Status
Disponible
Call number
Publication
Ediciones Peninsula (2005)
Description
This exciting day-by-day account of Steinbeck's trip to the Gulf of California with biologist Ed Ricketts, drawn from the longer Sea of Cortez, is a wonderful combination of science, philosophy, and high-spirited adventure. Annotation. In 1940, Steinbeck and his friend, biologist Ed Ricketts, ventured into the Gulf of California to search for marine invertebrates along the beaches. This exciting, day-by-day account of their trip, drawn from the longer work, Sea of Cortez, is a wonderful combination of science, philosophy, and high-speed adventure that provides a fascinating portrait of Steinbeck and Ricketts.
User reviews
LibraryThing member iayork
One of the Great Travel Stories of All Time: One of my good friends from high school introduced me to this book after we were both middle-aged. He set the challenge that we should complete this journey together. I look forward to it.In this book John Steinbeck, the great fiction writer, is just as
Steinbeck was fascinated by his friend, Ed Ricketts, Baja California, The Sea of Cortez (located in Baja), the marine life there, and the people along the way. You can read this book for any of those dimensions and be well rewarded. In fact, it is interesting to learn more about Steinbeck, the man, through his reminiscences of this trip.
Although I enjoyed all of these dimensions,to me the element that is most appealing is the story of two friends simply traveling and learning. It is very much a tale of the voyage that we all make through life, by way of analogy. In a way, it reminds me of a literal Pilgrim's Progress, except that this actually occurred. Fact, in this case, is more interesting than fiction.
If you liked Steinbeck's novels, read this. If you like travel stories, read this. If you like stories of scientific research, read this. If you like adventure, read this. Even if you don't fall into one of those categories, read this. Enjoy!
Show More
intriguing as a nonfiction writer. In fact, there is more scope here than in any of the novels. Steinbeck was fascinated by his friend, Ed Ricketts, Baja California, The Sea of Cortez (located in Baja), the marine life there, and the people along the way. You can read this book for any of those dimensions and be well rewarded. In fact, it is interesting to learn more about Steinbeck, the man, through his reminiscences of this trip.
Although I enjoyed all of these dimensions,to me the element that is most appealing is the story of two friends simply traveling and learning. It is very much a tale of the voyage that we all make through life, by way of analogy. In a way, it reminds me of a literal Pilgrim's Progress, except that this actually occurred. Fact, in this case, is more interesting than fiction.
If you liked Steinbeck's novels, read this. If you like travel stories, read this. If you like stories of scientific research, read this. If you like adventure, read this. Even if you don't fall into one of those categories, read this. Enjoy!
Show Less
LibraryThing member AshRyan
Having somewhat enjoyed Steinbeck's other foray into non-fictional travel narrative, Travels with Charley, not as much as a few of his better novels but more than several others, I was looking forward to reading this---especially since its subject is a presumably scientific expedition taken with
Wait a minute..."important"? to whom (or what)? to what end? and by what standard? In fact, since "importance" is a relational concept, to say everything is important is indeed equivalent to saying nothing is. In which case, why should he bother to write the book, or I to read it? Still, I thought, in practice he will have to implicitly give importance to some things over others by what he chooses to include (and to exclude), and when he's actually dealing with the facts of the concrete reality he so blithely discounts as a myth instead of trying to sound smart, perhaps he won't get in so far over his head.
And indeed, the first few chapters of the log seem to get off to a promising start...but unfortunately, it's not long before he goes off on even more hopelessly inane pseudo-philosophical ramblings. One of the longest (if not THE longest) chapters in the book, comprising a significant chunk of it, is devoted to Steinbeck's speculations about what he calls "non-teleological or 'is' thinking" versus "the usual cause-effect methods" of "teleological thinking". "Non-teleological ideas derive through 'is' thinking, associated with natural selection as Darwin seems to have understood it," he writes...but he simply doesn't know what he was talking about, as Darwin *was* a teleologist and his theory of natural selection specifically is a teleological one (indeed, in response to "a brief appreciation of Darwin" by Asa Gray published in the June 1874 issue of Nature in which Gray noted that Darwin hadn't destroyed teleology, as both his supporters and detractors generally believed, but rather gave it a scientific grounding, Darwin wrote to Gray, "What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not think anyone else has ever noted that"). In any case, how Steinbeck can characterize Darwinian selection as merely descriptive "is" thinking, "attempting at most to answer the already sufficiently difficult questions *what* or *how*", and not "cause-effect" thinking answering the question "*why*" is completely beyond me.
It's especially baffling since Steinbeck is at least sophisticated enough to make a distinction between supernatural (or "spiritual") forms of teleology and natural (or "physical") ones, and yet rejects the latter along with the former. The great 20th-century naturalist Ernst Mayr, in an essay on "Teleology", recognized four valid categories of end-directed processes or phenomena within biology (two of which he termed "teleomatic" and "teleonomic" to distinguish them from the invalid and non-existent "cosmic teleology"). Mayr wrote (almost as if in direct response to Steinbeck), "To be sure, questions that begin with 'what?' and 'how?' are sufficient for explanation in the physical sciences. However, since 1859 [the year of the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species] no explanation in the biological sciences has been complete until a third kind of question was asked and answered: 'why?' It is the evolutionary causation and its explanation that is asked for in this question. Anyone who eliminates evolutionary 'why' questions closes the door on a large area of biological research."
Of course, all this takes Steinbeck's views here far too seriously, as he goes on to say that non-teleological thinking "by inferred definition...transcends the realm of thinking possibilities.... And the non-causal or non-blaming viewpoint seems to us very often relatively to represent the 'new thing,' the Hegelian 'Christ-child' which arises emergently from the union of two opposing viewpoints, such as those of phsyical and spiritual teleologies..." This is, of course, pure, unadulterated nonsense, and he goes on like this at some length...though how exactly non-teleological thinking is supposed to go *beyond* teleological thinking and be some Hegelian synthesis of the antitheses of physical and spiritual teleologies, your guess is as good as mine, as Steinbeck certainly never offers any coherent explanation.
Okay, so all that out of the way, what about the actual scientific portion of the expedition and Steinbeck's report on it? Well, in their own minds, they're apparently doing profoundly significant work, as they actually compare themselves to Darwin several times (which is especially annoying since, as noted above, they clearly don't even understand Darwin's thought). They do collect a lot of specimens, and make some observations about them, but, in accordance with their non-teleological thinking methods, it's mainly on the order of, sea cucumbers were the most numerous animal at collecting stations A, B, C, and D, and such and such species have a painful sting or pinch. It all seemed more detailed and systematic than would likely be of interest to the general reader, but not detailed and systematic enough to be of any real scientific value...so I'm really not sure who the audience for this book was supposed to be. In the end it's a sort of half-baked blend of bad philosophy, mediocre science, and uninspired travelogue. But apparently some people enjoy it, so what do I know (though I suspect that most of them would read anything with Steinbeck's name on it). But all this does at least shed some light on Steinbeck's fiction (beyond just the obvious fact that Doc in Cannery Row is clearly based on Ricketts), so it does at least have that value.
Show More
his friend, marine biologist Ed Ricketts. But I started getting a little worried toward the end of the introduction when he described what he called "the mental provisioning of our expedition": "Let us...not be betrayed by this myth of permanent objective reality," he wrote, in what I thought might be a pretentious rationalization for shoddy work or just so much hot air, but then it got worse. "And if we seem a small factor in a huge pattern, nevertheless it is of relative importance. We take a tiny colony of soft corals from a rock in a little water world. And that isn't terribly important to the tide pool. Fifty miles away the Japanese shrimp boats are dredging with overlapping scoops, bringing up tons of shrimps, rapidly destroying the species so that it may never come back, and with the species destroying the ecological balance of the whole region. That isn't very important in the world." (Funny how, three quarters of a century later, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of shrimp.) "And thousands of miles away the great bombs are falling and the stars are not moved thereby. None of it is important or all of it is."Wait a minute..."important"? to whom (or what)? to what end? and by what standard? In fact, since "importance" is a relational concept, to say everything is important is indeed equivalent to saying nothing is. In which case, why should he bother to write the book, or I to read it? Still, I thought, in practice he will have to implicitly give importance to some things over others by what he chooses to include (and to exclude), and when he's actually dealing with the facts of the concrete reality he so blithely discounts as a myth instead of trying to sound smart, perhaps he won't get in so far over his head.
And indeed, the first few chapters of the log seem to get off to a promising start...but unfortunately, it's not long before he goes off on even more hopelessly inane pseudo-philosophical ramblings. One of the longest (if not THE longest) chapters in the book, comprising a significant chunk of it, is devoted to Steinbeck's speculations about what he calls "non-teleological or 'is' thinking" versus "the usual cause-effect methods" of "teleological thinking". "Non-teleological ideas derive through 'is' thinking, associated with natural selection as Darwin seems to have understood it," he writes...but he simply doesn't know what he was talking about, as Darwin *was* a teleologist and his theory of natural selection specifically is a teleological one (indeed, in response to "a brief appreciation of Darwin" by Asa Gray published in the June 1874 issue of Nature in which Gray noted that Darwin hadn't destroyed teleology, as both his supporters and detractors generally believed, but rather gave it a scientific grounding, Darwin wrote to Gray, "What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not think anyone else has ever noted that"). In any case, how Steinbeck can characterize Darwinian selection as merely descriptive "is" thinking, "attempting at most to answer the already sufficiently difficult questions *what* or *how*", and not "cause-effect" thinking answering the question "*why*" is completely beyond me.
It's especially baffling since Steinbeck is at least sophisticated enough to make a distinction between supernatural (or "spiritual") forms of teleology and natural (or "physical") ones, and yet rejects the latter along with the former. The great 20th-century naturalist Ernst Mayr, in an essay on "Teleology", recognized four valid categories of end-directed processes or phenomena within biology (two of which he termed "teleomatic" and "teleonomic" to distinguish them from the invalid and non-existent "cosmic teleology"). Mayr wrote (almost as if in direct response to Steinbeck), "To be sure, questions that begin with 'what?' and 'how?' are sufficient for explanation in the physical sciences. However, since 1859 [the year of the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species] no explanation in the biological sciences has been complete until a third kind of question was asked and answered: 'why?' It is the evolutionary causation and its explanation that is asked for in this question. Anyone who eliminates evolutionary 'why' questions closes the door on a large area of biological research."
Of course, all this takes Steinbeck's views here far too seriously, as he goes on to say that non-teleological thinking "by inferred definition...transcends the realm of thinking possibilities.... And the non-causal or non-blaming viewpoint seems to us very often relatively to represent the 'new thing,' the Hegelian 'Christ-child' which arises emergently from the union of two opposing viewpoints, such as those of phsyical and spiritual teleologies..." This is, of course, pure, unadulterated nonsense, and he goes on like this at some length...though how exactly non-teleological thinking is supposed to go *beyond* teleological thinking and be some Hegelian synthesis of the antitheses of physical and spiritual teleologies, your guess is as good as mine, as Steinbeck certainly never offers any coherent explanation.
Okay, so all that out of the way, what about the actual scientific portion of the expedition and Steinbeck's report on it? Well, in their own minds, they're apparently doing profoundly significant work, as they actually compare themselves to Darwin several times (which is especially annoying since, as noted above, they clearly don't even understand Darwin's thought). They do collect a lot of specimens, and make some observations about them, but, in accordance with their non-teleological thinking methods, it's mainly on the order of, sea cucumbers were the most numerous animal at collecting stations A, B, C, and D, and such and such species have a painful sting or pinch. It all seemed more detailed and systematic than would likely be of interest to the general reader, but not detailed and systematic enough to be of any real scientific value...so I'm really not sure who the audience for this book was supposed to be. In the end it's a sort of half-baked blend of bad philosophy, mediocre science, and uninspired travelogue. But apparently some people enjoy it, so what do I know (though I suspect that most of them would read anything with Steinbeck's name on it). But all this does at least shed some light on Steinbeck's fiction (beyond just the obvious fact that Doc in Cannery Row is clearly based on Ricketts), so it does at least have that value.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bookswoman
I got this book to read the tribute to Ed Ricketts. I'm not a huge Steinbeck fan so skipped the actual Log from the Sea. I found out about the tribute from the author Craig Johnson, he claims he reads this often. While I enjoyed it, I don't think I'll be doing that. However, Ricketts sounds like he
Show More
was a fascinating man who died too young, and as a good friend of Steinbeck I completely understand his writing this tribute. Show Less
LibraryThing member MSarki
I was especially taken with the last section found in the appendix that honored the life and death of Steinbeck's great friend Ed Ricketts. What a wonderful tribute to a person who meant so much to so many in that part of the country. The entire book was certainly an enjoyable and satisfying read.
Show More
It was good to hear this voice again. Show Less
LibraryThing member baswood
A journal of a six weeks expedition to the Gulf of California to collect samples for Ed Ricketts Marine biology laboratory in Cannery Row would be a more precise description of a book, whose history of its coming into being is as fascinating as the book itself. Steinbeck's book published in 1951
The book reads today primarily as a travelogue to a lonely part of the planet as it existed at a time when America was gearing itself up for a war, which would follow the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour later in 1941. It was an expedition with a purpose to collect marine samples; animal and plant life. Much of the journal is a log of the collecting done at various points along the littoral of the Gulf of California. It describes the landscape, the animals found, the few people met, the poor Mexican towns visited, but most of the time it is a story of tidal pools and rock faces and the difficulties and dangers of prising away animals from their natural habitat. This would all be of limited interest if it was a scientific expedition, but it was not that. There was only one scientist Ed Ricketts, there was an interested amateur Steinbeck and the other four party members were the boats captain and navigator and two working seamen and an engineer from Monterey. This makes six people, the fact that there were eight people on the expedition; two women (Steinbeck wife and the captains wife) who were written out of the journal is another story. The log is written in the first person plural and the 'we' are; Ricketts and Steinbeck. It was a ramshackle show in anybody's language, but carried out with enthusiasm and intent by semi professionals who drank as much beer as they collected samples. The interest lies in their working relationships, their thoughts and ideas of getting away from the stress of their normal daily lives and doing something different. Nothing bad happens, there are no disasters and Ed Ricketts managed to piece together a species catalogue that identified over fifty new species and so a substantial amount of science was done.
Perhaps many of us would like to have gone on such a good time, working expedition with this interesting bunch of characters. There was much talk of bloke-ish escapades mixed together with some philosophising about the meaning of life. Ricketts and Steinbeck were much affected by the marine life they witnessed, there is a famous sentence from the book:
'It is advisable to look from the tide pool to the stars and then back to the tide pool again'
The wonder and the myriad life that they witnessed reinforced their ideas of "is" thinking a non-teleological approach to explaining the mysteries of life. The idea that everything is part of one whole and to gain knowledge one must take into account everything appertaining to the issue in question. The normal cause and effect explanation is not enough. Taking into account everything means mysticism, hearsay, legends, observation, external conditions and probably how much beer you have drunk. It all leads to a fascinating if convoluted chapter of the book that expounds these ideas. Ricketts had published his ideas previously in philosophical pamphlets and this trip obviously encouraged his and Steinbeck's thinking. If the reader is not able to follow all of these ideas, what does come through is an enthusiasm and a wonder for natural life as well as a yearning for a more simple life.
The descriptions of the animal and plant life have the benefit of a scientific eye (Ricketts) enhanced by the descriptive writing of a professional author who was already famous after the publication of Grapes Of Wrath. The knockabout story of the two seaman Sparky and Tiny and an outboard motor that never worked together with six weeks of sunshine and cruising through a little explored part of the world makes an intoxicating mix. I found myself googling the names of the islands and beaches where the cruiser anchored marvelling, at the desolate landscapes and thinking about the clear waters and shuddering at the thought of tearing ones hands collecting spiny urchins from the sharp rocks. The book is very "is" in placing the reader alongside the crew of an expedition that sounds refreshing at a time when we can only dream of doing something similar.
Nothing is perfect and there are lingering doubts about the validity of the whole thing. How much of this was down to exploitation because Ricketts wanted to restock his marine biology lab? that Steinbeck wanted subject matter for a new book and to escape the publicity from his last publication. Why were the women written out of the story, certainly Steinbeck's marriage was going through a difficult period and the couple broke up after this trip, but why all this need for male machismo. The story behind the book and the trip itself will never be fully told and what we have in front of us, is a fascinating account of an expedition that oozes with the marine life that occupied most of the crew most of the time. They somehow made it work and Steinbeck's money financed the expedition and his name helped the sale of the book. Ed Ricketts is the character "Doc" in [Cannery Row] and John Steinbeck is himself and so anyone with an interest in these two characters should enjoy the book. I did and so 4 stars.
Show More
was an adaption from an earlier book published in 1941 that he co-authored with Ed Ricketts. The earlier book Sea of Cortez: A leisurely journal of Travel and Research: consisted of two parts: a journal of the trip and a species catalogue. The species catalogue was Ricketts own work and he also wrote the journal that forms the basis for the first part: Steinbeck edited and added to it: a more writerly prose and of course his name in order to sell the book. The Log from the Sea of Cortez then is Steinbeck's edition of Ricketts journal (Steinbeck did not keep his own journal) minus Ricketts species catalogue, but with an added potted biography/eulogy to Ricketts his close friend. Ed Ricketts died in a car accident in 1948.The book reads today primarily as a travelogue to a lonely part of the planet as it existed at a time when America was gearing itself up for a war, which would follow the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour later in 1941. It was an expedition with a purpose to collect marine samples; animal and plant life. Much of the journal is a log of the collecting done at various points along the littoral of the Gulf of California. It describes the landscape, the animals found, the few people met, the poor Mexican towns visited, but most of the time it is a story of tidal pools and rock faces and the difficulties and dangers of prising away animals from their natural habitat. This would all be of limited interest if it was a scientific expedition, but it was not that. There was only one scientist Ed Ricketts, there was an interested amateur Steinbeck and the other four party members were the boats captain and navigator and two working seamen and an engineer from Monterey. This makes six people, the fact that there were eight people on the expedition; two women (Steinbeck wife and the captains wife) who were written out of the journal is another story. The log is written in the first person plural and the 'we' are; Ricketts and Steinbeck. It was a ramshackle show in anybody's language, but carried out with enthusiasm and intent by semi professionals who drank as much beer as they collected samples. The interest lies in their working relationships, their thoughts and ideas of getting away from the stress of their normal daily lives and doing something different. Nothing bad happens, there are no disasters and Ed Ricketts managed to piece together a species catalogue that identified over fifty new species and so a substantial amount of science was done.
Perhaps many of us would like to have gone on such a good time, working expedition with this interesting bunch of characters. There was much talk of bloke-ish escapades mixed together with some philosophising about the meaning of life. Ricketts and Steinbeck were much affected by the marine life they witnessed, there is a famous sentence from the book:
'It is advisable to look from the tide pool to the stars and then back to the tide pool again'
The wonder and the myriad life that they witnessed reinforced their ideas of "is" thinking a non-teleological approach to explaining the mysteries of life. The idea that everything is part of one whole and to gain knowledge one must take into account everything appertaining to the issue in question. The normal cause and effect explanation is not enough. Taking into account everything means mysticism, hearsay, legends, observation, external conditions and probably how much beer you have drunk. It all leads to a fascinating if convoluted chapter of the book that expounds these ideas. Ricketts had published his ideas previously in philosophical pamphlets and this trip obviously encouraged his and Steinbeck's thinking. If the reader is not able to follow all of these ideas, what does come through is an enthusiasm and a wonder for natural life as well as a yearning for a more simple life.
The descriptions of the animal and plant life have the benefit of a scientific eye (Ricketts) enhanced by the descriptive writing of a professional author who was already famous after the publication of Grapes Of Wrath. The knockabout story of the two seaman Sparky and Tiny and an outboard motor that never worked together with six weeks of sunshine and cruising through a little explored part of the world makes an intoxicating mix. I found myself googling the names of the islands and beaches where the cruiser anchored marvelling, at the desolate landscapes and thinking about the clear waters and shuddering at the thought of tearing ones hands collecting spiny urchins from the sharp rocks. The book is very "is" in placing the reader alongside the crew of an expedition that sounds refreshing at a time when we can only dream of doing something similar.
Nothing is perfect and there are lingering doubts about the validity of the whole thing. How much of this was down to exploitation because Ricketts wanted to restock his marine biology lab? that Steinbeck wanted subject matter for a new book and to escape the publicity from his last publication. Why were the women written out of the story, certainly Steinbeck's marriage was going through a difficult period and the couple broke up after this trip, but why all this need for male machismo. The story behind the book and the trip itself will never be fully told and what we have in front of us, is a fascinating account of an expedition that oozes with the marine life that occupied most of the crew most of the time. They somehow made it work and Steinbeck's money financed the expedition and his name helped the sale of the book. Ed Ricketts is the character "Doc" in [Cannery Row] and John Steinbeck is himself and so anyone with an interest in these two characters should enjoy the book. I did and so 4 stars.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bungo
Tales of fabulous adventure and marine biology in a Gulf of California which surely doesn't exist any more. Steinbeck's wit and determination to enjoy life shine through this book. But this edition is also great for its appendix: "About Ed Ricketts". What a guy!
LibraryThing member JBreedlove
The abridged version of The Sea of Cortez. Steinbeck and biologist friend Ed Ricketts sail the Sea of Cortez studying flora, fauna, and themselves while philosophizing their travels away. Plates and appendices not included.
LibraryThing member blackbelt.librarian
Another great book from Steinbeck. My favorite part is the intro "About Ed Ricketts" - Steinbeck offers a great description of his friend Ed.
LibraryThing member chrisblocker
Each and every summer, I have a tradition of reading a work from my favorite author, John Steinbeck. (In recent years, I've actually been sneaking in two or three works a year; otherwise, it will be another eighteen years before I complete his catalogue of written works.) For this year's read, I
In 1940, Steinbeck, best-friend Ed Ricketts, and a crew of seamen set off for the Gulf of California to observe, catalog, and collect the marine animals they discovered along the shores. (Steinbeck's wife, Carol, had been along on the voyage as well, but is never mentioned; the fact that the couple divorced shortly after their return may have much to do with her omission). Ricketts was a marine biologist by profession and Steinbeck had a strong interest in the subject.
The resulting book chronicling this six week voyage combines the voices of Steinbeck and Ricketts, although distinguishing the authorship of original thought is improbable: Steinbeck has taken Ricketts' log, combined it with his own ideas and wording, and the conclusion is a work of two very much alike, yet different people.
The book itself is hard to define. It is part scientific journal: during their thirty collecting stations, they find crabs, oysters, worms, sea-cucumbers, nudibranchs, rays, urchins, and much more. And of course the reader is informed of these discoveries, along with any commentaries on the tide, the relationship between species, and any abnormalities. Perhaps it is just my love for Steinbeck, but I did find these collection reports interesting for the first half of the book; eventually, I grew a little tired with them.
The Log is part philosophy: Steinbeck and Ricketts both enjoyed talking about philosophical matters. Interspersed in this log are philosophical thoughts that are explored, and explored, and further explored. While there were some interesting thoughts amongst these "ramblings," they also grew tiresome.
It is part sociology: During their voyage, the crew of The Western Flyer made stops along the coasts and interacted with many of the locals. Some of these interactions are quite humorous while others are depressing. The observations made by Steinbeck, however, are gorgeous, and it is clear to see how his fiction can paint cultures and groups of people so vividly.
It is part Steinbeck: The detailed descriptions, the people, the humor, the insight—it is all very much the same Steinbeck of The Grapes of Wrath, Tortilla Flat, and The Pearl. You find Steinbeck's fictional characters in the likes of Ricketts, Sparky, and Tiny, as well as forgotten villagers, Mexican authorities, and enthusiastic errand boys.
As an added bonus, Steinbeck insisted that the publisher include a short profile about Ed Ricketts. The resulting "About Ed Ricketts," which I believe to be included in most if not all editions, is entertaining and provides further insight into not only Ricketts, but Steinbeck as well.
Oddly, as I walk away from this book, I find a deeper appreciation for a Steinbeck book I read several years ago—Tortilla Flat. While I did enjoy it, it is the one Steinbeck book I have read where I felt the most disappointment. I now realize that this is because I didn't understand the camaraderie and adventure Steinbeck had with his friends, which adds so much to its reading. Having read The Log from the Sea of Cortez, I find a believability and understanding in Tortilla Flat that I lacked in my initial reading, and I look forward to some of Steinbeck's other relatively lighthearted titles.
Show More
settled on my first non-fiction selection from Steinbeck: The Log from the Sea of Cortez.In 1940, Steinbeck, best-friend Ed Ricketts, and a crew of seamen set off for the Gulf of California to observe, catalog, and collect the marine animals they discovered along the shores. (Steinbeck's wife, Carol, had been along on the voyage as well, but is never mentioned; the fact that the couple divorced shortly after their return may have much to do with her omission). Ricketts was a marine biologist by profession and Steinbeck had a strong interest in the subject.
The resulting book chronicling this six week voyage combines the voices of Steinbeck and Ricketts, although distinguishing the authorship of original thought is improbable: Steinbeck has taken Ricketts' log, combined it with his own ideas and wording, and the conclusion is a work of two very much alike, yet different people.
The book itself is hard to define. It is part scientific journal: during their thirty collecting stations, they find crabs, oysters, worms, sea-cucumbers, nudibranchs, rays, urchins, and much more. And of course the reader is informed of these discoveries, along with any commentaries on the tide, the relationship between species, and any abnormalities. Perhaps it is just my love for Steinbeck, but I did find these collection reports interesting for the first half of the book; eventually, I grew a little tired with them.
The Log is part philosophy: Steinbeck and Ricketts both enjoyed talking about philosophical matters. Interspersed in this log are philosophical thoughts that are explored, and explored, and further explored. While there were some interesting thoughts amongst these "ramblings," they also grew tiresome.
It is part sociology: During their voyage, the crew of The Western Flyer made stops along the coasts and interacted with many of the locals. Some of these interactions are quite humorous while others are depressing. The observations made by Steinbeck, however, are gorgeous, and it is clear to see how his fiction can paint cultures and groups of people so vividly.
It is part Steinbeck: The detailed descriptions, the people, the humor, the insight—it is all very much the same Steinbeck of The Grapes of Wrath, Tortilla Flat, and The Pearl. You find Steinbeck's fictional characters in the likes of Ricketts, Sparky, and Tiny, as well as forgotten villagers, Mexican authorities, and enthusiastic errand boys.
As an added bonus, Steinbeck insisted that the publisher include a short profile about Ed Ricketts. The resulting "About Ed Ricketts," which I believe to be included in most if not all editions, is entertaining and provides further insight into not only Ricketts, but Steinbeck as well.
Oddly, as I walk away from this book, I find a deeper appreciation for a Steinbeck book I read several years ago—Tortilla Flat. While I did enjoy it, it is the one Steinbeck book I have read where I felt the most disappointment. I now realize that this is because I didn't understand the camaraderie and adventure Steinbeck had with his friends, which adds so much to its reading. Having read The Log from the Sea of Cortez, I find a believability and understanding in Tortilla Flat that I lacked in my initial reading, and I look forward to some of Steinbeck's other relatively lighthearted titles.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MrsLee
This is an account written by John Steinbeck of the marine animal collecting journey he went on in 1940, during the best tide season to Baja California and the Sea of Cortez. He went with his good friend, Edward F. Ricketts. They, along with the crew of the boat, collected marine animals from the
I loved reading the main log; all the philosophical musings, mixed with humor and detailed descriptions of Baja and the critters that reside in the inter-tidal regions. Then I read the appendix, which was Steinbeck's tribute to his friend Ed Ricketts, a biologist from Monterey. Steinbeck was able in his prose to touch the heart of my grief. Very personal. The glossary was helpful, and I used my phone to look up images for many of the animals I was unfamiliar with. After that I read the introduction and learned quite a few things about the whys and how's of the writing of the Log, and other details of the two men's lives.
Interesting to read about these men and their trip. They are full of contrasts. Seeing the environment as a whole organism needing protection, yet they spear manta rays without a hope of capture for entertainment. Possibly this comes as a result of the fact that the story is always told in first person plural and there were six men on the boat (Steinbeck's wife at that time was also on board, but is never mentioned).
Anyway, I find that as usual I love Steinbeck's nonfiction better than his fiction. I enjoy hearing the man and his musings.
Show More
littoral areas of the coast. The aim was to get a picture of the ecology of that part of the coast as a whole, not to collect rarities. The "log" was compiled from the journals of Ed Ricketts and Tony, the boat owner, along with Steinbeck's memories, into a cohesive story.I loved reading the main log; all the philosophical musings, mixed with humor and detailed descriptions of Baja and the critters that reside in the inter-tidal regions. Then I read the appendix, which was Steinbeck's tribute to his friend Ed Ricketts, a biologist from Monterey. Steinbeck was able in his prose to touch the heart of my grief. Very personal. The glossary was helpful, and I used my phone to look up images for many of the animals I was unfamiliar with. After that I read the introduction and learned quite a few things about the whys and how's of the writing of the Log, and other details of the two men's lives.
Interesting to read about these men and their trip. They are full of contrasts. Seeing the environment as a whole organism needing protection, yet they spear manta rays without a hope of capture for entertainment. Possibly this comes as a result of the fact that the story is always told in first person plural and there were six men on the boat (Steinbeck's wife at that time was also on board, but is never mentioned).
Anyway, I find that as usual I love Steinbeck's nonfiction better than his fiction. I enjoy hearing the man and his musings.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RajivC
This book came highly recommended, and I came away disappointed. I had high hopes for a travel book, or journal, from John Steinbeck. But, while the book is detailed in terms of descriptions of things done, and some technical stuff, for the most part, it was dry.
I expect travel books/journals to
I expect travel books/journals to
Show More
have life. This did not. Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Language
Original language
Spanish
Original publication date
1951
Physical description
234 p.
ISBN
8483076705 / 9788483076705