About book Travels With Charley: In Search Of America (2002)
Eight years before a lifelong smoking habit finally killed his heart, John Steinbeck embarked on one last road trip across the United States. Steinbeck desired to see the country he described all his life with his own eyes - "to look again, rediscover this monster land", become reacquainted with its people. His sole companion would be Charley, a French standard poodle. Together they would board the Rocinante - Steinbeck's truck named after the horse of Don Quixote - and go and try to understand what America and Americans are like now.My plan was clear, concise, and reasonable, I think. For many years I have traveled in many parts of the world. In America I live in New York, or dip into Chicago or San Francisco. But New York is no more America than Paris is France or London is England. Thus I discovered that I did not know my own country. I, an American writer, writing about America, was working from memory, and the memory is at best a faulty, warpy reservoir. I had not heard the speech of America, smelled the grass and trees and sewage, seen its hills and water, its color and quality of light. I knew the changes only from books and newspapers. But more than this, I had not felt the country for twenty-five years. In short, I was writing of something I did not know about, and it seems to me that in a so-called writer this is criminal. My memories were distorted by twenty-five intervening years. Steinbeck and Charley at their home in Sag Harbor in 1962, the year the book was published.In 1960 John Steinbeck was 58 years old, and has already published all of his best known works - Of Mice and Men (1937), The Grapes of Wrath (1939), Cannery Row (1945), East of Eden (1952). Thom Steinbeck, John's oldest son, believes that his father was aware that he was dying from his heart condition, and that he took the trip to say goodbye to his country. "The whole book is a big goodbye", he says, "he just wanted to go and see it all one last time. I don't know how my stepmother let him go, because she knew his condition. He could have died at any time. But he just went out, he just wanted to see it, be a kid again, one more time. Go out and say goodbye. And I tought that's a fascinating aspect of the book - if you go back and read it and realize that Steinbeck knows he's never going to see any of this again". Rocinante on display at the Steinbeck Center in Salinas, California.Travels with Charley was a a significant success - published in the 27th of July in 1962, it reached the number one slot on the New York Times Best Seller list on the 21st of October, swinging the Nobel judges in his favor - Steinbeck would be awarded the prize just four days later. After 50 years the Nobel Academy made its record public, revealing that Steinbeck was in fact a compromise choice; it was felt that he had his best work behind him, and Steinbeck himself felt that he had not deserved the Nobel - click here to read an article from the Guardian which describes this in more detail.Steinbeck's trip took him from his home in Sag Harbor north to Maine, where he attempted to cross into Canada - where the kind Canadian custom guards inform him that they can let him in, but the U.S. won't take him back as his dog is not sterilized. After a short rant about the opressive government (wonder what he would have to say now?) Steinbeck went west. He stuck to the outer border of the country and marveled at the beauty and tranquility of the state of Montanta ( declaring it his favorite of all), before going all the way to the Pacific Northwest and down to his home state of California. Map of Steinbeck's journey as presented in the book.The first sections of the memoir are humorous in tone, full of witty interactions with quirky characters that Steinbeck encounters on the road - among them a family of French-Canadians in Maine, who worked the season as potato pickers; a travelling Shakespearean actor in the small town of Alice, in North Dakota badlands; friends from his youth in San Francisco.The tone shifts significantly after Steinbeck reaches Seattle, and is amazed at how much it has changed - he muses how progress looks like destruction, as the little town he remembered became a bustling metropolis, killing a great deal of natural beauty. He goes back east, wanting to go down and grab a bite of the Deep South. He is shocked at the racism that he encounters in New Orleans - and a share of anti-semitism as well, as he is accused of being a New York Jew, one of those "who cause all the trouble" and "stirs up the Negroes". He sees a group of "cheerleaders" - women protesting the school desegregation act, and witnesses Ruby Bridges entering the William Frantz Elementary School to their "bestial and filthy" insults. The applause that the women receive left Steinbeck depressed that the beautiful city of New Orleans was "misrepresented to the world". His enthusiasm for travel evaporates, faced with harsh reality, and he leaves for home - feeling tired of travel and wanting it to be over.Steinbeck's travelogue entered the canon of classic American travel writing, and while his position as an American man of letters remains unchallenged, dark clouds have set over this particular entry in his canon. In 2010, a Pennsylvanian named Bill Steigerwald followed the route described by Steinbeck, and traveled for over 10,000 miles. He found a number of significant inaccuracies between reality and Steinbeck's account, and wrote an article titled Sorry, Charley which appeared in the April issue of Reason magazine in 2011 and which he later expanded into a book titled Dogging Steinbeck. By following the route and checking places which Steinbeck wrote about, Steigerwald discovered that Steinbeck's actual journey was vastly different than the one he described in Travels. Steigerwald states that Steinbeck's wife, Elaine, accompanied him on 45 days out of the 75 that the trip took; that he didn't camp in the open as he described, but instead stayed in luxurious motels, hotels and resorts, including an exclusive Spalding Inn where he had to borrow a tie and jacket to be allowed to eat in the dining room."From what I can gather, Steinbeck didn’t fictionalize in the guise of nonfiction because he wanted to mislead readers or grind some political point. He was desperate", says Steigerwald. "He had a book to make up about a failed road trip, and he had taken virtually no notes. The finely drawn characters he created in Charley are believable; it’s just not believable that he met them under anything like the conditions he describes. At crunch time, as he struggled to write Charley, his journalistic failures forced him to be a novelist again. Then his publisher, The Viking Press, marketed the book as nonfiction, and the gullible reviewers of the day—from The New York Times to The Atlantic—bought every word."Bill Barich, an American writer who also took the Steinbeck trip and published his account as Long Way Home: On the Trail of Steinbeck's America came to a similar conclusion. "I’m fairly certain that Steinbeck made up most of the book", he says. "The dialogue is so wooden". He goes on to add:"Steinbeck was extremely depressed, in really bad health, and was discouraged by everyone from making the trip. He was trying to recapture his youth, the spirit of the knight-errant. But at that point he was probably incapable of interviewing ordinary people. He’d become a celebrity and was more interested in talking to Dag Hammarskjold and Adlai Stevenson."Even Jay Parini, the author of a biography of Steinbeck and the man who wrote the introduction to Travels admits that he doesn't consider it to be an accurate travelogue: "I have always assumed that to some degree it’s a work of fiction. Steinbeck was a fiction writer, and here he’s shaping events, massaging them". But for him the discovery of the book's inaccuracy doesn't diminish its value: "Does this shake my faith in the book? Quite the opposite. I would say hooray for Steinbeck. If you want to get at the spirit of something, sometimes it’s important to use the techniques of a fiction writer." Parini has updated his introduction for the latest printing of the book, openly stating its romance with fiction: "It should be kept in mind, when reading this travelogue, that Steinbeck took liberties with the facts, inventing freely when it served his purposes, using everything in the arsenal of the novelist to make this book a readable, vivid narrative."This explains the more adventurous and picturesque scenes of the book and its cast of interesting and quirky personalities that Steinbeck meets on the road, like the Shakespearian actor or the romanticized potato pickers from Quebec who resemble a bit the Okies from The Grapes of Wrath. The conversations he has with them do often feel scripted, as if the characters were given cue cards to respond in an appropriate way, such as a farmer not failing to mention that Kruschev was visiting the United Nations in New York (the day of the famous Shoe-banging incident) weeks before it actually happened, and why Steinbeck happened to be in New Orleans to witness Ruby Ridge entering the desegregated school. Steinbeck's own son John is even more blunt than both Steigerwald and Barich in doubting his father: "Thom and I are convinced that he never talked to any of those people....He just sat in his camper and wrote all that shit." The shift in tone - from enthusiastic, humorous and sarcastic to melancholic and even grim - could be explained by Steinbeck reliving his trip as he was writing it, employing his wit and talent, wanting to recapture the idealism he sought but did not find and put it on paper, but failing to do so, with his enthusiasm evaporating near the end. "There’s no denying Steinbeck got away with writing a dishonest book", says Steigerwald. "Not only did he fudge the details of his road trip, but he pulled his punches about what he really thought about the America he found. In Charley he fretted about the things he didn’t like about American society: pollution, early signs of sprawl, the rise of national chains, the increasing prevalence of plastic. But in private he complained directly about the failings of his 180 million fellow Americans: They were materialistic, morally flabby, and headed down the road to national decline."Perhaps the failure of reality to meet his memories and idea of America depressed Steinbeck, and made him tinker with his account of the journey to fit his vision; the fact that he kept the original manuscript of the book - now kept at the Morgan Library & Museum and available for scrutiny - shows that he wasn't overly concerned with being exposed as a fraud. Perhaps at that point of his life he simply did not care - which would also explain his shrugging of the Nobel. Steinbeck did take a trip through the country, but it's not the one he described here - it doesn't invalidate his insights and concern about the destruction of environment and observations on American society in the mid 20th-century. Steinbeck was not using a tape recorder and a camera to record his trip, and was retelling it subjectively; from memory, and being an estabilished writer he could not help but improve it when he saw fit. His purpose was less to write actual journalism and more to see his country for one last time, as his son claimed; as he admits in the book it didn't meet his expectations. There is a sense of disappointment hanging over the book, as if the the entire trip was too bitter an experience to be put on paper; Parini notices that Steinbeck seemed to be "never quite able to bring himself to say that he was often disgusted by what he saw". And indeed it seems that he was not. One might imagine Steinbeck writing an account of all that bothered him. Who would have thought that a book written by a man who went on a trip with his poodle could have been so bleak?
Six years before he died, John Steinbeck (1902-1968) had a lonesome trip aboard a camper named Rocinante (after Don Quixote’s horse) around the USA. He said that he would like to see this country on a personal level before he died as he made a good living writing about it. Considering his heart condition, such trip alone could have been disastrous to his health but he insisted. The main question that he would like to be answered was “What are Americans like today?” and after travelling with his poodle Charley for around 10,000 miles for 3 months, he did not like the answer that he got.He saw the wastefulness of the people. He got worried about excessive packaging that consumers liked. He noticed the ambiguity of culture brought about my mass media technologies. Advancement in technologies, though giving people instant gratification, could alienate members of the families from each other. He met people who could not be trusted even by giving the right direction. He met poor migrant potato pickers from Canada (that reminded me of the Joads family in his opus, The Grapes of Wrath). He finally saw Niagara Falls that made him happy because finally we could say we saw it already. He met unreasonable and illogical border authorities. He saw how people in different states differ on how they talk to one another and treat other people. For example, in New England people spoke very little and waited for him to come over while in Midwestern cities, people were more outgoing and did not hesitate approaching him. He got amazed on how fast the population grew in those states that he had visited before. When he visited Sauk Centre because he would like to see the birthplace of his favorite writer, Sinclair Lewis he got disheartened. A waitress in the restaurant did not know who Lewis was. In fact, ignorance, according to him, was prevalent in most people he encountered particularly in politics, economics and culture. In Texas, he despised the so-called “Cheerleaders” who were protesting the integration of black children in a school in New Orleans. In New Orleans, he learned that racism of the South was not confined with those towards blacks but also towards Jews. The trip ended with Steinbeck missing a U-turn and telling the policeman: “Officer, I’ve driven this thing all over the country – mountains, plains, deserts. And now I’m back in my own town, where I live – and I’m lost.”This is my 3rd book by Steinbeck and for me this is the most down-to-earth. Although I have only been to California, Philadelphia, Texas and Ohio, visualizing those places he visited and conversations that he had with the people he met was not a problem. I used to enjoy watching American movies in the 50’s and 60’s and I was able to picture those scenes in my mind. Also, I think Steinbeck wanted to have a last hand long look with the people he wrote about in his novels that made him who he was – one of the greatest American authors (and certainly one of my favorite novelists of all times). So what if he had a heart problem? So what if he was alone with just a dog to talk to? So what if there was a raging snow storm outside? So what if he might be killed by dangerous mad men in the forests and highways? The thought of Steinbeck risking his life to be able to see the country for the last time and talk to the people who patronized his novels was a marked of a good artist or, simply, a good humble man.And oh yes, if you love reading about dogs, read this because Charley could even talk. Steinbeck imagined words being said by his dog in one of the scenes and their dialogues were so clever and amusing. Steinbeck could write anything. He could make any scenario believable. Enough for me to gasp for air as his words were always outrageously breathtaking.
Do You like book Travels With Charley: In Search Of America (2002)?
Dopo anni di lotta scopriamo che non siamo noi a fare il viaggio; è il viaggio che "fa" noi.Nel 1961 John Steinbeck decide di compiere un viaggio attraverso gli Stati Uniti perché ritiene di essersi allontanato dalle persone, dagli americani e uno scrittore questo, non se lo può permettere.E' un libro per gli irrequieti, gli amanti di Chatwin e di Kerouac e per tutti gli animi vagabondi:Vedevo nei loro occhi qualche cosa che avrei rivisto tante volte in ogni parte del paese... un desiderio rovente di andare, di muoversi, di mettersi in cammino, dovunque, via da ogni Qui.Questo perché Steinbeck pensa che la vita sicura, quella di tutti i giorni, in cui mangiamo cibi sottovuoto con posate sterilizzate, ci abbia succhiato anche l'entusiasmo. Di questi uomini, tristi o con poca vitalità, Steinbeck scrive non senza dolore. Ogni volta che incontra una persona anodina ne rimane anch'egli così impressionato da soffrirne per una giornata intera:un'anima triste può ucciderti più in fretta, molto più in fretta che un germe.Steinbeck, dunque, ci permette di viaggiare attraverso il cuore degli statunitensi del 1961. I dialoghi con i diversi avventori sono la parte più interessante del libro, perché il suo non era un viaggio per cercare la solitudine nella natura e ritrovare se stesso, bensì la ricerca di un dialogo con le persone per vedere se stesso, attraverso le loro esperienze:le sottili sfumature dei sentimenti, delle reazioni, sono risultato di comunicazione, e senza tale comunicazione tendono a sparire. Un uomo senza nulla da dire non ha parole.La solitudine, secondo l'autore, rende i sentimenti muti. Le parole sono frutto di ricerca di un senso, di una spiegazione ed è in questa ricerca che si fanno le scoperte più interessanti.Ed ecco che è il viaggio a fare noi, a cambiarci, nella contemplazione e nell'ascolto di ciò che ci circonda, non solo partendo verso mete ignote, ma non abituandoci all'abituale, non addormentandoci nel già visto, così come il personaggio cieco in un racconto di Carver insegna a vedere una cattedrale a chi la vista la possiede dalla nascita, così Steinbeck, senza alcuna retorica sveglia un po' di sensi intorpiditi per dirci:Ci sono tanti mondi, quante sono le giornate.Sarebbe davvero bello riuscire a pensarlo ogni giorno...
—Vale
Although I read this book just last year, it was a delight to read again. I think I was struck by different aspects of the book the second time around. This time I realized just how much time Steinbeck spent describing his experiences of racism in the South. I imagine this caused some waves back in the early 1960's when the book was published, before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. But we should expect nothing less from Steinbeck, the champion of the oppressed, and chronicler of the lives of the most marginalized in American society. Steinbeck attempted to discover what an American is, and debates whether he succeeded. I think that in many ways this short volume does reveal a lot of what America is - including our flaws. I love that his favorite state was Montana, a place I haven't visited. I know two people from Montana and they are unique in their ways, and some of my favorite people. Steinbeck put Montana on my "must visit" list. He skims over many regions with little to say, and some readers are unhappy about this. However, the genius of this book are this things he gets right. In a couple of paragraphs, as he describes the encroaching decay of downtown Seattle, he describes the cycle of urban decay (I'd argue in many ways deliberate), suburban sprawl, and the redevelopment of urban centers with frightening accuracy. And he did this 50 years ago! I got my copy of the book from the library. With its library binding, the cover was in good shape but the innards were well-read, and many pages torn. I had to wait 10 days for a copy although there were several available. I didn't mind the wait nor the condition of the book because they told me that more than 50 years after publication, this book is still widely read. Yes, it may be required on high school reading lists, but I believe it deserves to be a classic.
—Barbara
John Steinbeck put a house on a pickup, left the wife behind in their Long Island home and traveled the nation for several months. This is his tale of that experience. I found many quotables here, and I guess one should expect that when the traveler’s name is Steinbeck. In a book of about two hundred pages, one can hardly expect a detailed look at all of America. Steinbeck picks his spots. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. It was, of necessity, merely a sketch of some parts of the country. But some of those sketches should hang in the Louvres. Two in particular grabbed me. His description of “The Cheerleaders,” a group of women who gathered every day at a newly integrated southern elementary school to taunt and threaten the black kids and Steinbeck’s look at the culture surrounding that was chilling, a close portrait of an incendiary place at an incendiary time, and is, alone, a reason to read this book. The other was his depiction of a redwood forest in northern California, where the massive trees alter dawn and blot out the night sky. Steinbeck and Charley - from the NY TimesThe subtitle of the book is “In Search of America.” What travel books are really about, particularly when undertaken by a literary person, is self-discovery. It works the same as in literature. The road, the quest, the journey all exist in an interior landscape and lead to an inner destination. I did not feel that this was much at work here, and was disappointed. Steinbeck kept his eyes on the external road. Sometimes his snapshots of early 1960s America were uninteresting. Sometimes they were compelling. The compelling parts made the trip one worth taking. =============================EXTRA STUFFApparently, there is some thought that not all the material in this book was actually...um...real. GR friend Jim sent along a link to a site by a guy named Bill Steigerwald, who writes about Steinbeck. Looks like he did a fair bit of research and concluded that Steinbeck's journey may have been more of an internal one than we believed. check it out.
—Will Byrnes
