What do you think?
Rate this book
Burning Bright
Written as a play in story form, this novel traces the story of a man ignorant of his own sterility, a wife who commits adultery to give her husband a child, the father of that child, and the outsider whose actions affect them all.
93 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1950
About the author
John Steinbeck
888 books23.6k followersJohn Ernst Steinbeck was an American writer. He won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humor and keen social perception". He has been called "a giant of American letters."
During his writing career, he authored 33 books, with one book coauthored alongside Edward F. Ricketts, including 16 novels, six non-fiction books, and two collections of short stories. He is widely known for the comic novels Tortilla Flat (1935) and Cannery Row (1945), the multi-generation epic East of Eden (1952), and the novellas The Red Pony (1933) and Of Mice and Men (1937). The Pulitzer Prize–winning The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is considered Steinbeck's masterpiece and part of the American literary canon. By the 75th anniversary of its publishing date, it had sold 14 million copies.
Most of Steinbeck's work is set in central California, particularly in the Salinas Valley and the California Coast Ranges region. His works frequently explored the themes of fate and injustice, especially as applied to downtrodden or everyman protagonists.
During his writing career, he authored 33 books, with one book coauthored alongside Edward F. Ricketts, including 16 novels, six non-fiction books, and two collections of short stories. He is widely known for the comic novels Tortilla Flat (1935) and Cannery Row (1945), the multi-generation epic East of Eden (1952), and the novellas The Red Pony (1933) and Of Mice and Men (1937). The Pulitzer Prize–winning The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is considered Steinbeck's masterpiece and part of the American literary canon. By the 75th anniversary of its publishing date, it had sold 14 million copies.
Most of Steinbeck's work is set in central California, particularly in the Salinas Valley and the California Coast Ranges region. His works frequently explored the themes of fate and injustice, especially as applied to downtrodden or everyman protagonists.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 298 reviews
January 26, 2023
That the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry is something John Steinbeck is very familiar with, making this idea thematically central to many of his works, yet in Burning Bright we see this idea befalling his own book. It is a ‘play-novelette’ as he called it, not unlike The Moon Is Down, though here the mixture of prose and play-format dialogue swings heavily towards the dialogue. It tells the story of a couple, Joe Saul—one of Steinbeck’s signature ‘everyman’ characters—and his with Mordeen who, wanting to give a child to her husband but fearing he is sterile, gets pregnant with Joe’s arrogant assistant, Victor. Rounding out the cast is Ed, Joe’s best and most loyal friend, and across four different settings the characters discuss their situation and muse about life in typical Steinbeck fashion. Unfortunately, this comes across rather stilted and while the dialogue has some beautiful moments it is also a tad overwrought. This would perhaps work much better as a radio play or on the stage, but feels rather lifeless upon the page. Still a worthwhile read with glimmers of what makes Steinbeck such a beloved classic writer, Burning Bright is a rather dim light in his impressive oeuvre.
There is much to enjoy in Burning Bright, however. The play breaks into four scenes with a different setting for each: a circus, a farm, a boat and a hospital. While their personalities and present drama remains the same, each setting has the characters with different backgrounds to fit the setting (they all live in nearby farms in one, or are all sailors in another). Steinbeck tries to make the story a universal one, a story that fits over any social circle or setting, which is a really cool concept and while it is a bit jarring I think it would look cool in a play. It also plays into the idea that Joe is the ‘everyman,’ a concept that Steinbeck often worked into his novels and characters like Joe, or, say, Ethan from The Winter of Our Discontent, become a bit of a barometer of the soul and social values of mid-century United States.
The whole plotline with his Mordeen sleeping with the completely despicable Victor, who is portrayed as an usurper, has some Biblical seeming vibes but is also just a bit not great. It makes her function almost solely for her role in upholding the emotional states and legacies of the two men and serving mostly for her childbearing abilities than as a person with her own agency. Nobody has ever called Steinbeck a feminist writer for sure, but this felt a little egregious here.
I do enjoy Ed, however, and his name recalls Steinbeck’s good friend Ed Ricketts who is the inspiration for many Steinbeck characters such as Doc in Cannery Row. Ed is quite likeable here and helps Joe through his existential crises once he realizes he is, in fact, infertile and there is no way the baby can be his.
It does all lead up to a satisfying conclusion, with an large idea that ‘every man is father to all children and every child must have all men as father.’ This is classic Steinbeck, the idea that we are all one family and must care for each other and raise the human race together. I just feel like he did this more effectively in other books. Burning Bright is a curious and interesting experiment in the lengthy list of Steinbeck books, and it is nice to see him playing with his own craft. While it didn’t fully work here, there are some lovely moments and at least Steinbeck was pushing himself to create in fresh and dynamic ways. A worthwhile read, though one that will likely most interest long-time fans while I would caution newcomers to try some of his other books first.
3/5
There is much to enjoy in Burning Bright, however. The play breaks into four scenes with a different setting for each: a circus, a farm, a boat and a hospital. While their personalities and present drama remains the same, each setting has the characters with different backgrounds to fit the setting (they all live in nearby farms in one, or are all sailors in another). Steinbeck tries to make the story a universal one, a story that fits over any social circle or setting, which is a really cool concept and while it is a bit jarring I think it would look cool in a play. It also plays into the idea that Joe is the ‘everyman,’ a concept that Steinbeck often worked into his novels and characters like Joe, or, say, Ethan from The Winter of Our Discontent, become a bit of a barometer of the soul and social values of mid-century United States.
The whole plotline with his Mordeen sleeping with the completely despicable Victor, who is portrayed as an usurper, has some Biblical seeming vibes but is also just a bit not great. It makes her function almost solely for her role in upholding the emotional states and legacies of the two men and serving mostly for her childbearing abilities than as a person with her own agency. Nobody has ever called Steinbeck a feminist writer for sure, but this felt a little egregious here.
I do enjoy Ed, however, and his name recalls Steinbeck’s good friend Ed Ricketts who is the inspiration for many Steinbeck characters such as Doc in Cannery Row. Ed is quite likeable here and helps Joe through his existential crises once he realizes he is, in fact, infertile and there is no way the baby can be his.
It does all lead up to a satisfying conclusion, with an large idea that ‘every man is father to all children and every child must have all men as father.’ This is classic Steinbeck, the idea that we are all one family and must care for each other and raise the human race together. I just feel like he did this more effectively in other books. Burning Bright is a curious and interesting experiment in the lengthy list of Steinbeck books, and it is nice to see him playing with his own craft. While it didn’t fully work here, there are some lovely moments and at least Steinbeck was pushing himself to create in fresh and dynamic ways. A worthwhile read, though one that will likely most interest long-time fans while I would caution newcomers to try some of his other books first.
3/5
February 7, 2022
This is my second work by John Steinbeck (Yes, yes, I know… who the hell picks this one over his more popular works?) and I will tell you now I made the wrong choice.
The book is an experiment by Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men and apparently The Moon is Down (I have not read this second one, so I am basing it on his forward), he tried to write very conversation driven books with very few actual scenes, the goal being to create almost a bridge between novel form and that of a play. Burning Bright takes that experiment up to 11 even being subtitled "A Play in Story Form." In fact the book was released almost at the same time as it went on stage with Steinbeck always intending it to be performed.
The play was a failure and ran only thirteen performances. The book was also savaged by critics at the time. Steinbeck said he wasn't disappointed, and that he intended to write in this style again, but tellingly he never published another work like it, instead focusing on more traditional works.
I'll put it simply, while I genuinely would be fascinated to see this as a play, it would mostly be to see how it is performed as it’s a train-wreck. The plot follows four people, a married couple, their friend and a man who is partnered up with the husband. They get philosophical, they discuss the importance of continuing a family line and the husband worries about the fact that his wife can't get pregnant. A melodramatic soap opera follows.
One of the things I loved about Of Mice and Men was how Steinbeck captured language. Yes, people waxed philosophical at times, but the wording felt legit. It felt real even when I questioned it… not so here.
For example after the husband character tells his friend that he would like to buy his wife a gift he gives this little bit of dialogue: "… something like a ceremony, something like a golden sacrament, some pearl like a prayer or red flaring ruby of thanks. Some hard, tangible humility of mine that she can hold in the palm of her hand or wear dangling from a ribbon at her throat. That's a compulsion on me, Friend Ed. Come with me. I must get this thing. My joy requires a symbol…"
WHO THE HELL TALKS LIKE THIS? The dialogue is the worst combination of melodramatic theatrical dialogue and trying to capture genuine speech. This doesn't sound like how real people talk, and I should note that was one of the things he was going for at the time. It's an utter failure and never once feels like we're reading or watching real people.
If you're wanting to see Steinbeck do a very forced melodrama, give it a shot. Personally I was interested in seeing the "Play in Story Form" structure and while an interesting experiment, he just doesn't pull it off at all here. 1/5 stars.
The book is an experiment by Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men and apparently The Moon is Down (I have not read this second one, so I am basing it on his forward), he tried to write very conversation driven books with very few actual scenes, the goal being to create almost a bridge between novel form and that of a play. Burning Bright takes that experiment up to 11 even being subtitled "A Play in Story Form." In fact the book was released almost at the same time as it went on stage with Steinbeck always intending it to be performed.
The play was a failure and ran only thirteen performances. The book was also savaged by critics at the time. Steinbeck said he wasn't disappointed, and that he intended to write in this style again, but tellingly he never published another work like it, instead focusing on more traditional works.
I'll put it simply, while I genuinely would be fascinated to see this as a play, it would mostly be to see how it is performed as it’s a train-wreck. The plot follows four people, a married couple, their friend and a man who is partnered up with the husband. They get philosophical, they discuss the importance of continuing a family line and the husband worries about the fact that his wife can't get pregnant. A melodramatic soap opera follows.
One of the things I loved about Of Mice and Men was how Steinbeck captured language. Yes, people waxed philosophical at times, but the wording felt legit. It felt real even when I questioned it… not so here.
For example after the husband character tells his friend that he would like to buy his wife a gift he gives this little bit of dialogue: "… something like a ceremony, something like a golden sacrament, some pearl like a prayer or red flaring ruby of thanks. Some hard, tangible humility of mine that she can hold in the palm of her hand or wear dangling from a ribbon at her throat. That's a compulsion on me, Friend Ed. Come with me. I must get this thing. My joy requires a symbol…"
WHO THE HELL TALKS LIKE THIS? The dialogue is the worst combination of melodramatic theatrical dialogue and trying to capture genuine speech. This doesn't sound like how real people talk, and I should note that was one of the things he was going for at the time. It's an utter failure and never once feels like we're reading or watching real people.
If you're wanting to see Steinbeck do a very forced melodrama, give it a shot. Personally I was interested in seeing the "Play in Story Form" structure and while an interesting experiment, he just doesn't pull it off at all here. 1/5 stars.
May 8, 2023
A short story by one of my favorites. About a man and his desire to have a child of his own. The story is filled with emotions and human struggle to live a meaningful life. Filled with twist and pushing to ones limit. The lie unravels leaving one to wonder if the child will be accepted and what the child really would mean to Joe.
March 6, 2015
3.5 Stars
I have a fondness for Steinbeck, and so it is with great regret that I have to criticize this novella. My edition comes in at a whopping 93 pages, and I really think that about a quarter of that should've found its way to the cutting room floor. There are better ways to convey concepts and ideas than repetition. There are better ways of showing emotion than overwrought dialogue. Perhaps if this had been written in more of a standard play format, it wouldn't have felt that way... but working it up as a novel format makes it seem a bit awkward.
But this was an experiment, I think, in the fact that each act takes place in a different setting. First, the main characters are part of a circus, then they are farmers, then sailors. I'm not sure just what the point of this was - it almost seems like they are alternate versions of the characters - but as each one picks up where the last has left off, it's a little... weird. It definitely took me by surprise the first time it shifted, but I stuck with it. It's not like it was a huge time investment.
If the technical aspects of the story are removed, though, and we just look at the themes, it's the Steinbeck I've come to love. He writes about human emotion and need so convincingly, and understands the dynamics of relationship so well, that it's hard not to identify with his characters. I can't say that any of these characters are favorites - they have nothing on Tom Joad or Lenny and George, but they are well-written, understandable, identifiable characters that carry the story, each in their own way.
So, I don't think that Burning Bright will ever be a favorite of mine. But it is a decent story (if a bit... unusual) and one which has an interesting morality and ethical dilemma at its core. I'd definitely recommend it... but it's Steinbeck. Like that's a chore. ;)
I have a fondness for Steinbeck, and so it is with great regret that I have to criticize this novella. My edition comes in at a whopping 93 pages, and I really think that about a quarter of that should've found its way to the cutting room floor. There are better ways to convey concepts and ideas than repetition. There are better ways of showing emotion than overwrought dialogue. Perhaps if this had been written in more of a standard play format, it wouldn't have felt that way... but working it up as a novel format makes it seem a bit awkward.
But this was an experiment, I think, in the fact that each act takes place in a different setting. First, the main characters are part of a circus, then they are farmers, then sailors. I'm not sure just what the point of this was - it almost seems like they are alternate versions of the characters - but as each one picks up where the last has left off, it's a little... weird. It definitely took me by surprise the first time it shifted, but I stuck with it. It's not like it was a huge time investment.
If the technical aspects of the story are removed, though, and we just look at the themes, it's the Steinbeck I've come to love. He writes about human emotion and need so convincingly, and understands the dynamics of relationship so well, that it's hard not to identify with his characters. I can't say that any of these characters are favorites - they have nothing on Tom Joad or Lenny and George, but they are well-written, understandable, identifiable characters that carry the story, each in their own way.
So, I don't think that Burning Bright will ever be a favorite of mine. But it is a decent story (if a bit... unusual) and one which has an interesting morality and ethical dilemma at its core. I'd definitely recommend it... but it's Steinbeck. Like that's a chore. ;)
June 20, 2021
Nobody is going to say this should be mentioned alongside Steinbeck's best work. They won't even say it belongs in his second tier of writing. But as the publisher noted in the original paperback version of Burning Bright: "Authors don't become best-sellers by accident. Two reasons why John Steinbeck is a hugely successful author are 1) because he's not afraid of new ideas, and 2) he has an ear close to the pulse of his times." The first point is why there is value in reading Burning Bright--because in it Steinbeck tries to combine a play format with the functionality of a novelette. The result has clunky dialogue that you won't find in his other writing but you also get to read a truly great writer experimenting with a new form.
January 23, 2021
El placer de encontrar que te faltaba de leer un título
November 21, 2023
The eternal love triangle. Older man/young wife/frisky young buck. The old man is infertile but they are desperate for a child. Surely in these circumstances it isn't really adultery?
Not my cup of tea
Not my cup of tea
Read
June 9, 2009May we all have a friend like Friend Ed.
May 28, 2013
My husband and I had met each other only a few weeks before I read this unforgettable little novel. He could not believe that a book could make anybody cry so much!
May 15, 2022
Como dice el mismo autor, un drama en forma novelada. Está contada en tres actos y en tres lugares distintos, es algo que no entiendo muy bien, pero la historia principal continúa y se sigue perfectamente.
Una historia con solo cuatro personajes, no necesita más. Una historia corta , como siempre, muy bien narrada por la pluma de Steinbeck. No es de las obras que más me ha gustado pero es bastante buena.
Una historia con solo cuatro personajes, no necesita más. Una historia corta , como siempre, muy bien narrada por la pluma de Steinbeck. No es de las obras que más me ha gustado pero es bastante buena.
November 6, 2013
It boggles that I'd give any Steinbeck work a three-star rating, since I think he's one of the hallowed masters, but this little curio of a book didn't move me. It's such an odd work—he dubbed it a "play-novelette"—set in three acts, with the stage trappings of place and character declaration drawn in, to me, stiff caricature. The speech of the players often has a blustery formality that kept me at a distance, though some passages have the rich Steinbeck hand. Perhaps if I hadn't read a good deal of Steinbeck I could approach this more open-heartedly, but as it was, I was left more puzzled than illumined.
(By the way, I realize I haven't in the least addressed what the durn thing is about, but I just ain't a gonna. So there.)
(By the way, I realize I haven't in the least addressed what the durn thing is about, but I just ain't a gonna. So there.)
September 26, 2013
The play novellette is what Steinbeck talking about, but the real thing is that he could't write a play. What he discussed in the foreword didn't convinced me at all. It's a novellette where all events happened in one place every chapter, or a play with a lot of description.
I liked "of mice and men", didn't read "the moon is down", but "burning bright" was a complete disaster, the story is very silly and stupid, the chracters are shallow and unconvincing, the only remarkabe thing is that changing the place and characters sets every chapter.
I liked "of mice and men", didn't read "the moon is down", but "burning bright" was a complete disaster, the story is very silly and stupid, the chracters are shallow and unconvincing, the only remarkabe thing is that changing the place and characters sets every chapter.
December 4, 2022
Lots going on in a short book, wasn’t expecting it to be that dark a novel
June 9, 2023
This was another Library Book Discussion group selection that I am now bringing my review to Goodreads.
This is not a typical Steinbeck novel. Actually it is more a play/novella. Not a popular one.
Premise: Joe Saul wants a child. But he is unable to do so with his young wife, Mordeen. She gets pregnant with the help of their hired hand, Victor. Joe is elated, but Victor feels used. Of course, Joe doesn't realize he is not the father, and Victor wants him to know. Mordeen tries to convince him not to tell Joe, because she wants to please her husband, and doesn't want him to know the extent she went to, to give him this child.
Bottom line it does not end happily for any of the characters.
The problem with this novella/play is the stilted dialogue. It does not sound natural - real, or like anything anybody would actually say.
The scenes are also off. What the characters do is off.
Do we care about the characters as readers?
As off as this story was, it was a great discussion selection, because there was so much ambiguity.
So what can any reader do?
Exit stage left.
This is not a typical Steinbeck novel. Actually it is more a play/novella. Not a popular one.
Premise: Joe Saul wants a child. But he is unable to do so with his young wife, Mordeen. She gets pregnant with the help of their hired hand, Victor. Joe is elated, but Victor feels used. Of course, Joe doesn't realize he is not the father, and Victor wants him to know. Mordeen tries to convince him not to tell Joe, because she wants to please her husband, and doesn't want him to know the extent she went to, to give him this child.
Bottom line it does not end happily for any of the characters.
The problem with this novella/play is the stilted dialogue. It does not sound natural - real, or like anything anybody would actually say.
The scenes are also off. What the characters do is off.
Do we care about the characters as readers?
As off as this story was, it was a great discussion selection, because there was so much ambiguity.
So what can any reader do?
Exit stage left.
December 20, 2023
It was a randomly absurd book that portrays the story of a man who ignores his infertility but suffers from the incessant desire to have a child, his wife who commits adultery in order to give her husband a child and the child's father.
It also talks about the importance attributed at that time to maintaining the existence of people of the same blood, thus there being a great need for reproduction.
A man who was a friend of the couple initially seemed insignificant even though he knew the woman was committing adultery, yet he was the most crucial person in the whole story.
It was an interesting book that I can only associate with absurdism for some reason, however I can't justify why I liked the work so much. It was the first time I read John Steinbeck, however after this first experience I want to read more of his books.
It was a proof of love that undermines immense intrinsic values that I actually value.
It also talks about the importance attributed at that time to maintaining the existence of people of the same blood, thus there being a great need for reproduction.
A man who was a friend of the couple initially seemed insignificant even though he knew the woman was committing adultery, yet he was the most crucial person in the whole story.
It was an interesting book that I can only associate with absurdism for some reason, however I can't justify why I liked the work so much. It was the first time I read John Steinbeck, however after this first experience I want to read more of his books.
It was a proof of love that undermines immense intrinsic values that I actually value.
January 9, 2024
frightening to think that this could be someone's very first introduction to steinbeck because it would almost certainly turn them off of him forever.... burning bright is for the completionists (esp. those who have already read the almost perfect the moon is down) who can appreciate what s. is doing so innovatively with form without being put off by the wildly melodramatic dialogue. we steinbeck girlies love a mature writer still experimenting and working playfully with language despite the (quite frankly huge) possibility of failure <333
April 25, 2018
What the heck is a play-novelette? Answer: this book!
As a novelette - 3 stars because the story is interesting enough to finish (although a bit cliche by now, maybe not so beginning 1900s). Widowed husband remarries and wants a child, he's sterile but too proud to get tested or to admit the possibility. New wife loves him so much she gets pregnant and tries to pass it as his own. The actual father falls for her. Husband's best friend turns a blind eye and comes to everyone's aid when needed. The problem is that the story is rather linear and the conflict is never strong enough. Steinbeck being Steinbeck is so good at revealing the inner nature of his characters that he forgets the need for intense conflict in a play. So why a novelette format? Steinbeck expresses the difficulties he has reading plays and that this form is valid for non-theater productions and the general reader... which brings me to:
As a play - 1 star because the tension is lacking, and going into characters thoughts implies the action doesn't show what the characters are feeling, only the narrative does so. The beauty of reading plays is seeing the eventful and artistic ways in which writers have their characters demonstrate their emotions. Not to mention the awkward dialogue with name dropping - I mean how often do you mention a person's name when you are talking to them? Never. The beauty of a play format is having the tags that you register as you read but never focus on.
Conclusion: should've stuck to writing novels only, Mr Steinbeck, that's definitely your forte.
As a novelette - 3 stars because the story is interesting enough to finish (although a bit cliche by now, maybe not so beginning 1900s). Widowed husband remarries and wants a child, he's sterile but too proud to get tested or to admit the possibility. New wife loves him so much she gets pregnant and tries to pass it as his own. The actual father falls for her. Husband's best friend turns a blind eye and comes to everyone's aid when needed. The problem is that the story is rather linear and the conflict is never strong enough. Steinbeck being Steinbeck is so good at revealing the inner nature of his characters that he forgets the need for intense conflict in a play. So why a novelette format? Steinbeck expresses the difficulties he has reading plays and that this form is valid for non-theater productions and the general reader... which brings me to:
As a play - 1 star because the tension is lacking, and going into characters thoughts implies the action doesn't show what the characters are feeling, only the narrative does so. The beauty of reading plays is seeing the eventful and artistic ways in which writers have their characters demonstrate their emotions. Not to mention the awkward dialogue with name dropping - I mean how often do you mention a person's name when you are talking to them? Never. The beauty of a play format is having the tags that you register as you read but never focus on.
Conclusion: should've stuck to writing novels only, Mr Steinbeck, that's definitely your forte.
February 25, 2024
For a book comprising of the sauciest of ingredients: murder, deceit, adultery, betrayal, tragedy., it was just super-incredibly LAAAAAAAAME.
September 6, 2009
the third and final of steinbeck's "play-novelettes" (after of mice and men and the moon is down), burning bright is a brief, yet remarkably powerful exploration of pride and paternity. steinbeck considered the work an experiment, "a combination of many old forms." in the foreword he outlines his reasons for attempting this synthesis, well aware of the format's inherent obstacles: "the difficulties of the technique are very great. the writer whose whole training has lain in the play is content to leave physical matters to his director or set designer and has not learned to use description as a fiction writer does. on the other hand, the fiction writer has been trained to let his description pick up his dialogue, and he tends to depart from the tight structure of the theater. if a writer is not accustomed to seeing his story before his eyes, his use of this form is not likely to be successful." while the form itself is, perhaps, not as potent as either of its parts alone, steinbeck's endeavoring to craft a new literary structure is both brave and admirable.
burning bright bears many similarities to greek drama, though lacks its depth and brilliance. as a morality play, steinbeck succeeds in conjuring a situation wherein individuals struggle with the bounds of propriety and duty. his focus on overcoming the work's structural constraints, however, undermines the overall effect of the ethical dilemma he directs the reader to consider. to be fair, this cannot be an easy format to write within, and perhaps because of that, the book (as well as the stage play) was met with a rather cool reception. nonetheless, this work further demonstrates steinbeck's commitment to exploring human compassion when confronted with hardship. he is neither sanctimonious nor reductive, but seemingly content to craft a tale that illustrates the essence of the ongoing human drama. this is not steinbeck's strongest outing, yet that is no reason to forsake it altogether. like any intriguing work of art, burning bright raises more questions than it ever attempts to answer.
burning bright bears many similarities to greek drama, though lacks its depth and brilliance. as a morality play, steinbeck succeeds in conjuring a situation wherein individuals struggle with the bounds of propriety and duty. his focus on overcoming the work's structural constraints, however, undermines the overall effect of the ethical dilemma he directs the reader to consider. to be fair, this cannot be an easy format to write within, and perhaps because of that, the book (as well as the stage play) was met with a rather cool reception. nonetheless, this work further demonstrates steinbeck's commitment to exploring human compassion when confronted with hardship. he is neither sanctimonious nor reductive, but seemingly content to craft a tale that illustrates the essence of the ongoing human drama. this is not steinbeck's strongest outing, yet that is no reason to forsake it altogether. like any intriguing work of art, burning bright raises more questions than it ever attempts to answer.
it is the race, the species that must go staggering on. mordeen, our ugly little species, weak and ugly, torn with insanities, violent and quarrelsome, sensing evil- the only species that knows evil and practices it- the only one that sense cleanness and is dirty, that knows about cruelty and is unbearably cruel.
our dear race, born without courage but very brave, born with a flickering intelligence and yet with beauty in its hands. what animal has made beauty, created it, save only we? with all our horrors and our faults, somewhere in us there is a shining. this is the most important of all facts. there is a shining.
August 16, 2015
"Chama Devoradora" é um livro original na forma como conta a história que Joe Saul, Mordeen, Vítor e Amigo Ed partilham. Estes são os nomes que Steinbeck decidiu dar às suas personagens, mas poderiam ter sido outros porque o que eles representam é a espécie humana, as nossas preocupações, os nossos anseios, os nossos desejos e objectivos. As realidades de onde vimos até podem ser diferentes, mas na essência somos de facto muito semelhantes, programados para preservar a espécie, embora muitas vezes pareça exactamente o oposto.
Em três cenários à primeira vista díspares, um Circo, uma Quinta e no Mar, eles vão ser confrontados com dilemas morais, escolhas difíceis. Vão lutar pelo que acreditam, vão cometer injustiças e provocar angústias nos que amam. Vão percorrer um caminho juntos, aprender, crescer e no fim perceber que estavam errados. :)
Foi bom voltar a Steinbeck numa história deste tipo, muito diferente das que lhe são tão características. Uma espécie de experiência literária, explicada pelo próprio no início do livro e que lhe correu francamente bem.
Steinbeck não se recomenda, os livros dele são uma espécie de inevitabilidade à qual nenhum leitor quererá escapar. ☺
Boas leituras!
Em três cenários à primeira vista díspares, um Circo, uma Quinta e no Mar, eles vão ser confrontados com dilemas morais, escolhas difíceis. Vão lutar pelo que acreditam, vão cometer injustiças e provocar angústias nos que amam. Vão percorrer um caminho juntos, aprender, crescer e no fim perceber que estavam errados. :)
Foi bom voltar a Steinbeck numa história deste tipo, muito diferente das que lhe são tão características. Uma espécie de experiência literária, explicada pelo próprio no início do livro e que lhe correu francamente bem.
Steinbeck não se recomenda, os livros dele são uma espécie de inevitabilidade à qual nenhum leitor quererá escapar. ☺
Boas leituras!
September 24, 2011
“Ярко сияние” на Стайнбек е нещо малко и красиво: http://www.knigolandia.info/2009/11/b...
Не очаквах това книжле да ми хареса. Купих го, защото обожавам Стайнбек, особено потресаващите “Грозодовете на гнева” и “Тортила Флет”.
И все пак останах потресен след изчитане на стотината странички. Големият майстор доказва за пореден път, че може всичко, наистина всичко.
Не очаквах това книжле да ми хареса. Купих го, защото обожавам Стайнбек, особено потресаващите “Грозодовете на гнева” и “Тортила Флет”.
И все пак останах потресен след изчитане на стотината странички. Големият майстор доказва за пореден път, че може всичко, наистина всичко.
February 28, 2013
My least favorite Steinbeck novel, but I'm glad I gave it a second chance. I still think it's a failure, and by far the least satisfying of his play-novelette experiments, but there are still moments of classic Steinbeck brilliance, in the characters and the descriptions, if not in the story.
July 30, 2015
Bir Gazap Üzümleri değil ama John Steinbeck ne yazdıysa okunur.
Read
January 23, 2024" - لانني صفعتك؟
- نعم، لا احب ان اتواجد في مكان صفعت فيه
- ولكنني اعتذرت "
الاحتراق الساطع (بالإنجليزية: Burning Bright) عبارة عن رواية من عام 1950 لجون ستاينبيك، كتبت كتجربة لإنتاج مسرحية بشكل رواية. بدلاً من تقديم الحوار وتوجيهات المنصة المختصرة فقط كما هو متوقع في المسرحية، يجسد ستاينبيك المشاهد بتفاصيل عن الشخصيات والبيئة. كان القصد هو السماح للقارئ غير المسرحي بقراءة المسرحية مع السماح في ذات الوقت بنقل الحوار وأدائه دون تعديل يذكر من قبل شركات التمثيل. بينما كان بإمكان ستاينبيك أن يرى أن توفير القليل من المعلومات في سبيل الوصف المادي أو توجيهات المنصة قد أعطى للمخرج و��لممثلين مزيدًا من الحرية وإمكانية التأدية التخيليّة، إلا أنه كان يقارن ذلك بفائدة جعل الممثلين يدركون نية المؤلف وجعل المسرحية متاحة للقارئ العام.
الحبكة
القصة عبارة عن مسرحية أخلاقية بسيطة تتعلق بجوي شاول، وهو رجل كبير في السن مستميت في سبيل الحصول على طفل. تشتبه زوجته الشابة، موردين، التي تحبه، في أنه عقيم، ومن أجل إرضائه بحملها طفلًا، أصبحت حاملًا من قبل مساعد شاول الصغير المغرور فيكتور. الشخصية الرابعة في القصة هي فريند إد، صديق قديم لشاول وموردين، الذي يساعد الزوجين خلال المحنة بعد أن يكتشف جو أنه فعلًا عقيم ولا يمكن للطفل أن يكون طفله. القصد من القصة هو أن تكون قصة إنسان عادي (في وقت مبكر من تطورها كان ستاينبيك قد فكر في تسمية المسرحية الإنسان العادي)، وبالتالي فإن إعداد كل واحد من الفصول الثلاثة يعيد صياغة الشخصيات الأربعة في مواقف مختلفة: يتم تعيين الفصل الأول في سيرك، شاول وفيكتور فنانين بهلوانيين وفريند إد، مهرجًا؛ في الفصل الثاني، يصبح شاول وفريند إد مزارعين متجاورين، ويظهر فيكتور كعامل في مزرعة شاول. في الفصل الأخير شاول يكون ربّان السفينة، والسيد فيكتور، مرافقه، وفريند إد بحار على وشك الإطلاق على سفينة مختلفة. ينقسم الفصل الثالث إلى مشهدين؛ يكون المشهد الأخير في مستشفى حيث يولد الطفل؛ ولا يشير إلى أي من محاور الفصول الثلاثة، وبذلك يكون بمثابة خاتمة لأي قصة من القصص بالتساوي.
تطور الرواية
كانت الاحتراق الساطع هي المحاولة الثالثة لستاينبيك في كتابة ما أسماه «رواية مسرحية». لقد جرب شيئًا مماثلاً في ر��اية فئران ورجال في عام 1937 ورواية في مغيب القمر في عام 1942، ولكن من بين الثلاثة، كانت الاحتراق الساطع المحاولة الأكثر اكتمالًا في هذا النوع. يعتقد ستاينبيك أنه ربما كان أول شخص يجرب هذا الأسلوب. في وقت كتابة المقدمة، التي أوضح فيها نواياه، اعتقد أنها شكل من شأنه أن يحمل المزيد من التجارب. استمرارًا للتجربة، خُطط لافتتاح إنتاج مسرحي في نفس الوقت الذي نُشر فيه الكتاب. كان العنوان الأصلي للكتاب، في غابات الليل، عبارة عن سطر من كتاب النمر لويليام بلايك، لكن الشكاوى من أنه كان طويلًا جدًا وأدبيًا للغاية من قبل مُنتجي المسرحية أدت إلى تغييره إلى المقتطف الأقصر من نفس القصيدة: الاحتراق الساطع.
يُشار إلى فريند إد أنه واحد من مجموعة الشخصيات المستوحاة من الصديق المقرب لستاينبيك، إد ريكيتس. في الوقت الذي كتب فيه ستاينبيك الاحتراق الساطع، كان ريكيتس قد قُتل مؤخرًا في حادث سيارة، وكما يعكس شخصية صديقه في شخصية فريند إد، يُعتقد أن محاور فصول السيرك والبحر قد يكون لهما أهمية بالنسبة إلى ستاينبيك: كان على ما يبدو في مرحلة كتابة السيرك عندما علم بموت ريكيتس، ودُفن ريكيتس بجوار البحر.
- نعم، لا احب ان اتواجد في مكان صفعت فيه
- ولكنني اعتذرت "
الاحتراق الساطع (بالإنجليزية: Burning Bright) عبارة عن رواية من عام 1950 لجون ستاينبيك، كتبت كتجربة لإنتاج مسرحية بشكل رواية. بدلاً من تقديم الحوار وتوجيهات المنصة المختصرة فقط كما هو متوقع في المسرحية، يجسد ستاينبيك المشاهد بتفاصيل عن الشخصيات والبيئة. كان القصد هو السماح للقارئ غير المسرحي بقراءة المسرحية مع السماح في ذات الوقت بنقل الحوار وأدائه دون تعديل يذكر من قبل شركات التمثيل. بينما كان بإمكان ستاينبيك أن يرى أن توفير القليل من المعلومات في سبيل الوصف المادي أو توجيهات المنصة قد أعطى للمخرج و��لممثلين مزيدًا من الحرية وإمكانية التأدية التخيليّة، إلا أنه كان يقارن ذلك بفائدة جعل الممثلين يدركون نية المؤلف وجعل المسرحية متاحة للقارئ العام.
الحبكة
القصة عبارة عن مسرحية أخلاقية بسيطة تتعلق بجوي شاول، وهو رجل كبير في السن مستميت في سبيل الحصول على طفل. تشتبه زوجته الشابة، موردين، التي تحبه، في أنه عقيم، ومن أجل إرضائه بحملها طفلًا، أصبحت حاملًا من قبل مساعد شاول الصغير المغرور فيكتور. الشخصية الرابعة في القصة هي فريند إد، صديق قديم لشاول وموردين، الذي يساعد الزوجين خلال المحنة بعد أن يكتشف جو أنه فعلًا عقيم ولا يمكن للطفل أن يكون طفله. القصد من القصة هو أن تكون قصة إنسان عادي (في وقت مبكر من تطورها كان ستاينبيك قد فكر في تسمية المسرحية الإنسان العادي)، وبالتالي فإن إعداد كل واحد من الفصول الثلاثة يعيد صياغة الشخصيات الأربعة في مواقف مختلفة: يتم تعيين الفصل الأول في سيرك، شاول وفيكتور فنانين بهلوانيين وفريند إد، مهرجًا؛ في الفصل الثاني، يصبح شاول وفريند إد مزارعين متجاورين، ويظهر فيكتور كعامل في مزرعة شاول. في الفصل الأخير شاول يكون ربّان السفينة، والسيد فيكتور، مرافقه، وفريند إد بحار على وشك الإطلاق على سفينة مختلفة. ينقسم الفصل الثالث إلى مشهدين؛ يكون المشهد الأخير في مستشفى حيث يولد الطفل؛ ولا يشير إلى أي من محاور الفصول الثلاثة، وبذلك يكون بمثابة خاتمة لأي قصة من القصص بالتساوي.
تطور الرواية
كانت الاحتراق الساطع هي المحاولة الثالثة لستاينبيك في كتابة ما أسماه «رواية مسرحية». لقد جرب شيئًا مماثلاً في ر��اية فئران ورجال في عام 1937 ورواية في مغيب القمر في عام 1942، ولكن من بين الثلاثة، كانت الاحتراق الساطع المحاولة الأكثر اكتمالًا في هذا النوع. يعتقد ستاينبيك أنه ربما كان أول شخص يجرب هذا الأسلوب. في وقت كتابة المقدمة، التي أوضح فيها نواياه، اعتقد أنها شكل من شأنه أن يحمل المزيد من التجارب. استمرارًا للتجربة، خُطط لافتتاح إنتاج مسرحي في نفس الوقت الذي نُشر فيه الكتاب. كان العنوان الأصلي للكتاب، في غابات الليل، عبارة عن سطر من كتاب النمر لويليام بلايك، لكن الشكاوى من أنه كان طويلًا جدًا وأدبيًا للغاية من قبل مُنتجي المسرحية أدت إلى تغييره إلى المقتطف الأقصر من نفس القصيدة: الاحتراق الساطع.
يُشار إلى فريند إد أنه واحد من مجموعة الشخصيات المستوحاة من الصديق المقرب لستاينبيك، إد ريكيتس. في الوقت الذي كتب فيه ستاينبيك الاحتراق الساطع، كان ريكيتس قد قُتل مؤخرًا في حادث سيارة، وكما يعكس شخصية صديقه في شخصية فريند إد، يُعتقد أن محاور فصول السيرك والبحر قد يكون لهما أهمية بالنسبة إلى ستاينبيك: كان على ما يبدو في مرحلة كتابة السيرك عندما علم بموت ريكيتس، ودُفن ريكيتس بجوار البحر.
July 15, 2023
I ain't gonna lie I'm not entirely sure what John was goin for here
Always try to read a new Steinbeck every summer. Burning Bright has the emotive characters, it has the stunning one liners, it has flashes of the breathtaking, simple descriptions of setting that we've come to expect from the goat. I guess the attempt to clang together the forms of the play and the novella make the scenes feel a little static. It's not quite one thing or the other. The dialogue isn't quite compelling enough to sustain the whole thing, and the settings aren't quite rich enough to get fully absorbed in.
A lot of that comes down to the changes in the setting. So what's happening here is the same plot is carrying on chronologically, but for some reason all the characters keep changing jobs in between. It's like one story told in three parallel universes, one at the circus, one at a farm, one on a boat. And I just dont know... why. Lmao. Is it something to do with the play's concluding message that every kind of person has a responsibility to raise every child? Or was Steinbeck just fuckin about? I respect it. I just dont know what it's adding.
Fair play though it was fun. Some pretty wild gymnastics to get to its weirdly moral dismount. Friend Ed definitely entering the list of favourite Steinbeck characters.
'It is so easy a thing to give - only great men have the courage and courtesy and, yes, the generosity to receive'
Always try to read a new Steinbeck every summer. Burning Bright has the emotive characters, it has the stunning one liners, it has flashes of the breathtaking, simple descriptions of setting that we've come to expect from the goat. I guess the attempt to clang together the forms of the play and the novella make the scenes feel a little static. It's not quite one thing or the other. The dialogue isn't quite compelling enough to sustain the whole thing, and the settings aren't quite rich enough to get fully absorbed in.
A lot of that comes down to the changes in the setting. So what's happening here is the same plot is carrying on chronologically, but for some reason all the characters keep changing jobs in between. It's like one story told in three parallel universes, one at the circus, one at a farm, one on a boat. And I just dont know... why. Lmao. Is it something to do with the play's concluding message that every kind of person has a responsibility to raise every child? Or was Steinbeck just fuckin about? I respect it. I just dont know what it's adding.
Fair play though it was fun. Some pretty wild gymnastics to get to its weirdly moral dismount. Friend Ed definitely entering the list of favourite Steinbeck characters.
'It is so easy a thing to give - only great men have the courage and courtesy and, yes, the generosity to receive'
July 27, 2017
Gracias a la explicación ofrecida en el prólogo, supe que ésta es en realidad una obra de teatro, escrita de manera que sea accesible para quienes no suelen leer libretos de teatro; de otra manera no me habría enterado, pues la narrativa fluye sin tropiezos. Imagino que, para ser una obra de teatro publicada en 1950, debió haber sido bastante experimental, pues en el primer acto los personajes son trapecistas de circo, y en el segundo acto son granjeros, y terminan siendo marineros en el acto final. La historia, sin embargo, continúa entre un acto y otro sin transición alguna. Esto resulta un poco desconcertante, y aún no termino de entender cuales podrían haber sido las intenciones del autor para este cambio de profesiones, que me parece tienen muy poca influencia en el carácter de los personajes. El tema central de la obra, por otra parte, es muy interesante y apela a un sentido de la moralidad que da para muchas interpretaciones, aunque el desarrollo es un tanto melodramático y los personajes se expresan en un lenguaje que podría llegar a sonar un poco fuera de lugar (aquí si vale la pena considerar que, en realidad, se trata de una obra de teatro, y no una novela). El final, predecible y "rosa", sería el aspecto más débil de esta pieza.
Yo dejaría esta obra fuera de mis recomendaciones para alguien que quiera conocer la obra de STEINBECK, habiendo tanto otro material para explorar y disfrutar.
Yo dejaría esta obra fuera de mis recomendaciones para alguien que quiera conocer la obra de STEINBECK, habiendo tanto otro material para explorar y disfrutar.
August 16, 2022
Two stars for Steinbeck seems like an abomination, because, I mean, he was a genius responsible for some of the greatest literature of the 20th Century.
But this "Play-Novel" is...oh man. It's a terrible, terrible play. It's also not a good novel. From the intentionally stilted "high language" dialogue that only reads as true as a parodic Mid-Atlantic accent, to the complete lack of character development, to the peculiar mix of formal monologue and hyperemotive histrionics, it's a failed narrative. That, and it starts in a circus, moves to a farm, and ends on a tramp steamer, pretty much for no reason that makes a lick of sense. The play was bankrolled by Rogers and Hammerstein, because, well, it was Steinbeck. It ran on Broadway. It closed after 13 shows. This was not because people didn't understand Steinbeck's genius. It's because it's a terrible, terrible play.
There's high concept, and then there are concepts so high they pass out from lack of oxygen. This is the latter. Ah well. Ain't nobody perfect all of the time.
But this "Play-Novel" is...oh man. It's a terrible, terrible play. It's also not a good novel. From the intentionally stilted "high language" dialogue that only reads as true as a parodic Mid-Atlantic accent, to the complete lack of character development, to the peculiar mix of formal monologue and hyperemotive histrionics, it's a failed narrative. That, and it starts in a circus, moves to a farm, and ends on a tramp steamer, pretty much for no reason that makes a lick of sense. The play was bankrolled by Rogers and Hammerstein, because, well, it was Steinbeck. It ran on Broadway. It closed after 13 shows. This was not because people didn't understand Steinbeck's genius. It's because it's a terrible, terrible play.
There's high concept, and then there are concepts so high they pass out from lack of oxygen. This is the latter. Ah well. Ain't nobody perfect all of the time.
July 2, 2023
Voto: 8+
Nella mia vecchia edizione di "La lunga valle" è presente anche questo racconto/opera teatrale (come spiega lo stesso Steinbeck, è un mix delle due cose), che mi ha incuriosito già a partire dallo splendido titolo, che è la traduzione dell'inglese "Burning Bright", tratto dalla poesia di William Blake "The Tyger". Ed è effettivamente un'opera che trasmette potenza, forza di volontà e di determinazione. Oltre a una tematica importante e originale, la cosa più geniale risulta essere la struttura, in tre atti particolarissimi. Peccato sia un'opera così poco conosciuta (in Italia per ora è presente solo in questa edizione che è fuori commercio).
Nella mia vecchia edizione di "La lunga valle" è presente anche questo racconto/opera teatrale (come spiega lo stesso Steinbeck, è un mix delle due cose), che mi ha incuriosito già a partire dallo splendido titolo, che è la traduzione dell'inglese "Burning Bright", tratto dalla poesia di William Blake "The Tyger". Ed è effettivamente un'opera che trasmette potenza, forza di volontà e di determinazione. Oltre a una tematica importante e originale, la cosa più geniale risulta essere la struttura, in tre atti particolarissimi. Peccato sia un'opera così poco conosciuta (in Italia per ora è presente solo in questa edizione che è fuori commercio).
April 30, 2024
⭐️3.5
The third and final of Steinbeck’s Play-Novellas, including Of Mice and Men and The Moon is Down, this is the least compelling of the three. Of course this one was a play first, turned into a novella, unlike the other two.
It makes sense given this was a play that it lacks some of the essential character building we see in those other works, which makes sense given the limited time of a real life play. It addresses an interesting issue and how Steinbeck thinks people would have dealt with it at the time, but it just did not have that fierce yet simple characterization we usually see from him.
The third and final of Steinbeck’s Play-Novellas, including Of Mice and Men and The Moon is Down, this is the least compelling of the three. Of course this one was a play first, turned into a novella, unlike the other two.
It makes sense given this was a play that it lacks some of the essential character building we see in those other works, which makes sense given the limited time of a real life play. It addresses an interesting issue and how Steinbeck thinks people would have dealt with it at the time, but it just did not have that fierce yet simple characterization we usually see from him.
November 7, 2022
Dated, of course, in its values - but a fascinating examination of sacrifice and guilt and ego. Steinbeck certainly champions male-ness, which is indicative of the time. He also readily criticizes certain traditional values, implying that what matters is love - unconditional love.
The book/play starts strong, and I like how each act takes place in a different setting. The end, however, is muted and didactic. We are told rather than shown - which is surprising, considering Steinbeck's ability to do the exact opposite. I wonder if this has more to do with form (it being a play) than anything else.
The book/play starts strong, and I like how each act takes place in a different setting. The end, however, is muted and didactic. We are told rather than shown - which is surprising, considering Steinbeck's ability to do the exact opposite. I wonder if this has more to do with form (it being a play) than anything else.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 298 reviews