I can't think of a single Steinbeck work that wasn't depressing. Not one of them has the slightest sense of hope or redemption.
I would agree, they are mostly nihilistic or heavy handed socialist.
But Travels With Charley is wonderful. It's a tale where Steinbeck drives around the country with his poodle.
Then again, it's non-fiction, so I guess it doesn't fit with his novels.
As far as books being "forbidden fruit" if they are controversial, that made me want to read them more.
There was an episode of Lou Grant where Rossi was talking about Catcher in the Rye being censored.
I read it soon thereafter and really enjoyed it.
I re-read it in HS as an assignment and didn't enjoy it as much as when I was 12.
But I did learn a whole lot about the symbolism that went completely over my head the first time. We also read the Lord of the Flies, and contrasted it. I didn't like it as much as Catcher.
Another "controversial" book is The Giver. I think it needs to be read by everyone. A totally dystopian society where old people are euthanized when they are no longer useful.
Not sure if it was the author's intent, but this is a very anti-socialist book. And it's very easy to see that this is how our society will turn out unless liberalism is completely vanquished.
You ever read his non-fiction classic Travels with Charley? That is one of my favorites, and I never found that depressing at all. As for the rest of his stuff...yeah, I agree.
“I can’t think of a single Steinbeck work that wasn’t depressing. Not one of them has the slightest sense of hope or redemption.”
Of Mice and Men?