The nonsense of Steinbeck

I say soon that read Sweet Tuesday of Steinbeck isn’t difficult, but understand what he has written is impossible; a series of images which haven’t sense, and haven’t a rational for tell; dialogues which haven’t sense and characters which go back again but without action and motive, above all because they don’t give motive for continue, their move in tale is useless for history, and same tell is without of logic sense. I can think that Steinbeck would give some image of character which he has seen, human character, but I hope that he has invented them rather see it, because they are very dreary, and their presence in romance is useless; I think that a writer must rich a romance with a history which has something important or charming, but with Steinbeck, at last for this romance, Sweet Tuesday, is very bother, because during read of pages we recognize that author has tried a narrative motive but he hasn’t found, therefore he has searched something that can interest, but may he has found it while we must make tire for consider it; this romance is nothing, and nature of journalist emerges by dialogues which are in conformity with chronicle, Steinbeck was also journalist, and I think that he has very followed this method, this romance is a gather of moments without sense, and often chronicle tells argument and happens very useless.

Alessandro Lusana