Steinbeck's Dog Ate the Of Mice and Men Manuscript
Quick answer: In 1936 Steinbeck's setter pup Toby shredded the only draft of Of Mice and Men. He rewrote it from memory: the true story behind the dog-eaten manuscript.
One evening in the spring of 1936, John Steinbeck came home to his small cottage in Pacific Grove, California, and found the floor covered in shredded paper. His Irish setter puppy, Toby, left alone with the household's most valuable object, had torn apart roughly half of the only manuscript of the short novel Steinbeck was writing. There was no carbon copy, no second draft, no typist's duplicate. About two months of work on the book that would become Of Mice and Men existed now mainly as confetti.
Every schoolchild who ever claimed a dog ate their homework has this story as their patron legend, and unlike most writing legends it is documented in Steinbeck's own hand. In a letter to his agent that May, he reported the disaster with astonishing calm, describing how the pup had made confetti of the draft, admitting he was angry, and then defending the animal: he did not want to punish a puppy too hard for what might, he joked, have been an act of literary judgement. Then he sat back down and wrote the book again.
Two months of work in ribbons
The scale of the loss is worth pausing on, because modern writers, cushioned by backups and cloud drives, can barely feel it. Steinbeck worked in longhand and single copies. The destroyed pages represented about two months of sustained composition on a book he was building with unusual care, and there was no version of the text anywhere else on earth. When he told his agent, Elizabeth Otis, what had happened, he estimated the setback matter-of-factly and set a revised schedule, like a builder reporting storm damage.
The tone of that letter has become quietly famous among writers. There is no wail, no despair, and remarkably little blame. He noted that he had been mad, conceded the pup was only being a pup, and wondered aloud whether the draft might have deserved it, saying the dog may have been acting critically. The joke is doing serious work. A man who can tease his own destroyed manuscript has already decided that the book lives in him and not in the pages.
Where he stood when the dog struck
Steinbeck in 1936 was not yet the Nobel laureate of the textbooks; he was a 34-year-old writer who had only just stopped being poor. Through the early 1930s his books, including Cup of Gold and The Pastures of Heaven, had sold weakly, and he and his wife Carol had scraped along on odd jobs and a small allowance from his father, living cheaply in the family cottage at Pacific Grove. Tortilla Flat, published in 1935, was his first real success, and it bought him something rarer than money: the confidence that readers existed for what he did.
Of Mice and Men was also a formal gamble. Steinbeck conceived it as an experiment he called a play-novelette, a story built almost entirely from scenes and dialogue so that it could be staged nearly straight from the page. He was, in other words, rewriting the rules of his own craft at the exact moment the physical manuscript was destroyed. The dog did not just eat pages; it ate the proof that the experiment was working.
The rewrite, and what came of it
He rebuilt the lost half from memory and kept going, and the finished novel appeared in February 1937. The reception was immediate and enormous. Of Mice and Men was chosen by the Book of the Month Club before publication, sold in the hundreds of thousands, and turned Steinbeck from a regional writer into a national one. The story of George and Lennie, two migrant ranch hands sharing one fragile dream during the Depression, hit the country squarely where it lived.
The play-novelette experiment paid off in the same year. Adapted for Broadway with George S. Kaufman directing, the stage version opened in November 1937 and won the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for best play. Two years later came The Grapes of Wrath and the Pulitzer Prize, and in 1962 the Nobel. None of that was guaranteed on the evening of the confetti. What was guaranteed, by the way he answered that evening, was that he would still be writing when the chances came.
Lost manuscripts, a small tradition
Steinbeck's disaster belongs to a strange, consoling lineage. In 1835 Thomas Carlyle lent the only manuscript of the first volume of The French Revolution to John Stuart Mill, whose housemaid used it to light a fire; Carlyle rewrote the entire volume from nothing, and the finished history made his name. In 1922 a suitcase containing nearly all of Ernest Hemingway's early fiction was stolen from a train at the Gare de Lyon, and the young writer had to begin again with almost empty drawers.
What the tradition teaches is uncomfortable and freeing in equal measure: the manuscript is not the work. The work is the writer's trained capacity to make the manuscript, and that survives fire, theft and dog. Some writers in this lineage even suspected the rewrite came out stronger, since memory keeps what mattered and quietly drops what did not. Nobody recommends the method. Everybody who survives it reports the same discovery.
What a working writer can take from it
The practical lesson is blunt: back up your work, because you are not Steinbeck and you do not have to be. The deeper lesson is about proportion in catastrophe. His response had three moves worth copying: name the loss precisely, refuse to punish what cannot be undone, and reschedule rather than mourn. Two months, he told his agent, and he was right. Grief over drafts expands to fill whatever time you give it; an estimate shrinks it to a number.
There is also his mercy toward Toby, which is really mercy toward the whole accident-prone world the writer works in. Files corrupt, notebooks vanish, judges overlook good poems, and none of it is a referendum on your talent. Steinbeck kept the dog. He understood that a writing life is long, that losses inside it are events rather than endings, and that the only unrecoverable manuscript is the one you refuse to write again.
Why poets should read Of Mice and Men
At well under 40,000 words, Of Mice and Men is compression a poet can learn from directly. Objects carry the emotional load: a dead mouse in a pocket, a magazine story about land, a puppy in a barn. Steinbeck almost never tells you what a character feels; he shows you what they hold, and lets the object do the grieving. That is imagist technique running a whole novel, and it transfers to poetry without translation.
Read it too for the ending's terrible economy, achieved in dialogue and gesture with barely an adjective spent. Then remember that half of this machine was rebuilt from memory after a puppy destroyed it, and let that settle the next time a lost stanza feels like the end of the world.
What poets can take from this
- Back up everything today; Steinbeck's calm is admirable, but carbon-free manuscripts are a risk no modern writer needs to take.
- When disaster hits a draft, estimate the cost in time and reschedule, rather than treating the loss as a verdict.
- Rewrite lost passages from memory before consulting notes; what you remember is usually what was alive.
- Do not punish the accident, whether it is a dog, a crashed drive or a careless editor; spend the energy on the rewrite.
- Let objects carry emotion in your work the way Steinbeck's mice and magazines do; it is the fastest route past sentimentality.
- Keep the experiment going after a setback; the play-novelette form survived the dog and won a major drama award.
Try it yourself
Write a poem in which something you made is destroyed by an innocent, a child, an animal, the weather, and the poem forgives the destroyer before it finishes describing the damage. End on the first gesture of remaking.
Questions
Did a dog really eat Steinbeck's manuscript of Of Mice and Men?
Yes. In the spring of 1936 his Irish setter puppy, Toby, shredded roughly half of the only draft, about two months of work, at the cottage in Pacific Grove, California. Steinbeck reported it in a letter to his agent and rewrote the lost portion from memory.
What happened to the dog afterwards?
Steinbeck kept him. In the same letter he made light of the disaster, refusing to come down hard on a puppy and joking that Toby might have been acting as a critic. The incident became one of the most beloved anecdotes in American literary history.
Was Of Mice and Men successful when it was published?
Immediately. Published in February 1937, it was a Book of the Month Club selection, sold in huge numbers, and its Broadway adaptation that November won the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award. It set up The Grapes of Wrath in 1939 and, eventually, Steinbeck's 1962 Nobel Prize.
By the Writory editorial team, reviewed by working poets. Updated September 2026.
Enter a Writory poetry contest
Enter the September contest and have your own poem read and scored. That first entry makes you a Writorian.