Thesis (M.A. )--Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, 2004. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2829. Typescript. Abstract precedes thesis as 2 preliminary leaves ( [ i-ii ] ). Includes bibliographical references ( leaves 83-84 ).

No description available.

Informe de Seminario para optar al grado de Licenciado en Lengua y Literatura Inglesa

A study of the phases of war present in Salinger's stories - "The Hang of It," "Personal Notes of an Infantryman," "Soft Boiled Sergeant," "Last Day of the Last Furlough," "Once a Week Won't Kill You," A Boy in France," "This Sandwich Has No Mayonnaise," "The Stranger," "A Young Girl in 1941 With No Waist at All," "A Perfect Day for Bananafish," "A Girl I Knew," "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut," and "For Esme - With Love and Squalor." The role of war in each of these stories follows a cycle that reflects Salinger's own war experience, as well as the very condition of war itself.

Psychological traumas surface in Paula Vogel’s portrayal of Li’l Bit and Uncle Peck in How I Learned to Drive (1997). Theorizing Peck’s fixation on Li’l Bit is necessitated by his drive to recapture his innocence—an innocence he lost as a young man during WWII—this thesis will seek to explain how Drive can be viewed as a love story by revealing the motivations behind Li’l Bit’s sympathy for Uncle Peck. Recognizing war trauma as the fundamental catalyst for both the action and the tone of the play situates Drive in a territory not yet explored. Furthermore, this thesis will explore the dubious relationship between war-traumatized veterans and pedophilic tendencies by examining this theme in other literature, particularly, J.D. Salinger’s “For Esmé—with Love and Squalor” (1950) and Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955), thus, placing Drive at the nexus in which American drama and war literature coalesce.

This master's thesis examines the three German translations of J. D. Salinger's novel <em>The Catcher in the Rye</em> (1951): <em>Der Mann im Roggen</em>, published in 1954 by Diana Verlag and translated by Irene Muehlon; <em>Der F??nger im Roggen</em>, published in 1962 and translated by Annemarie and Heinrich B??ll, and <em>Der F??nger im Roggen</em>, published in 2003 and translated by Eike Sch??nfeld (both published by Kiepenheuer & Witsch). In recourse to polysystem theory, it is shown how translational differences can be explained through the translations' cultural and literary contexts. <br /><br /> First, polysystem theory's most important terms are explained in regard to the research objectives. In doing so, the existing research on German translations of Salinger is summarized. Second, with the help of an analysis by Irene Hinrichsen, the latest translation is compared to its predecessors in regard to language and stylistics. This analysis demonstrates that, unlike the earlier translations, Sch??nfeld's version retains nearly all of the American original's stylistic particularities and extreme content. <br /><br /> Then, building on the result of the linguistic-stylistic analysis, the societal and literary contexts of the three translations are summarized in order to find possible explanations for the translational differences. It becomes clear that the alleviative tendencies of the two earlier translations are very much in tune with the cautious approach to morality of the West Germany of the 1950s. In contrast, the latest translation was produced in a liberal, youthful environment that reflects a more tolerant German society. Therefore, it makes sense to trace the differences between the three translations back to their differing contexts.

Typescript, etc. / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

This thesis examines how the sociopolitical contexts of the mid-twentieth century influenced readers’ interpretations of Mark Twain’s novel “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” two controversial novels that were subjected to censorship activity. In particular, this thesis will focus on the reception of both of these novels during the 1950s and 1960s, a period marked by two major events: The Civil Rights Movement and the youth counterculture phenomenon. In this study, the reception of “Huckleberry Finn” will be analyzed in the context of the civil rights movement, using news articles published in the 1950s and 1960s to illustrate how the different interpretations of readers prompted school board directors to ban the book from junior high and high school reading lists.

This master's thesis examines the three German translations of J. D. Salinger's novel <em>The Catcher in the Rye</em> (1951): <em>Der Mann im Roggen</em>, published in 1954 by Diana Verlag and translated by Irene Muehlon; <em>Der Fänger im Roggen</em>, published in 1962 and translated by Annemarie and Heinrich Böll, and <em>Der Fänger im Roggen</em>, published in 2003 and translated by Eike Schönfeld (both published by Kiepenheuer & Witsch). In recourse to polysystem theory, it is shown how translational differences can be explained through the translations' cultural and literary contexts. <br /><br /> First, polysystem theory's most important terms are explained in regard to the research objectives. In doing so, the existing research on German translations of Salinger is summarized. Second, with the help of an analysis by Irene Hinrichsen, the latest translation is compared to its predecessors in regard to language and stylistics. This analysis demonstrates that, unlike the earlier translations, Schönfeld's version retains nearly all of the American original's stylistic particularities and extreme content. <br /><br /> Then, building on the result of the linguistic-stylistic analysis, the societal and literary contexts of the three translations are summarized in order to find possible explanations for the translational differences. It becomes clear that the alleviative tendencies of the two earlier translations are very much in tune with the cautious approach to morality of the West Germany of the 1950s. In contrast, the latest translation was produced in a liberal, youthful environment that reflects a more tolerant German society. Therefore, it makes sense to trace the differences between the three translations back to their differing contexts.

No description available.