August 2021 BOTM — The Wayward Bus

[Cynda]

If satire makes fun of types--which it does--then yes this book is filled with types of people often encountered in the post-war years. Variations of Everyman. And where there is Everyman characters, there is an allegory. . . .The complexity deepens the more the surface of the story is scratched at.

[Vera]

First of all, I just want to point out how much I'm loving to read everyone's comments and thoughts on the book. I'm happy I joined this book-club reading because the discussion has been exquisite.
Also, I would like to thank Paul for suggesting the reading of Penguin's Introduction. It added depth to the story, for me.
I never read introductions, because I hate spoilers and I prefer reading a book knowing nothing of it, but this one was really helpful (however, I must confess I have skipped a couple lines, which were related to the ending).

As to my perspective, as a Portuguese person, I feel like whenever I read a Post-war American novel, people are always going somewhere, looking for something - and most likely they don't know what that something is (I felt this way about On the Road, by Jack Kerouac). I like this narrative of wandering.

One thing I noticed in the novel, and that hasn't been commented yet, is how much the characters live inside their own heads. I think that's very human of them. The truth is people live inside their heads and the worlds they've created (the perception that they have of the world around them). We talk to ourselves; we spend hours making plans, we give pep-talks to ourselves when things go wrong, etc.
This was particularly obvious to me when Mrs. Pritchard was on the Bus and thinking of how she would tell the story of the trip to her friends - I thought of how many times I've done this, and of how stupid it sounded in the book, but also of how normal and human this habit actually was. Also, when Alice is getting drunk in the restaurant, talking to herself, I thought Steinbeck illustrated very well how silly human beings are when they're alone.

This is the first Steinbeck book I'm reading, and I'm enjoying every bit of it. I'm sure I'll read more of his books (and I've definitely understood why he won the noble prize).

[Cynda]

Hi Vera. Welcome.
Yes you are right about Americans travelling a lot after WWII. After WWII, Americans were encouraged to travel, to see their country. This travel was made possible by the buildong up of highway systems, particularly the development of particular highways such as California's Scenic Highway One. Another famous route: U S Route 66. Also the development of the Interstate system.

Maps
Hotel Ads
Songs

One such song: https://youtu.be/MF_uuHvOz8w

[Paul]

Growing up in the fifties I experienced that craze for travel that had swept America. Almost every weekend, poor old dad would want to rejuvenate after a week of long hours at work but mom, after a week of being a 'housewife,' was ready for travel. Of course, the trips were small at that time and resources limited our range of possibilities, but we got onto the roadway as often as possible.
As far as this novel is concerned the travel-craze is not the reason for travel for any of the characters. Each of them has a different purpose, a goal, or escape more important to them than the journey itself. In fact, travel was a necessary hindrance on the way to something important in their lives.

[Paul]

Vera wrote: "First of all, I just want to point out how much I'm loving to read everyone's comments and thoughts on the book. I'm happy I joined this book-club reading because the discussion has been exquisite...."

I am glad Vera appreciated my comment about the introduction to the book.
Her comment about 'living inside your head' makes an important point.
"Living inside your head" means a person is listening to and following the directions of a dangerous character: himself. The self interprets and constructs the world. Thus, what happens inside our heads is often only marginally connected to the realities of anything we've experienced.
We fantasize, rationalize, fear, like, judge, approve, and do every other mental exercise with everything we experience. Two witnesses to the same event report the event in very different manners, and an 'eye-witness' in court is never as reliable as lawyers want us to think.
Vera's comments about the letters Mrs. Pritchard creates in her head capture exactly the reason Steinbeck uses that device in the story. These are wonderful examples of the processes we all use in our own minds, even though we may not be writing letters. In our own heads, we often 'talk to ourselves as if we were some distant third person, an audience to the 'speaker' who is interpreting, not just witnessing, events. Just as Mrs. Pritchard's letters distort the actual events and generally place her in a central role, our own heads interpret experiential inputs with our egos at the center of any event. And we are the center, too, because it is only from our viewpoint of the event that it had any importance to us.
Vera's comment about 'going somewhere, looking for something, and not knowing what it is captures the essence of this novel entirely. It also brings to mind the truism, "Wherever you go, there you are."

[Kathryn]

@Cynda
Thanks for rereading the bathroom scene. Oh yes I definitely agree with you that women do not compete amongst themselves for a man to the extent that Steinbeck made it out to be. Although, when I was at school, there was this girl who used to delight in telling other girls that she could easily get the guys we were interested in. I am glad you saw what I meant though by Steinbeck actually correctly capturing the bathroom behaviour of women. Like with helping each other with make-up and clothing repairs, etc. The scene just surprised me because most of the rest of how he depicted the women in this novel just wasn't very accurate.

[Cynda]

Right!

[Paul]

Kathryn wrote: "@Cynda
Thanks for rereading the bathroom scene. Oh yes I definitely agree with you that women do not compete amongst themselves for a man to the extent that Steinbeck made it out to be. Although, w..."
You are correct to say that Steinbeck's depiction of women "wasn't very accurate" by today's standards, but in terms of the women and the way they were treated during the time period of this novel, I believe he was very accurate. Of course, I am not a woman and could be wrong based on my inexperience, but the setting of this novel is exactly when I grew up and it seems from my (male) experience that his reporting is accurate.

[Kathryn]

@Paul
Hmm, I get what you are saying. Because you grew up during the time this book was written in, you have a better knowledge of how people behaved back then. And if you say that this is how women used to behave then I must admit that I am very disappointed in them.

Tell me, does the novel accurately depict men of that time period? I mean, were they all so obsessed with sexual thinking? And if so, is it still like that or have men like women of that time progressed?

[Paul]

Kathryn: I appreciate your reply and appreciate your thoughtful reaction to my previous post.
First of all, I may not have better knowledge of 'people back then' since I can only speak from my own experience of people back then. However, I could name a number of television shows from that era as well as several more current ones which would seem to confirm my experience.
Assuming my experience may have been somewhat typical of that era, I re-affirm that Steinbeck's portrayal is accurate.
In the fifties, women were expected to stay at home, care for the children, manage and clean the home, and have dinner ready when the King of the Castle returned from work.
A woman who smoked was an anomaly because it wasn't 'ladylike.' They continued to wear gloves when out shopping at department stores, and wore capris or slacks ONLY in the confines of their own homes. The first pantsuits were considered scandalous but women were later 'allowed' to wear them to work as long as they were a coordinated outfit and not the least suggestive. The swimwear of today would have sent a woman to jail in 1960.
Flight attendants were then always female and always unmarried females. In fact, planes had stewardesses, not flight attendants.
I don't think it is fair to be disappointed in them since they were a product of their times. Consider the way a number of cultures today continue to treat women. The attitudes of many Middle Eastern nations demonstrate the point.
As I wrote earlier, however, the need for women in the workforce during WW II brought on an awareness in women that was changing all of those ideas during the 50s and 60s, yet there is still, in America, at least, a long way to go.
I don't know how it is in your country, but here women doing the same job as a man will still be paid less. Few women are CEO's or even in senior management positions. professional sports have not opened their doorways to women, although the NFL does, at least, have a couple of female game officials. Sports broadcasters and commentators remain mostly male while female reporters contribute occasional "color commentary." (Do not overgeneralize that since there are many exceptions, but the point is that those ARE exceptions).
Men referred to their wives much as Pritchard does in the novel, generally calling them "the little woman" and usually expected to be marrying a sexually inexperienced or even virginal woman.
Sex occurred only in the marital bed where wives "did their wifely duty" and were expected to be revolted by it. Men gave little attention to giving a woman sexual satisfaction as long as they themselves were satisfied a couple of times a month, and men certainly never had sex when a woman was in her menses period.

Steinbeck's portrayal of men is also accurate. Men were expected to be "the breadwinners" while women stayed home. They craved and lusted after women while also holding them on pedestals. They were much more obsessed with sexual thinking as shown by the advent of the "girlie magazine" and topless and nude bars.
Both men and women in the day entered marriage largely inexperienced sexually, or at least very limited in their sexual experience.
In the late 60's and early 70s, the "Sexual Revolution," took place, freeing both genders from previously held sexual restraints.
The book The Sensuous Woman followed shortly by the book The Sensuous Male gave birth to a number of books discussing sex and sexuality to a level that was unthinkable as recently as 1960 when a person who wrote such a book could be prosecuted in the courts. Women were amazed to find they could have orgasms and men were befuddled understanding that they should help women reach them.
Men and women in America have progressed since then and there is certainly a healthier attitude toward sex.
A study released just recently said the under 30 male of today is far less interested in sex or dating. At the same time, people in that age range are more likely to have had a number of sexual partners over the years. Many don't even consider marriage anymore. Today, sex is seen as a recreational activity rather than a love commitment, and sometimes it includes more than one partner at the same time.
There is still much to do in terms of male-female equality, but we have covered a lot of ground in a short number of years.
Sadly, we have not made as much progress in terms of our racial attitudes.

[Kathryn]

@Paul
You truly are a fountain of knowledge and insight. For some or other reason I always thought that it was during the roaring 20s that womens position in society and behaviour began shifting, when they began wearing more daring clothing and took up smoking. But, that is just what my history book said. I didn't realise that it was only in the 60s that things really began changing for women in America.
I'm not sure how much you know about my country's history. But, after the end of apartheid in 1990, and the first free election in 1994, it wasn't just the equality of race that took place. Some how it also born the equality of men and women, different religions, and even lgbtq. It all happened at the same time. Men and women get paid the same for jobs. Most companies have half and half boards. And all the other things you mentioned like sports--well here it is all equal. Even our government cabinet is equal regarding gender.

A lot of the country is still quite conservative when it comes to sex, and I think that is why all the sexual undercurrents in the book made me feel very uncomfortable.

Unfortunately I didn't like any of the characters. I can appreciate their development throughout the book, but I just couldn't like any of them.

Juan once hit his wife, then committed adultry with Mildred.
Mr. Prichard after failing to insnare Camille, basically raped his own wife.
Kit tried forcing himself on Norma.
Van Brand was a sour old man.
Norma was quite vapid and relied on Camille for strength instead of finding her own inner strength.
Camille still engaged the men around her, even though she knew that they desired her.
Mrs. Prichard was so sweet and kind, acting like the perfect person. Well, until she snapped in the bus and blamed her husband for the vacation, showing quite a manipulative side to her.
Mildred decided to sleep with Juan, even though he was married.
Alice was a horrible insecure person that treated everyone like dirt. And in chapter 11 where she gets drunk and makes a massive mess--well I just can't respect a woman like that.
And finally Louis the bus driver had a one track mind, and refered to women as pigs.
Oh, I forgot about Ernest, he was a bit of a jokester, and a bit crude. I thought he was the best of the lot. But, even he lusted after Camille.

I did like that during the bus journey, all the characters' true personalities came out when they were in a crisis. And I enjoyed Steinbeck's descriptive writing. But, sadly I just couldn't like this book.

[Cynda]

I was shocked when I found my mother's copy of Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex: But Were Afraid to Ask by David Reuben and promptly showed it to my cousin. We read it together, she and I.

[Cynda]

I failed you Kathryn. I am sorry. I know all this information Paul provided you. I was born in early 1960s, and know not only from watching the adult women in my world but also from television. Plus I read a women's study every year. Last three years: women during American Civil War, (Western) Women of WWI and (Western and some Eastern) women of WWII. The women which served in WWII were often still sheltered. To find out in a very accessible, popular format of the variety of women's experience during WWII, I suggest Our Mothers' War: American Women at Home and at the Front During World War II by Emily Yellin.

Here is my GR's women's list: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list...

This is of course just since I joined Goodreads.

Maybe you Kathryn--or others--have a women list (or similar list) to share.

[Kathryn]

No Cynda, you didn't fail me at all. :)
Thank you for all the info you have provided me with. I will definitely check out some of those books. Unfortunately, I don't have any books to add. I rarely read non-fiction.

[Cynda]

Thank you Kathryn. Then well will read fiction together.

[Kathryn]

I like the sound of that. :)

[Paul]

Kathryn wrote: "@Paul
You truly are a fountain of knowledge and insight. For some or other reason I always thought that it was during the roaring 20s that womens position in society and behaviour began shifting, w..."

Kathryn's observations about the novel are absolutely correct. Not one of the characters is likable.
If I may, I would like to amplify a couple of her points.
First, the idea of the change in the ways women were treated and even expected to be treated represents a huge social change. Social change evolves slowly, almost always beginning with a few outliers who then inspire others to follow.
The 'Roaring 20s' in America represented a part of the embryonic period of time that proceeds larger engagement in social change.
Women first enjoyed the right to vote in 1919 and the 'Roaring 20s' was the next step, The portrayal of women in movies and media, however, does not represent mainstream thought or behavior for that time period.
In fact, many women continued to believe they were incapable, needing the superior protection of men. The short skirts, cigarette smoking, and booze drinking merely foreshadowed the changes to come.
But Kathryn correctly identifies it as a starting point.
WW II brought large numbers of women into the workplace and even expanded the responsibilities they had to handle at home-managing the finances, repairing the car, maintaining the house, hiring occasional help such as gardeners or roofers, etc .
Thus, WW II expanded upon the tentative, limited changes of the 1920s into a more robust and widespread change,
With the advent of reliable birth control a few years later, women made another step on the road of social change, challenging long-held idea about sex for procreation vs. sex as an act of human pleasure.
The journey of women toward the equity they deserve is still not complete.
As far as the unlikability of the book's characters and the perception of Camille, remember that the book is an allegory, each character represents more than the characterization Steinbeck assigns.
Camille particularly represents the allegory. Recall that 'Camille" is not her real name but is one she made up on the spot. This is important as a device of the allegory because it means the 'Camile' represents a class of people or an ideal that is even broader that those represented by the other characters.
Camille stands for everything sexual, perhaps for sex itself. Every man on the trip lusts for her just as most men lust after a sexual idealized personage today. She is not a person at all but is a larger thing, a basic motivational force.
Another allegorical thing to keep in mind is that the bus is on a journey. 'Journey' is one of the oldest and most used tropes of literature and it always represents 'change.'
The characters are unlikable, but they are journeying. Part of their journey is the change they undergo during the novel, but notice that they never reach their destination. The characters still have growing to do and could, someday, grow into being likable.
One note, not related to the novel.
South Africa's journey from aparteid to its current state was led by the most inspirational and moral leader of the 20th century, Nelson Mandella. Under his guidance, the nation leaped into casting off old prejudices and into becoming a genuine model of democracy.
America decided at its birth in 1776 to pretend that slavery did not exist and that racism was not its root. It finally realized its moral bankruptcy in holding slaves but never rose to ending its racism and the sexism that also exists.
Those struggles continue today.
Until they end, America can never stand on the moral highground it could otherwise occupy. The decisions made at the end of aparteid in South Africa propel it today, 25 years after the end of aparteid, into moral leadership around the world.
Kathryn and her nation deserve the praise of all of us.

[Danny]

Hello everyone!

Since this is the last day of our discussion, I wanted to give thanks to those who read along with us and contributed individually.

Cynda, your comments were always insightful. I hope to explore your non-fiction recommendations of women's roles during and after WW1 & WWII.

Kathryn, first off, I hope your holiday was a blast. You were my surprise contributor. It was fun getting to do another read with you. I'll message after my school week calms down. Thank you for your take on the bathroom scenes and plausibility in general.

Vera, another happy surprise. Thank you for giving us a different geographical perspective. The North American canon is sometimes better explored from the outside. We’re lucky to have you.

Larry, I learned the most from you. Although you found the book tiresome, you were able to contribute to our discussion in a positive way. Honestly, that’s a rare trait. I am most impressed. Please join my read in the future.

Connie, I jump at any chance to do a read with you. Your Canadian perspective rounds out our discussion. Also, I loved how you backed Kathryn’s inclusion of kilometers. You’re as beautiful as your garden. Thank you again.

Paul, my good friend. I squeeze everything from your comments and follow the threads to the end. I am most grateful for your contributions. You’ve made my bookcase happy and crowded. Paul writes some great reviews everyone. If you get a chance, read the one for this read.

I hope I didn’t leave anyone out.

My <3 to you all. Be safe and keep reading

-Danny

[Cynda]

I think it has been a push and pull effect. If we want to go back further, we can go to the first real rumbling of women gathering their powers in the 1840s with the push towards the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. During the American Civil War, 1861-1865, Southern women who lived on farms and plantations had to run operations in poor circumstances without the experience of ever having managed operations for longer than their husbands were recovering from an injury/sickness. (Many did provide management but not of operations, mostly bookkeeping and nursing.) Good book on topic: Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War by Drew Gilpin Faust. WWI was a watershed moment. Women took on more professipnal work, including and expanding past nursing. A group of American women fought for decades to claim soldier status for their high tech mobile telephone skills. Good book on topic: The Hello Girls: America's First Women Soldiers. During WWII, some black women military workers took it upon themselves to assert their right to be of better-skilled service. Good book on topic: Glory in Their Spirit: How Four Black Women Took On the Army During World War II. Success builds on the success that comes before. And we build on their success.

[Ian]

There is one conversation in the book between Ernest and Camille

"She dropped her eyes to his lapel blue bar and white stars. Thats a nice one", she said "That's the real big one isn't it?"
"That's what they tell me" said Ernest "It doesn't buy any groceries though." They laughed together.
"Did the big boss pin it on you?

I assume that this is referring to a medal he received from the war? Is it being implied that the president personally pinned it on Ernest?

[Danny]

Ian, I think he means no money in valor.

[Paul]

Actually, if you look it up, you will find that the blue bar is intended for the labels when the recipient is out of uniform and in 'civies.' It is the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation's highest award, and is frequently pinned on by the President, but not always.
Google the Congressional Medal of Honor to find out more and for pictures of it.
An interesting benefit it affords recipients of any rank is that even generals must salute them.
More than half of the honorees receive the award posthumously.

[Kathryn]

Thank you Daniel. You did a really good job of modding this discussion. Looking forward to your email. :)

Paul, I get what you're saying about Camille. Some how I actually forgot that she had made up her name on the spot when asked. So her being an alegory for sexuality makes a lot of sense.

[Danny]

Daniel wrote: "Ian, I think he means no money in valor."

Ian, I read this wrong. You were referring to the medal and the presenter. When I initially read this in the book, I was wondering about the kind of award, and the presenter as well (big man=commander in chief?)

In retrospect, I think Steinbeck was having us reevaluate our view of vagabond road sales people vs regular business men. Mr. Pritchard comes at Ernest like he needs help. It's a condescending offer of assistance. Ernest doesn't need help. He's a war hero. He is more than what he is made out to be. Unfortunately, this happens all the time.

[Ian]

Thanks for the info Paul!

Daniel, I think you are right with reference to no money in valour; Ernest received the highest honour in the land and is now a travelling salesman selling novelties to make a living.

[Danny]

I'm not sure if anyone picked up on Steinbeck's concluding remarks about women and their behavior. He gives himself a literary rebuttal, which is clever.

He says, "Mildred wondered whether it was the same in men's toilet. She just didn't think it was likely, because men had many competitions besides women, while most of women's insecurities had to do with men. Her paper on the subject had been returned marked "Not carefully thought out." She planned to do it over again.

If you're going to make statements about things like gender, it's best to acknowledge your gaps or bias, in which he does. In the above quote, he is telling the reader—through Mildred—that his claims are refutable, even a bit disorganized. He counters his own views, which is an undervalued practice, especially today.

He sensed he was going into fiery territory and didn't want to sound dogmatic.

[Kathryn]

You're right Daniel, that was a very clever thing he did. Authors don't often admit to second guessing themselves. Very interesting. Thanks for pointing this out. I must admit that I didn't take much notice of that quote before.

[Cynda]

Yes thank you Daniel. It does show that we humans do lack awareness of our own humanity sometimes.