Eigentlich eine Tragödie, die Erzählung von Danny und seinen Freunden,
aber mit viel Ironie und Zynismus macht John Steinbeck daraus eine liebens- und lesenswerte
Geschichte von den Bewohnern eines kleinen Hauses am Rande von Monterey, deren einzige
Lebensaufgabe darin besteht, täglich etwas zu essen und ein paar Gallonen Wein zu besorgen.

What are friends for if not to help them drink their wine. This being one of Steinbecks earliest works, it did not have the depth or power of his later novels, but still, I found myself laughing out loud throughout the story. So, whatever the weaknesses, if a book can keep me laughing that way it deserves at least 4 stars from me.

Danny is an unemployed alcoholic, leading a transient existence in Monterrey, California. When Danny inherits two houses in the shabby district of Tortilla Flat, he invites a hobo friend and fellow paisano (descendant of Spanish peasants) to live with him. Danny’s new lodger, Pilon, is a self-proclaimed logician, obsessed with morality. The pair are soon joined by workshy Jesus Maria, the mentally handicapped Pirate, and his pack of dogs.

We follow their escapades, which entail endless wine drinking, fighting, forgiving, scheming, and interactions involving a bootlegger, several women of dubious repute, and various impoverished locals.

Hapless yet noble characters populate this allegorical and didactic work that extols friendship and virtue over capitalism and materialism.

This early Steinbeck novel (1935) closely parallels the fables about King Arthur. Shared themes include friendship, oath, inheritance and kingdom. Whilst Tortilla Flat is inferior to many of the author’s later efforts, this reader would not hesitate in recommending it to all Steinbeck aficionados.

I always thought that these characters that Steinbeck created were so lovable, and so this has been one of my favorite books by him.

I grew up seeing Steinbeck in my father's bookcase, and when I was a child I read and cried over his, "The Red Pony." My favorites are this book, Cannery Row, and Grapes of Wrath.

Tortilla Flat is my first disappointment of Steinbeck. By now I've come to accept the possibility of being disappointed over books of my favourite authors. However, it's still hard when that happens. This novel is an early work of Steinbeck and perhaps, that may account for the lack of mastery when compared to his later works. The novel may have had a fascination with the public when it was first published since it's said to be Steinbeck's first commercial success. But it's the kind of work that will wither in interest with time. At least, that's how I feel about it.

Tortilla Flat is quite similar to Cannery Row in story. Both stories are revolved around a group of friends. However, while I felt the characters in Cannery Row (Doc, Mack, and the boys) to be interesting and close to heart, the characters in Tortilla Flat (Danny and his friends) were dull and distant. Their adventures didn't impress me. They were full of wine and women, and nothing substantial. Steinbeck stamps on us the strength of their friendship and their loyalty to one another. And that is the only impressive feature I found in their characters.

The story was episodic, and each chapter is dedicated to a separate story of sorts of either Danny and/or one or more of his friends. This was an interesting structure, but sadly, the stories didn't come up to the mark; they didn't interest me. Steinbeck is a good writer, but in Tortilla Flat, either because of my lack of interest in the story or the characters, I failed to admire and appreciate his writing as I've done in almost every other work I've read. The only role of Steinbeck that I could appreciate was that of the humorist.

I'm in the minority here, so, before anyone of you jump down my throat, please know that these are my personal subjective thoughts about this novel. It may have its own merits which I failed to grasp. But to me, it was a set of boring stories connected through a group of people of whom I didn't care a jot.

I had read Tortilla Flat the summer before entering the 10th grade. I liked it very much then because of the atmosphere of the novel with which I was entirely in sympathy. I was enthralled with the possibility of the lackadaisicality of life.

When you are 15, friendships are vitally important, and that's what this book is about (although these are men, not boys) among a host of other themes such as loyalty, honor, poverty, daring, truthfulness, love and so on. The characters are "paisanos"--a mixture of Americans of Hispanic and other European ethnicity, but that is not important to the story, although it has been wrongly criticized as such, in my view.

Steinbeck had been a student of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table in his youth and so had I. I did not realize it then, but the paisanos in Tortilla Flat were like the Knights of King Arthur in some ways. I suppose that that had been the subconscious attraction for me.

While I was in the middle of reading this book one summer Sunday night at that time, friends who had been becoming unfriendly for no apparent reason other than perhaps because of my disinterest in joining in on some of their nefarious activities tried to throw a cantaloupe (mushmelon) through my bedroom window where I lay in bed reading. The first time they missed but it shook the house; the second time I was waiting for them and tried to hit their car with a garbage can lid, the first thing that I could grab. I had recognized immediately who they were, the car they were driving, and I was surprised to see that these were boys that I liked--friends from church and summer camp and who had been to my house for lunch, friends of my friends (some of whom much later also betrayed me). I immediately tracked them down and it was resolved in a rather friendly way due to our parents being friends, although the betrayal continued all through highschool, in football, and beyond--harmless but unfriendly. (Decades later the best friend of that group apologized for the whole episode. I accepted without comment.) Tortilla Flat also treats the idea of friends betraying each other.

It was about that time in my life that I realized that the best friend I would probably ever have outside of marriage and children would be a great book by a great author. I am now surrounded by great books by great authors. Tortilla Flat is one of those books, and it helped me through some mild unhappiness back there. I learned not to trust friendships too much.

I was initially annoyed by Tortilla Flat, a household of drinking, carousing, and thieving young men who lived hand to mouth and day to day. John Steinbeck clearly glamorized their stories – occasionally truly kind-hearted, their thieving and ceceits – poor Torrelli! – are denied and justified as “good deeds.”

“Candy is not good for people,” Pablo observed. “It makes their teeth ache.”

“That is up to Danny,” said Jesus Maria. “If he wants to ache Mrs. Morales’ teeth, that is his business. What do we care for Mrs. Morales’ teeth?”

A cloud of anxiety had settled on Pilon’s face. “But,” he interposed sternly, “if our friend Danny takes big candy to Mrs. Morales, he will eat some too. So it is the teeth of our friend that will ache.”

Pablo shook his head anxiously. “It would be a bad thing if Danny’s friends, on whom he depends, should bring about the aching of his teeth.” (Kindle 606)

As I read Steinbeck’s stories, I imagined how a group of young Black men engaging in the same drinking, carousing, and stealing would be portrayed today. Not as kindly. Even a group of young white men would not be portrayed with as little judgment.

GR’s description of Tortilla Flat did little to respond to my concerns: “Adopting the structure and themes of the Arthurian legend, John Steinbeck created a “Camelot” on a shabby hillside above the town of Monterey, California, and peopled it with a colorful band of knights.” This description, if anything, confirmed my initial reaction and made me re-examine my prejudices as I think about the Arthurian legends.

Yet… I think my reading Tortilla Flat served a purpose and much the same one as when I read fiction from other parts of the world, to help me develop diverse perspectives. I am more of an ant (using Aesop’s language), while Steinbeck’s characters here are clearly grasshoppers. Why is my approach to the world better (or worse)? And, like Pilon, I’m thinking

It is astounding to find that the belly of every black and evil thing is as white as snow. And it is saddening to discover how the concealed parts of angels are leprous. Honor and peace to Pilon, for he had discovered how to uncover and to disclose to the world the good that lay in every evil thing. Nor was he blind, as so many saints are, to the evil of good things. (Kindle 1360)

A fairly short book, but how enchanting! A collection of stories about tramps who settle down in the Tortilla flat-area near Monterey, California. Steinbeck paints a very sympathetic portrait of a group of marginal people. That's what I like some much in this book, but even more so in The Grapes of Wrath or Of Mice and Men: like Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy Steinbeck saw real humanity in people on the margins of society (the other way around is also true: a lot of so-called civilized people can be really inhumane). This little book offers simplicity, dry humor, broad storytelling, in short: a great read!

کتابی برای تاب‌آوری، اما نه برای امروز :

زمانی که سخنگوی آکادمی نوبل، پیش از اهدا جایزه به جان اشتاین بک، مشغول معرفی آثار او بود، از این کتاب با عنوان کتابی که برخی به کمک آن توانستند دوران رکود اقتصادی آمریکا را پشت سر بگذارند یاد می‌کند.
کتاب کمی طنز سرخوش و زندگی در لحظه را دارد. نوعی؛ حال که چیزی نداریم، حداقل با کمترین چیزها خوش باشیم. با این همه فضای کتاب، حتی با توجه به اینکه درباره پیزانوهای بیسواد و آدم‌های حاشیه‌ی کالیفرنیاست، گاها بسیار ابلهانه و زیادی بدوی بنظر می‌رسد. شاید دلیل درک نکردنشان توسط خوانندگانی مثل من این بود ابدا حتی به این فضاها نزدیک نبودیم. برای مثال داستان‌های ساعدی هم مانند عزاداران بیل یا ترس و لرز هم دچار چنین بلاهت‌هایی هستند که البته با توجه به خرافات و کمبودهای گوناگون برای خواننده ایرانی قابل پذیرش هستند ولی یک آمریکایی به سختی آن را باور می‌کند.
البته چنین ایرادی به اشتاین بک صرفا از سوی خوانندگان خارجی امروزی نیست بلکه حتی در زمان انتشارش هم بسیاری از نقدها به تصنعی بودن فضا و آدم‌ها و رفتارهاشان اشاره داشت و البته اشتاین بک در مقدمه‌ای که تنها یک بار به چاپ رسید، از اثر خود دفاع کرد و گفت که مدتی با چنین جماعتی زندگی کرده و هر چه را دیده توصیف کرده نه با اغراق.
این کتاب مشتمل بر چند بخش است از جمله مقدمه مترجمان، متن سخنرانی نوبل، رمان تورتیا فلت و حواشی تقریبا زیادی از نویسنده که از دل نامه‌هایش بیرون کشیده شده‌اند. در رابطه با داستان تورتیا فلت چیزی ندارم که بگویم، فقط میتوانم بگویم به دلم ننشست و این کتاب و کتاب زمستان این نویسنده که در اواخر بهار خواندم، لذت اشتاین بک خوانی را در من بسیار تقلیل داد و احتمال دارد برای یکی دو کتاب باقی مانده اشتاین بک، تا سال آینده و چه بسا بیشتر، تقلایی نکنم.
و اما بخش آخر کتاب که گزیده‌های از نامه‌های او بود و درباره بسیاری مسائل صحبت کرده بود، جانی دوباره به من بخشید. همواره مشتاق خواندن تجربیات و اندوخته‌های شخصی نویسندگان هستم و شاید حتی گاهی برایم ارزشی مضاعف از آثارشان پیدا می‌کنند.
اگر رویای نوشتن دارید، در هر ابعادی و در هر فضایی، پیشنهاد می‌کنم بخش آخر این کتاب را حتما مطالعه کنید.

پ.ن: رو مخ‌ترین بخش ماجرا این بود که دوستان تورتیا فلتی مدام هرچی درمیاوردن رو میدادن به مشروب و مترجمان به جای مشروب یا عرق معادل «نوشابه» رو به کار میبردن که واقعا عذابی الیم بود. بابا لااقل بنویس نوشیدنی.

Synopsis: itinerant paisanos come together, then come apart.

I did not expect to smile and laugh so much! This mirthful book is not what I'm used to from Steinbeck. I knew there would be beautiful prose of course, but instead of portraying the usual tragedies small and large, Steinbeck wanted to relax and have fun - and he wanted the reader to do the same, much as his characters do. Rather than looking upon the futility of ambition - of life itself - as a dirge, he made his story a joyous folk song and a snappy pop hit dedicated to impermanence. While still keeping his favored refrain of lives barely lived and humanity in the mud, of course. Steinbeck's gonna do Steinbeck, even at his most relaxed.

A hallmark of that relaxation, as well as cleverness: the author's shifting his dialogue back and forth from 1930s paisano slang (I suppose) to a very formal and stylized version of medieval English. All the better to drive home that this story of wine-soused layabouts also functions as a mischievous parody of Le Morte d'Arthur.

To these modern eyes, there was quite a bit that annoyed. The constant use of "Jew" as both verb and insult, of course - although hard to fault the author for what is coming out of his rather sweet but also rather dim characters' mouths. (And hey, "Jew" is still used the same way today - albeit by ignoramuses who should know better, and anti-Semites.) The basic fact that we have a white author portraying various characters of mixed heritage as drunkards, thieves, and fools also bugged. Both of those things contributed to my not taking this novel as seriously as I probably should have. And that said, Steinbeck's warmth, love, and even admiration for his characters shines through and made such issues almost - almost - feel minor.

The shallowness of the story meant that I took a lot less from Tortilla Flat than I did from my last Steinbeck experience - the off-putting, depressing, mournful, entirely brilliant Wayward Bus. But I sure did enjoy it a lot more.



3 of 16 in Sixteen Short Novels

A book that is difficult to analyze because of its unique charm.

La ravina e il burrone

Più vado avanti con la lettura delle opere di Steinbeck in ordine cronologico (Furore e Vicolo Cannery li avevo già letti prima di iscrivermi al gruppo "Steinbeck da leggere o rileggere") e più mi convinco che quest'autore - Premio Nobel, non dimentichiamolo - meriterebbe maggior rispetto dalle case editrici italiane con la messa in cantiere di nuove traduzioni dall'originale.
Con questo non intendo affatto sminuire le traduzioni di Montale (Al Dio sconosciuto) e Vittorini (I Pascoli del cielo e Pian della Tortilla) che sono state sicuramente adatte per l'epoca in cui sono state pubblicate, ma semplicemente affermare che se la traduzione di Montale, così lirica e poetica, può essere ancora apprezzabile ai nostri giorni, quella di Vittorini, soprattutto in Pian della Tortilla, mi sembra veramente antiquata e stridente.
Questa lunga parentesi perché purtroppo credo che questo approccio crei inevitabilmente una frattura immediata con il lettore che si trova a doversi confrontare con dei poveri diseredati, ignoranti e senza arte né parte, che sembrano invece essere nel loro modo di esprimersi paragonabili a dei guitti medioevali piuttosto che a dei paisanos del secolo scorso.
Se dovessi dire che mi è piaciuto non sarei onesta, anche se tra la prima e la seconda parte, a mio parere, c'è un abisso: sembra quasi che Steinbeck l'abbia scritta in due momenti diversi, quasi in due epoche letterarie diverse.
Nella seconda metà del romanzo ho trovato sprazzi e rimandi a quel piccolo gioiello che è Vicolo Cannery e la vicinanza tra le due opere è diventata sottilissima; come dicevamo nel gruppo, Pian della Tortilla sembra quasi il cartone preparatorio di Vicolo Cannery, se non fosse che l'ipotetica camera che inquadra la scena è ruotata di 180°: entrambi sono ambientati a Monterey, California, ma mentre Vicolo Cannery si svolge tutto a due passi dalla Baia, ed i suoi protagonisti, fra cui un gruppo di nullafacenti ""ubriaconi"" animati da buoni sentimenti nei confronti del Doc del quartiere, sono gli abitanti dei vicoli a due passi dal porto, in Pian della Tortilla Steinbeck si sposta nella parte alta della cittadina, ai confini con i boschi, ed i nullafacenti ""ubriaconi"" animati di buoni sentimenti questa volta sono dei paisanos.
La prima parte però non mi è piaciuta granché, l'ho trovata molto povera, ma non perché ambientata tra i poveri e i vagabondi, quanto piuttosto stilisticamente: mi è sembrato affrettato nelle descrizioni e poco coinvolgente nel ritrarre un mondo così diverso da quello cui siamo abituati e del quale, proprio per questo, dovremmo subire il fascino.
Poi però, ad un certo punto, ho letto queste parole di Steinbeck

« Ho scritto queste storie perché sono storie vere e perché mi piacevano. Ma le sentinelle della letteratura hanno considerato i miei personaggi con la stupidità delle duchesse che si divertono coi contadini e li compiangono. Queste storie sono pubblicate ed io non le posso più riprendere, ma non sottometterò più al contatto degradante della gente perbene questi bravi esseri fatti di allegria e di bontà, di cortesia ben superiore a tutte le smancerie. Se ho causato loro dei torti raccontando qualcosa delle loro storie, me ne dispiace. Ciò non avverrà più. Adios, monte! »

e mi sono sentita un po' a disagio, cattiva quasi, per non essere riuscita a calarmi in quel mondo e tra le sue genti e nonostante ciò per aver giudicato, commentato, pensato... Magari anche arricciato un po' il naso!
Mi sono detta, comunque, che forse la colpa non è tutta mia se non ci sono riuscita, ma anche di Mondadori e Vittorini, che mi hanno costretta, nel 2010, a sentire dei contadini parlare di "ravine" invece che di "burroni", fargli bere galloni di vino nelle fruttiere ed esprimersi con termini che se sono inconsueti per noi, figuriamoci per loro!

C'è un capitolo però, a poche pagine dalla fine, non ricordo se l'ultimo o il penultimo, in cui tutta la magia e la capacità descrittiva di Steinbeck, unico nel suo modo di scrutare l'imperscrutabile nell'animo umano e di raffigurarne vizi debolezze e virtù, affiorano dolcemente (e allo stesso tempo prepotentemente) ripagando di pagine poco coinvolgenti e di uno stile, forse, ancora da trovare o da mettere a punto in maniera più convincente: se ce la faccio lo copio e lo inserisco nelle note a margine.
Come dicevo però non si tratta di solo un capitolo, ma di una buona metà del romanzo: peccato non poter chiedere a Steinbeck cosa gli fosse capitato durante la stesura del romanzo tra la prima e la seconda parte :-)