Who is the better author?--William Faulkner or John Steinbeck? Why?

Answer 1

Steinbeck was a political writer despite his genius. He advocated a pure communist perspective in everything he wrote, and all he wrote about was the down-and-out during the Great Depression and slightly afterwards. There was no nobility in his characters--in fact, his creatures were mostly unsavory and he used to them to condemn the society around him. I believe that he greatly misunderstood life as it actually was and wrote passionately in an effort to undermine and destroy it. There was nothing enobling in his characters, none of them could scarcely lift a hand against what was happening to them--even his reoccuring "Doc"-hero, who was little more than a beeraholic drifter who could not even pay his rent and often lived in abandoned warehouses in southern California.

Steinbeck's characters are mostly cartoonish because he forced them to do what HE wanted them to do. They, all of them, are predictable.

Faulkner was more of a historian than a commentator in his writings. Frankly, the storylines Faulkner used often were mere recollections of town gossip (greatly altered) that he overheard from his maiden aunt in Oxford Mississippi during afternoon teas with her.

Faulkner accepted life as it was and revealed it as he (inadequately) understood it, --BUT Faulkner also allowed his creatures to become noble and to strive against their fates. Faulkner's characters are vital and alive, full of human cunning and plots. He did not dictate to them the storyline they lived in, you see, instead they informed him what the story was. (If you ever write a book, you will understand that sentence!)

Someone once said that Faulkner's characters struggled in a Olympic War with the Universe--destined to be utterly destroyed by their Fates but remaining upright and still splendid in their endings. I believe this is correct. That, incidentally, is the theme of Faulkner's acceptance speech when he received the Nobel Prize of Literature. "I do not accept the destruction of man..."

TO FINALLY get around to answering your question. To compare Steinbeck and Faulkner is an injustice to both. They are poles apart, BUT if I were sent to a desert island and had my choice of the books of one or the other, I would choose Faulkner. He is far more thought--provoking and deeper.

Answer 2

Faulkner

Answer 3

Never have read Faulkner. Steinbeck was a good writer but his stories are so damn depressing, at least the ones I have read, and I've read about 10 Steinbeck novels or novellas.

Answer 4

In my opinion, Steinbeck. His prose is far more accessible and he doesn't restrict himself to a limited geographical area. Many would say Faulkner is superior because of the intricacies in his writing and his ability to create a perfectly credible world of his own. But, in the long run, writing is meant to be read; if your writing is so obscure it's limited, pretty much, to academians and literary sadisits...well, what the heck. Steinbeck rocks.

Answer 5

Faulkner great southern gothic tones.

Answer 6

This is merely a matter of opinion and everyone will say something different. To me, it was Steinbeck for various reasons.

Answer 7

definitely steinbeck!!

you wouldnt need to ask this question if youd read "east of eden"..