欧宝娱乐

I learned from this book that I continue to love Steinbeck. I despise the idea that he (like hemmingway for that matter) is sometimes considered a "simple" writer. Here's my opinion: Using flowery prose to add weight and impart meaning on a vaporous story is not great literature. A substantive story, containing meaning and moral, simply told IS great literature. This is what I run into every time I read Steinbeck. Hemmingway too. Simple construction - departing every so often to show off that yes, they know EXACTLY what they're describing - for the most part just recording the story as they would an event that really happened. They don't need a $2 word every couple paragraphs, they need maybe three per book. Besides, none of the characters would know the word, so why would you use it to describe them? What are you, better than your subject? I think the point Steinbeck constantly makes is - no, you're not. The characters are interesting and simply made, archetypes almost. I've heard its a Camelot tale and I can see it. They even use "Thou" and "Thee" in some parts. But it never seems heavy handed, you can almost see the characters realizing they're playing a part and stepping up to do it. Like Cannery Row, its about a lot of down on their luck guys, and the people of the town about them. Some richer, some poorer, all with their own little story. And Steinbeck seems to love the little side stories. Thankfully, he's so quick with his pen they're like brief tangents that come, then go once you've gotten the point of them. He never departs from our subjects for more than a couple pages, never spends 5 pages describing a rock or a particular tree, or even any of the men or the home they live in. A story that makes your throat tighten at the end, and makes you wish...well, you're supposed to read it. But the desire to keep things as they are is a very strong one in real life, Steinbeck makes you feel that desire and sense of loss in the little world he creates, and it takes him less than 200 pages to do it.