Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1955. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 385-410).

The primary purpose of this study is to show that John Steinbeck's concern with alienation is pervasive and consistent from the beginning of his career as a writer until the end. The pervasiveness of his concern with alienation is demonstrated by examining his two early collections of short stories and by showing how alienated characters in these stories resemble alienated characters in all the author's major works of fiction. Since much confusion surrounds the meaning of the word "alienation," it is necessary to begin with a definition of "alienation" as it is used to discuss Steinbeck. An alienated character in Steinbeck's fiction is a person who is separated from another person, group of persons, society, or the person's ideal self. This study is concerned with characters who create their own alienation rather than with those who are merely helpless victims.

The purpose of this study is to show how, in a world with a system of values based on love, the characters in the novels of John Steinbeck are alienated and reconciled.

There is evidence in Steinbeck's works of anti-intellectualism which is expressed by a somewhat maudlin handling of human emotions,and by a doggedly persistent attack on various intellectual types. This attitude is further revealed in Steinbeck's personal life by his abstention from any literary coteries or universities and his adamant refusal to discuss his life and works or offer his considerable talent to any institution of higher learning.

The radical literary tradition of the 1930‟s inspired many American authors to become more concerned with the struggle of the proletariat. John Steinbeck is one of these authors. Steinbeck‟s novels throughout the 1930‟s and 1940‟s display a lack of agreement with the common Communist principles being portrayed by other radical novelists, but also a definite alignment with several more basic Marxist principles. The core of his radical philosophy comes in the form of his interest in group-man or the phalanx. An interest that is rather uncommon for the period, as most radical novelists were more concerned with illustrating the solitary nature of the proletarian worker. Over the course of his career this philosophy evolves, as can be illustrated through an analysis of In Dubious Battle, The Grapes of Wrath, and Cannery Row. In Dubious Battle is highly critical of Communist labor organizers, and sets Steinbeck apart form the radical tradition by questioning rather than supporting their motivation. The labor organizers manipulate the phalanx in this novel, and Steinbeck leaves the reader with the impression that the group-man is being corrupted. The Grapes of Wrath is also a socially motivated novel, with an abundance of Marxist undertones, but most importantly the novel provides Steinbeck with a better medium within which he can further examine the phalanx. Throughout this novel Steinbeck remains separate from other propagandists, as he supports his own agenda rather than that of the Party. Steinbeck‟s communal exploration comes to fruition in Cannery Row. While the novel has received a relatively small amount of critical attention due to the common presumption that Steinbeck intended the work to be a diversion from war, the characters of Cannery Row provide Steinbeck with the ultimate vehicle to illustrate the importance of the phalanx. Together these novels represent the evolution of Steinbeck‟s radical philosophy, particularly as it pertains to his vision of communal existence. While this vision of collectivity is what aligns Steinbeck with the most basic of Marxist principles, the mysticism he surrounds it with is what serves to set him apart from the more utilitarian communist appreciation of the phalanx. This argument will come largely in the form of analysis of Steinbeck‟s mouthpieces, which are characters in the novels that illustrate Steinbeck‟s philosophy either through speech or action. The conclusion of the analysis will show that Steinbeck is definitely a radical novelist, even though he is sometimes at odds with the tenets of the greater radical tradition.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1975. / Bibliography: leaves 137-140.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tulsa, 1975. / Bibliography: leaves 137-140.

Diss.--Mainz.

An analysis of John Steinbeck's humour leads to a better understanding of the author and his career. Steinbeck uses humour most often to characterize, to control his distance from his material, to intensify his serious passages, and to satirize. The study of his humour helps to solve the problems presented in his writing. His variety of forms, a result of his versatility and experimentation, is to some extent determined by his oscillation between humorous and serious treatments of subject matter. The fluctuation between serious and humorous works depends to a great extent on his degree of concern for his subject, while the inconsistency in the quality of his writing, as well as the inconsistency in the quality and quantity of his humour, is directly related to his degree of familiarity with his materials. Chapter One is a statement of the critical opinions of Steinbeck's humour. In Chapter Two the tradition of American humour is considered. The shaping of the national character is seen as a manifestation of national humour. The three main national characters are traced through from the American Revolution to the time of Mark Twain, when they emerged as elements of society. These elements are traced through to the present day with emphasis on Steinbeck's manipulation of them in his creation of humour. Chapter Three defines the qualities found in humour, then isolates humour from related modes. A definition of general areas of humour is followed by a definition of literary forms dependent on humour and by a discussion of techniques for the creation of humour. Chapter Four, a descriptive analysis of the humour in Steinbeck's works, attempts to determine the quality of the humour and to discover what types of humour predominate. Steinbeck's combination of the general areas of humour, his use of a variety of literary forms, and his utilization of different techniques are discussed. It is concluded that satire is the most persistent and the most successful element in his humour. Chapter Five deals with Steinbeck's uses of humour: to characterize, to control the distance from his material, to intensify the force of serious passages, and to satirize. In Chapter Six the chronology of the works, both fiction and non-fiction, is traced in order to determine the pattern of his humour. Issues which are serious but not crucial he tends to treat humorously, while those which are urgent he treats seriously. The relationship between the success of the writing, the success of the humour, and the author's familiarity with his materials is examined. In Chapter Seven a number of conclusions are reached. The fluctuations in the quality of Steinbeck's writing are directly related to his degree of familiarity with his materials. When he is remote from his subject matter there is a decline both in his artistry and in the quality of his humour. It is natural for him to view his material humorously, but crucial issues demand serious treatment. Although his tendency to experiment caused him to treat a wide range of topics, Steinbeck writes basically about America. He expresses himself through a natural sense of humour yet his writing pertains to the American scene in a way indicative of his concern as a humanist. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate

Diss.--Mainz.