Symbols for the Wordlessness: A Study of the Deep Structure of Steinbeck's Early Novels (review)

I first met Periaswamy Belaswamy in 2002 at the Steinbeck Centennial conference at Hofstra University on Long Island, where he delivered an essay applying Bakhtinian theory to the Cannery Row novels of Steinbeck. Belaswamy's approach was fresh and engaging, and I welcomed the arrival of his new book, Symbols for The Wordlessness. The controlling focus of Belaswamy's study is the allegorical and mythological reference points in Steinbeck's early work. Unfortunately, however, Belaswamy has chosen to isolate a single reference point for each novel, associating Of Mice and Men with the Cain myth, The Grapes of Wrath with the Exodus from Egypt, and Cannery Row with the Arthurian saga. Considering Steinbeck's penchant for combining, revising, and modifying source material and literary analogues, this decision seems unwise and very limiting. Although Belaswamy does not suggest that his primary associations are the only ones, the chapter headings give the impression that there are dominant myths that control each novel rather than a myriad of associations that contribute to Steinbeck's complexity.

While this defect is minimal, the real flaw in this study is its attempt to cover too many works in so few pages. Thus, a little over twenty pages is devoted to Of Mice and Men (a 100-page novel) while the lengthy The Grapes of Wrath (almost 600 pages) is allotted only seven more. The inequity seems egregious. Also, in an earlier review published by Steinbeck Studies of Japan (May 2006): 65, Yasuhiro Sakai has questioned Belaswamy's omission of The Red Pony and The Long Valley from this study. After all, if the volume is chronological and deals with early work, both titles qualify. One wonders what rationale eliminated them from consideration (perhaps their status as short stories). But even so, The Red Pony, like The Pearl and Of Mice and Men, may be considered a novella rather than four connected short stories.

A final criticism might be leveled at such Belaswamy sentences as the following: "One is often exasperated by the stereo-typicality of the characters" (92) and at his assessment of Steinbeck's early career as "the overwrought and laborious output of a period that had a pernicious impact on [Steinbeck's] style and thematic preferences." (92) These are harsh words indeed from an author intent on defending Steinbeck as a misunderstood allegorist.

These complaints aside, this volume does provide a convincing overview of early and late critics, emphasizing their almost universal conclusion and general agreement about Steinbeck's reliance on allegory and myth in his work. There are also chapters in which Belaswamy's unique skills as an Indian scholar shine. For example, his reading of To a God Unknown and his explanation of the Upanishad and the Vedic hymn will offer new insights to readers unfamiliar with the tenets of Eastern thought, especially Hinduism.

Along with Lawrence William Jones' monograph, Steinbeck as Fabulist [available in Steinbeck Monograph Series #1 (Ball State University 1973) and reprinted in Cain Sign: The Betrayal of Brotherhood in The Work of John Steinbeck (Mellen, 2000)], Belaswamy's work provides a competent overview of Steinbeck's allegorical tendencies while thoroughly summarizing previous scholars' views on this aspect of Steinbeck's technique. While there is little new ground here, the concepts that are retraced will be valuable to both the beginning and developing Steinbeck enthusiast.