As the United States entered World War II, John Steinbeck was no stranger to writing anti-fascists propaganda for the masses. It may have seemed like a natural step for him to ensure he had a position as an intelligence officer in the United States’ armed forces in an effort to continue the habit. Unfortunately, for Steinbeck, this particular goal never came to be, and he spent most of his time becoming a simple war correspondent, eventually working for the New York Herald Tribune, provided he was able to secure the necessary security clearances to write the juicy stories the public clamored for at the time. While the stories, or collection letters, Steinbeck returned with were not the most historically enlightening, and in essence made the war appear more confusing from the outside looking in than it ever had before.
Gaining the necessary security clearance was not easy for Steinbeck; many of his superiors knew him as a radical who should not be trusted. This was odd since any hint of political leaning in the book do not show Steinbeck as being particularly left leaning concerning the Democratic Party. In fact, he seems very partial to staying loyal to the government, and remaining as anti-radical as possible. Despite these comments, Steinbeck obtained the necessary clearance and was able to travel to England in June of 1943 on a troop ship. He spent several months reporting from various places in Europe, as well as North Africa. Rather than describe the war itself, or even a soldier’s experience, apprehension, or fear, Steinbeck begins by describing fellow correspondents . The correspondents in question are more experienced than Steinbeck; their conception of him is that he is hanging on to their coattails. He states, “I think they felt I was muscling in on their hard-gained territory .” One did not expect there to be other war correspondents there, and to hear that there were and, more importantly, that they resented the presence of a new correspondent, it made the war feel less like a serious event and more like a spectator sport.
The feeling that the war was not being taking as seriously by the correspondents as it should have been continued in some of Steinbeck’s quirkier correspondences and observations. While there is something to be said for using one’s humor in order to cope with a difficult situation, it is something else entirely to not take the situation to heart at all. Moreover, while there is a chance that Steinbeck was not present for the more graphic events of the war, if he was he leaves many of them out. There is a small series of vignettes in the book wherein graphic elements are included, but beyond that, Steinbeck relies heavily on elemental detail in order to make the reader feel as though they are there. One more, we feel as though the struggle of the war is not being taken seriously. While the emotions and moods of those involved are serious, and should be respected, it is important to respect the legitimate circumstances each individual suffered through, as well. Steinbeck fails to do this. While the reader does not look for a book full of scenes that would fill a snuff film, there was an opportunity to bring back to life powerful scenes that honor those who had fallen, as well as those who had survived. Rather than do this, Steinbeck settles for pieces that pay tribute to Bob Hope as an entertainer to the troops, rather than the troops themselves. While at home it was likely an entertaining spectacle to hear Bob Hope entertain the troops, he was not the one fighting and dying for his country, nor was he the reason Steinbeck was acting as a correspondent. It makes the war appear, once more, as a bid for entertainment, and the correspondence as an act to do the same.
The entirety of the novel shows unevenness in Steinbeck’s writing. Some of it is intense and moving, while some is quirky and upbeat. This pattern of writing speaks to the unevenness of emotions during war. I say this, of course, out of opinion. I do not know, because Steinbeck never speaks to it directly, even though he had every opportunity to. Essentially, “Once There Was a War,” made World War II appear more confusing than it ever had been before. One who has not experienced war can never know war, we can only told or speculate. Steinbeck had a chance to tell us, but did not. Therefore, we only are able to speculate. Based on his writing pattern and what he chooses to describe, the war almost appeared to be about entertainment for Steinbeck. Rather than focusing on the lives lost, he chose to focus on who was entertaining the troops. This could have been a mechanism to avoid the reality that was war, however, which, when coupled with the instability of his writing patterns, makes the war appear confusing. How one person can go from almost jovial on a ship, speaking to other correspondents, to apathetic in a South African tank yard as he watches an American repair an engine could show the ravages of war, or it could merely show how one individual remains observant amidst the chaos . In sum, at one time the war appeared to be a miserable, violent experience for everybody. After reading Steinbeck’s book, it is difficult to believe if this is the truth. While he includes some violence and misery, he also remains apathetic, and even complacent about some situations. His topics sometimes beg the question, who is the real, “main character,” here? After obtaining security clearance, having been granted the privilege of traveling with the soldiers, he chooses to pay tribute to Bob Hope rather than the fallen. “Once There Was a War,” sometimes makes it seem like it was not as bad as they say.
Works Cited
Steinbeck, John. Once There Was A War. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.
