odd. If there was a point to its inclusion, maybe The fact that Doc wasn't interested in the reward (again coming back to the rejection of money's importance) also as a Doctor had no intrest in following up on the circumstances of death and just wanted to leave, it just seemed Steinbeck wanted to allude to the darker side of life as existing but chose to ignore it, or maybe I'm just trying to read more into it than there is!

Lee though, he was a shrewd business man who allowed everyone (except Mack and his crew) to live off a slate and owe him cash. That was definitely a central theme of the book to me, Money and its lack of importance in terms of being free and happy.

 

[Drama]

I thought the discovery of the girls body by Doc was going to be more central to the story to be honest but it seemed to be forgotton as soon as it was brought up which I found odd. If there was a point to its inclusion, maybe The fact that Doc wasn't interested in the reward (again coming back to the rejection of money's importance) also as a Doctor had no intrest in following up on the circumstances of death and just wanted to leave, it just seemed Steinbeck wanted to allude to the darker side of life as existing but chose to ignore it, or maybe I'm just trying to read more into it than there is!

Lee though, he was a shrewd business man who allowed everyone (except Mack and his crew) to live off a slate and owe him cash. That was definitely a central theme of the book to me, Money and its lack of importance in terms of being free and happy.

I'll try to explain my point of view about doc's encounter but I may be tryign to read more than what there is in it too... but here it is
I think that the body reminded him of a beloved one. A woman he loved and who died. For why else would he act all weird and hear music (which was a hallucination connected to a previous tragic event). I mean the guy wouldnt be shocked by a dead body normally, to him it is something he is used to. And he would help instead of running away the way he did. But if it is connected to a tragic event that happened to him, it would be totally understandable. What makes me think that there was a woman involved is that when someone was receiting poetry in his party, he seemed to have the same reaction. Mack was about to say something about a woman but he was interrupted.They all then seemed sad especially Doc. Mabe she was the one writing it, idk. The point is he was greatly affected by it. So it reminded him of her the way the body did.

I think that Lee was trying to save his business that way. He doesnt lend money because he cares but because it's good for his business. Tho he tried to be distant with Mack and his friends, he knew when he had to accept to help them when it was good for his business. There is no lack of importance of money to Lee if that what you're saying. He just knows how to coexist with his envirenment to get the most of it.

 

[The Good Citizen]

I think the almost sacred act of the business transaction was more important to Lee than the money itself, he enjoyed the act of making a business transaction and being scrupulous more than he could ever calling in his debts. I mean he was happy to deal in frogs at one point which again I'd say is an attempt to devalue Money's true worth and the cult that surrounds it.

Its an interesting view on the body, I think his love life was largely left unsaid but definitely touched upon. Mack always assumed that when he heard music that Doc had a girl over (so that connection that you mention) but that was inferred and never proven in the text. He had the one date who left to live with the artist of course. He was an interesting character anyway, philosophical and kind but with a tough streak such as when he threatened the hitchhiker and also punched Mack. He was probably my favourite character in the book although his character and his background was not fully explored I think.

Again with the money (I'm gonna hammer this point! ) his explanation to Mack that there was no point burdening him with a debt for the damage that he would not be able to meet as all it would amount to was several years of unfulfilled guilt on Mack's part. I think he admired Mack in a way, he recognised the good in him and the freedom by which he lived his life in poverty, I think he envied that and would rather preserve that ideal than burden him with a debt just for retribution.

I do think it was a more complex book than at first glance, there are subtexts which are probably hidden by the humour. I did enjoy the book though Ledia, 7/10 is a positive, it was just it was up against probably my favourite book of all time by the same author and it came at the same topic from a different perspective which I personally found less effective. But it was always going to come off second best to Grapes of Wrath!

It’s actually quite interesting to discuss a book like this after I've read it though; I've not been in a reading circle or anything similar previously. I normally read something and want to force it on someone else so I'm all for this!

 

[Drama]

Lee HAD to deal with frogs because he knew it's either taking them or not being payed at all by Mack. He KNEW that Doc would pay him for the frogs. Again this shows that in a way or another the characters know each other, kinda
Lee just calculates how he could obtain money and then be satisfied. It is mentioned in the text that he would be careful so that no one steals his goods. He also gets careful on how to deal with his costumers that are rather poor. Lending them is an obligation not a caring-self from him.



Doc is kind yeah and he has money plus he could use Mack for hard labours. Im not saying that he just uses Mack. Doc does admire Mack and his friends. But he likes them for who he thinks they are. They are lazy tho that's their failure. Doc on the other hand is active. But then again dont we rather like who we are not?


I'm not attacking you im just enjoying an argument about a novel. I hope that it's the same for you..
It's interesting to view the same novel from many perspective.

 

[SophiaGrace]

Doc's business. I liked reading about his dissection business.

 

[The Good Citizen]

I'm not attacking you im just enjoying an argument about a novel. I hope that it's the same for you..
It's interesting to view the same novel from many perspective.

No its cool, its all good! I like the fact some of our views on the book are polarised, I don't think theres a right or wrong answer when considering a book or piece of art, you relate to it and take from it what you will and then try your best to express what it meant to you.

Well I suppose thats the textbook response, true I guess but sometimes I'll be talking about something with someone and I'll think yep good point, valid point... just incorrect, I'm right. (not in this case though).

---

Doc's business. I liked reading about his dissection business.

You were a bit under whelmed by it weren't you Soph, I will fully endorse your next choice if you like. I'll read anything.

 

[Drama]

I'm not attacking you im just enjoying an argument about a novel. I hope that it's the same for you..
It's interesting to view the same novel from many perspective.

No its cool, its all good! I like the fact some of our views on the book are polarised, I don't think theres a right or wrong answer when considering a book or piece of art, you relate to it and take from it what you will and then try your best to express what it meant to you.

Well I suppose thats the textbook response, true I guess but sometimes I'll be talking about something with someone and I'll think yep good point, valid point... just incorrect, I'm right. (not in his case though).

Yea it's like the criticism schools. They all try to make their point the true one. They validate themselves since what they say make sense but there is no ultimate truth.
If you noticed I kept pointing out that im talking from my point of you. Of course mine is the true one (hehe) but you do validate your points too

 

[The Good Citizen]

Yea it's like the criticism schools. They all try to make their point the true one. They validate themselves since what they say make sense but there is no ultimate truth.
If you noticed I kept pointing out that im talking from my point of you. Of course mine is the true one (hehe) but you do validate your points too

Ha I can still hear my English teacher, "Where's the supporting evidence boy? You need to substantiate your points with direct reference to the text!!"

 

[Drama]

Yea it's like the criticism schools. They all try to make their point the true one. They validate themselves since what they say make sense but there is no ultimate truth.
If you noticed I kept pointing out that im talking from my point of you. Of course mine is the true one (hehe) but you do validate your points too

Ha I can still hear my English teacher, "Where's the supporting evidence boy? You need to substantiate your points with direct reference to the text!!"

rofl! yeah English teachers are like that

 

[The Good Citizen]

Is March done and dusted then or anymore thoughts? If not what about moving on to an April selection?

 

[flaneur]

Make your April nominations in this thread. Soph has already nominated Game of Thrones.

 

[SophiaGrace]

I pre screened the book and gave it 5 stars so now I nominate it for our book club. *nods*

 

[The Good Citizen]

I really don't mind but for the sake of suggesting something..

Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut

Its quite short, a cult classic. I've read it but think I probably need to read it again sometime as it went over my head the first time.

Bit of a description of t'internet...

Vonnegut's wildly imaginative, witty and affecting novel tells Billy Pilgrim's story in just that fashion. It spins back and forth through time, layering in the elements of Billy's life, which begins, chronologically, in 1922 in the upstate New York town of Ilium, and ends over 50 years later, when he is a successful middle-class optometrist with a wife and two grown children. Like Vonnegut himself, Billy was a World War II draftee and a prisoner of war in Dresden when the Allies firebombed the city early in 1945. All of these facts are significant, and the novel emerges as a powerful anti-war.

 

[SophiaGrace]

Hmm id read slaughterhouse 5

 

[The Good Citizen]

Hmm id read slaughterhouse 5

I'd read Game of Thrones

Another one which I think would be intresting is Persepolis. Its a graphic Novel about and Iranian Schoolgirl, I've seen the animated film and I've never read an animated story before so maybe one for the future at some point but probably something more convential to begin with.

 

[Drama]

Sorry if Game of thrones is chosen i wont be able to read it. Beyond my limits

 

[The Good Citizen]

Sorry if Game of thrones is chosen i wont be able to read it. Beyond my limits

I'd start reading anything, if it was something that bored me then I would give up on it though, which I don't tend to do normally. I'll give anything a go though.