Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat is basically King Arthur if the Knights of the Round Table were unemployed drunks in Monterey. That's not my hot take—that's literally what Steinbeck intended. He took the noble structure of Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur and applied it to Danny and his band of paisanos living in a shanty, drinking cheap wine, and avoiding honest work like it's a contagious disease.
I listened to this while attempting to fix the wobbly leg on our dining room table—Denise has been asking me to get to it since Christmas. It felt appropriate. Danny's house is falling apart, my house is falling apart. The only difference is I can't pay my mortgage with stolen chickens.
The Syntax Trap
Here's the thing about this book: Steinbeck writes the dialogue in a mock-archaic style to mimic how Spanish thoughts sound when directly translated to English. Phrases like "Thou art a dog" or "It is not good that a man should be alone." It's formal. It's rhythmic. And if you read it wrong, it sounds stiff.
John McDonough actually gets this part right. He doesn't put on a fake, offensive accent—thank God—but he adopts this specific lilt. He treats the text with the gravity of a biblical sermon, which makes the fact that they're discussing stealing wine hilarious. He understands that the humor comes from the contrast between the high language and the low behavior. When the boys discuss the Pirate's vow to San Francisco (the saint, not the city), McDonough hits a level of solemnity that really sells the satire.
McDonough brought that same careful tonal control to Wicked, another book where the narrator has to hold multiple registers at once without letting the whole thing collapse into camp.The "Grading Fatigue" Effect
But—and here's where I have to pull out the red pen—the reviews complaining about consistency aren't wrong. In the first hour, Danny, Pilon, and Pablo have somewhat distinct voices. But as the book goes on, they start to bleed together. It reminds me of when I'm grading essays at 11 PM; the first five get detailed comments, and the last twenty just get a checkmark and a "Good job."
By the time we get to the scenes involving the sweeping of the house or the various brawls, I sometimes lost track of who was speaking without the dialogue tags. McDonough seems to tire of the performance. The energy dips. He relies heavily on that rhythmic narration voice and forgets to step back into the characters.
Why We Still Bother With These Old Dead Guys
My students think Steinbeck is just Of Mice and Men and depression. They'd hate this book because nothing "happens" in the Marvel movie sense. But listening to McDonough describe the sunlight on the Monterey pines or the philosophical justification for theft—that's why we still assign these old dead guys. The prose deserves to be savored, even if the narrator occasionally forgets which drunk knight is speaking.
I went through something similar re-evaluating McDonough's work in Driven to Distraction—a completely different subject matter, but the same question kept nagging me: is the narration carrying the material or coasting on it?Who's this for? Steinbeck completists, anyone who enjoys satirical takes on mythology, or listeners who want something literary but genuinely funny. Skip it if you need plot momentum or distinct character voices to stay engaged.
Mr. Williams's Final Grade
Is it the definitive performance? No. But it's a solid B. It captures the spirit, if not the distinct personalities. Worth listening to, preferably with a glass of something red and cheap.
