/lit/ - Literature

>>4611654
>mfw you're more like the guy in the pic than John Steinbeck fans are

>>4611659
>mfw you have no face
>mfw it's manifest in my original post that this isn't about external appearance and you have reading comprehension problems so you should probably work on that before posting in /lit/ of all places anymore.

If pic related is the only John Steinbeck novel you own, congratulations. You have an acceptable judgment of what is worthwhile, lasting, interesting writing.

If you own ANYTHING ELSE by Steinbeck, you are either a middle school kid or just need to find something you're good at.

>>4611654

what's wrong with Steinbeck?

>hard mode

use insightful criticism

>>4611670
>mfw you're proving my point

>>4611693
>hard mode engage
It's the way he makes my brain look like this when he's full-bore-tryhard-omg-humanity-so-beautiful-mode, which is is in FUCKING EVERYTHING he writes.

>>4611700
>mfw your only "point" is tryhard satire which is more euphoric than a swimming pool full of trilbies and your shit just backfired so hard your neckbeard is flapping in the shockwave.

>>4611693
I only ever read Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck but I was having a conversation on American Nobel Prize winners with my dad, who is quite well read, about how they'll last through the ages, which ones were shortsighted picks and which ones will last.
For instance nobody really gives a shit about Pearl S. Buck anymore.
Anyway he seemed to take the opinion that Steinbeck might not stack up in the future. His writing is fairly workmanlike: it gets the point across without a doubt and he does create some striking scenes, but pretty much what's on the page is all that's there. He doesn't have the descriptive flair that characterizes Fitzgerald or the distinctive minimalism of Hemingway or the sheer density of Faulkner and a lot of his writing is fairly topical, really only focusing on contemporary events and familiar locations. As a result, his work seems dated whereas the previously mentioned authors' works still carry the same impact.
I'm definitely not an expert on the topic thought and I may have misconstrued my father's opinion, but I think I am relaying it with acceptable accuracy.

>>4611712
>mfw still proving his point

>>4611718
The Pearl, The Moon is Down, East of Eden, Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath is pretty much classics.

Also from a purely historical perspective there is a certain time and place of USA that cannot be described without Steinbeck.

He will remaina as one of the most influential american writers of the 20th century.

>>4611752
I'd like to have more of a discussion on this with you but I haven't read the material and I was just regurgitating someone else's thoughts on the matter.
But I would like to ask you what exactly you mean by influential.

>>4611654
>mfw I legitimately am not sure who exactly John Steinbeck was.

Should I be happy about that? Like I was before I found out about Chakats?

>>4611764

Not him , but he captures a moment of time in America so vividly with his novels you feel a part of it and experience the landscape. It's great social commentary.

I never understood the backlash for his peace prize.

>>4611769
Did you go to high school in the USA? If not then I understand, but if you did it's surprising they never made you read a Steinbeck book

>>4611689

Travels with Charley: In Search of America is also gr8 m8.

>Of Mice and Men

>>4611776
Just looked him up.
I've read The Pearl and watch the movie Of Mice and Men and I've heard of The Grapes of Wrath. All in all, The Pearl was okay, but as usual I find stories about greed silly when in the end they finally get what they want, at a cost, and then throw it away. Never can really understand that train of thought. Of Mice and Men I found somewhat amusing and again have difficulty sympathizing with the main character's thought processes.

And yes, I did. I guess they just didn't leave an impact on me.

>>4611786
YFW Charley was just a prequel to Americans. Read it! You'll see!
(I did actually like Travels with Charley quite a lot, but there were times when he was SO overwrought)

I highly doubt a fedoreddita would ever think East of Eden (and by extension, John Steinbeck, since it's his true magnum opus) is great. As for whether the primary reason for them hating it (and him) is because of it being a reinterperetation of genesis... or because it portrays a woman as an antagonistically catalyzing character which directly contracticts their rabid feminist ideals, remains to be seen.

>>4612700
East of Eden was shit, and so is your 2nd year Eng Lit major parroting of a critique of it.

Cannery Row is a nice afternoon read

>>4611654
Someone got butthurt from the other thread

>>4612700
I don't think reddit has any feminist ideals. Everyone there usually shit-talks feminists the way people do here. My idea of a fedoreddita would be a STEM libertarian.

>>4612909
Reddit is the same as most places on the internet that aren't dedicated to a certain topic. Theres all sorts of SJW subreddits. Tumblr is kinda like that too.

>>4612700
>4612700
reddit isn't feminist. also, it needs no explanation why they don't like it: they're retarded

>>4612916
reddit isn't that bad if you stay out of SRS. I suspect that if they had any intelligent subreddits for literature, they'd not afraid of East of Eden

>>4612916
Even the fascists on tumblr have a victim complex