‘Things that happen are of no importance. But from everything that happens, there is a lesson to be learned.’

In his youth, Nobel Prize winning author John Steinbeck was enamoured with Thomas Malory’s The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights, saying reading the book developed ‘my sense of right and wrong, my feeling of noblesse oblige, and any thought I may have against the oppressor and for the oppressed.’ Steinbeck was working on his own retelling of Malory’s texts at the time of his death (posthumously published), yet early in his career he attempted his first foray into Arthurian legend with Tortilla Flat, a comedy of a group of friends—paisanos as he frequently reminds us—led by Danny who all live together in a house that was ‘not unlike the Round Table, and Danny's friends were not unlike the knights of it’ as he writes in the intro. While their adventures primarily consist of scheming for ways to get wine, Steinbeck constructs a heartwarming and funny story about friendship and solidarity where his love for the characters is so clear it is hard to do anything but love them as well.

This wine soaked Arthurian adventure set in post WWI California is such a delight that shows Steinbeck at some of his most tender and playful. The chapters plit the narrative into brief little episodes, framed much like tales of the Knights of the Round table. Except here they are digging for treasure or stealing wine, and while they may not fight a dragon they do fight a vacuum cleaner in a scene hilariously depicted as such an act of heroism against a vicious beast you might as well be picturing a dragon. The head of these friends is Danny, their King Arthur, who has inherited two houses and allows all his friends to live in one. By his side is Pilon, who functions as the Merlin character of the novel. After they burn one down by accident, Danny allows them to live with him (not much phases him) and they become a band of poor folk keeping each other alive and full of wine. Which gives us some wonderfully comical passages:

‘Two gallons is a great deal of wine, even for two paisanos. Spiritually the jugs maybe graduated thus: Just below the shoulder of the first bottle, serious and concentrated conversation. Two inches farther down, sweetly sad memory. Three inches more, thoughts of old and satisfactory loves. An inch, thoughts of bitter loves. Bottom of the first jug, general and undirected sadness. Shoulder of the second jug, black, unholy despondency. Two fingers down, a song of death or longing. A thumb, every other song each one knows. The graduations stop here, for the trail splits and there is no certainty. From this point anything can happen.’

Steinbeck’s theme of solidarity amongst the poor is certainly present here, and he depicts their lives, simple as they might be, as being as meaningful and important as anyone else, and more pure and worthwhile than the wealthy folks. The friends here remind me a bit of those in his later novel, Cannery Row, simple yet pure. However, Steinbeck later expressed regret over this novel, even though it was his first commercial success and finally launched his career. He disliked that critics seemed to latch onto the characters as ‘quaint but colorful bums’, saying they were real people who deserved respect:

‘literary slummers have taken these people up with the vulgarity of duchesses who are amused by and sorry for a peasantry. These stories are out, and I cannot recall them. But I shall never again subject to the vulgar touch of the decent these good people of laughter and kindness, of honest lusts and direct eyes, of courtesy beyond politeness. If I have done them any harm by telling a few of their stories, I am sorry’

Steinbeck had often spoken out against the elites of the time and it hurt him to see his lovable characters be an amusement to them instead of a lesson of solidarity or a comfort to readers not unlike his cast of characters. Particularly as not valuing material objects or not pursuing wealth for the sake of wealth is a major theme and any pursuit of anything, wealth or wine, is always seen as for the good of the group. Danny doesn’t even charge rent because he doesn’t want money to get in the way of friendship. Community is at the heart of Steinbeck’s work and it is certainly a major theme here.

The group of friends seem to have their own code of ethics that plays with the ideas of chivalry from Arthurian legend. Pilon, who functions as the Merlin character of the novel and is often giving Danny advice, is frequently trying to pay Danny rent despite him not asking for any. When he comes across money, he decides it best not to give it to Danny for he will ruin his teeth by undoubtedly buying candy with the money. The novel is full of similar justifications for behavior, all with a winking assumption it is being chivalric, such as when they “fight” the vacuum cleaner that Danny gifts to his girlfriend in order to “rescue” Danny from the domestic lifestyle they fear it will usher in. While this is sweet and comical, it is also a rejection of adulthood and a loss of innocence these friend’s seem to wanting to shield Danny from. With Danny, they can remain happily drunk and unproductive and they aim to keep him from moving on in the world and leaving them behind.

There is sort of a college buddy movie comedy vibe to this book, with not wanting to grow up being a central idea. But is it actually not wanting to grow up or more questioning responsibilities in a society that outcasts the many for the sake of the few? Why would they support a society that doesn’t have their back? Danny seems to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders throughout the novel, getting more and more depressed as the novel goes on. He is even seen with a black bird—clearly a symbol of death—over him, as his wild ways begin to catch up to him. ‘Then I will go out to The One who can fight,’ Danny declares at a party, ‘I will find The Enemy who is worthy of Danny!’ His defiance of life turns to be his undoing, but perhaps this is what Danny wants most. Youth ends, and without having found meaning in needing to go on, he remains young and wild in the minds of all forever.

While admittedly one of his lighter reads, Tortilla Flat is a comical little gem. Steinbeck fans will see many of his themes present here, though in smaller and more lighthearted doses, and his signature charm is certainly on display. I should note that, unfortunately, the depictions of women aren’t exactly great and casual racism is present. That said, it is a heartwarming story and Steinbeck creates a really textured and lively town populated with a fun cast of characters all having little misadventures while a larger idea on the dissatisfaction with life and society is able to play out. Short, fun, and very funny, Steinbeck never fails to satisfy.

4.5/5

Requires a reread and review. I get this one mixed up with Cannery Row.

Some things i noticed about this book:

1. Allegory for King Arthur and the knights of the Roundtable
2. Danny's good side represents Arthur, while his wild side represents Lancelot's later character.
3. For a while i thought Danny was a figure of christ becasue of his forgiving and sacrificial nature, but his later exploits dispeled this notion.
4. Torelli is definitley a symbol for Satan, the snake imagery surrounding his character is hard to miss.
5. The big party for Danny = the last supper.
6. Danny, Pilon, and Jesus Maria all represent different characteristics of christ.
Danny= forgiveness, sacrifical
Pilon= Charisma (and his sly ability to "turn water into wine")
Jesus Maria= humanitary aspects
This is probably part of the King Arthur allegory but maybe not.

Este é um Steinbeck bem diferente daquele que nos deu As Vinhas da Ira ou A Leste do Paraíso.
Pela sinopse esperava melancolia em torno de degradação e miséria, mas o que recebi foi um delicioso fabular sobre uns quantos amigos indigentes, sem paternalismos ou arrogâncias, sem fatalismos ou facilidades preguiçosas, e, acima de tudo, sem presunção escritora.
Se há leitura que aquece a alma é aquela que se faz de uma obra que sabemos que, primeiro e acima de tudo o resto, divertiu muito quem a escreveu. E a trilogia de Monterey - o que posso assegurar agora, que já adentrei q.b. no terceiro título - está impregnada desse divertimento preambular.

Molto lontano dai drammi e dalla tensione narrativa di Furore, la storia di questi simpatici paisanos di Pian della Tortilla è leggera e divertente. A tratti mi ha ricordato "Amici miei" per gli scherzi goliardici e per l'atmosfera tragicomica che investe le loro avventure. Pilon, Gesù Maria, il Pirata, Joe Portoghese il Grande, Pablo e il "ricco" Danny che li ospita nella sua casa ereditata sono un gruppo di beoni scansafatiche che ne escogitano una più del diavolo per riuscire a mettere le mani su un fiasco di vino. Tra una sbronza e l'altra si adoperano però per cercare di fare del bene ai loro compaesani più sfortunati, con esiti spesso nulli ma con idee assolutamente geniali e Steinbeck è grandioso a descriverli, dando loro quel tocco di umanità che li rende ancora più memorabili. Sono personaggi che si scolpiscono nella memoria per la loro unicità e simpatia. Mio padre me ne parlava sempre come di un libro spassoso e assolutamente da leggere, uno dei suoi preferiti. Aveva ragione! Voto: ★★★★½

Σαν άλλοι «n  τεμπέληδες της εύφορης κοιλάδαςn» οι paisanos ήρωες του μυθιστορήματος που έκανε ευρύτερα γνωστό τον Τζον Στάινμπεκ (Tortilla Flat, 1932) ξοδεύουν τις μέρες τους στο Μοντερέι της Καλιφόρνια μέσα στην οκνηρία, τη χαλαρότητα και την επανάληψη. Χωρίς εργασία και άλλες σκοτούρες, ο Ντάνυ και οι φίλοι του μοιράζονται τα λιγοστά τους υπάρχοντα και ζουν κυριολεκτικά ο ένας για τον άλλο. Η ευτυχία τους είναι μια «χιλιάρα» κρασί και η κυριότερη αγωνία τους είναι πως θα εξασφαλίσουν την επόμενη (με μικροαπατεωνιές ή όχι). Κι είναι τόσο αξεχώριστοι όλοι τους, που μόνον ο θάνατος θα μπορούσε να τους χωρίσει.

Με την κοινωνική ευαισθησία και τρυφερότητα που έτσι κι αλλιώς χαρακτηρίζει το σύνολο του έργου του, ο Στάινμπεκ ενστερνίζεται τις (διαφορετικές) ζωές των φτωχών ανθρώπων της αμερικανικής υπαίθρου μετά το τέλος του Α΄ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου («είναι άνθρωποι που τους ξέρω και που μ’ αρέσουν, άνθρωποι που με μεγάλη επιτυχία προσαρμόζονται στο περιβάλλον» αναφέρει ο συγγραφέας στο προλογικό σημείωμα του βιβλίου του) και δημιουργεί ένα αξιομνημόνευτο ψηφιδωτό ανθρώπων, που μπορεί να στερούνται τα (καθ’ ημάς) αναγκαία, αλλά έχουν ο ένας τον άλλο (πράγμα που από μόνο του είναι πολλές φορές αρκετό).

[Παραβλέπω την κακής ποιότητας έκδοση ή την ιδιότυπη δημοτική του σπουδαίου λογοτέχνη μας Άρη Αλεξάνδρου κι επισημαίνω ξανά κάτι από όσα προλόγισε στο βιβλίο του ο συγγραφέας, εν έτει 1937, γι’ αυτούς τους φτωχούς και όμορφους paisanos του Μοντερέι που στ’ αλήθεια κι εγώ τους αγάπησα πολύ: «Ποτέ όμως στο μέλλον δεν θα αφήσω να αγγίξουν με τα πρόστυχα δάχτυλά τους οι “καθωσπρέπει” αυτούς τους καλούς ανθρώπους του γέλιου και της αγαθότητας, που οι ορμές τους είναι τίμιες και η ματιά τους άδολη, αυτούς τους ανθρώπους που είναι φιλόφρονες, πέρα από τους τύπους της ευγένειας. Αν τους έβλαψα με το να διηγηθώ μερικές απ’ τις ιστορίες τους, λυπάμαι πολύ. Δεν θα το ξανακάνω.»]

Catching up…

“Thoughts are slow and deep and golden in the morning.”

Reading John Steinbeck was a tremendous treat while facilitating the book group at my local library years ago. The group wanted to get in to as many books as we could, so we did.

This actually was the book that gave Steinbeck name recognition when it was published in May 1935. It wasn’t his first published book, but it was the one that readers gravitated towards. The reviewers were loving it because the characters were easily charming and there was so much to appreciate about the story with its laughable and sad moments.

“Things that happen are of no importance. But from everything that happens, there is a lesson to be learned.”

Steinbeck wasn’t impressed by the reviews. His intent in writing the story was to showcase the reality of the people he knew and liked, because he wrote the story based on the trueness of the lives he experienced. The people he met. There was something about the harmony of the people living together under the same roof and the simplicity of their lives – the paisanos – the pleasures of their world.

Of course, we can’t overlook the “casual” racism of the day. But mostly it truly is a celebration of life outside the mainstream. So, we can look at this story as escapism and entertainment during the Great Depression. With an ending that might not be to everyone’s liking. (No spoilers from me.)

However, you see the experience of Steinbeck, this one is still worth reading in any generation. And, quite discussable.

Comincia in modo leggero questo libro, tra persone e personaggi pieni di difetti: beoni, ladri, attaccabrighe eppure molto amici, molto attenti l'uno all'altro, con sentimenti puri come i pensieri sotto al portico al mattino, appena svegli e a sole alto.
Comincia leggero e finisce in tragedia, con la perdita di tutto ciò che è materiale che comprime e uccide la libertà individuale di fare ciò che aggrada, nel momento in cui conviene...come buttarsi ubriaco giù da una ravina, come una fuga, come una ribellione, come un riappropriarsi di se stessi.

2,5/5
Steinbeck ma swój niepowtarzalny styl, ale piękny język opisujący życie włóczęgów to dla mnie już za dużo.

52nd book of 2020.

This one took me a while to get into, but I enjoyed the second half. It's certainly not the best Steinbeck, but it is an early work, after all. The idea is great, Danny and his motley crew and their adventures, but the way it's told is a little too detached for my liking; there is quite a lot of 'telling', which makes the prose uninteresting at times. It's a fun read, but nothing special.

‘Tortilla Flat’ (1935) was John Steinbeck’s first significant literary success – both popular and critical. Put simply and in Steinbeck’s own words, Tortilla Flat is the story of “Danny and of Danny’s friends and of Danny’s house” – his inheritance.

Danny and his assorted friends are ‘paisanos’ – countrymen of Spanish, Indian, Mexican and Caucasian mixed heritage. Danny and his ‘band of brothers’ are essentially, in Steinbeck’s eyes, decent people who play life very much according to their own rules. This is familiar territory that Steinbeck revisited later (to great effect) in both ‘Cannery Row’ and its sequel ‘Sweet Thursday’ for which Tortilla Flat can be seen as a template.

In one sense, the stories of Danny and the paisanos feel almost mythological, somewhat biblical certainly and even Arthurian. Indeed Steinbeck in his preface to the novel notes that Danny’s house is not unlike the Round Table and his friends are not unlike the Arthurian knights of legend.

Tortilla Flat was adapted as a film and released in 1942 – however Steinbeck was less than impressed with the cinematic depiction of Danny and friends as ‘quaint, underdogs, curious and dispossessed’ and even suggested that had he known, he may well have not written their stories in the first place. Goodness knows what Steinbeck thought of the very Hollywood re-writing of the ending of the story?

Modern and contemporary writers and critics have cited that Steinbeck’s portrayal of the paisanos and their way of life, is not an accurate one and does somewhat perpetuate stereotypes of Mexican Americans. To that extent, Steinbeck was indeed a product of, and subject to his times. These are important points to be raised and conversations to be had – but these were very different times and it was a very different America. In context, being published in 1935 – Tortilla Flat was apparently enjoyed by many American readers as escapism from the Great Depression of the time. But in spite of such criticism and the confines of 1935 – the brilliance of Steinbeck’s work clearly transcends its time and despite contemporary criticism concerning (seemingly unintentional) racial stereotyping, Steinbeck’s work still rings true and strikes many a chord with the 21st century reader some 80+ years later.

Whilst certainly not in the same league of literary brilliance as ‘East of Eden, Grapes of Wrath’ etc – Tortilla Flat is nevertheless a fine book. It is a straightforward, yet powerful story – a very human story, simply told with great feeling for the narrative and empathy with the characters.

I love Steinbeck but I would never in a million years recommend this book to anyone. First of all, it hasn't aged well. The racist, sexist comments might have seemed funny to someone once upon a time but not anymore. Now it's just sad. In fact, I don't understand why this book has been marketed as being "delightfully hilarious" and "hysterically funny". Yes, it is comical, especially a certain episode involving a vacuum cleaner, but on a deeper lever it's a tragedy. Many people have said that the characters are happy-go-lucky guys who just want to drink wine and have fun. (By the way, my copy was just 144 pages long but the word "wine" was mentioned at least 300 times, I'm not exaggerating.) I saw something quite different - a bunch of depressed men who had no purpose in life after having served in the army and not being needed anymore, so they drowned this sense of uselessness in crazy amounts of alcohol.
They drink and steal and abuse other people just to get more wine, but Steinbeck goes out of his way to show that, despite of it all, they are good guys at heart. I was willing to believe that until the moment when  they performed a meticulous, well-planned act of violence against one of their "friends", thoroughly beating him to raw pulp and cutting his back with a can-opener just to teach him a lesson.  I have a pretty strong stomach and usually have no problems with violence in literature, but this was described with such morbid glee that I was truly shocked. And I'm supposed to believe that they're the good guys? Very funny, ha ha. Apparently I have no sense of humor.