Does the camper's mileage confirm the length of the trip? I read the book when I was in my early 20s and gave it to my son when he was the same age. We both loved the book. I don't think it matters much if it is truth or fiction; Steinbeck spun an entertaining yarn for many people to enjoy. His descriptions of places I knew, or eventually visited were very believable. The book is a wonderful story of American life and it doesn't matter to me at all if Steinbeck embellished his experiences. As for not sleeping in the camper, if he weren't a seasoned camper before making the trip he probably found sleeping in a camper far less restful for an old man than a real bed. I forgive him for that.
Nancy

All I can say is Wow! I read the book so long ago that I can't really recall much about it. I do remember that I liked it. Does it matter? It does to me a little bit. I don't like to see fiction portrayed as being non-fiction, a la James Frey. Would it have been less popular if he had promoted it as a travel book or a novel? Who knows?

I don't think it matters to me although I'll have to ponder that a bit more. It's a writer's job to use their skill to make reality even more real, so if he was elaborating & exaggerating, I believe I'm OK with that.

I bought "Travels" believing it to be reality. I considered Steinbeck a great writer and thought "Travels" would be informative AND interesting. I do believe I decided to buy the book because I had read it was a non-fiction work that was amusing and interesting. I recall my first awareness of the book was when an English teacher read an excerpt to the class. It was about the New England preacher and how Steinbeck "whited my sepulcher" by attending the service. I was definitely influenced to buy the book because of my teacher's enthusiasm. I think many people bought the book because they believed Steinbeck wrote of real experiences. However, if the book had been offered as fiction, readers who already appreciated Steinbeck's writing would have been motivated to read this book. I am of the mind that now a contraversy has been raised some people will get a copy and read the book, either again or for the first time. I plan to reread it with an eye for content that may seem contrived.
Nancy

I read the article in Chris-in-the Valley's link. I have to say that I was shocked that the scholar at San Jose State University was quoted as saying "Does it matter?" That is the antithesis of good scholarship, which seeks the truth. I was more disturbed by that statement than I was by Steinbeck blurring the line between fiction and non-fiction, if indeed he did so.

Rosefolly

Rosefolly - with respect, I tend to disagree with you, and agree more with the scholar at San Jose.

"Three Men In A Boat" is claimed to be true. It's pretty universally agreed it's based mainly on true events, but it certainly didn't all happen on one trip. Does it really matter? It's still a wonderful story.

How much of Bill Bryson is true, and how much exaggerated?

In one sense, Steinbeck's story is true - it is generally considered to be an accurate reflection of the way people behaved and thought in America at the time. If the facts are a bit stretched, does that matter? It isn't science, and it's not a court case.

I'm not sure that "good scholarship" does always "seek the truth". In science, yes, definitively. In the social sciences - yes, but it's more arguable what the truth actually is. In the arts - well, there is a huge discussion about what "the truth" actually means.

Martin, I do see your point, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I keep thinking of a young newspaper reporter a few years back who was fired for doing pretty much the same thing, writing feature pieces that blended true facts from several events to make a more compelling story. She was drummed out of the profession in highly public disgrace for her act. I seem to vaguely recall that there was a second case with a male reporter around the same time. If she was wrong, Steinbeck was wrong, and the professor at SJSU was wrong for saying that it was all right. It all could have been made okay so easily with a tagline saying "based on true events", which is entirely different from saying "this is a true story".

And if good scholarship does not always find the truth (and I certainly agree that this is so), then the search for the truth ought to be its goal, at least.

Rosefolly

I think there might be a difference between investigative journalism, which should by definition stick to the facts, and a book of this sort. I have a rule for myself (I actually read it somewhere, can't remember where) that pretty much any memoir or "true story" is about 80 percent true. People just don't remember that well - memory is very selective, and events are muddled by the sharpest of us. Unless you are reading a textbook or something that actually claims scholarship, take it with a grain of salt.

Does this help or hurt the argument? No idea!

Well, I'm softening my position. I still think the way I did, but I can see why others might not agree with me.

Roserolly

I struggle with whether or not I'm okay with it. I've been deeply disturbed these last few years with the way narrative is trumping reality, particularly in academic and political circles. I don't know about you, but when I was in school, Appearance vs. Reality was a go-to topic for papers in Lit Classes. This unbalances my world.

Realizing this was crafted tells us more about Steinbeck himself than does a typical novel, doesn't it? The referenced story in the news article about being mistaken for a classically trained actor now sounds as though Steinbeck was projecting what he wishes were true.

Chris--
Or was Steinbeck afraid a true journal might not engage enough readers and his book wouldn't be considered a hit?
Nancy

Nancy, Oddly enough your question made me think of Flannery O'Connor's, A Habit of Being, one of my favorite books. It is a collection of letters
from an invalid devoted to her 100 or so peafowl. No great narrative but fascinating all the same. I'd expect the same of Steinbeck. His Of Mice and Men had a powerful impact on me. Did he not have the confidence of his genius? Had it left with his health?

To find one's favorite author is an interesting person is a rare blessing. Is it better not to know?

I may well be shot down in a hail of bullets for saying this, but I was unfamiliar with this books until I read about it here at RP in a thread about 'Travel Books'. I read it and found it very thin stuff, mainly because he didn't actually do much travelling and also he seemed a tad over-keen on telling folk he met who he was.
OK, just wait while I pop my tin hat on.

Having read this book many years ago, the memory is a bit dim, but it seems to me that he freely admits meeting his wife in various hotels at times along his journey. What evidence are "they" going on to say it is a work of fiction? One would expect a writer to dramatize or exaggerate at times, but generally keep to the truth if he is claiming to be writing non-fiction.

This makes me think of - of all things - Facebook. I read a very funny but actually quite serious article by a writer who had looked critically at her Facebook page and didn't recognize herself. The woman with the perfect job, doting husband, and glamorous hairstyle was somewhat at odds with the increasingly desperate deadline-facing distracted freelancer who had just seen two jobs fall through who had just had a silly argument about household chores with aforesaid doting husband AND who had just noticed she was getting a prominent pimple on her chin. Guess it is not always so clear what is fact and what is fiction; what one chooses to leave out is as important as what one puts in. Of course I'm not really talking about Travels with Charley anymore.

"Travesl With Charlie" was one of my favourite non-fiction books for a long time. Now that I don't remember details about it -- can't say how believable it was -- just that I recall feeling it was so.

As for non-fiction books -- If an author throws in some extra tidbit, or exaggeration to liven up an anecdote I really don't care. But mostly I do expect non-fiction to be JUST THAT -- or why bother labeling it as such? If it's mostly fiction, than the author is creating fantasy ... and it should be labeled as such.

When I'm reading an exciting travel memoir it is more gripping to me to think that IT IS TRUE - NOT MADE-UP. When I find out something magnificent or beautifully charming is false but has been masquerading as REAL, I am so awfully disappointed!

If an author wishes to write a mostly-fictitious story w/some fact, he should call it fiction - maybe acknowledging in a foreward the parts that he didn't make up.

Memory does filter experience-when my DD and her brand new husband rode cross-country on a tandem bicycle for their honeymoon (longtimers you all shared my 61 day angst about THAT trip) they both kept copious notes and then wrote up a daily blog/log/diary-without reading the other's. Can't get much closer than a tandem-they were rarely out of sight of the other except for some personal hygiene moments. They had the same experience. But they wrote two varied versions of the trip.
So which one is the real story?