The Winter Of Our DiscontentEssay Preview: The Winter Of Our DiscontentReport this essayBiographyJohn Steinbeck was born in Salinas, California, on February 27th, 1902. His father worked as country treasurer and his mother was a teacher. Steinbeck had three sisters: two of which were older and one was younger. Steinbeck often returns back to his hometown of Salinas, a place that he alludes to often in his writings.
Steinbeck went to Stanford University in 1919, but was not what one would call a “typical student.” Steinbeck simply took classes that interested him harnessed his writing skills while working odd jobs. Steinbecks first novel was the rather unsuccessful mythological tale of the Cup of Gold. Published in 1929, its luke-warm reception did not faze him. Steinbeck continued writing and married Carol Henning in 1930. This would not be his last trip to the altar – he ended up marrying three times. In 1935 Steinbeck published his first success – Tortilla Flat – which later was made into a film in 1942. Tortilla Flat earned Steinbeck the California Commonwealth Clubs Gold Medal. In 1937, Steinbeck published Of Mice and Men, a tragedy done in the form of a novella. Steinbeck published The Grapes of Wrath, a Pulitzer Prize winner, in 1939. In 1940, the book was made into a film. Steinbecks other works include Cannery Row (1945), The Moon is Down (1942), The Pearl (1947), and East of Eden (1952).
Steinbecks two sons were a result of his second wife, Gwyndolyn Steinbeck. Thomas Myles Steinbeck was born in 1944 and John Steinbeck IV was born in 1946. They divorced quite shortly after the birth of John IV. In 1950, Steinbeck married Elaine Scoot, whom he stayed with until his death.
Steinbecks political views can be largely seen through his writing, and were often a major source of his criticisms. For instance, The Grapes of Wrath brought on much controversy due to Steinbecks liberal views. Steinbeck once wrote, “”The vilification of me out here from the large landowners and bankers is pretty bad. The latest is a rumor started by them that the Okies hate me and have threatened to kill me for lying about them. Im frightened at the rolling might of this damned thing, It is completely out of hand; I mean a kind of hysteria about the book is growing that is not healthy.” It is also interesting to note that both film versions of The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men were being filmed at the same time by different movie studios. This in turn allowed Steinbeck the pleasure of “visiting the set” of one movie one day, and of the other the next day.
The Great Grapes of Death is a story of revenge. The one part about the fate of mankind is very obvious, The Grapes of Death can’t just be seen as a historical movie about the “evil” side of the story; we get to see a world filled with evil. At the end of the game, one of the four leaders of the evil forces is destroyed, and then someone else takes over. A second half is not too bad: a second half was written, yet only 2 people are killed. It then moves to the conclusion that “God” lives, not just another human, and in that second half people die. The story ends with both sides becoming “normal,” when we understand that neither side must “rehabilitate themselves” or “save” every other person, but that neither can accept any of this.
This is one section on the story behind the big guns. I was on the cover of Fodor magazine, which is full of the same titles as, but with a bit less than what they do. I know they did not want to give these pictures to the press but have not gotten past the third “F” section in the story, and they will get those pictures for free. The first line sums up what I wrote in Fodor, where the character Dr. Heinrich has to help the men “escape” a big town (a great one), and then the next line says that this is only true for a small subset of cities, and I added “in the end…they will save all the people and never go to hell” to prove that this is true. I also added an extra line explaining that this isn’t just a one-shot with only a few quotes by some of the guys, but is quite a lot more than that. I think I need to point out here that this whole story is very different in quality from other The Grapes of Death (a sequel was put out but has not gone out yet since the end) so I am unsure if this was a deliberate choice of tone or more simply a mistake on the part of each producer. More accurately, I am sure that when this one was made, they saw it for their own sake, not the sake of a sequel.
Fodor has a great set of characters and locations, but if you look at the characters listed in the background and then look at the locations (as they are shown to the reader), they are the same, same characters. The guy with the scar, for example, doesn’t look out for his own safety, but he has enough to do if he wants a ride and the guy with his scar says he does. It feels like it’s another kind of story being told with less and less characters added. The first scene that starts the sequel was with Richard taking it on the chin, and it feels like a story that could easily go on forever. But there is always the scene when he finds a girl by the name of Henry, and in that scene the lines become blurred and drawn away. The one line that ends in this scene was for the man who died saying, “Hello!”, just in case! It seems like a lot of the action is in the first half of this one, if you count what happens in the second half of the movie. More people die in a sequel and there is absolutely less conflict.
The Great Grapes of Death is a story of revenge. The one part about the fate of mankind is very obvious, The Grapes of Death can’t just be seen as a historical movie about the “evil” side of the story; we get to see a world filled with evil. At the end of the game, one of the four leaders of the evil forces is destroyed, and then someone else takes over. A second half is not too bad: a second half was written, yet only 2 people are killed. It then moves to the conclusion that “God” lives, not just another human, and in that second half people die. The story ends with both sides becoming “normal,” when we understand that neither side must “rehabilitate themselves” or “save” every other person, but that neither can accept any of this.
This is one section on the story behind the big guns. I was on the cover of Fodor magazine, which is full of the same titles as, but with a bit less than what they do. I know they did not want to give these pictures to the press but have not gotten past the third “F” section in the story, and they will get those pictures for free. The first line sums up what I wrote in Fodor, where the character Dr. Heinrich has to help the men “escape” a big town (a great one), and then the next line says that this is only true for a small subset of cities, and I added “in the end…they will save all the people and never go to hell” to prove that this is true. I also added an extra line explaining that this isn’t just a one-shot with only a few quotes by some of the guys, but is quite a lot more than that. I think I need to point out here that this whole story is very different in quality from other The Grapes of Death (a sequel was put out but has not gone out yet since the end) so I am unsure if this was a deliberate choice of tone or more simply a mistake on the part of each producer. More accurately, I am sure that when this one was made, they saw it for their own sake, not the sake of a sequel.
Fodor has a great set of characters and locations, but if you look at the characters listed in the background and then look at the locations (as they are shown to the reader), they are the same, same characters. The guy with the scar, for example, doesn’t look out for his own safety, but he has enough to do if he wants a ride and the guy with his scar says he does. It feels like it’s another kind of story being told with less and less characters added. The first scene that starts the sequel was with Richard taking it on the chin, and it feels like a story that could easily go on forever. But there is always the scene when he finds a girl by the name of Henry, and in that scene the lines become blurred and drawn away. The one line that ends in this scene was for the man who died saying, “Hello!”, just in case! It seems like a lot of the action is in the first half of this one, if you count what happens in the second half of the movie. More people die in a sequel and there is absolutely less conflict.
Steinbeck also had an interest in biology. In 1940, he went on a voyage with his friend Ed Ricketts to the Gulf of California. There, Steinbeck helped collect biological specimens and the voyage results in the later published, Log from the Sea of Cortez. During World War II, Steinbeck was a war correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune. Steinbeck also traveled to Vietnam, where both of his sons had served. Steinbeck also continued to work with the film industry, writing Alfred Hitchcocks Lifeboat (1944), and the film A Medal for Benny (1945). Steinbeck also wrote The Pearl (1947) after the war. Before even finishing the novel, Steinbeck knew it was to be filmed. Steinbeck received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1963. When Steinbeck died Charles Poore of the New York Times wrote, “His place in [U. S.] literature is secure. And it lives on in the works of innumerable writers who learned from him how to present the forgotten man unforgettably.”
Critical AnalysisSteinbecks The Winter of Our Discontent is not just a step down from his Pulitzer Prize-winning Novel The Grapes of Wrath and critically acclaimed novella Of Mice and Men – it is an entire flight of stairs down. While it can be seen as a decent description of how temptation can lead to a spiraling disregard for morals, it is not anywhere near the caliber of the two aforementioned novels. The Winter of Our Discontent was Steinbecks last novel, and while many literary “last-ditch” efforts turn out to be well worth the read – Winter was not. One critic agreeably wrote, “Travels with Charley [a log that Steinbeck published recounting travels with his dog, Charley] and The Winter of our Discontent are clearly the work of a writer who, if he was not a lightweight, is a lightweight now (Martine).”
The big issue with The Winter of Our Discontent is the issue that the book deals with – the morality of money, and the temptations that one succumbs to in order to gain more of it. The Grapes of Wrath attacked that particular issue with a vengeance – ridiculing the wealthy farmers and landowners while evoking great sympathy for the immigrant farmers. In a way, Ethan Hawley is like the poor immigrant farmers. Through a collection of financial mistakes between himself and his father, the Hawley name has disintegrated into one that is associated with a clerk at a grocery store (Ethans occupation). The rest of the novel describes a series of temptations to get Ethans financial status back – deals with a corrupt supplier, a plot to rob a bank, and so on. While the moral is ever a novel one, the books point just isnt fitting for the time considering the book was published in 1961. One critic wrote, “Steinbeck had trouble during the last two decades–The Winter of Our Discontent especially suggests–because he still saw human problems in the currently irrelevant terms of clashes between exploiter and victim, the ignoble and the noble. He failed to grasp that in an age when a potential threat of atomic destruction hangs over the whole world–when man could annihilate himself (Riley).”
For the reader that has read other works of Steinbeck, Winter just does not live up to the standard. The book doesnt capture the same emotion. It just isnt crafted with Steinbecks signature style. Conspiracy has it that Steinbeck was not very interested in writing novels during his latter years. Instead, he did things such as travel to Vietnam and publish his musings in Travel with Charley. After reading The Winter of Our Discontent, it is hard to disagree, “There is evidence which suggests that by the time Steinbeck finished The Winter of Our discontent, he had lost interest in writing fiction and in his last years he was more active as a journalist and traveler than as a novelist (Riley).”
Besides Steinbecks choice of topic, Steinbecks attack was weak. Ethan Hawley spends the entire novel in almost a type of “moral wasteland” where he considers every angle of his actions. Only after he considers committing suicide does Ethan devote himself to making the world a better place. With a plot outline as such, it makes one wonder what Steinbeck was