Currently viewing the tag: "John Steinbeck"

Getting emails from smart, satisfied but critical readers of “Dogging Steinbeck” — whether it’s travel master Paul Theroux or an Everyreader — is gratifying.

This one, from a Missouri man who’s teaching English somewhere in the vastness of China, is one of the best-written pieces of correspondence I’ve  received in my journalism career — and I’ve gotten probably a thousand of them. I’ve deleted his last name at his request.

Dear Mr. Steigerwald,

My name is Randy and I am writing concerning your book, Dogging Steinbeck. I will begin by telling you that I enjoyed it very much and admire you for your effort and your reporting. Your book came to my attention as I was browsing and downloading books for my Kindle.

Although I had not read “Travels With Charley” for many years, I remembered enjoying it as a kid — I am now 63 years old — and was intrigued by your concept. I hope you don’t mind if I raise three points which came to mind after reading your book.

Perhaps it would be relevant to tell you at this point that, since 2004, I have been living in China, working as an English teacher in a strange combination of semi-retirement and self-exile. However, most of my life was spent in a much more conventional setting of a small town in central Missouri.

Now, except for brief trips each summer back to visit my parents in Missouri, all of my knowledge of current events and trends in America comes via the Internet — principally from Yahoo news when I go online to check email. That leads to my first point…

One of the great pleasures in reading your book is that you found so many friendly and interesting people in your travels. Certainly the mass media does not spend much time talking about nice people; the weirdos, extremists, instant celebrities, and truly dangerous are far more likely to be in the news that I see. It was nice to be told that the vast majority of average Americans were still pleasant and helpful to a traveling stranger.

I was also very pleased to be repeatedly reminded by you of the many ways that our daily lives have vastly improved over the past five decades. It happens that my small town in Missouri is on old Route 66 so I have personal knowledge of just how dangerous those highways were 50 years ago. Likewise, our medical technology, self-educational opportunities, and personal comfort today are incomparably superior to that of our youth.

Do you recall that old saying, “Don’t go looking for trouble… for you will surely find it.”? It seems to me that most people, most days go through life in a responsive mode. If we approach them in a friendly and respectful manner, they will respond in kind. (If, on the other hand, you act like a jerk, you will quickly encounter obstacles and reciprocation.)

Perhaps your book is like another more famous volume, Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden,” in that the book also tells us a great deal about the writer. If you encountered many nice people, maybe it is because you expected them to be nice and that you impressed them as being a nice guy yourself.

Still, compared to the shallow, ungrammatical characters that Steinbeck wrote about in his book, you probably met more interesting people and had more fun — not counting his lavish expenditures at high-end hotels and with his wife’s rich Texas friends.

The second point I would like to mention is about the controversy that your book has apparently created. I have to say “apparently” because I was not aware of this literary turmoil until I read your book.

Frankly, I am not a huge Steinbeck aficionado. In my younger years, I read several of his books and enjoyed them but I have not thought of them (or him) for many years. Therefore, before I read your book, I also downloaded the original “Charley” at the same time and read it again — for probably the first time in 40 years.

Immediately after I finished it, I began your book. It was interesting to me to read about how the Steinbeck establishment went into damage control mode and, indeed, even attacked your credibility, truthfulness, and motives. What now seems incontrovertible was that Steinbeck did wholly manufacture entire episodes and characters.

I am willing to accept an explanation of “artistic license”; indeed, I have no problem with that. What I found more disturbing was your revelation that, rather than being a lonely, thoughtful old man taking a meandering, low-budget trip, Steinbeck was not roughing it at all. Your conclusion that he spent only about five nights in his entire journey actually sleeping in his camper greatly diminishes the aura of Steinbeck, the common man.

My third point is that I wish to take exception with your conclusion that “Charley” was not a good book. I am willing to grant you that this is more a work of fiction than a travel book but I still maintain that it is wonderful reading. I had forgotten just how good it is until I read it again last week.

Okay, finding an itinerant Shakespearean actor/vagabond drifting across North Dakota strains credibility now that you have brought it to my attention. But, honestly, I don’t care; he was an articulate, warm character. If Steinbeck used these literary creations to make his point… well, that is what novelists do — and he did it rather skillfully, I thought.

A big part of the writing challenge is in creating a picture that the reader finds understandable. In browsing through many of the books available to download on my Kindle, a great many authors are far, far less adroit with such literary devices than Steinbeck.

In conclusion, if you somehow managed to tarnish the reputation of this American icon, to show his literary feet of clay and expose his wealthy lifestyle and attitudes, so be it.

I have a great many concerns about our society, many of which you addressed in your book. However, one of the brightest aspects of our current and near-future condition as a nation is the transparency made possible by our new technology in all of its forms — Internet searches, viral news (even if mostly fluff), and self-publishing, among others.

If our business and political leaders begin to realize that their “good ol’ boy” network is being carefully scrutinized — even, as in this case, 50 years later — they may curtail some of the more outrageous behaviors and deceptions.

In closing, I send you best wishes from China for your continued literary success. I hope it is a commercially successful future also.

Best regards…

 

Seems John Steinbeck wasn’t alone when it came to inventing facts for a “nonfiction” book.

Truman Capote, the father of the nonfiction novel, apparently did a lot more fact-fudging and truth-twisting “In Cold Blood” (1966) than he ever admitted and most people thought.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kevin Helliker has the sordid details in “Capote Classic ‘In Cold Blood’ Tainted by Long-Lost Files.”

Capote’s fictional tricks and lies in “In Cold Blood” were not as  thoroughly misleading as Steinbeck’s literary fraudulence in “Travels With Charley,” which I detail in “Dogging Steinbeck.”

But Capote gives me further ammo in my crusade for a new genre — True Nonfiction.

 

Poor John Steinbeck.

Forty-four years after his death, America’s most widely read author is taking some lumps.

First I proved his 1962 “nonfiction” book  “Travels With Charley” was a literary fraud filled with fiction and lies. Now the Nobel prize people in Sweden have opened their archives and Steinbeck’s reputation has taken another hit.

It turns out Steinbeck, who had been nominated eight times before for the Noble Prize for literature, was a compromise choice for the award in 1962 and he only won because the competition was so weak.

Steinbeck didn’t get much respect from the critics in his later years. Everyone but him wanted him to write “The Grapes of Wrath” over and over.

Even when he won the Nobel Prize for Literature on Oct. 25, 1962, the literary mafia at the New York Times and Time magazine quickly dissed him, saying he didn’t really deserve it because he hadn’t written anything of value in decades.

Meanwhile, there’s a “Travels With Charley” connection to Steinbeck’s Nobel.

As part of its decision, the Nobel selection committee took into account the roaring success of “Charley” in the late summer and fall of 1962. When Steinbeck was given the prize in Stockholm, here is what the presentation speech said about “Travels With Charley,” the supposedly nonfiction account of his 1960 road trip that had hit No. 1 on the New York Times bestselling nonfiction list on Oct. 21, 1962.

“Steinbeck’s latest book is an account of his experiences during a three-month tour of forty American states Travels with Charley, (1962). He travelled in a small truck equipped with a cabin where he slept and kept his stores. He travelled incognito, his only companion being a black poodle. We see here what a very experienced observer and raisonneur he is. In a series of admirable explorations into local colour, he rediscovers his country and its people. In its informal way this book is also a forceful criticism of society. The traveller in Rosinante – the name which he gave his truck – shows a slight tendency to praise the old at the expense of the new, even though it is quite obvious that he is on guard against the temptation. ‘I wonder why progress so often looks like destruction,’ he says in one place when he sees the bulldozers flattening out the verdant forest of Seattle to make room for the feverishly expanding residential areas and the skyscrapers. It is, in any case, a most topical reflection, valid also outside America.”

Of course, nearly everything the committee assumed was true about Steinbeck’s road trip and his book was not true.

 

 

Worth more than the sales of my ebook “Dogging Steinbeck” are the nice, smart comments I’ve gotten from my fellow journalists and perceptive readers at Amazon.com — without having to bribe a single one.

The great travel writer Paul Theroux, who doesn’t dig it when famous travel writers lie about their trips,  hasn’t read the book. But he encouraged me to write it and has credited me for my findings of Steinbeck’s literary fraud.

“I compared his published letters with his travels and saw great discrepancies,” the author of “The Tao of Travel” told me in an email. “These facts have been public for years, but no one cared to mention them. … Steinbeck falsified his trip. I am delighted that you went deep into this.”

Curt Gentry, the author of a dozen books including “Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders” (with Vincent Bugliosi), did read “Dogging Steinbeck.” He’s also a “character” in it — a mini-hero, actually.

Here’s what Curt wrote about my book in his Amazon blurb:

“I still believe John Steinbeck is one of America’s greatest writers and I still love ‘Travels With Charley,’ be it fact or fiction or, as Bill Steigerwald doggedly proved, both. While I disagree with a number of Steigerwald’s conclusions, I don’t dispute his facts. He greatly broadened my understanding of Steinbeck the man and the author, particularly during his last years. And, whether Steigerwald intended it or not, in tracking down the original draft of ‘Travels With Charley’ he made a significant contribution to Steinbeck’s legacy. “Dogging Steinbeck” is a good honest book.”

Not everyone will like my book, what I say about Steinbeck or his book, or what I say about America and what/who ails it.

But whether “Dogging Steinbeck” is a bust-seller or a best-seller, comments like Theroux’s and Gentry’s are priceless.

About three people I know have read my entire book “Dogging Steinbeck,” which is for sale on Amazon.com as an ebook for a lousy $6.99 but is still in process of becoming a print-on-demand book.

Message from Bill Steigerwald, my marketing director:

“Dogging Steinbeck” makes a fine (i.e., cheap) Christmas present for anyone who loves Steinbeck or hates Steinbeck; who loves “Travels With Charley” or hates it; who prefers American road books that aren’t written by New York or Europeans liberals; or who prefers truth and fact in nonfiction books rather than fibs and fiction.

Since I didn’t have an editor or copy editor to save my from my imperfect and mad self, my unpaid, invaluable readers have been invaluable. white_font_cover_copy_for_pg

They caught many little mistakes of fact, typos or dumb writing, which I have fixed thanks to Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing program that allows writers to easily add material or fix mistakes.

My friend Jim Dourgarian, aka Bookman, who’s a major West Coast book collector, a Steinbeck expert and an ex-newspaperman, saved me from my worst embarrassment.

I had at least 20 semicolons sprinkled throughout my book.

For someone who once told his one and only class of college students to never, ever, use a semicolon, as I did, it was shameful.

Of course, neither I nor my marketing director Bill Steigerwald will ever use another; again.

 

 

 

  • My Dad’s John Steinbeck obsession continues! Please note this here New York Post story by dad, this Reason Hit and Run blog about him, and of course, this here e-book
  • Hey yeah, aren’t we going to need to ask some of these “terrorists” questions sometimes?
  • Two of these politicians will be gone soon…And that’s actually sad.
  • Need moar nukes plz.
  • “A Visual History of Presidents Awkwardly Meeting the Losers They Defeated”
  • The Supreme Court case that may outlaw used bookstores; Or: maybe Stephan Kinsella’s obsession with IP is for good reason.
  • Matt Welch is on Red Eye tonight at 3 a.m., so y’all should probably watch if you have insomnia.  Welch is better than John Bolton, that is the important thing. I think you should watch, I guess because I can’t because it’s a little depressing to watch Reason people on TV still? Also, Red Eye, I love/hate you so, but will I ever be on you? Probably not.
  • John Cusack doesn’t approve of Michael Moynihan’s grasp of history and Oliver Stone’s lack thereof and the actor has taken to twitter to poorly express his outrage. The old cliche that if you don’t agree with me, you were paid off is tiresome. My dad got that a lot when I was growing up, yet we still didn’t have a pool in spite of all that dirty money from oil companies (this is a lie, FYI). Still, nice that the quality of celebrity that Moynihan is annoying is only increasing. I am a little jealous.
  • This is just how I get my news every morning!

For half a century, we were told John Steinbeck’s beloved road book “Travels With Charley in Search of America” was a work of nonfiction. It wasn’t.

As former Post-Gazette staffer Bill Steigerwald proved on the road and in libraries during 2010, Steinbeck’s iconic bestseller was a literary fraud. It was not a true or honest account of the cross-country trip Steinbeck made in the fall of 1960. It was mostly fiction and lies.

“Dogging Steinbeck” is Steigerwald’s new ebook.

Part literary detective story, part American travel book, part history book, part book review, part critique of the mainstream media, part primer in drive-by journalism, it is the true story of his own 11,276-mile road trip across America and how he stumbled upon the truth about Steinbeck’s last major work, ruffled the PH.Ds of some top Steinbeck scholars and forced the publisher of “Charley” to tell readers the book was too fictionalized to be taken literally.

“Dogging Steinbeck” will soon be for sale on Amazon.com for $5.99 — only $1.04 more than what Steinbeck’s hardback sold for in 1962. Anyone who’s interested in John Steinbeck, the truth about “Travels With Charley” and how much America has changed in the last half century America should read it — and help Steigerwald recover the costs of his adventure.

Bill Steigerwald

This Sunday my good friends at the New York Times Sunday Book Review will be printing my letter about John Steinbeck’s efforts to spread some psychological dirt about Tricky Dick Nixon in the spring of 1960 that might have changed history.

Letter

Steinbeck vs. Nixon

Published: October 25, 2012

To the Editor:

John Steinbeck rejected the suggestion by Adlai Stevenson’s camp in 1958 that he write a novel intended to hurt Vice President Richard Nixon’s chances to become president, as described in Jim Arndorfer’s essay (“Nixon Protagonistes,” Oct. 14). But when it came to stopping Nixon, Steinbeck was willing to engage in some dirty tricks himself.

In the spring of 1960, Steinbeck sent a letter to Stevenson’s right-hand man, William McCormick Blair Jr., saying he knew of a talkative, snobbish “psychoanalyst” in New York who traveled three times a week to Washington to “put Dickie on the couch.” Steinbeck said this political bombshell, which could have prevented Nixon from getting the Republican nomination, “should be leaked and if you don’t leak it, I will.” Steinbeck added that it was “pleasant to know that Poor Richard is not happy. But this should be used.”

Steinbeck’s letter, now with Stevenson’s papers at Princeton, didn’t name a name. But Nixon’s secret shrink was Dr. Arnold Hutschnecker, who had been consulting with Nixon since the early 1950s. John F. Kennedy’s campaign didn’t discover Dr. Hutschnecker’s relationship with Nixon until early September, but — remarkably, given the dirtiness of the 1960 campaign — never used it.

BILL STEIGERWALD
Pittsburgh
The author has written a book, “Dogging Steinbeck,” about inaccuracies in Steinbeck’s “Travels With Charley.”

 

My pal Peter Leo remarked that you don’t see too many stories where the intended victim was Nixon.