A fabulous article. Thank you. In the uk “dogging” is indeed very different. Back in the day it meant running with one’s dog. It’s as well to avoid the term these days as per @christopherjmbooth.
I'd like to say I knew all along what 'dogging' meant in the UK and I was engaging in some deep double-sided metaforism. But after much thinking and failing, when I finally came up with what I realized was the perfect book title, 'Dogging Steinbeck,' I had no idea that "Dogging is a British English slang term for engaging in sexual acts in a public or semi-public place or watching others doing so. There may be more than two participants; both group sex and gang banging can be included."
It’s all a bit sordid in its performance, perhaps deliberately, I believe - though I am old and perhaps being too staid here. It’s often videoed and there are known favourite rendezvous, which leads to some surreal signage at lay-bys, such as “No Dogging Allowed”. Anyway, there will be some sort of paraphilia in the DSM soon, if it’s not there already. (If I appear suspiciously well informed, then, for the record, I was formerly a forensic psychiatrist).
Just first class. Love it. I spent 20 years in broadcast news, 10 based out of Moscow, and I'm a qualified photojournalist.
I dislike 'A Russian Journal' and mistrust the lionisation of 'Robert Capa' for all the usual reasons. So perhaps that suggests a project for retirement, so long as Putin dies and Russia will admit me. (There are fiercer things than upset scholars out there in the wilds of Russia.)
I speak the language, and they didn't, so that will help.
It'd be great to meet Mr. Steigerwald one day.
The Russian for dog is собака, and 'dogging' means something quite different in the UK. Otherwise I'm set.
It’s interesting to see how the disciplines react to this story. The journalists tend to side with Steigerwald, and the literati tend to favor Steinbeck.
I imagine for the most part, yes. But the reasoning might be hybrid: some literati may genuinely feel that infotainment is cool and 'valid'; others might simply be unwilling to see a childhood hero get his comeuppance, and be forced to the inconvenience of rearranging their Pantheon.
When I first read the expose, as it was marketed to me, I laughed as I could well appreciate the lure of the sprung mattress over camping out - I’m too old for the pursuits of youth. I hadn’t realised however how well appointed some of his stopovers were. I didn’t think about truth and deception until a while afterwards.
Excellent interview. I just recently bought a used copy of 'Charley' when I was visiting DC, and I'm annoyed because I did NOT like Steinbeck growing up (and haven't read anything by him since) and thought 'huh...a dog + travel writing....I'll try it again', and now I find it's a fake and he slept in swanky hotels nearly the whole time? ugh. I'd much rather read Dogging Steinbeck now but I sort of feel like I have to read the first to read the second. Thank goodness 'Charley' is slim.
I loved reading Mr. Steigerwald’s description of his profession. Journalism. It’s a perfect. True “journalists” are rare these days. A writer/reporter like Matt Taibbi is a national treasure. I spent my professional life trying to learn all of the facts about the matter at hand and then honestly presenting them to a jury in the light most favorable to my client. It was advocacy not journalism. All too often these days the news stories I read are written by writers who say they are doing journalism but they are really doing what I used to do.
I grew up reading Steinbeck and made Doc my role model. Then in the '80s I read some biographies and found that the real Ed Ricketts was an entirely different character. Doc was a lonesome beatnik who occasionally spent time with a woman. Ed had two wives and two families and alternated living with each. Doc was a renegade scientist. Ed was a published professional.
Finding the conflict was disturbing, but nevertheless the fictional Doc was a useful and productive role model for me. So the novel served its purpose.
Really great read! I especially enjoyed the novelist vs. journalist analysis. Expertly written as well--a reminder that there are levels to this. Thanks.
This is a superb post. I will be reading Dogging. You know, I always thought something rather off about Steinbeck, but I could never place it. It was perhaps the assumption of moral superiority in much of his writing, as in Grapes of Wrath, that struck me as rather too good to be true. The finest criticism of Steinbeck was the Looney Tunes parody. That cartoon sliced and diced the novel six ways from Sunday.
Travels with Charley is the only thing I’ve read by Steinbeck at this point. I must say, I did enjoy aspects of the book. A friend highly recommends East of Eden and says I must read it. I’m looking forward to it; we’ll see.
You might also consider The Shapes of Math, sorry, The Tapes of Bob McGrath, no, no, I meant The Drapes of Wrath, that’s it. Then make sure to watch the Looney Tunes cartoon, The Apes of Wrath.
Fascinating read! I have mixed feelings about taking down Steinbeck on his inaccuracies. For all we know, the publisher could have recommended he mythify his trip to please his readers. Ultimately, Steinbeck was selling an experience and while it may not have been entirely true, I'm not sure that really matters ultimately. Not at that time in literary history; not with that author.
I think Viking did push the angle that Steinbeck followed, but I also think Steigerwald is essentially correct that it was wrong to market the book as nonfiction when it was at best imaginative nonfiction—that is, memoir with plenty of literary license applied. I don’t think it takes anything away from the book’s literary merits. I read and enjoyed aspects of it. But as my review explains I don’t even think the book works on its own terms.
Fantastic and fascinating interview! Thanks, Joel. I’ve always been a Steinbeck fan and recall having seen Bill’s book and thinking, Say it ain’t so! It’s not always pleasant to meet (or to read critiques of) your heroes.
Steigerwald is a bit abrasive in places, which probably irked the Steinbeck scholars. But I think he gets it essentially right. Steinbeck didn’t have much of a book when he was done so he made one up. Probably would have all been fine if he just admitted in some way that the end product was imaginative, full of composite and fictional characters, etc.
Great interview Joel! Your substack has become a must read.
Thank you, Hollis! Leaning over Steigerwald’s shoulder as he works is pretty fun!
A fabulous article. Thank you. In the uk “dogging” is indeed very different. Back in the day it meant running with one’s dog. It’s as well to avoid the term these days as per @christopherjmbooth.
I'd like to say I knew all along what 'dogging' meant in the UK and I was engaging in some deep double-sided metaforism. But after much thinking and failing, when I finally came up with what I realized was the perfect book title, 'Dogging Steinbeck,' I had no idea that "Dogging is a British English slang term for engaging in sexual acts in a public or semi-public place or watching others doing so. There may be more than two participants; both group sex and gang banging can be included."
It’s all a bit sordid in its performance, perhaps deliberately, I believe - though I am old and perhaps being too staid here. It’s often videoed and there are known favourite rendezvous, which leads to some surreal signage at lay-bys, such as “No Dogging Allowed”. Anyway, there will be some sort of paraphilia in the DSM soon, if it’s not there already. (If I appear suspiciously well informed, then, for the record, I was formerly a forensic psychiatrist).
In the U.S. context it means chasing someone down, being on their case—e.g., “dogging their heels.”
Well I freely admit that I think of it in the US usage, as with so many other words.
Just first class. Love it. I spent 20 years in broadcast news, 10 based out of Moscow, and I'm a qualified photojournalist.
I dislike 'A Russian Journal' and mistrust the lionisation of 'Robert Capa' for all the usual reasons. So perhaps that suggests a project for retirement, so long as Putin dies and Russia will admit me. (There are fiercer things than upset scholars out there in the wilds of Russia.)
I speak the language, and they didn't, so that will help.
It'd be great to meet Mr. Steigerwald one day.
The Russian for dog is собака, and 'dogging' means something quite different in the UK. Otherwise I'm set.
Thanks to you both
It’s interesting to see how the disciplines react to this story. The journalists tend to side with Steigerwald, and the literati tend to favor Steinbeck.
I imagine for the most part, yes. But the reasoning might be hybrid: some literati may genuinely feel that infotainment is cool and 'valid'; others might simply be unwilling to see a childhood hero get his comeuppance, and be forced to the inconvenience of rearranging their Pantheon.
I think you’re probably right on both scores.
When I first read the expose, as it was marketed to me, I laughed as I could well appreciate the lure of the sprung mattress over camping out - I’m too old for the pursuits of youth. I hadn’t realised however how well appointed some of his stopovers were. I didn’t think about truth and deception until a while afterwards.
I just ordered a copy of the book. I’m eager to read and see if we agree.
Excellent interview. I just recently bought a used copy of 'Charley' when I was visiting DC, and I'm annoyed because I did NOT like Steinbeck growing up (and haven't read anything by him since) and thought 'huh...a dog + travel writing....I'll try it again', and now I find it's a fake and he slept in swanky hotels nearly the whole time? ugh. I'd much rather read Dogging Steinbeck now but I sort of feel like I have to read the first to read the second. Thank goodness 'Charley' is slim.
I loved reading Mr. Steigerwald’s description of his profession. Journalism. It’s a perfect. True “journalists” are rare these days. A writer/reporter like Matt Taibbi is a national treasure. I spent my professional life trying to learn all of the facts about the matter at hand and then honestly presenting them to a jury in the light most favorable to my client. It was advocacy not journalism. All too often these days the news stories I read are written by writers who say they are doing journalism but they are really doing what I used to do.
Purely fascinating!
I grew up reading Steinbeck and made Doc my role model. Then in the '80s I read some biographies and found that the real Ed Ricketts was an entirely different character. Doc was a lonesome beatnik who occasionally spent time with a woman. Ed had two wives and two families and alternated living with each. Doc was a renegade scientist. Ed was a published professional.
Finding the conflict was disturbing, but nevertheless the fictional Doc was a useful and productive role model for me. So the novel served its purpose.
Really great read! I especially enjoyed the novelist vs. journalist analysis. Expertly written as well--a reminder that there are levels to this. Thanks.
I was happy with that part of the discussion as well. Eyeopening.
This is a superb post. I will be reading Dogging. You know, I always thought something rather off about Steinbeck, but I could never place it. It was perhaps the assumption of moral superiority in much of his writing, as in Grapes of Wrath, that struck me as rather too good to be true. The finest criticism of Steinbeck was the Looney Tunes parody. That cartoon sliced and diced the novel six ways from Sunday.
Travels with Charley is the only thing I’ve read by Steinbeck at this point. I must say, I did enjoy aspects of the book. A friend highly recommends East of Eden and says I must read it. I’m looking forward to it; we’ll see.
You might also consider The Shapes of Math, sorry, The Tapes of Bob McGrath, no, no, I meant The Drapes of Wrath, that’s it. Then make sure to watch the Looney Tunes cartoon, The Apes of Wrath.
Fascinating read! I have mixed feelings about taking down Steinbeck on his inaccuracies. For all we know, the publisher could have recommended he mythify his trip to please his readers. Ultimately, Steinbeck was selling an experience and while it may not have been entirely true, I'm not sure that really matters ultimately. Not at that time in literary history; not with that author.
I think Viking did push the angle that Steinbeck followed, but I also think Steigerwald is essentially correct that it was wrong to market the book as nonfiction when it was at best imaginative nonfiction—that is, memoir with plenty of literary license applied. I don’t think it takes anything away from the book’s literary merits. I read and enjoyed aspects of it. But as my review explains I don’t even think the book works on its own terms.
Fantastic and fascinating interview! Thanks, Joel. I’ve always been a Steinbeck fan and recall having seen Bill’s book and thinking, Say it ain’t so! It’s not always pleasant to meet (or to read critiques of) your heroes.
Steigerwald is a bit abrasive in places, which probably irked the Steinbeck scholars. But I think he gets it essentially right. Steinbeck didn’t have much of a book when he was done so he made one up. Probably would have all been fine if he just admitted in some way that the end product was imaginative, full of composite and fictional characters, etc.
Wow, so among the many fictionalizations in Travels With Charley, Charley the dog was part of the "disinformation"!?
It seems it really was and continues to be all about the money.
Personally, I am wondering if I read Dogging Steinbeck, will I finish the read ... unlike Travels With Charley!
This is fascinating material. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you for posting!