Reviews

The Winter of Our Discontent by John Steinbeck

Only show reviews with written explanations

maisthejourno10's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging emotional slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

possumghost's review

Go to review page

reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

novabird's review

Go to review page

5.0

“Any critic knows it is no longer legal to praise John Steinbeck.” (Newsweek, 1961)

Now, that is a political statement of condemnation if I ever heard one!

‘Prejudice by omission,’ on the part of academia, I think is a fair assumption to make in the context of the non-feedback, or lack of critical reception for “The Winter of our Discontent.”

This novel in general has not yet received critical attention commensurate with its literary value or the value of its Nobel Prize-winning author. Apart from scattered reviews and a few articles in which it has been unfavorably received, the novel has been strangely ignored even by contemporary critics. (European Scientific Journal April 2013 edition vol.9, No.11 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431)

I had to really dig into Advanced Google search in order to find any ‘scholar papers,’ or references to published papers on, “The Winter of our Discontent.”

There are two basic and interrelated reasons for my assumptions for prejudice against “Winter:” 1. The theme of consumerism inherent within the body of work. 2. The agnostic motif presented in the alternative view of sacrifice set on a day of Christian remembrance of Good Friday – Easter Weekend. These two assumptions form a strong backbone critique of the American way.

Steinbeck examines how money makes the world go around in numerous offerings throughout “Winter.” The most telling example of this theme of postmodern emphasis on consumerism is shown in the setting of remaking a landscape;

“Automatically they stopped and turned to look at the pink brick and plaster mess that was the old Bay Hotel, now being wrecked to make room for the new Woolworth’s. The yellow-painted bulldozer and the big crane that swung the wrecking ball were silent like waiting predators in the early morning.”

Through this early image, Steinbeck gives us a look at the nature of progress, making way for future markets. He also depicts its destructive appetite for expansion.

New Baytown itself is a synecdoche for America. Its flawed nature and levels of corruption are shown in the characters who live there and have lived there for such a long time that no one remembers when things were done differently. The residents stand-in for American citizens: bitch goddess success in the seriously flawed--Margie Young-Hunt, the town vamp and Sybil; Mr. Baker, the unscrupulous banker; Joey Morphy, the bank clerk the wannabe bank robber/schemer, the chiseler/marketer who comes to call, Ethan’s wife who is status seeking, Ethan’s son who complies with social media promptings. Ethan realizes that the only way to get ahead in his life is to go along with the tide of corruption.

Ethan suddenly realizes that he can enact change, after hearing from all those around him. As a grocery clerk who is barely making ends meet for his family, he is bombarded with messages all around him about the importance of striving for a better place in the economic order of society.

E.’s banker “Your money should be working.”

E.’s boss “You got to look after number one, whose’ll do it?”

Chiseler: “Don’t be a fool. Everybody does it.”

E: “And money would prop up your head?”

E’s wife: “It would wipe the sneers off the faces of your holy la-de-das.”

E.’s daughter: “Daddy when will be rich?”

E.’s son “You got to learn the trick and then you get a gimmick.” (audience interest so they choose
you)

Ethan’s moral corruption begins with his acceptance of trying to find a way that he can fit into the monetary scheme of things. At first he finds a little wiggle room when he says;

“A fake fortune was just as good as any and it possible that all fortunes are a little fake.”

Then he next thinks that a generalization of mortality can wrap itself around the ends justifying the means:

“There are the eaters and the eaten. That’s a good rule to start with. Are the eaters more immoral than the eaten? In the end all are eaten --- all – gobbled up by the earth, even the fiercest and the most crafty.”

Finally, Ethan engages the idea of aggression as a means to get ahead and gives it justification:

“There is no doubt that business is a kind of war.”

The gradual downgrade of his integrity is buffered by his clear thinking that questions the way he rationalizes things to himself. He plans to make things easier for himself through a series of duplicitous actions. ("It's only a crime against money - afterall!") After he sets things in motion Ethan says to himself;

“I could not call this a struggle with my conscience. One I perceived the pattern and accepted it, the path was clearly marked and the dangers apparent. What amazed me most was that it seemed to plan itself; one thing grew out of another and everything fitted together. I watched it grow and only guided it with the slightest touch.”

How easily Ethan falls into the machinations of a system. Perhaps this is what critics protested against as much as the political and religious overtones – that the individual can so easily become a part of the majority.
The motif of sacrifice is presented overtly with Ethan’s childhood friend, Danny, and indirectly in the way that Ethan relinquishes his values. This all takes place on Easter weekend when asked by his wife whether or not he ‘believes.’ He answers,

“Let’s say that when I was a little baby, and all my bones soft and malleable, I was put in a small Episcopal cruciform box and so took my shape. Then, when I broke out of the box, the way a chick escapes an egg, is it strange that I thought I had the shape of a cross?”

Ethan knows how society has helped to construct him and yet he knowingly betrays Danny with a kiss. It is as though, Ethan is deliberately alienating himself from his core truths in order to get in on the game. This self-prescribed alienation can be seen as self-sacrifice. Ethan does not question whether or not he can live with the consequences of his actions.

Spoiler

He nearly enacts the ultimate self-sacrifice in the end scene – how he will rebuild himself is left open –ended.

With his background of having ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ banned Steinbeck was continually being harassed by government and audited yearly probably for his association with leftist writers and union figures, and also because of his support of Great Depression economic reforms measures Historians called it the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

He was never a communist in the 1930s, and after three trips to Russia he hated Soviet repression.

“Although he refused to settle into political conservatism (preferring to maintain traditions and resist change) in his later years, his all-embracing support of American values and acceptance of all national policies was held as a rebuke against him.”
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Sc-St/Steinbeck-John.html#ixzz3GgTkxXdZ

Steinbeck remained an agnostic and essentially, a materialist.

His acceptance of people as they were and of life as he found it was remarkable, articulated by what he called nonteleological or "is" thinking.

Near the end of his life, he wrote his personal physician, Dr. Kenny Fox: "Now finally, I am not religious so that I have no apprehension of a hereafter, either a hope or reward or a fear of punishment. It is not a matter of belief. It is what I feel to be true from my experience, observation, and simple tissue feeling."

And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. (East of Eden, 1952)

“The Winter of our Discontent,” almost reads like a political manifesto on how to hold onto values that clash with a system:

Setting aside time to think about the important things in life:

“Maybe not having the time to think is not having the wish to think.”

We must be careful to pass along our values to our children:

“teach my son.”

“what my august and illiterate son.”

Discontent embodied in his pre-teen son is seen as “a dreadful, harrowing time when he must bite everyone near, even himself, like a dog in a trap.”

Recognition of how our thought processes confirm our biases before we take action:

“I have destroyed him, it was only natural that his faults and crimes should become blindingly apparent to me.” (after the fact)

What needs to be done to transform the stalemated form of discontent:

“This year of 1960 was a year of change, a year when secret fears come out into the open, when discontent stops being dormant and changes gradually to anger.”

“Has sin gone on strike for a wage raise? No, just go away now –please!”

Just say no to excess consumerism that spreads its marketability to human values that should not be commoditized. Watching a 15 min. Ted Talk about this can help in extending the conversation and dialogue
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_why_we_shouldn_t_trust_markets_with_our_civic_life

We each individually have the capacity to effect change because of the human spirit we all separately hold.

“It isn’t true that there’s a community of light, a bonfire of the world. Everybody carried his own (light), his lonely own.”

In 1962, Steinbeck expressed a presentiment for our current state of global management:

“We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God. Fearful and unprepared, we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world—of all living things.”

—John Steinbeck, Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech, 1962

mirchanskiy's review

Go to review page

challenging medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

kcrouth's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

The only reason i shouldn't give this book 5 stars is because i already gave 5 stars to The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck's crowning masterpiece. Oh heck, I'm giving it 5 stars anyway, I loved this book. The Winter of Our Discontent is a wonderfully told story with deep meaning and authentic characters, places, and situations. Steinbeck was a master storyteller. Ethan Allen Hawley's story captures what so many people have experienced at some point in their life. The conflict of right and wrong and the infinite area of gray rationalization in between is brilliantly laid out in this story. This was Steinbeck's final novel, published in 1961. As i look over the Steinbeck canon, i am saddened that I have nearly reached its end. But with the end will also come a beginning of re-reading my favorites, of which this is surely one.

nattyyllie's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

(5 stars) Best book I’ve read so far this year.

morgob's review

Go to review page

3.0

I don't really know what to say about this book. I liked it, but it was just a really strange read for me. It's not like it was an egregious read; there were a lot of parts I liked. For instance, I really did enjoy the writing. Though I agree it is not like Steinbeck's other work, I didn't think it was bad. The point of view was interesting because for the first few chapters, it's third person, then it switches to first, then back to third, and then to first again. At first I wondered if that was supposed to happen or if I was reading a different version, but the suddenness and unexpectedness of the point of view shift startled me. I almost wished it remained in first person throughout, though I know he switched to third to give some other characters' perspectives. I honestly could have done without that, though. That whole chapter that was third person focusing on Margie, I thought, was unnecessary. We already knew enough about her to assume most of the information anyway, all it did was make her seem a little less like a slutty homewrecker and more like an intelligent and conniving woman whose sole goal is to provide herself with a secure future. I'm not sure if that bit made the book better, though. Did it make her a better character? Sure. But did we need that for the story? I don't think so.
Another thing I thought was odd was the main character. Throughout, he has this odd sort of inner monologue, and he's made out to be this poor suffering man who fell from grace and is now broke, and he's just trying to help his friends out. But underneath, he has all of these plans and schemes, so by the end, I couldn't tell who he actually cared about and who he was just using for his own personal gain. That's what really upset me. Did he know what he was doing or did it just happen serendipitously? Either way, I think he's sort of an interesting character (of course, he'd be more of an interesting character if it was the former) but that quality about him was just unsettling. I could hardly tell when he was being genuine, and in that way I suppose he is a bit of an unreliable narrator. However, I suppose the characters in the book--particularly Mary--felt the same way about him.
One thing I will note: this book reminded me a lot of It's a Wonderful Life . I can't really pinpoint exactly why, except that the main character is a man who used to come from a wonderful family, promised his wife and children a good life, and then wasn't able to deliver, so he spends a lot of time feeling sorry for himself. In both stories, the main character has lots of friends who he helps along the way and everyone knows what a good person he is. And also there is an evil banker. And both main characters contemplate suicide. Except in this story, the main character ends up doing some rather dubious things and it all works out in the end. The people he connects with end up changing his life, but it's in a very different way. I just expected the main character to be different, after all of his talk about honesty and being a good man. Besides that, though, this book very much made me think of It's a Wonderful Life, which I thought was altogether interesting.
Finally, I will make a small note about the ending.

Spoiler

I totally thought he died. I had to read the last two paragraphs over again to make sense of it. The whole last few pages didn't make sense to me. He finds out his son cheated on the essay and thinks, "Well, this life's done for. There's nothing left to live for even though I have a new business, the respect of the town, a loving wife, a strangely affectionate sleepwalking daughter, an Italian immigrant father figure, and a shitload more money than I had a week ago. Nothing left to live for. I'm going to go kill myself." But then that one interaction with his daughter, and the fact that she left the talisman in his pocket, made him change his mind in an instant. Seriously, it did not make sense to me at all that, after he got their lives turned around WITHOUT having to rob a bank, his first thought after his son lies is to kill himself. But then the thought of that one simple act by his daughter redeemed the world for him and made him decide not to go through with it. But yeah, I totally thought he was just going to drown at first. The last line of the book is a good one though.

All in all, I did like the book. There were just some aspects of it that were strange.