What do you think?
Rate this book
Ярко сияние
Четири действия, четирима герои - мъжът, който жадува да има син, но не знае, че не може да го създаде; жената, която е готова на всичко заради голямата всеотдайна любов; верният приятел и ненужният любовник. "Ярко сияние" разказва една история, която може да се случи навсякъде и по всяко време, тя е универсална и лишена от каквато и да било украса, мотивирана единствено от стихийни човешки желания и страсти.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1950
38 people are currently reading
2480 people want to read
About the author
John Steinbeck
1,045 books26.7k followersJohn Ernst Steinbeck was an American writer. He won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humor and keen social perception". He has been called "a giant of American letters."
During his writing career, he authored 33 books, with one book coauthored alongside Edward F. Ricketts, including 16 novels, six non-fiction books, and two collections of short stories. He is widely known for the comic novels Tortilla Flat (1935) and Cannery Row (1945), the multi-generation epic East of Eden (1952), and the novellas The Red Pony (1933) and Of Mice and Men (1937). The Pulitzer Prize–winning The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is considered Steinbeck's masterpiece and part of the American literary canon. By the 75th anniversary of its publishing date, it had sold 14 million copies.
Most of Steinbeck's work is set in central California, particularly in the Salinas Valley and the California Coast Ranges region. His works frequently explored the themes of fate and injustice, especially as applied to downtrodden or everyman protagonists.
During his writing career, he authored 33 books, with one book coauthored alongside Edward F. Ricketts, including 16 novels, six non-fiction books, and two collections of short stories. He is widely known for the comic novels Tortilla Flat (1935) and Cannery Row (1945), the multi-generation epic East of Eden (1952), and the novellas The Red Pony (1933) and Of Mice and Men (1937). The Pulitzer Prize–winning The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is considered Steinbeck's masterpiece and part of the American literary canon. By the 75th anniversary of its publishing date, it had sold 14 million copies.
Most of Steinbeck's work is set in central California, particularly in the Salinas Valley and the California Coast Ranges region. His works frequently explored the themes of fate and injustice, especially as applied to downtrodden or everyman protagonists.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews
![Profile Image for s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1735525095i%2F6431467._UX200_CR0%2C11%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
January 26, 2023
That the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry is something John Steinbeck is very familiar with, making this idea thematically central to many of his works, yet in Burning Bright we see this idea befalling his own book. It is a ‘play-novelette’ as he called it, not unlike The Moon Is Down, though here the mixture of prose and play-format dialogue swings heavily towards the dialogue. It tells the story of a couple, Joe Saul—one of Steinbeck’s signature ‘everyman’ characters—and his with Mordeen who, wanting to give a child to her husband but fearing he is sterile, gets pregnant with Joe’s arrogant assistant, Victor. Rounding out the cast is Ed, Joe’s best and most loyal friend, and across four different settings the characters discuss their situation and muse about life in typical Steinbeck fashion. Unfortunately, this comes across rather stilted and while the dialogue has some beautiful moments it is also a tad overwrought. This would perhaps work much better as a radio play or on the stage, but feels rather lifeless upon the page. Still a worthwhile read with glimmers of what makes Steinbeck such a beloved classic writer, Burning Bright is a rather dim light in his impressive oeuvre.
There is much to enjoy in Burning Bright, however. The play breaks into four scenes with a different setting for each: a circus, a farm, a boat and a hospital. While their personalities and present drama remains the same, each setting has the characters with different backgrounds to fit the setting (they all live in nearby farms in one, or are all sailors in another). Steinbeck tries to make the story a universal one, a story that fits over any social circle or setting, which is a really cool concept and while it is a bit jarring I think it would look cool in a play. It also plays into the idea that Joe is the ‘everyman,’ a concept that Steinbeck often worked into his novels and characters like Joe, or, say, Ethan from The Winter of Our Discontent, become a bit of a barometer of the soul and social values of mid-century United States.
The whole plotline with his Mordeen sleeping with the completely despicable Victor, who is portrayed as an usurper, has some Biblical seeming vibes but is also just a bit not great. It makes her function almost solely for her role in upholding the emotional states and legacies of the two men and serving mostly for her childbearing abilities than as a person with her own agency. Nobody has ever called Steinbeck a feminist writer for sure, but this felt a little egregious here.
I do enjoy Ed, however, and his name recalls Steinbeck’s good friend Ed Ricketts who is the inspiration for many Steinbeck characters such as Doc in Cannery Row. Ed is quite likeable here and helps Joe through his existential crises once he realizes he is, in fact, infertile and there is no way the baby can be his.
It does all lead up to a satisfying conclusion, with an large idea that ‘every man is father to all children and every child must have all men as father.’ This is classic Steinbeck, the idea that we are all one family and must care for each other and raise the human race together. I just feel like he did this more effectively in other books. Burning Bright is a curious and interesting experiment in the lengthy list of Steinbeck books, and it is nice to see him playing with his own craft. While it didn’t fully work here, there are some lovely moments and at least Steinbeck was pushing himself to create in fresh and dynamic ways. A worthwhile read, though one that will likely most interest long-time fans while I would caution newcomers to try some of his other books first.
3/5
There is much to enjoy in Burning Bright, however. The play breaks into four scenes with a different setting for each: a circus, a farm, a boat and a hospital. While their personalities and present drama remains the same, each setting has the characters with different backgrounds to fit the setting (they all live in nearby farms in one, or are all sailors in another). Steinbeck tries to make the story a universal one, a story that fits over any social circle or setting, which is a really cool concept and while it is a bit jarring I think it would look cool in a play. It also plays into the idea that Joe is the ‘everyman,’ a concept that Steinbeck often worked into his novels and characters like Joe, or, say, Ethan from The Winter of Our Discontent, become a bit of a barometer of the soul and social values of mid-century United States.
The whole plotline with his Mordeen sleeping with the completely despicable Victor, who is portrayed as an usurper, has some Biblical seeming vibes but is also just a bit not great. It makes her function almost solely for her role in upholding the emotional states and legacies of the two men and serving mostly for her childbearing abilities than as a person with her own agency. Nobody has ever called Steinbeck a feminist writer for sure, but this felt a little egregious here.
I do enjoy Ed, however, and his name recalls Steinbeck’s good friend Ed Ricketts who is the inspiration for many Steinbeck characters such as Doc in Cannery Row. Ed is quite likeable here and helps Joe through his existential crises once he realizes he is, in fact, infertile and there is no way the baby can be his.
It does all lead up to a satisfying conclusion, with an large idea that ‘every man is father to all children and every child must have all men as father.’ This is classic Steinbeck, the idea that we are all one family and must care for each other and raise the human race together. I just feel like he did this more effectively in other books. Burning Bright is a curious and interesting experiment in the lengthy list of Steinbeck books, and it is nice to see him playing with his own craft. While it didn’t fully work here, there are some lovely moments and at least Steinbeck was pushing himself to create in fresh and dynamic ways. A worthwhile read, though one that will likely most interest long-time fans while I would caution newcomers to try some of his other books first.
3/5
February 7, 2022
This is my second work by John Steinbeck (Yes, yes, I know… who the hell picks this one over his more popular works?) and I will tell you now I made the wrong choice.
The book is an experiment by Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men and apparently The Moon is Down (I have not read this second one, so I am basing it on his forward), he tried to write very conversation driven books with very few actual scenes, the goal being to create almost a bridge between novel form and that of a play. Burning Bright takes that experiment up to 11 even being subtitled "A Play in Story Form." In fact the book was released almost at the same time as it went on stage with Steinbeck always intending it to be performed.
The play was a failure and ran only thirteen performances. The book was also savaged by critics at the time. Steinbeck said he wasn't disappointed, and that he intended to write in this style again, but tellingly he never published another work like it, instead focusing on more traditional works.
I'll put it simply, while I genuinely would be fascinated to see this as a play, it would mostly be to see how it is performed as it’s a train-wreck. The plot follows four people, a married couple, their friend and a man who is partnered up with the husband. They get philosophical, they discuss the importance of continuing a family line and the husband worries about the fact that his wife can't get pregnant. A melodramatic soap opera follows.
One of the things I loved about Of Mice and Men was how Steinbeck captured language. Yes, people waxed philosophical at times, but the wording felt legit. It felt real even when I questioned it… not so here.
For example after the husband character tells his friend that he would like to buy his wife a gift he gives this little bit of dialogue: "… something like a ceremony, something like a golden sacrament, some pearl like a prayer or red flaring ruby of thanks. Some hard, tangible humility of mine that she can hold in the palm of her hand or wear dangling from a ribbon at her throat. That's a compulsion on me, Friend Ed. Come with me. I must get this thing. My joy requires a symbol…"
WHO THE HELL TALKS LIKE THIS? The dialogue is the worst combination of melodramatic theatrical dialogue and trying to capture genuine speech. This doesn't sound like how real people talk, and I should note that was one of the things he was going for at the time. It's an utter failure and never once feels like we're reading or watching real people.
If you're wanting to see Steinbeck do a very forced melodrama, give it a shot. Personally I was interested in seeing the "Play in Story Form" structure and while an interesting experiment, he just doesn't pull it off at all here. 1/5 stars.
The book is an experiment by Steinbeck. In Of Mice and Men and apparently The Moon is Down (I have not read this second one, so I am basing it on his forward), he tried to write very conversation driven books with very few actual scenes, the goal being to create almost a bridge between novel form and that of a play. Burning Bright takes that experiment up to 11 even being subtitled "A Play in Story Form." In fact the book was released almost at the same time as it went on stage with Steinbeck always intending it to be performed.
The play was a failure and ran only thirteen performances. The book was also savaged by critics at the time. Steinbeck said he wasn't disappointed, and that he intended to write in this style again, but tellingly he never published another work like it, instead focusing on more traditional works.
I'll put it simply, while I genuinely would be fascinated to see this as a play, it would mostly be to see how it is performed as it’s a train-wreck. The plot follows four people, a married couple, their friend and a man who is partnered up with the husband. They get philosophical, they discuss the importance of continuing a family line and the husband worries about the fact that his wife can't get pregnant. A melodramatic soap opera follows.
One of the things I loved about Of Mice and Men was how Steinbeck captured language. Yes, people waxed philosophical at times, but the wording felt legit. It felt real even when I questioned it… not so here.
For example after the husband character tells his friend that he would like to buy his wife a gift he gives this little bit of dialogue: "… something like a ceremony, something like a golden sacrament, some pearl like a prayer or red flaring ruby of thanks. Some hard, tangible humility of mine that she can hold in the palm of her hand or wear dangling from a ribbon at her throat. That's a compulsion on me, Friend Ed. Come with me. I must get this thing. My joy requires a symbol…"
WHO THE HELL TALKS LIKE THIS? The dialogue is the worst combination of melodramatic theatrical dialogue and trying to capture genuine speech. This doesn't sound like how real people talk, and I should note that was one of the things he was going for at the time. It's an utter failure and never once feels like we're reading or watching real people.
If you're wanting to see Steinbeck do a very forced melodrama, give it a shot. Personally I was interested in seeing the "Play in Story Form" structure and while an interesting experiment, he just doesn't pull it off at all here. 1/5 stars.
March 5, 2025
Even the great John Ernst Steinbeck had a few misses, and this one was definitely a letdown for me. After doing my usual post-reading research, I learned a lot about what he was trying to achieve with this book. (Though, I'd say he didn't quite pull it off.) It was a grand idea: a story that could be read by anyone as a book and easily adapted into a play with very little script work. The delivery though, left a lot to be desired. What we end up with is a dialogue-heavy, overwritten mess that didn't work well as either a book or a play. I'm not saying it was awful, just that when you've read so many amazing books by him, it's disappointing when one doesn't quite hit the mark.
I don't want to delve into the book or try to analyze Joe "everyman" and his masculinity issues, or Mordeen and her need to please her man at all costs. Let's just say that for a short novella, it's packed with baggage, which is pretty typical of Steinbeck's writing. So, even when he misses, it's still better than a lot of the other trash out there.
I don't want to delve into the book or try to analyze Joe "everyman" and his masculinity issues, or Mordeen and her need to please her man at all costs. Let's just say that for a short novella, it's packed with baggage, which is pretty typical of Steinbeck's writing. So, even when he misses, it's still better than a lot of the other trash out there.
September 2, 2025
You cannot live because you have not ever looked at life…
To me the nature of this work is realistic, but in a rare and curious manner. It is a realism which includes romance as one of its chief assets, but which has a positive horror of falsehood. This realism encloses the author’s writing with an air of sincerity and distinction, to create convincingly the illusion of veracity. But there is also dramatic intensity which makes the work a bit thrilling, so I was greedy to see how it would all end. And the final paragraphs are perhaps the most thrilling ones, considering the disastrous turmoil of human passions. The great cry that closes the book can almost be heard ringing out over the silence of this reader’s mind…
Mordeen said, “It is very dark. Turn up the light. Let me have light. I cannot see your face.”
“Light,” he said. “You want light? I will give you light.” He tore the mask from his face, and his face was shining, and his eyes were shining. “Mordeen,” he said, “I love the child.” His voice swelled and he spoke loudly. “Mordeen, I love our child.” And he raised his head and cried in triumph, “Mordeen, I love my son.”
To me the nature of this work is realistic, but in a rare and curious manner. It is a realism which includes romance as one of its chief assets, but which has a positive horror of falsehood. This realism encloses the author’s writing with an air of sincerity and distinction, to create convincingly the illusion of veracity. But there is also dramatic intensity which makes the work a bit thrilling, so I was greedy to see how it would all end. And the final paragraphs are perhaps the most thrilling ones, considering the disastrous turmoil of human passions. The great cry that closes the book can almost be heard ringing out over the silence of this reader’s mind…
Mordeen said, “It is very dark. Turn up the light. Let me have light. I cannot see your face.”
“Light,” he said. “You want light? I will give you light.” He tore the mask from his face, and his face was shining, and his eyes were shining. “Mordeen,” he said, “I love the child.” His voice swelled and he spoke loudly. “Mordeen, I love our child.” And he raised his head and cried in triumph, “Mordeen, I love my son.”
May 8, 2023
A short story by one of my favorites. About a man and his desire to have a child of his own. The story is filled with emotions and human struggle to live a meaningful life. Filled with twist and pushing to ones limit. The lie unravels leaving one to wonder if the child will be accepted and what the child really would mean to Joe.
March 6, 2015
3.5 Stars
I have a fondness for Steinbeck, and so it is with great regret that I have to criticize this novella. My edition comes in at a whopping 93 pages, and I really think that about a quarter of that should've found its way to the cutting room floor. There are better ways to convey concepts and ideas than repetition. There are better ways of showing emotion than overwrought dialogue. Perhaps if this had been written in more of a standard play format, it wouldn't have felt that way... but working it up as a novel format makes it seem a bit awkward.
But this was an experiment, I think, in the fact that each act takes place in a different setting. First, the main characters are part of a circus, then they are farmers, then sailors. I'm not sure just what the point of this was - it almost seems like they are alternate versions of the characters - but as each one picks up where the last has left off, it's a little... weird. It definitely took me by surprise the first time it shifted, but I stuck with it. It's not like it was a huge time investment.
If the technical aspects of the story are removed, though, and we just look at the themes, it's the Steinbeck I've come to love. He writes about human emotion and need so convincingly, and understands the dynamics of relationship so well, that it's hard not to identify with his characters. I can't say that any of these characters are favorites - they have nothing on Tom Joad or Lenny and George, but they are well-written, understandable, identifiable characters that carry the story, each in their own way.
So, I don't think that Burning Bright will ever be a favorite of mine. But it is a decent story (if a bit... unusual) and one which has an interesting morality and ethical dilemma at its core. I'd definitely recommend it... but it's Steinbeck. Like that's a chore. ;)
I have a fondness for Steinbeck, and so it is with great regret that I have to criticize this novella. My edition comes in at a whopping 93 pages, and I really think that about a quarter of that should've found its way to the cutting room floor. There are better ways to convey concepts and ideas than repetition. There are better ways of showing emotion than overwrought dialogue. Perhaps if this had been written in more of a standard play format, it wouldn't have felt that way... but working it up as a novel format makes it seem a bit awkward.
But this was an experiment, I think, in the fact that each act takes place in a different setting. First, the main characters are part of a circus, then they are farmers, then sailors. I'm not sure just what the point of this was - it almost seems like they are alternate versions of the characters - but as each one picks up where the last has left off, it's a little... weird. It definitely took me by surprise the first time it shifted, but I stuck with it. It's not like it was a huge time investment.
If the technical aspects of the story are removed, though, and we just look at the themes, it's the Steinbeck I've come to love. He writes about human emotion and need so convincingly, and understands the dynamics of relationship so well, that it's hard not to identify with his characters. I can't say that any of these characters are favorites - they have nothing on Tom Joad or Lenny and George, but they are well-written, understandable, identifiable characters that carry the story, each in their own way.
So, I don't think that Burning Bright will ever be a favorite of mine. But it is a decent story (if a bit... unusual) and one which has an interesting morality and ethical dilemma at its core. I'd definitely recommend it... but it's Steinbeck. Like that's a chore. ;)
June 20, 2021
Nobody is going to say this should be mentioned alongside Steinbeck's best work. They won't even say it belongs in his second tier of writing. But as the publisher noted in the original paperback version of Burning Bright: "Authors don't become best-sellers by accident. Two reasons why John Steinbeck is a hugely successful author are 1) because he's not afraid of new ideas, and 2) he has an ear close to the pulse of his times." The first point is why there is value in reading Burning Bright--because in it Steinbeck tries to combine a play format with the functionality of a novelette. The result has clunky dialogue that you won't find in his other writing but you also get to read a truly great writer experimenting with a new form.
January 23, 2021
El placer de encontrar que te faltaba de leer un título
November 21, 2023
The eternal love triangle. Older man/young wife/frisky young buck. The old man is infertile but they are desperate for a child. Surely in these circumstances it isn't really adultery?
Not my cup of tea
Not my cup of tea
November 13, 2025
Bem lá no fundo, eu sabia…ou, às tantas, apenas acalentava o desejo de que assim fosse.
De uma forma ou de outra, John Steinbeck “salvou-me” de um marasmo literário no qual tinha mergulhado durante o verão.
“Chama Devoradora”, originalmente publicado em 1950, é o terceiro livro que Steinbeck caracteriza como “romance-peça teatral” (depois de “Ratos e Homens” - o meu preferido - e “Noite Sem Lua”, lido este ano).
Este género é, sem dúvida alguma, de uma riqueza incontestável pois, à sua escrita profusamente descritiva do tempo, do espaço e do mundo interior das personagens, Steinbeck acrescenta ingredientes dinâmicos, próprios de uma peça de teatro, tornando a leitura interessante, fluida e recheada de momentos de tensão tanto psicológica como emocional.
Inspirando-se numa fábula medieval, o autor apresenta quatro personagens que ficam, para todo o sempre, interligadas: existe um traço, uma pegada, um sonho, uma decisão (pouco consensual) que atravessam esta narrativa, dividida em três actos.
Enquanto os diálogos entre as personagens conferem um ímpeto devorador ao desenrolar dos acontecimentos, é o diálogo interior das personagens que acaba por decidir o rumo imprevisível que esta história assume até ao fim.
Neste seu livro, Steinbeck debruça-se sobre a chama devoradora que existe em cada um de nós: um desejo férreo, incontrolável de alcançar algo passível de ser perpetuado, em jeito de legado. Algo que de nós permaneça quando morrermos. E não será este um desejo universal? De igual modo, Steinbeck destrincha os contornos ambíguos do amor e do alcance desse mesmo amor, cruzando-os com princípios e valores, tanto individuais como sociais, ainda arraigados a estereótipos de género.
Aconselho este livro não só a apreciadores da escrita de Steinbeck como também a quem desejar desafiar-se a ser, não só o leitor-observador, como também o leitor-que se coloca no lugar de.
De uma forma ou de outra, John Steinbeck “salvou-me” de um marasmo literário no qual tinha mergulhado durante o verão.
“Chama Devoradora”, originalmente publicado em 1950, é o terceiro livro que Steinbeck caracteriza como “romance-peça teatral” (depois de “Ratos e Homens” - o meu preferido - e “Noite Sem Lua”, lido este ano).
Este género é, sem dúvida alguma, de uma riqueza incontestável pois, à sua escrita profusamente descritiva do tempo, do espaço e do mundo interior das personagens, Steinbeck acrescenta ingredientes dinâmicos, próprios de uma peça de teatro, tornando a leitura interessante, fluida e recheada de momentos de tensão tanto psicológica como emocional.
Inspirando-se numa fábula medieval, o autor apresenta quatro personagens que ficam, para todo o sempre, interligadas: existe um traço, uma pegada, um sonho, uma decisão (pouco consensual) que atravessam esta narrativa, dividida em três actos.
Enquanto os diálogos entre as personagens conferem um ímpeto devorador ao desenrolar dos acontecimentos, é o diálogo interior das personagens que acaba por decidir o rumo imprevisível que esta história assume até ao fim.
Neste seu livro, Steinbeck debruça-se sobre a chama devoradora que existe em cada um de nós: um desejo férreo, incontrolável de alcançar algo passível de ser perpetuado, em jeito de legado. Algo que de nós permaneça quando morrermos. E não será este um desejo universal? De igual modo, Steinbeck destrincha os contornos ambíguos do amor e do alcance desse mesmo amor, cruzando-os com princípios e valores, tanto individuais como sociais, ainda arraigados a estereótipos de género.
Aconselho este livro não só a apreciadores da escrita de Steinbeck como também a quem desejar desafiar-se a ser, não só o leitor-observador, como também o leitor-que se coloca no lugar de.
Read
June 9, 2009May we all have a friend like Friend Ed.
May 28, 2013
My husband and I had met each other only a few weeks before I read this unforgettable little novel. He could not believe that a book could make anybody cry so much!
Read
January 31, 2025Ok so….. maybe this is just because I’ve never read any Steinbeck before and I just don’t understand why this is apparently the worst thing he’s ever written (according to everyone else) but I kinda liked it.
Yes, the dialogue is obtuse and melodramatic… and perhaps this is me being eisegetical because there’s not much I understand about the context or intent of this book, but I feel like it kinda worked as a lowkey absurdist element to the play-novelette. It made for a fascinating read. The situation in this story is crazy and the last act feels like nothing short of a fever dream. Plus the constant switching of setting?????? Awesome and interesting.
I feel like I can’t give this story an accurate review bc I just am not familiar enough with Steinbeck or the form to critique it accurately. But I enjoyed it for sure!!!!!! Kept me entertained!!!!
Yes, the dialogue is obtuse and melodramatic… and perhaps this is me being eisegetical because there’s not much I understand about the context or intent of this book, but I feel like it kinda worked as a lowkey absurdist element to the play-novelette. It made for a fascinating read. The situation in this story is crazy and the last act feels like nothing short of a fever dream. Plus the constant switching of setting?????? Awesome and interesting.
I feel like I can’t give this story an accurate review bc I just am not familiar enough with Steinbeck or the form to critique it accurately. But I enjoyed it for sure!!!!!! Kept me entertained!!!!
April 14, 2025
2.5 rounded up
A morality play based around one of the most timeless, universal themes in drama: cuckoldry.
John Steinbeck was experimentin’ with this one; he wrote it in the same structural style as he did Of Mice and Men, as a play in novelette form. Only, Of Mice and Men works as a story, and this one takes several bizarre swings that prevent it from connecting in a meaningful way.
The first is the worst…the dialogue. Apparently he decided to write the dialogue here in such an arch and stylized way in order to heighten it above naturalistic storytelling. The problem is…it just doesn’t read right at all. You’re kinda hoping it’ll sound more poetic in your head, but about the 50th time the characters refer to each other as “Friend Ed” or “Joe Saul”, you’re like ‘aight.’
The other peculiarity is the change of setting in each act. We got a circus. A farm. And a boat. What connect them? Idk. The idea here was, according to Steinbeck, to make the story feel more universal. Tight-rope acrobats aren’t the only guys who can overcome the tragic trauma of being cucked by your perfect, nice wife. Nor are farmers, or fishermen! We can all be “step-up-dads”! Nice message but man it makes it an odd read.
Not great!
A morality play based around one of the most timeless, universal themes in drama: cuckoldry.
John Steinbeck was experimentin’ with this one; he wrote it in the same structural style as he did Of Mice and Men, as a play in novelette form. Only, Of Mice and Men works as a story, and this one takes several bizarre swings that prevent it from connecting in a meaningful way.
The first is the worst…the dialogue. Apparently he decided to write the dialogue here in such an arch and stylized way in order to heighten it above naturalistic storytelling. The problem is…it just doesn’t read right at all. You’re kinda hoping it’ll sound more poetic in your head, but about the 50th time the characters refer to each other as “Friend Ed” or “Joe Saul”, you’re like ‘aight.’
The other peculiarity is the change of setting in each act. We got a circus. A farm. And a boat. What connect them? Idk. The idea here was, according to Steinbeck, to make the story feel more universal. Tight-rope acrobats aren’t the only guys who can overcome the tragic trauma of being cucked by your perfect, nice wife. Nor are farmers, or fishermen! We can all be “step-up-dads”! Nice message but man it makes it an odd read.
Not great!
July 22, 2025
Bendeki 1958 varlık yayınları baskısıydı. Çeviride çok tatlı bazı detaylar vardı (t-shirt kelimesini t-gömleği diye çevirmeleri gibi. Sanırım o yıllarda Türkiye’de tişört yok :d). Goodreads yorumlarında beğenilmemesine biraz da şaşırdım. Hikayenin formuyla ilgili Steinbeck’in denediği şeyler bana çok ilgi çekici geldi. Okurken aldığım keyfi de baya arttırdı. Hikayenin içindeki bağlam değişiklikleri, zaman akışı konusunda yaptığı denemeler, diyalog bazlı olması… Ben severek bir solukta okudum.
May 15, 2022
Como dice el mismo autor, un drama en forma novelada. Está contada en tres actos y en tres lugares distintos, es algo que no entiendo muy bien, pero la historia principal continúa y se sigue perfectamente.
Una historia con solo cuatro personajes, no necesita más. Una historia corta , como siempre, muy bien narrada por la pluma de Steinbeck. No es de las obras que más me ha gustado pero es bastante buena.
Una historia con solo cuatro personajes, no necesita más. Una historia corta , como siempre, muy bien narrada por la pluma de Steinbeck. No es de las obras que más me ha gustado pero es bastante buena.
June 9, 2023
This was another Library Book Discussion group selection that I am now bringing my review to Goodreads.
This is not a typical Steinbeck novel. Actually it is more a play/novella. Not a popular one.
Premise: Joe Saul wants a child. But he is unable to do so with his young wife, Mordeen. She gets pregnant with the help of their hired hand, Victor. Joe is elated, but Victor feels used. Of course, Joe doesn't realize he is not the father, and Victor wants him to know. Mordeen tries to convince him not to tell Joe, because she wants to please her husband, and doesn't want him to know the extent she went to, to give him this child.
Bottom line it does not end happily for any of the characters.
The problem with this novella/play is the stilted dialogue. It does not sound natural - real, or like anything anybody would actually say.
The scenes are also off. What the characters do is off.
Do we care about the characters as readers?
As off as this story was, it was a great discussion selection, because there was so much ambiguity.
So what can any reader do?
Exit stage left.
This is not a typical Steinbeck novel. Actually it is more a play/novella. Not a popular one.
Premise: Joe Saul wants a child. But he is unable to do so with his young wife, Mordeen. She gets pregnant with the help of their hired hand, Victor. Joe is elated, but Victor feels used. Of course, Joe doesn't realize he is not the father, and Victor wants him to know. Mordeen tries to convince him not to tell Joe, because she wants to please her husband, and doesn't want him to know the extent she went to, to give him this child.
Bottom line it does not end happily for any of the characters.
The problem with this novella/play is the stilted dialogue. It does not sound natural - real, or like anything anybody would actually say.
The scenes are also off. What the characters do is off.
Do we care about the characters as readers?
As off as this story was, it was a great discussion selection, because there was so much ambiguity.
So what can any reader do?
Exit stage left.
November 6, 2013
It boggles that I'd give any Steinbeck work a three-star rating, since I think he's one of the hallowed masters, but this little curio of a book didn't move me. It's such an odd work—he dubbed it a "play-novelette"—set in three acts, with the stage trappings of place and character declaration drawn in, to me, stiff caricature. The speech of the players often has a blustery formality that kept me at a distance, though some passages have the rich Steinbeck hand. Perhaps if I hadn't read a good deal of Steinbeck I could approach this more open-heartedly, but as it was, I was left more puzzled than illumined.
(By the way, I realize I haven't in the least addressed what the durn thing is about, but I just ain't a gonna. So there.)
(By the way, I realize I haven't in the least addressed what the durn thing is about, but I just ain't a gonna. So there.)
September 26, 2013
The play novellette is what Steinbeck talking about, but the real thing is that he could't write a play. What he discussed in the foreword didn't convinced me at all. It's a novellette where all events happened in one place every chapter, or a play with a lot of description.
I liked "of mice and men", didn't read "the moon is down", but "burning bright" was a complete disaster, the story is very silly and stupid, the chracters are shallow and unconvincing, the only remarkabe thing is that changing the place and characters sets every chapter.
I liked "of mice and men", didn't read "the moon is down", but "burning bright" was a complete disaster, the story is very silly and stupid, the chracters are shallow and unconvincing, the only remarkabe thing is that changing the place and characters sets every chapter.
December 4, 2022
Lots going on in a short book, wasn’t expecting it to be that dark a novel
December 20, 2023
It was a randomly absurd book that portrays the story of a man who ignores his infertility but suffers from the incessant desire to have a child, his wife who commits adultery in order to give her husband a child and the child's father.
It also talks about the importance attributed at that time to maintaining the existence of people of the same blood, thus there being a great need for reproduction.
A man who was a friend of the couple initially seemed insignificant even though he knew the woman was committing adultery, yet he was the most crucial person in the whole story.
It was an interesting book that I can only associate with absurdism for some reason, however I can't justify why I liked the work so much. It was the first time I read John Steinbeck, however after this first experience I want to read more of his books.
It was a proof of love that undermines immense intrinsic values that I actually value.
It also talks about the importance attributed at that time to maintaining the existence of people of the same blood, thus there being a great need for reproduction.
A man who was a friend of the couple initially seemed insignificant even though he knew the woman was committing adultery, yet he was the most crucial person in the whole story.
It was an interesting book that I can only associate with absurdism for some reason, however I can't justify why I liked the work so much. It was the first time I read John Steinbeck, however after this first experience I want to read more of his books.
It was a proof of love that undermines immense intrinsic values that I actually value.
April 25, 2018
What the heck is a play-novelette? Answer: this book!
As a novelette - 3 stars because the story is interesting enough to finish (although a bit cliche by now, maybe not so beginning 1900s). Widowed husband remarries and wants a child, he's sterile but too proud to get tested or to admit the possibility. New wife loves him so much she gets pregnant and tries to pass it as his own. The actual father falls for her. Husband's best friend turns a blind eye and comes to everyone's aid when needed. The problem is that the story is rather linear and the conflict is never strong enough. Steinbeck being Steinbeck is so good at revealing the inner nature of his characters that he forgets the need for intense conflict in a play. So why a novelette format? Steinbeck expresses the difficulties he has reading plays and that this form is valid for non-theater productions and the general reader... which brings me to:
As a play - 1 star because the tension is lacking, and going into characters thoughts implies the action doesn't show what the characters are feeling, only the narrative does so. The beauty of reading plays is seeing the eventful and artistic ways in which writers have their characters demonstrate their emotions. Not to mention the awkward dialogue with name dropping - I mean how often do you mention a person's name when you are talking to them? Never. The beauty of a play format is having the tags that you register as you read but never focus on.
Conclusion: should've stuck to writing novels only, Mr Steinbeck, that's definitely your forte.
As a novelette - 3 stars because the story is interesting enough to finish (although a bit cliche by now, maybe not so beginning 1900s). Widowed husband remarries and wants a child, he's sterile but too proud to get tested or to admit the possibility. New wife loves him so much she gets pregnant and tries to pass it as his own. The actual father falls for her. Husband's best friend turns a blind eye and comes to everyone's aid when needed. The problem is that the story is rather linear and the conflict is never strong enough. Steinbeck being Steinbeck is so good at revealing the inner nature of his characters that he forgets the need for intense conflict in a play. So why a novelette format? Steinbeck expresses the difficulties he has reading plays and that this form is valid for non-theater productions and the general reader... which brings me to:
As a play - 1 star because the tension is lacking, and going into characters thoughts implies the action doesn't show what the characters are feeling, only the narrative does so. The beauty of reading plays is seeing the eventful and artistic ways in which writers have their characters demonstrate their emotions. Not to mention the awkward dialogue with name dropping - I mean how often do you mention a person's name when you are talking to them? Never. The beauty of a play format is having the tags that you register as you read but never focus on.
Conclusion: should've stuck to writing novels only, Mr Steinbeck, that's definitely your forte.
February 25, 2024
For a book comprising of the sauciest of ingredients: murder, deceit, adultery, betrayal, tragedy., it was just super-incredibly LAAAAAAAAME.
September 6, 2009
the third and final of steinbeck's "play-novelettes" (after of mice and men and the moon is down), burning bright is a brief, yet remarkably powerful exploration of pride and paternity. steinbeck considered the work an experiment, "a combination of many old forms." in the foreword he outlines his reasons for attempting this synthesis, well aware of the format's inherent obstacles: "the difficulties of the technique are very great. the writer whose whole training has lain in the play is content to leave physical matters to his director or set designer and has not learned to use description as a fiction writer does. on the other hand, the fiction writer has been trained to let his description pick up his dialogue, and he tends to depart from the tight structure of the theater. if a writer is not accustomed to seeing his story before his eyes, his use of this form is not likely to be successful." while the form itself is, perhaps, not as potent as either of its parts alone, steinbeck's endeavoring to craft a new literary structure is both brave and admirable.
burning bright bears many similarities to greek drama, though lacks its depth and brilliance. as a morality play, steinbeck succeeds in conjuring a situation wherein individuals struggle with the bounds of propriety and duty. his focus on overcoming the work's structural constraints, however, undermines the overall effect of the ethical dilemma he directs the reader to consider. to be fair, this cannot be an easy format to write within, and perhaps because of that, the book (as well as the stage play) was met with a rather cool reception. nonetheless, this work further demonstrates steinbeck's commitment to exploring human compassion when confronted with hardship. he is neither sanctimonious nor reductive, but seemingly content to craft a tale that illustrates the essence of the ongoing human drama. this is not steinbeck's strongest outing, yet that is no reason to forsake it altogether. like any intriguing work of art, burning bright raises more questions than it ever attempts to answer.
burning bright bears many similarities to greek drama, though lacks its depth and brilliance. as a morality play, steinbeck succeeds in conjuring a situation wherein individuals struggle with the bounds of propriety and duty. his focus on overcoming the work's structural constraints, however, undermines the overall effect of the ethical dilemma he directs the reader to consider. to be fair, this cannot be an easy format to write within, and perhaps because of that, the book (as well as the stage play) was met with a rather cool reception. nonetheless, this work further demonstrates steinbeck's commitment to exploring human compassion when confronted with hardship. he is neither sanctimonious nor reductive, but seemingly content to craft a tale that illustrates the essence of the ongoing human drama. this is not steinbeck's strongest outing, yet that is no reason to forsake it altogether. like any intriguing work of art, burning bright raises more questions than it ever attempts to answer.
it is the race, the species that must go staggering on. mordeen, our ugly little species, weak and ugly, torn with insanities, violent and quarrelsome, sensing evil- the only species that knows evil and practices it- the only one that sense cleanness and is dirty, that knows about cruelty and is unbearably cruel.
our dear race, born without courage but very brave, born with a flickering intelligence and yet with beauty in its hands. what animal has made beauty, created it, save only we? with all our horrors and our faults, somewhere in us there is a shining. this is the most important of all facts. there is a shining.
August 16, 2015
"Chama Devoradora" é um livro original na forma como conta a história que Joe Saul, Mordeen, Vítor e Amigo Ed partilham. Estes são os nomes que Steinbeck decidiu dar às suas personagens, mas poderiam ter sido outros porque o que eles representam é a espécie humana, as nossas preocupações, os nossos anseios, os nossos desejos e objectivos. As realidades de onde vimos até podem ser diferentes, mas na essência somos de facto muito semelhantes, programados para preservar a espécie, embora muitas vezes pareça exactamente o oposto.
Em três cenários à primeira vista díspares, um Circo, uma Quinta e no Mar, eles vão ser confrontados com dilemas morais, escolhas difíceis. Vão lutar pelo que acreditam, vão cometer injustiças e provocar angústias nos que amam. Vão percorrer um caminho juntos, aprender, crescer e no fim perceber que estavam errados. :)
Foi bom voltar a Steinbeck numa história deste tipo, muito diferente das que lhe são tão características. Uma espécie de experiência literária, explicada pelo próprio no início do livro e que lhe correu francamente bem.
Steinbeck não se recomenda, os livros dele são uma espécie de inevitabilidade à qual nenhum leitor quererá escapar. ☺
Boas leituras!
Em três cenários à primeira vista díspares, um Circo, uma Quinta e no Mar, eles vão ser confrontados com dilemas morais, escolhas difíceis. Vão lutar pelo que acreditam, vão cometer injustiças e provocar angústias nos que amam. Vão percorrer um caminho juntos, aprender, crescer e no fim perceber que estavam errados. :)
Foi bom voltar a Steinbeck numa história deste tipo, muito diferente das que lhe são tão características. Uma espécie de experiência literária, explicada pelo próprio no início do livro e que lhe correu francamente bem.
Steinbeck não se recomenda, os livros dele são uma espécie de inevitabilidade à qual nenhum leitor quererá escapar. ☺
Boas leituras!
April 15, 2024
It’s comforting to know that even great writers churn out crap once in a while. That sentiment is about all this one is good for. It’s just plain weird in not at all a good way, and the moral of the story feels at the same time heavy handed as well as entirely unearned. I’d have preferred no moral at all if it meant the characters could be better fleshed out. Mordeen especially is defined only by her love for her husband, and this is really disappointing from someone like John Steinbeck who usually writes very strong, multifaceted women. The men in the story aren’t much better. The relationships here are forced, you get no real sense of family from a story apparently designed to be about just that.
September 24, 2011
“Ярко сияние” на Стайнбек е нещо малко и красиво: http://www.knigolandia.info/2009/11/b...
Не очаквах това книжле да ми хареса. Купих го, защото обожавам Стайнбек, особено потресаващите “Грозодовете на гнева” и “Тортила Флет”.
И все пак останах потресен след изчитане на стотината странички. Големият майстор доказва за пореден път, че може всичко, наистина всичко.
Не очаквах това книжле да ми хареса. Купих го, защото обожавам Стайнбек, особено потресаващите “Грозодовете на гнева” и “Тортила Флет”.
И все пак останах потресен след изчитане на стотината странички. Големият майстор доказва за пореден път, че може всичко, наистина всичко.
February 28, 2013
My least favorite Steinbeck novel, but I'm glad I gave it a second chance. I still think it's a failure, and by far the least satisfying of his play-novelette experiments, but there are still moments of classic Steinbeck brilliance, in the characters and the descriptions, if not in the story.
July 30, 2015
Bir Gazap Üzümleri değil ama John Steinbeck ne yazdıysa okunur.
Read
January 23, 2024" - لانني صفعتك؟
- نعم، لا احب ان اتواجد في مكان صفعت فيه
- ولكنني اعتذرت "
الاحتراق الساطع (بالإنجليزية: Burning Bright) عبارة عن رواية من عام 1950 لجون ستاينبيك، كتبت كتجربة لإنتاج مسرحية بشكل رواية. بدلاً من تقديم الحوار وتوجيهات المنصة المختصرة فقط كما هو متوقع في المسرحية، يجسد ستاينبيك المشاهد بتفاصيل عن الشخصيات والبيئة. كان القصد هو السماح للقارئ غير المسرحي بقراءة المسرحية مع السماح في ذات الوقت بنقل الحوار وأدائه دون تعديل يذكر من قبل شركات التمثيل. بينما كان بإمكان ستاينبيك أن يرى أن توفير القليل من المعلومات في سبيل الوصف المادي أو توجيهات المنصة قد أعطى للمخرج والممثلين مزيدًا من الحرية وإمكانية التأدية التخيليّة، إلا أنه كان يقارن ذلك بفائدة جعل الممثلين يدركون نية المؤلف وجعل المسرحية متاحة للقارئ العام.
الحبكة
القصة عبارة عن مسرحية أخلاقية بسيطة تتعلق بجوي شاول، وهو رجل كبير في السن مستميت في سبيل الحصول على طفل. تشتبه زوجته الشابة، موردين، التي تحبه، في أنه عقيم، ومن أجل إرضائه بحملها طفلًا، أصبحت حاملًا من قبل مساعد شاول الصغير المغرور فيكتور. الشخصية الرابعة في القصة هي فريند إد، صديق قديم لشاول وموردين، الذي يساعد الزوجين خلال المحنة بعد أن يكتشف جو أنه فعلًا عقيم ولا يمكن للطفل أن يكون طفله. القصد من القصة هو أن تكون قصة إنسان عادي (في وقت مبكر من تطورها كان ستاينبيك قد فكر في تسمية المسرحية الإنسان العادي)، وبالتالي فإن إعداد كل واحد من الفصول الثلاثة يعيد صياغة الشخصيات الأربعة في مواقف مختلفة: يتم تعيين الفصل الأول في سيرك، شاول وفيكتور فنانين بهلوانيين وفريند إد، مهرجًا؛ في الفصل الثاني، يصبح شاول وفريند إد مزارعين متجاورين، ويظهر فيكتور كعامل في مزرعة شاول. في الفصل الأخير شاول يكون ربّان السفينة، والسيد فيكتور، مرافقه، وفريند إد بحار على وشك الإطلاق على سفينة مختلفة. ينقسم الفصل الثالث إلى مشهدين؛ يكون المشهد الأخير في مستشفى حيث يولد الطفل؛ ولا يشير إلى أي من محاور الفصول الثلاثة، وبذلك يكون بمثابة خاتمة لأي قصة من القصص بالتساوي.
تطور الرواية
كانت الاحتراق الساطع هي المحاولة الثالثة لستاينبيك في كتابة ما أسماه «رواية مسرحية». لقد جرب شيئًا مماثلاً في رواية فئران ورجال في عام 1937 ورواية في مغيب القمر في عام 1942، ولكن من بين الثلاثة، كانت الاحتراق الساطع المحاولة الأكثر اكتمالًا في هذا النوع. يعتقد ستاينبيك أنه ربما كان أول شخص يجرب هذا الأسلوب. في وقت كتابة المقدمة، التي أوضح فيها نواياه، اعتقد أنها شكل من شأنه أن يحمل المزيد من التجارب. استمرارًا للتجربة، خُطط لافتتاح إنتاج مسرحي في نفس الوقت الذي نُشر فيه الكتاب. كان العنوان الأصلي للكتاب، في غابات الليل، عبارة عن سطر من كتاب النمر لويليام بلايك، لكن الشكاوى من أنه كان طويلًا جدًا وأدبيًا للغاية من قبل مُنتجي المسرحية أدت إلى تغييره إلى المقتطف الأقصر من نفس القصيدة: الاحتراق الساطع.
يُشار إلى فريند إد أنه واحد من مجموعة الشخصيات المستوحاة من الصديق المقرب لستاينبيك، إد ريكيتس. في الوقت الذي كتب فيه ستاينبيك الاحتراق الساطع، كان ريكيتس قد قُتل مؤخرًا في حادث سيارة، وكما يعكس شخصية صديقه في شخصية فريند إد، يُعتقد أن محاور فصول السيرك والبحر قد يكون لهما أهمية بالنسبة إلى ستاينبيك: كان على ما يبدو في مرحلة كتابة السيرك عندما علم بموت ريكيتس، ودُفن ريكيتس بجوار البحر.
- نعم، لا احب ان اتواجد في مكان صفعت فيه
- ولكنني اعتذرت "
الاحتراق الساطع (بالإنجليزية: Burning Bright) عبارة عن رواية من عام 1950 لجون ستاينبيك، كتبت كتجربة لإنتاج مسرحية بشكل رواية. بدلاً من تقديم الحوار وتوجيهات المنصة المختصرة فقط كما هو متوقع في المسرحية، يجسد ستاينبيك المشاهد بتفاصيل عن الشخصيات والبيئة. كان القصد هو السماح للقارئ غير المسرحي بقراءة المسرحية مع السماح في ذات الوقت بنقل الحوار وأدائه دون تعديل يذكر من قبل شركات التمثيل. بينما كان بإمكان ستاينبيك أن يرى أن توفير القليل من المعلومات في سبيل الوصف المادي أو توجيهات المنصة قد أعطى للمخرج والممثلين مزيدًا من الحرية وإمكانية التأدية التخيليّة، إلا أنه كان يقارن ذلك بفائدة جعل الممثلين يدركون نية المؤلف وجعل المسرحية متاحة للقارئ العام.
الحبكة
القصة عبارة عن مسرحية أخلاقية بسيطة تتعلق بجوي شاول، وهو رجل كبير في السن مستميت في سبيل الحصول على طفل. تشتبه زوجته الشابة، موردين، التي تحبه، في أنه عقيم، ومن أجل إرضائه بحملها طفلًا، أصبحت حاملًا من قبل مساعد شاول الصغير المغرور فيكتور. الشخصية الرابعة في القصة هي فريند إد، صديق قديم لشاول وموردين، الذي يساعد الزوجين خلال المحنة بعد أن يكتشف جو أنه فعلًا عقيم ولا يمكن للطفل أن يكون طفله. القصد من القصة هو أن تكون قصة إنسان عادي (في وقت مبكر من تطورها كان ستاينبيك قد فكر في تسمية المسرحية الإنسان العادي)، وبالتالي فإن إعداد كل واحد من الفصول الثلاثة يعيد صياغة الشخصيات الأربعة في مواقف مختلفة: يتم تعيين الفصل الأول في سيرك، شاول وفيكتور فنانين بهلوانيين وفريند إد، مهرجًا؛ في الفصل الثاني، يصبح شاول وفريند إد مزارعين متجاورين، ويظهر فيكتور كعامل في مزرعة شاول. في الفصل الأخير شاول يكون ربّان السفينة، والسيد فيكتور، مرافقه، وفريند إد بحار على وشك الإطلاق على سفينة مختلفة. ينقسم الفصل الثالث إلى مشهدين؛ يكون المشهد الأخير في مستشفى حيث يولد الطفل؛ ولا يشير إلى أي من محاور الفصول الثلاثة، وبذلك يكون بمثابة خاتمة لأي قصة من القصص بالتساوي.
تطور الرواية
كانت الاحتراق الساطع هي المحاولة الثالثة لستاينبيك في كتابة ما أسماه «رواية مسرحية». لقد جرب شيئًا مماثلاً في رواية فئران ورجال في عام 1937 ورواية في مغيب القمر في عام 1942، ولكن من بين الثلاثة، كانت الاحتراق الساطع المحاولة الأكثر اكتمالًا في هذا النوع. يعتقد ستاينبيك أنه ربما كان أول شخص يجرب هذا الأسلوب. في وقت كتابة المقدمة، التي أوضح فيها نواياه، اعتقد أنها شكل من شأنه أن يحمل المزيد من التجارب. استمرارًا للتجربة، خُطط لافتتاح إنتاج مسرحي في نفس الوقت الذي نُشر فيه الكتاب. كان العنوان الأصلي للكتاب، في غابات الليل، عبارة عن سطر من كتاب النمر لويليام بلايك، لكن الشكاوى من أنه كان طويلًا جدًا وأدبيًا للغاية من قبل مُنتجي المسرحية أدت إلى تغييره إلى المقتطف الأقصر من نفس القصيدة: الاحتراق الساطع.
يُشار إلى فريند إد أنه واحد من مجموعة الشخصيات المستوحاة من الصديق المقرب لستاينبيك، إد ريكيتس. في الوقت الذي كتب فيه ستاينبيك الاحتراق الساطع، كان ريكيتس قد قُتل مؤخرًا في حادث سيارة، وكما يعكس شخصية صديقه في شخصية فريند إد، يُعتقد أن محاور فصول السيرك والبحر قد يكون لهما أهمية بالنسبة إلى ستاينبيك: كان على ما يبدو في مرحلة كتابة السيرك عندما علم بموت ريكيتس، ودُفن ريكيتس بجوار البحر.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews