'Travels with Charley' turns 60, 'Dogging Steinbeck' turns 10 and the truth prevails

In 1962 John Steinbeck's last major work hit No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction list. In 2012 I proved why it should have been on the fiction list.

I sent this friendly tweet to Brit Tony McKenna, who marked the 60th birthday of John Steinbeck's iconic 'Travels With Charley' road book this week with a long essay at Counterpunch.org (‘Travels With Charley at Age 60 — Steinbeck's Journey Into the Heart of the American Contradiction’).

"Very fine, thoughtful, well-written piece on 'TWC.' Thanks for mentioning my 'Dogging Steinbeck.' But pls read it. You may recoil at its libertarian spin, or wise-ass tone, but it'll balance your view of ‘TWC,’ Steinbeck and his/my USA."

‘Dogging Steinbeck,’ my 'true nonfiction' expose of the many fictions and fibs Steinbeck and his editors put into 'TWC,' turns 10 this year and is still selling a steady 5 to 10 copies a month on Amazon.

The New York Times editorial page praised me in 2011 for my truth-outing job but Steinbeck scholars and Steinbeck lovers were almost unanimously dismissive of my findings and definitely not pleased with my smart-ass, ex-opinion page columnist’s tone.

On my 11,270 mile road trip I stopped on what’s left of old Route 66 for a selfie.

Last fall, however, major Steinbeck scholar and nice guy Robert DeMott reviewed ‘Dogging Steinbeck’ and assessed the impact of my literary detective work for Steinbeck Review — which finally got around to reviewing my 2012 book.

DeMott was fair-minded but tough on me for my anti-scholarly ways and what he called my ‘hectoring tone.’

Yet how can I complain about his praise for my doggedness and my book’s impact on the field of Steinbeck studies?

He has the bulldog tenacity, bristling ego, single-minded purpose, and occasional mean streak that makes such commentators formidible opponents. His presence cannot be denied and refuses to go away, which of course has put many well-meaning commentators on the defensive.

I applaud his overall pluck, endurance, sleuthing efforts, and the dogged
detective work involved in tracing the elder writer’s route. Credit should be
given where credit belongs, for Steigerwald’s was an endeavor no one else
thought to undertake, and in the process he located (and photographed)
many of the physical places that Steinbeck visited on his extended U.S. drive-
about, among them Eleanor Brace’s spectacular house in Deer Isle, Maine, the
Westgate Motel in Beach, North Dakota, and wife Elaine’s former brother-
in-law’s cattle ranch near Clarendon, Texas.

Without Steigerwald’s sleuthing, who would have known of these venues? Further, we might never have discovered how many of the events, places, and persons Steinbeck might have made up after the fact without Steigerwald’s determined snooping.

DeMott’s review was tough on me but fair and balanced:

But ‘Dogging Steinbeck’ has become one of our most maligned Steinbeck-
related books in recent years, a lightning rod for all manner of personal, politi-
cal, and lit-crit dustups, and has been a book many informed readers have loved to hate.

The reason, I think, is the author’s self-important hectoring tone, his
finger-wagging criticism, his beleagured sense of being duped, and his liber -
tarian refusal to bow to any kind of elitist pretensions.

Instead of providing a biographical and literary context for understanding Steinbeck’s wildly popular but frequently flawed and clunky book, Steigerwald, a sort of Sean Hannity of culture reporters, leaped to the offensive. He has the bulldog tenacity, bristling ego, single-minded purpose, and occasional mean streak that makes such commentators formidible opponents. His presence cannot be denied and refuses to go away, which of course has put many well-meaning commentators on the defensive.

Calling me ‘a sort of Sean Hannity of culture reporters’ was an unjust political smear to a career libertarian like me. And though DeMott didn’t like the way I did what I did — which I did as a newspaper commentator, not a PhD aspirant — he was pleased by the results of my ‘expose’ and trouble-making.

Steigerwald’s book did have a direct influence: Penguin can no longer
market Travels with Charley as nonfiction, which I am not convinced is a
poor result.

DeMott’s critique probably will be the best I’ll ever get from the scholar sector — and I thanked him for it (after defending myself).

More about ‘DS” is here or here.

My favorite plugs come from three superior journalists who understood what I did and were not offended by the way I did it:

"Steinbeck falsified his trip. I am delighted that you went deep into this.” -- Paul Theroux, Author of “Deep South" and "The Tao of Travel"

"No book gave me more of a kick this year than Bill Steigerwald's investigative travelogue 'Dogging Steinbeck.'" -- Nick Gillespie, editor-in-chief of Reason.com

And how can I argue with this blurb from Phil Terzian, an old friend and literary editor of the now-gone conservative political magazine, the Weekly Standard?

Like more than a few writers in the past, Bill Steigerwald set out to pay homage -- in this case, to John Steinbeck's 'Travels With Charley' and discovered, to his horror, amusement, and indignation, that 'Travels' is fundamentally a work of fiction, with large sections, several episodes, and innumerable characters invented by the 1962 Nobel laureate. Steigerwald's laconic, self-deprecating style wears exceptionally well, and his pursuit of the great beast is both impressive and entertaining. Along the way he is ambushed by the Steinbeck Industry, such as it is, and finds his brilliant detective work greeted not with gratitude but churlishness. But such are the perils faced by literary pioneers, among whom Steigerwald now takes his place of honor. In the end, you will much prefer his company to Steinbeck's.

 –  Philip Terzian

Literary editor, The Weekly Standard