Finally, the Steinbeck novel that the male high school student wants to read!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/22/john-steinbecks-estate-urged-to-let-the-world-read-his-shunned-werewolf-novel
QuoteJohn Steinbeck's estate urged to let the world read his shunned werewolf novel
Rejected and hidden away since 1930, an early murder mystery by the Nobel-winning author is 'an incredible find'
Years before becoming one of America's most celebrated authors, John Steinbeck wrote at least three novels which were never published. Two of them were destroyed by the young writer as he struggled to make his name, but a third – a full-length mystery werewolf story entitled Murder at Full Moon – has survived unseen in an archive ever since being rejected for publication in 1930.
Now a British academic is calling for the Steinbeck estate to finally allow the publication of the work, written almost a decade before masterpieces such as The Grapes of Wrath, his epic about the Great Depression and the struggles of migrant farm workers.
"There would be a huge public interest in a totally unknown werewolf novel by one of the best-known, most read American writers of the 20th century," said Professor Gavin Jones, a specialist in American literature at Stanford University.
Advertisement
"This is a novel that really nobody knows about. It's a complete novel by Steinbeck. It's incredible."
The 233-page typescript has been stored in the vast archives of the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas in Austin after Steinbeck's unsuccessful attempt to have it published more than 90 years ago.
Finding recognition was a struggle for the author, who eventually won the Nobel prize for literature in 1962. While his father helped him financially, he also supported himself as a manual labourer before going on to write classics such as the 1937 novella Of Mice and Men, about two migrant labourers, and East of Eden in 1952.
Set in a fictional Californian coastal town, Murder at Full Moon tells the story of a community gripped by fear after a series of gruesome murders takes place under a full moon. Investigators fear that a supernatural monster has emerged from the nearby marshes. Its characters include a cub reporter, a mysterious man who runs a local gun club and an eccentric amateur sleuth who sets out to solve the crime using techniques based on his obsession with pulp detective fiction.
The typescript even has two illustrations by Steinbeck. They depict the floorplan of the building where the murders took place, including the victims' bodies. In the book, these are drawings made by one of the characters trying to solve the murders.
Jones described it as a world away from Steinbeck's realist representations of the Great Depression, which may explain why he wrote this one under a pen name, Peter Pym. "Even though it is very different from Steinbeck's other work, in a totally different genre, it actually relates to his interest in violent human transformation – the kind of human-animal connection that you find all over his work; his interest in mob violence and how humans are capable of other states of being, including particularly violent murderers.
"It's certainly not Steinbeck the realist, but it is Steinbeck the naturalist, interested in human nature. It's a horror potboiler, which is why I think readers would find it more interesting than a more typical Steinbeck. It's a whole new Steinbeck – one that predicts Californian noir detective fiction. It is an unsettling story whose atmosphere is one of fog-bound, malicious, malignant secrecy."
Speculating on why publishers rejected it, he wonders whether it was deemed too lurid at the time, especially since Steinbeck was then an unknown author.
But Steinbeck's literary agents, McIntosh & Otis, told the Observer they would not be publishing the novel. "As Steinbeck wrote Murder at Full Moon under a pseudonym and did not choose to publish the work during his lifetime, we uphold what Steinbeck had wanted," they said. "As the estate's agents, we do not further exploit the works beyond what had been the author and estate's wishes."
Hearing of the estate's response, Jones said: "Steinbeck did attempt to have the book published early in his career, and he did not destroy this manuscript as he did several others. Many authors have their works published posthumously, and write under pseudonyms."
William Souder, author of the acclaimed 2020 biography Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck, also urged the estate to allow publication. "Why wouldn't a complete novel by a famous author find its way into the daylight?" he said. "I hope it does."
In another archive – the Center for Steinbeck Studies, San Jose State University – Jones has also unearthed a virtually complete unpublished Steinbeck story called Case History. It is an earlier version of a published story, The Vigilante, based on an actual lynching that took place in San Jose in 1933 of two men accused of kidnapping and murdering a local resident. The two battered, partly naked men were hung from trees before a crowd of up to 15,000 onlookers in one of the last mass lynchings in the US.
Steinbeck was haunted by the legacies of racism and injustice in the American west, and the earlier version of the story reveals that, in the final version, Steinbeck had rewritten history, changing the lynching of two white men, in the actual event, to that of a single African American man. In Case History, a single white man is lynched.
"Both versions of the story are about a theory of mob activity and how humans are capable of perpetrating this violence, told from such a close perspective that I wonder, could Steinbeck have witnessed the events of the original lynching?" said Jones. "His in-laws were from San Jose, and he was fascinated with mob action."
Jones's research will feature in his forthcoming book, Reclaiming John Steinbeck: Writing for the Future of Humanity, which will be published by Cambridge University Press on 10 June.
He didn't destroy it or leave instructions to do so, so why not?
He didn't leave instructions to publish it, so why do it? I'm sure there's a gazillion things he didn't leave instructions not to do.
Will people be able to publish it once copyrights end?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 23, 2021, 03:48:31 AM
He didn't destroy it or leave instructions to do so, so why not?
Reputation - in this case, presumably, literary :lol:
Estates normally want to tend to the reputation of their writer - in part because it's the assets they're looking after and exploiting. I always wonder what it's like for literary executors of someone who was a rave/very important author in their period but is then promptly forgotten - there's a few Victorian examples, I fear Iris Murdoch is going down the same route :(
QuoteWill people be able to publish it once copyrights end?
If the texts survive. There's loads of examples of literary executors burining unpublished works or private letters. I think it mainly used to be done to avoid scandal over their sexuality or the fact they had affairs or whatever. But some authors do it themselves meticulously - Auden constantly re-wrote his poetry and always wanted to destroy the sort of "working out" in between.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 23, 2021, 04:04:08 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 23, 2021, 03:48:31 AM
He didn't destroy it or leave instructions to do so, so why not?
Reputation - in this case, presumably, literary :lol:
Estates normally want to tend to the reputation of their writer - in part because it's the assets they're looking after and exploiting. I always wonder what it's like for literary executors of someone who was a rave/very important author in their period but is then promptly forgotten - there's a few Victorian examples, I fear Iris Murdoch is going down the same route :(
Surely they can charge an incredible price for such a manuscript even if it's dreck.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 23, 2021, 04:04:08 AM
QuoteWill people be able to publish it once copyrights end?
If the texts survive. There's loads of examples of literary executors burining unpublished works or private letters. I think it mainly used to be done to avoid scandal over their sexuality or the fact they had affairs or whatever. But some authors do it themselves meticulously - Auden constantly re-wrote his poetry and always wanted to destroy the sort of "working out" in between.
And in this case I assume that the university won't deny people physical access to the document. Seems to be that waiting a few more years for a werewolf story is a sacrifice society will survive. :)
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2021, 04:17:24 AM
And in this case I assume that the university won't deny people physical access to the document. Seems to be that waiting a few more years for a werewolf story is a sacrifice society will survive. :)
Yeah - and universities should be pretty good. The worst estates are normally families or friends who are emotionally invested in protecting their author. The Joyce and Tennyson estates spring to mind as protective to a level that is probably unhelpful (and in the case of Tennyson has permanently damaged scholarship because of the destruction of personal papers - but that is the norm for lots of Victorian authors).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 23, 2021, 04:11:22 AMSurely they can charge an incredible price for such a manuscript even if it's dreck.
I don't know if there'd be that much money. If it's "rosebud" for a popular author maybe. But this sounds like a novelty about a literary author.
Plus the possible fear that publishing one text has an impact on the reputation and "worth" of the rest of the estate. I doubt it'd be the case here but it comes up.
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2021, 03:54:08 AM
He didn't leave instructions to publish it, so why do it? I'm sure there's a gazillion things he didn't leave instructions not to do.
Allowing access should be the default.
If any of us ever becomes a famous author, I pity the scholar that has to comb through languish.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 23, 2021, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2021, 03:54:08 AM
He didn't leave instructions to publish it, so why do it? I'm sure there's a gazillion things he didn't leave instructions not to do.
Allowing access should be the default.
And it appears to have been allowed.
Hunter S Thompson was famous for his "gonzo" journalism which blended truth and fiction. But early in his career he tried his hand at a novel, The Rum Diary. It was refused for publication multiple times. Not exactly posthumous, but late in his life he authorized it for publication, which due to his fame it was immediately published.
It wasn't very good.
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2021, 09:23:17 AM
Hunter S Thompson was famous for his "gonzo" journalism which blended truth and fiction. But early in his career he tried his hand at a novel, The Rum Diary. It was refused for publication multiple times. Not exactly posthumous, but late in his life he authorized it for publication, which due to his fame it was immediately published.
It wasn't very good.
IIRC it was Johnny Depp who convinced him to publish it. Depp then went on to star in a not very good movie adaptation.
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2021, 09:23:17 AM
Hunter S Thompson was famous for his "gonzo" journalism which blended truth and fiction. But early in his career he tried his hand at a novel, The Rum Diary. It was refused for publication multiple times. Not exactly posthumous, but late in his life he authorized it for publication, which due to his fame it was immediately published.
It wasn't very good.
Rather different scenario but there was a lot of controvery over the publication of Harper Lee's sequel to To Kill A Mockingbird. I think there were quite serious allegations that basically people were taking advantage of her in old age to publish a book she'd chosen not to publish for 60 years.
In Darkplace The Apes of Wrath is one of the weaker episodes.
I liked Steinbeck when I was in highschool.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 23, 2021, 10:24:42 AM
Rather different scenario but there was a lot of controvery over the publication of Harper Lee's sequel to To Kill A Mockingbird. I think there were quite serious allegations that basically people were taking advantage of her in old age to publish a book she'd chosen not to publish for 60 years.
Go Set a Watchman was not a sequel to
To Kill A Mockingbird, it was the unsuccessful first treatment of
To Kill A Mockingbird, and wasn't published because Lee reworked it and changed the title. The publishers were extremely dishonest in their description of the book before it was published, to pre-sell a lot of copies before people found out that it wasn't a sequel at all. There are, as you note, serous allegations that her new lawyer (who took over the power of attorney after Lee's sister died) essentially allowed publication without Lee's consent.
All in all, a pretty disgusting affair.
Interesting piece on the recent Roth affair:
QuoteThe reputation game: how authors try to control their image from beyond the grave
The row over a new biography of Philip Roth has exposed the way agents and estates restrict access and manage archives to maintain a writer's posthumous good name
Edward Helmore
Sun 23 May 2021 15.36 BST
Writers and critics are raising questions over the role that agents and estates play in managing archives and limiting access to biographical material.
Fresh worries have been fuelled by the continuing fiasco over the publication of Philip Roth: The Biography, with accusations that access to the famed US author's archival material is being unfairly constrained.
A month ago, the book was destined to be the literary biography of the year – a "narrative masterwork", according to the New York Times. Then, the book's US publisher, WW Norton, "paused" distribution after Roth's hand-picked biographer, Blake Bailey, who has denied any wrongdoing, was accused of sexual misconduct. Last week it withdrew the book entirely, and it was subsequently picked up by Skyhorse.
Roth's literary agent, Andrew Wylie of the Wylie Agency, and Julia Golier, a lover of Roth and later a close friend, are interpreted to be under Roth's direction to destroy archival material after it was seen by Bailey. Princeton University's library gave Bailey access to material that is not currently available. A university spokesperson said the library was in "ongoing discussions with Roth representatives regarding the collection". The Wylie Agency did not return a request for comment.
Stephen Enniss, director of the Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas, one of the largest and best-funded literary archives, says that agents are taking a more assertive role in authors' estates and archives, which does not necessarily comport with an archivist's code of ethics.
"You've got agents like Andrew Wylie who increasingly represent authors in the sale of their archives. Their role in trying to broker ever higher deals has been a destructive thing within the circulation and preservation of archives," Enniss says.
For the moment, the Roth biography debacle is a cautionary tale of what can go wrong when posthumous reputations are gamed from beyond the grave.
Last week, the Philip Roth Society issued a statement saying that "limiting access to one biographer run counter to conventions of academic inquiry".
Society member Jacques Berlinerblau, author of the forthcoming unauthorised The Philip Roth We Don't Know: Sex, Race, and Autobiography, told the Observer: "Darkness is never the proper condition for scholarly work, and in this case the glance has been cast back to the interpreter.
"It's irresponsible, given how Roth trafficked in reality and fiction, to have just one person look at it. We have conflicts of interest galore, an absence of critical distance, and we don't know the man any better."
Enniss points out that special access comes with its own challenges to integrity. "It always has that double edge to it: the biographer benefits from that access but there's potentially something damaging in that access in terms of spoken or unspoken understanding about what's fair to be addressed."
Critic and author Francine Prose says we might also be better off acknowledging the origins of Roth's autofiction. "It's a complicated situation that got oversimplified in crass and vulgar ways by the unfolding story," Prose told the Observer.
"Do we pretend these attitudes don't exist or give Roth credit for reporting on it in such a meticulous and painfully honest way? But to find a biographer to say this is really OK is to shut off that whole conversation."
While Roth may have had reason to want to control the narrative of his life from beyond the grave, his efforts are hardly unique.
"It's not difficult for an author to ensure contentious material isn't available," author William Boyd told the Observer, pointing to TS Eliot's embargo on his love letters, or Philip Larkin's instructions to his girlfriend Monica Jones to destroy his diaries.
"If you're interested in your posthumous reputation then you can curate it. But it's a highly complex, compromised exercise and unless it's designed to protect the living, it tends to be counter-productive," Boyd says.
John le Carré, VS Naipaul, Graham Greene and Muriel Spark each commissioned biographies in their lifetimes with mixed results. Boyd points out that Patrick French's biography of Naipaul revealed "what a devastatingly unpleasant person he was", and Le Carré was "deeply upset" by his.
"You'd think, why commission it if you're going to be upset by what it says? It's a highly complex, compromised exercise," Boyd points out. "Le Carré and Spark employed dull academics who'd write something very boring to keep everybody else away."
For his part, Boyd says he's not so interested in his posthumous reputation. "I believe the Stoics who said posterity is not our business. While I'm alive, of course, I am. When I've fallen off the perch it won't matter."
But a subject's efforts – and by extension his or her representatives and heirs – to try to guide the writer's hand, at least from this side of the grave, is to be expected, says James Fox, journalist and writer, co-author of the autobiographies of Keith Richards, David Bailey and, yet to be published, Damien Hirst.
"If you get into the area of family biography, there's always somebody complaining about it, somebody withholding letters and so on," says Fox. "Everybody feels they possess this character and they don't want anyone else giving their own version of it because then they feel abandoned and don't feel special."
Questions underlying Roth's biography revolve around efforts to orchestrate posterity. Robert McCrum, former literary editor at the Observer, recalls an interview he conducted with Roth, who died in 2018, in which the author made it clear he expected in death, as in life, to exert narrative control.
"In old age Roth became monstrous with his own sense of grandeur. He'd always been a tremendous control-freak, and it's one of the fallacies that crops up in the world of books that writers think they can control their literary afterlives, which of course they can't."