Posted on 05/24/2021 11:13:15 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A Stanford professor explains the importance of why “Murder at Full Moon” should be on bookshelves.
Long before he became one of America's most-well known novelists, Monterey County icon John Steinbeck wrote three books that were never published. Two of them he destroyed, but the other has remained in the archives, relatively unknown, until recently.
The unpublished novel is titled Murder at Full Moon. It’s a murder mystery involving werewolves.
“I was really surprised to discover that it wasn't some unfinished draft or some sort of just just wacky experiment. It was a complete novel,” said Stanford profession Gavin Jones.
Jones is one of the few to have ever read the novel.
“Steinbeck takes this atmosphere and turns it into detective fiction with a kind of an environmental twist to it. And it is you know, it's a potboiler. It's not something that we tend to associate with Steinbeck,” said Jones.
It may be unlike any of Steinbeck's other works, but what's the same is where it's located.
“supposedly it's set in somewhere like Castroville or Coastal Town or slightly inland town on a marsh in the kind of Monterey area, maybe north of Monterey,” explained Jones.
Jones says Steinbeck unsuccessfully tried publishing the book in his early career. Now, Jones wants the public to see Steinbeck as he's never been read before. However, Steinbeck's publisher has chosen not to publish it. They old the online publication, The Guardian, "Steinbeck wrote it under a pseudonym and did not choose to publish the work during his lifetime.”
Professor Jones says he hopes that in time the estate will change their mind.
It is not all that unusual for writers to take a stab at other genres besides the one they usually inhabit, once in a blue moon................
“Jones says Steinbeck unsuccessfully tried publishing the book in his early career”.
I wonder why Steinbeck chose to use a pseudonym.
Steinbeck couldn’t get this one published. Well, that’s encouraging to all us artists who do good work and can’t sell.
Probably because it was in a genre, and it would harm him in the literary market.
Too bad Steinbeck’s a Socialist - great writer. East of Eden was epic.
I enjoyed East of Eden and The Grapes of Wrath. Read them on a visit to my grandparents. I actually read them without anyone making me.
Contradiction. Publishers chose not to publish it early on.
Once he was a bestselling author, no doubt he could have published it, but chose not to then;.
Steinbeck could actually tell a story, not something to be taken for granted. Maybe 30 years ago there was one of the numerous revivals of ‘Of Mice And Men’. A critic said time had passed it by and it was too simple for modern audiences. Can’t recall the critic, ‘Of Mice And Men’ remains.
Which still makes the above statement untrue because he did try to publish it at one time "during his lifetime"
I watched an excellent biopic about Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings not long ago. She was an aspiring gothic novel author but that genre wasn’t going anywhere for her and her agent told her so. She wrote letters to her agent about her new, post-divorce life in Florida that were full of life and character. She eventually followed her agent’s advice and wrote about her experiences in Florida and became very successful.
I disagree. There was a brief period publishers chose not publish it. For the majority of his life it was no published by his choice.
Yes, but once he was an established and famous author, publishers would have published it, if he had offered it to them under his own name. He chose not to do that.
The first thing I think of when I read the name John Steinbeck has little to do with his novels.
I was a Fine Art student many decades ago, and had to study
Calligraphy, learn to use a Sumi Brush, study Chaucer’s Script and the various pen tips used..etc.
I was very impressed with Mr. Steinbecks handwritten script.
Quite precise, and fully clear. One would think he was using lined stationary for his notes. Every line is perfectly horizontal and properly spaced from the next line of copy. In this case, that neat, orderly style probably reflects the thinking process of the writer.
The size of his letters are tiny.
This may denote his slight insecurity, or reluctance in leaving any kind of record of his remarks.
A contrived cloak of assumed humility, as with poet e.e. cummings
It apparently also hasn't been proofread yet.
Likely he was a young, hungry writer trying a potboiler to make $. The writer’s life...
Your mention of a young hungry writer reminded me of a story Louis L’Amour told me when i was lucky enough to get an interview with him. When he was writing for cents on the word for pulp magazines, he would never write things like “Bart shot him down,” He’d instead write things like, “Griffith’s gun spoke first — a cacophony of bang bang bang that echoed off the desert floor. And it was still echoing when Bart shot him down.”
He said he had to chuckle when reviewers praised his descriptive style. It was developed in the interest of making more pennies!
The new Werewolf will be a woman
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.