Blogs
Thinking Back: Steinbeck and Kromer
Books: "It's so unfair! Why do people always take out the good books?"Thinking about Kromer's novel, again, I'm still intrigued about the idea of being completely marginzalied from society and giving a voice to those marginalized. Thinking back, the novel makes me wonder about the question of authenticity we talked about extensively. How does Kromer's novel relate to the social issues, and how does it differ from Steinbeck's approach? Can Kromer's novel be thought of as being more authentic, more valid than Steinbeck's? We talked a lot about the Steinbeck's belonging to a certain class and how this may, according to some, undermine the validity or value of his work... Knowing that Kromer, as we discussed, also used certain devices, whether literary, the style of his prose for example, or the fact that he recounts an experience different that the one he actually experienced, or the jargon of the bums for example, does this affect the value we can attribute to his novel, as being an authentic novel? And why, we may ask, was Steinbeck's novel a lot more successful and thought provoking and controversial than Kromer's? Perhaps is it the fictive aspect of Steinbeck's story that was most appealing, the fact, in a way, that the social conditions were such, that they became a part of the story-telling realm, the realm of the imaginary, in which, normally, there is the most freedom, the most space for dreams and ideals, perhaps, the fact that they entered this realm of ideals and colonize the imaginary, is what is most striking in Steinbeck's story: that there is no more distanciation between the public and the private space of thought...The fact, in a way, that the problems were so strong that they even became part of the common consciousness, the common space for hope, the space for the self. Kromer's novel, while being extremely striking does not seem to me, as being as much appealing to the masses as Steinbeck's. Maybe because of its singularity: it takes the form of an autobiography. Is that to say autobiographies are less accessible, less understandable? Or is it because the novel, even though it sets no specific time or place, seems to be particular to this “I” who describes things in a very factual way? Or should we rather ask, why is the qestion of authenticity important? Does it add anything to the novel itself, or just to the way we consider it? And why would we want to hierarchize different novels?
Thanks for your post- very
Thanks for your post- very interesting too- I guess we're both at loss when when thinking about authenticity, but both are works of fiction, and fiction does not exclude a certain reality- whether its a reality of the perception, because either author's perception is not an illusion, it's real, they experience it, they can doubt it and rethink it, they process it in their mind, they manipulate it, they express it, whether what they depict itself is real or not is another question, but their perception is real, real in the sense that we can't deny them their perception.
Steinbeck vs. Kromer
Your questions are very thought-provoking! I don’t know if I have a good answer to any of them, but I will try. I do think that the jargon, first-person narration and factual style made Kromer’s work more “authentic” in a way. But, as we discussed in class and as you noted in your post, these very components that validated his “true” story were simply his own set of literary devices. There is no escape! This leads me to believe: Neither of these novels should be read as a documentary. Both are simply two different styles of portraying the story. If we examine the novel in this scientific sense, it appears to be simply a vessel for relaying a set of ideas and impressions on a certain situation.
Kromer chose a much different style than Steinbeck, and Steinbeck was notably more popular. I do think this is because, as you said, Steinbeck appealed to the “common consciousness” and “common space for self.” That is a very interesting point about The Grapes of Wrath—simply that the “we” dominates to the point of completely overpowering. There is no more “I,” and in Kromer’s novel, the “I” exists as an absolute—in fact, it exists in opposition to the richer masses. Kromer’s self appears repeatedly in contexts where he is set against someone (the man he thought of hitting at the beginning of the novel) or where he is completely alone (most of the novel). The characters in The Grapes of Wrath lose almost all personal identity by the end and become instead symbols for a mass of people. Perhaps it is this mass mentality that makes Steinbeck’s novel so much more immediately accessible and relatable.