Republic of Uzbekistan Ministry Higher Education, Innovation Bukhara State University interpretation of the protagonists in the novels by j. Steinbeck and writer's style dissertation work By Durdona Bakhtiyorova Scientific supervisor: dots

Chapter III. Method of characterization of protagonist in J.Steinbeck’s novels
3.1 J.Steinbeck’s characters in terms of his primary purpose
Published criticisms of John Steinbeck are almost as numerous as are his widely read works. Looking at the criticism of Steinbeck, one finds that the major area of dispute is over characterization. Bdvin Burgum and Peter Lisca feel that Steinbeckta characters are adequate, because they become an integral part of the novel's basic situation. However, the majority of critics disapprove of Steinbeck's characterization on the grounds that his characters are unreal, they are unrelated to the author, they lack development, they lack distance, they are oversimplified, and they have stereotyped attr1butes.⁴⁰ Kazin substantiate their strong disapproval of hia characterization by their insistence that his characters are inhuman. These critics feel that Steinbeck is not interested in his characters as individuals and treats them in a superficial manner, while other critics o bject to Steinbeck's lowering of man to the level of an animal.
Another major area of dispute concerning characterization is the sentimentality of Steinbeck. Although there is general agreement that Steinbeck does use sentiment in his works, Joseph Warren Beach, Peter Lisca, and Allen Walter do not believe Steinbeck to be overly sent1mental.
These critics do not deny his reliance on sentiment, but they suggest that he combines characterization so intricately with plot that he prevents himself from becoming oversentimental. They deduce that his ‘sentimnentality’ is the result of his fierce indignation at the suffering of man.
Mr. Krutch admits that Steinbeck is oversent1mental, but he believes that it is permissible when used to emphasize the social criticism within a work as he does in “The Grape of Wrath”. Sdwin Burgum and J. Donald Adams both classify Steinbeck as overaentimental but feel he ia justified, because he does not employ sentiment for the gratification of the public, but because he deeply loves humanity. In addition to the types of criticism that have already been explored, I believe that there is one area which the critics overlook: John Steinbeck’s method of characterization. A vast amount of criticism exists concerning good and bad characterization, but up to the present time, no one has analyzed the methods used to achieve this good or bad characterization.
A writer can indicate character in four waysa by what the author says about a character, by what other characters say about him, by what the character does, and by what the character himself says and thinks. In most of his novels, Steinbeck uses a combination of the methods. To analyze Steinbeck's use of these methods, primary emphasis will be place on “Of Mice and Men”, “The Wayward Bus”, “East of Eden”, and “The Grapes of Wrath” for these novels tend to be most effective in revealing character and Steinbeck's methods of characterization. John Steinbeck opens “Of Mice and Men: with his own description of the physical attributes of Lennie and George and their relationship to each other. The reader learns that Lennie depends upon George and that George is his superior.
“He (JAnniti) pushed himself back, drew up his knees, embraced them, looked over to George to see whether he had it just right. He pulled his hat down a little more. was ‘over his eyes the way George's hat was.”⁴¹
The reader sees the characters and their characteristics through the author acting as narrator.
Steinbeck reveals more about Lennie through George. As George talks with Slim, he explains why he stays with Lennie.
“I used to have a hell of a lot of fun with it. Used to play jokes on 'im cause he was too dumb to take care of himself. But he was too dumb even to know he had a joke played on him.”⁴²
George feels a responsibility tor the mentally deficient Lennie. To give the reader a better understanding of Lennie, Steinbeck allows George to reveal Lennie’s true nature.
Steinbeck's deacription of Lennie's actions reveals more about Lennie's nature than do George's comments about him. Lennie has a deep love for soft, furry things, but he does not know how to control his love.
As he holds a mouse in his hand, his urge to love becomes so strong that instead of petting it, he crushes the mouse. The same characteristic appears twice more in the novel. His desire to hold soft things becomes the instrument of his fate, a.s he crushes the puppy and eventually Curley’s wife. Lennie never actually says anything about himself, but what he does say indicates his lack of mentality.
"I forgot, Lennie said softly. I tried not to forget. Honest to God I did, George."⁴³
Lennie is like a child, but unlike the normal child lie cannot remember. Although Lennie never says anything about himself, Steinbeck does allow the reader to see the true nature of George through what George says about himself. Throughout the novel, he and Lennie dream about their own piece of land where they can raise their own food and live peacefully. George himself openly admits, however, that if it were not for Lennie, he would take his money, 90 to a cat house, and get drunk
“….. if I was alone I couid live so easy. I could go get a job and work, and no trouble. No mess at all, and when the end of the month come I could take my fitty bucks and go into town and get whatever I want. Why, I could atay in a cat house all night. I could eat place I want, hotel or any place1 and order any damn thing I would think of.”⁴⁴
As long as George stays with Lennie, he is able to hold back his own self is, sensuous desires1 thus he needs Lennie as much as Lennie needs him. Although Steinbeck dces use these four methods to portray his characters, the methodology is only the basic groundwork for his characterization. Steinbeck's method of characterization must be viewed in terms of the entire novel and its effect upon the reader. Steinbeck's method of characterization is dependent upon his purpose in writing the novel and the effect he w1she$ this novel to have on its audience.
A close look at the criticism of Lennie in Of Mice and Men shows the way critics judge the value of Steinbeck 1^st method of characterization. Steinbeck fails fully to engage our sympathy because the hulking Lennie is too moronic a creature to give reality and depth to the natural human craving for a little piece of land. There is too much in Lennie that is twisted and subhuman for his emotion to strike a universal chord. The difficulty here lies in understanding Steinbeck's purpose in presentin a character such as Lennie. Was it his intention merely to present an idiot and to explore the mysteries of his character or to present “the earth longings of a Lennie who was not to represent insanity at all but the inarticulate and powerful yearnings of all men?”⁴⁵ Steinbeck portrays Lennie as a retarded yet distinct individual, but Lennie’s purpose in this novel is to reveal the longings of all men. Lennie is utilized in this novel as the representation of all humanity. Leo Gurko advocates this view and identifies Lennie's connection with the world. "And Steinbeck's Lennie is significant not so much because his idiocies are clearly analyzed, as because ot those qualities which, though in an enfeebled frame, bind him to the normal world: his daydreaming, his need for friendship and the security of a home, his passion for beauty, the loyalty and essential amiability of his nature.”⁴⁶18 Steinbeck's method of characterizing Lennie is dependent upon his main objective in the novel: to reveal the longings of all humanity.
In Of Mice and Men Steinbeck presents humanity by focusing upon social issues as he does in The Grapes of Wrath. Of Mice and Men is a ‘social' play in that it depicts through specific individuals the whole group whom they represent, hows something of how they came to be as they are, and suggests something of their 1nvitable defeat. Lennie and George represent humanity but more specifically the group of men who wander from place to place looking for work. They own no land of their own, they plant and reap the crops for other men. Never do they receive a reward for their labors other than enough money to live on while they look for another job. Steinbeck 1s protesting their condition, but mildly as compared to his protest in The Grapes of Wrath. In both of these novels, he presents "motivated characters who speak for a problem which calls forth the sympathy and the intelligence of the audience for its solutiob. Not only do Lennie and George represent humanity, but they are Steinbeck's instruments through which he presents his social issue. Steinbeck’s method of presenting character in this novel involves much more than revealing his characters as ‘real' people-they are representations who reveal his own ideas and thoughts on humanity. Steinbeck's "awarerness of social issues, though it no longer forms the backbone of the novel as in ln Dubious Battle, remains to condition both the motivation and the progress of the story. The psychological and the sociological combine (as they do normally in lite) to afford a well-rounded characterization.
In “The Wayward Bus” John Steinbeck uses the same basic method for disclosing character which he uses in all his novels. As the book opens, the reader is introduced to several characters--Juan and Alice Chicoy, Pimples, and Norma--by way of description. His description, however, is not always physical. He explains their attitudes by going into the mind to reveal their dreams and aspiratione. Norma, for instance, is introduced in this manner.
“Sometimes, wiping the damp cloth back and forth on the counter, her dream-widened eyes centered on the screen door, her pale eyes fixed and then closed for a moment. Then you could know that in that secret garden in her head, Gable had just entered the restaurant, had gasped when he saw her, and had stood there, his lips slightly parted and in his eyes the recognition that this was his woman.”⁴⁷
Steinbeck not only describes the physical attributes of his characters but their state of mind as well. Steinbeck, as the narrator, reveals the nature of Mrs. Pritchard and takes the reader into her mind as he describes Hr. Pritchard.
“Mr. Pritchard's foot was swinging in little jerks and Mrs. Pritchard was watching. She knew Mr. Pritchard was getting irritable at somethinq, but she didn't know why. She had no experience with this kind of thing. Her women friends were not of a kind to put Mr. Pritchard1s foot swinging. And she knew nothing his life outside her own social movements.”⁴⁸
Steinbeck reveals more about his characters by allowingother characters to give their impression of that character. In The Wayward Bus, Carrdlle, while speaking to Mr. Pritchard, brutally states what she thinks-of him and analyzes; his wife's nature. Mr Pritchard has just asked her to be his receptionist, but Camille knows that he does not want nierely a receptionist.
“You won’t like me because I don’t play it your way. You'd like to take months to get around to it and surprise me with it, but 11m nearly broke. You say your wife doesn't run your business, but l say she does. You and your business and everything about you. I'm trying to be nice but I'm tired. She probably picks your secretaries a.nd you don't even know it. That's a tough woman.”⁴⁹
However, most of Steinbeck's characters do not discussanother character in dialogue but in their thoughts, which are narrated by the author. Steinbeck takes the reader into Mildred's mind for a close look at Juan.
“This was a man, she thought, a man of complete manness. This was the kind of a man that a pure woman would want to have because he wouldn't even want to be part woman. He would be content with his own sex. Be wouldn’t ever try to undars tand women and that would be a relief. He would just take what he wanted from them.”⁵⁰
Steinbeck shows tht reader more about a character, such as Mr. Pritchard, by describing hia actions. The only action of any dimension that Mr. Pritchard takes reveals his inner frustrations. Sensually aroused by Camille, Mr.Pritchard approaches her and offers her a job as his receptionist. Camille, however, knows that he is not interested in her qualifications as a receptionist But as a mistress. She bluntly points out his failures and flatly rebukes him for his lustful advances. Mr. Pritchard's defeat with Camille leaves him extremely frustrated, especially since hiswife refuses.to allow him to assert his masculinity in a sexual relationship. His defeat with Camllie fruristrates him to such an extent that he forces his wife to succumb to him as a man.
"Shut up," he said. "You hear me? Shut up! You're my wife, aren't you? Hasn't a man got any rights with his wife?"⁵¹
However, Juan's leaving the bus stuck in the mud is a carefully thought out act. He feels no regrets about leaving the passengers stranded on the road. He is his own man who rules his wife, unlike Mr. Pritchard who is ruled by nrsa Pritchard. Through their acti:ns, the rel!lder sees who entirely different characters : one whose actiors are governed by his wife, and one who governs not only his own actions but also those of Alice and Pimples.
Steinbeck develops aharacter by revealing the thoughts of a character or what that character says about himself. When Camille first appears she is a mystery girl. Stein­ beck introduces her thriJuqh her own thoughts.

.
“She knew Louie was watching every move.It had always ben that way with her. She knew she was different: from other girls, but she didn't quite know why.... Men couldn't keep their hands off her. ….all men wanted the same thing from her, and that was just the way it was.”⁵²
In “The Wayward Bus” Steinbtck does use toe four basic ways for revealing character, however, he uses a completely d1fferent method of characterization to present his overall picture. His characters are individuals who represent types of people. Steinbeck explains in detail the nature of each character and show how they react with other characters. The interaction of these characters is important only in that it reveals more about a character. “The Wayward Bus” is more concerned with action on the level of character than on the physical level of events.”⁵³ Peter Lisca classifies Steinbeck's characters in this novel into three main groups the damned, those in Purgatory, and the saved. Although Peter opinions are noted in this paper, the agreeaent extend to his nalysis of Steinbeck's methods of characterization but not to the question of the credibility of the characters. The concern of this paper ta with the methods which Steinbeck uses to disclose character and not the overall affect which these methods have upon his characterization.
Within this firat group is Mr. Elliot Pritchard, who represents the typical elderly businessman. He considers himself a successful man and more knowledgeable than the other people on the bus. However, Steinbeck quickly dispels his mistaken concept of himself by revealing him as the lusttul, schemning, and henpecked man that he is. The second character in this group is his wife, Mrs.
Bernice Pritchard. She is the typical cold, domineering, society woman, who cannot stand to have sexual relationswith her husband. He is of value to her only in the sense that she can manipulate him to obtain exactly what she wants. Her life revolves around fabricating an exciting story about some simple event to tell her lady friends at home. Alice Chicoy, the third member of this group, represents the insecure, aging woman who constantly fears that her husband will cease to care for her. In her insecurity, she fears anyone or anything that trespasses in her world. Louie and Norma both live in a make-believe world. Louie pretends to be quite the lady's man, yet the girls that he associates with are not of the beat sort, and he does not always sueceed in arousing their interest as is the ease with Camille. Norma has bad no experience with ment she has built up her own fantasy world With Clark Gable as her idol. She seeks love and affection throuqh her iMPractical daydreaming. Mr. Van Brunt i• the ultimate of the damrted. He is old and decayed in body, and his attitude toward life is pessimistic. He represents all those ·who have1 lost hope, ano he resents happiness and gaiety in others.
Within the second group, Purgatory, are Mildred and Pimples. Mildred is not among the damned, because She sees the faults of her parents and seeks to find her own world throogh her own experiences. Pimples, too, shows an interest in improving himself and his looks. He seeks respect from Juan and wishes to be treated more like a man than an adolescent.
Peter Lisca classifies only three characters within the saved group. Juan Chicoy is foremost in this group, because ne is self-reliant and in every sense his own man. He is skilled in his trade and does his job efficiently yet he enjoys a carefree lite. He accepts his sensuous desires for what they are and does not make any excuses for his actions.Ernest Horton, the salesman of comical gadgets, is honest and straightforward.Even when he knows that Norma is lying about her Hollywo friends, he respects her feelinqs enouqh to accept her word. Camille Oaks belongs in the saved group, because she is honest about herself she knows what men want from her. Knowing her situation, she makes use of her attractiveness as a means of living. Steinbeck portrays these characters as distinct individuals, but they are characteriatic of a group of people.
In order to judqe the validity of such criticism, the reader must decide if it ia necessary for the success of this novel to feel sympathy for theae characters. This reader believes that Steinbeck praaanta these characters as types, who have most of the characteriatics of theirparticular qroup, and does not aak for sympathy. This book is quite successful in character portrayal with or without the sympathy of the reader. Peter Liaoa believes that, although Steinbeck presents his characters objectively, “….he does not withhold human understanding and even, perhaps, syinpathy, for as author he endova each of them with the seed of some virtue”⁵⁴ Stainbeck’s intent is not to dictate to the reader an emotional response to his characters but rather to present a picture which allow the reader to react to the characters throuqh his own interpretation.
In “East of Eaden” of Steinbeck goes to greater depth in his methods of disclosing character, because he is dealing with characters as individuals. Since character is of primary importance he seeks to illuminate all sides of his characters and to treat them not as type but as individuals reacting to various stimul in different ways. In this novel both the environment and the tamily relationship are reaponsible for the personality of a characters in his other novels, he describes his characers physical teatures. Yet unlike his other novels, in “Bast of Eaden” seeks to explain the nature of a character immediately and in few words. In this way, he inatantly give the reader insight into a character peraonality and allows him to follow the action of that character and to evaluate his actions in relation to his peraonallty. When Steinbeck introduces Cathy, he analyzes her personality by telling the reader that she is a monster without kindness or conscience.
“It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack of which drove and forced her all her life. Some balance wheel was misweighted, some gear out of ratio not like other people, never was from birth.”⁵⁵ Steinbeck gives the reader an overall picture of a character and then goes on to develop that character.
Steinbeck gives the reader a better understanding of a character by revealing what other characters say about him. In East of Eaden Charles is the only character who understands Cathy's true nature. In a conversation with Cathy, he say: “You know what I think? I don’t think I'm half as mean aa you are under nice skin. I think you're a devil.”⁵⁶
Steinbeck again in this novel develops a character by explaining his actions. However, Cathy's actions are not so explicit. An event occurs, such as the fire at the Ames' house, but Steinbeck doea not directly tell the reader that Cathy set the tire. He inslsiuates that sheis responsible by the mild up of her action before the fire. The reader knows that Cathy has a mysterious plan in her mind, but the mystery is not solved until the event ocour.
The reader also learns more about Cathy through what she says. However, Steinbeck has created her as a close-llthed individual. To change her character just enough to allow the reader to see the person inside, he uses wine as the one thing which Cathy cannot handle. Under the influence of wine, her inhibitions and fears disappear, and her cruelty and hate take first position. Steinbeck allows the reader to see the "real” Cathy in a scene with Faye, the Madame.
“Well, it’s to late. I didn’t want to drink the wine. But you, you nasty fat worm, made me. I'm your dear, sweet daughter don't you remember? Well, I remember how surprised you were
that I had reguals. Do you think I'll give them up? Do you think they give a mean little dollar in quarters? No, they give me ten dollars, and the price is going up all the time. They can't go to else is any good for them.”⁵⁷
Steinbeck uses these methods to develop the other characters in the novel, but they are not as difficult to portray a Cathy. The Cathy that Steinbeck creates seems unreal, because the evil that lurks within her is usually hidden in the recesses of the mind and completely denied exposure. For the reader, a character such as Cathy is hard to accept, because her characteristics are not within his realm of understanding.
In this novel John Steinbeck uses much the same overall method ofcharacterization as he used in “The Wayward Bus”. However, instead of presenting characters as types of individuals, he explores characters as distinct individuals. In the “East of Eden” for the fitrst time since “Cup of Gold”, Steinbeek is concerned with his characters primarily as individuals who exist and have importance apart from the material of his novel, for it is through them rather than throuqh structure and lanquaqe that he tries to establish his theme.”⁵⁸ John Steinbeck develops his themeby takinq the reader into the recesses of the mind. He allows the reader to see the existence of good or evil and its development as he develops the characters. In “East of Eaden” the characters are viewed from the inside rather than from the outside, which allows the reader to remove himself from the author and to come one with the character. For theae reasons, we believe that “East of Eaden” Steinbeck's best novel in terms of characterization.
Steinbeck develops his characters aa individuals by exploring their personalities in a family relationship. Early in the novel, Steinbeck introduces Cyrus Trask, a man who insists that his children be raised strictly by his standards. Next, Steinbeck explains the effect which this rigid discipline has upon Charles and Adam and their relationship to Cyrus. Cyrus favoritism toward Adam leads
Steinbeck to examine the ralationship between the two brothers. Charles’ envy of Adam becomes so extreme that eventually he almost kills Adam. Even after his anger dissipates, he feels no remorse for his actions.
Cathy is also developed within the family relationship. Steinbeck portrays her as a demon she has a strangeness about her that makes other people afraid of her. However, to her mother she is everything a daughter should be. Unlike the mother, who has no qualms or fears about her daughter, Mr. Ames notes a strangeness and feels ill at ease around her. Keeping the parents in the dark, Steinbeck allows only the resder to see that the abrupt change in Cathy is not a favorable one. The reader follows a series of Cathy's actions which eventually lead up to the fire at the Ames’ home and the robbery at the mill. Steinbeck does not explicitly explain Cathy's reasons for her actions, it is this element of mystery which intrigues the reader imagination. “The beauty of this kind of storytelling is that the author does not waste words and insult his reader with that sort of explanation [the nature of hia characters]. He gets hta effects with an elegant economy of words, and leaves some scope for the reader's imagination.”⁵⁹
In the latter section of “Eas t ot Eden”, Steinbeck shows a striking similarity between the relationship of Cyrus and his sons to Adam and his sons, Caleb and Aaron. Caleb portrays Charles and Aaron pertraya Adam, while Adam himself has become another Cyrus. Adam, who always hated his father , because he forced him to go into the military service and brought his brother's envy down upon him, finds himself doing the same thing to his son, Aaron. Caleb like Charles deeply loved his father but found his love refused in favor of the other son. The hurt, which both Charles and Caleb received, forced them in turn to hurt the favorite son. Within this complicated plot, Steinbeck has interwoven his characters so intricately that they become more important than the action itself. The action
only serves to explain more about the characters. This method of focusing primarily on his characters is effective in developing his theme. In order to show the existence of good or evil in human beings, it is necessary to delve deep into the 1nysteries of human personalities. In “East ot Eden” as in most of his novels, Steinbeck attempts to get below the basic elements of human character.
Steinbeck usea the four ways to disclose character most successfully in “The Grapes of wrath”. His description of Ma Joad seems to anticipate the hardships ahead that she must conquer in order to hold her family together .
“Her full face was not soft, it was controlled, kindly. Her hazel eyes seemed to have experienced all poasible tragedy and to have mounted pain and suffering like steps into a high calm and a super human understanding. She seemed to know, to accept, to welcome her position, the citadel of the family, the strong place that could not be taken.”⁶⁰ The reader learns more about Ma from easy, who is awed by her strength and determination.
“All night long, an’ she was alone. And he said, John, there's a woman so
great with love--she scares me. Makes me afraid an mean"⁶¹
Steinbeck develops Ma’s character step by step as the Joads make their journey to California.
Ma’s actions serve to develop her character even more fully than the comments of the author or other characters. During the long night traveling through the desert, Ma watched Grandma die. Knowing that they could not stop in the middle of the desert, she told no one. Only when they reached California, did her strenth falter.
"I was afraid we wouldn’t get acrost, she said. I told Grandma we couldn't help her. The family had ta get acroats, I tol’ her, tol’ her when she was a-dyin."⁶²
Just as Steinbeck reveals more about Ma by describing- her actions, so Steinbeck takes the reader into the troubled heart of easy by putting his thouqhts into dialogue. Casy wonders about his life as a preacher and his qualifications. He solves the problem by developing his own religion-the love for all mankind.
“I says, "What's this call, this sperit” An’ I says, it isn’t love. l love people so much I'm fit to bust, sometimes." An’ I says Don’t you love Jeaus? Well, I thought an’ thought, an' finally I says, "No I don't know nobody name’ Jesus. I know a bunch of stories but I only love people."⁶³
In this passage and in previous ones, Casy’s thoughts and comments about himself enable the reader to see into a sincere man who does not claim to know the solution to all problems but seeks to find an answer for himself.
In “The Grape of Wrath as in “Of Mice and Men” Steinbeck’s method of characterization is essentially his presentation of social issues. He seeks to make his characters representative of the problem. His characters are not merely charactersr they are the mouthpiece throuqb which he can reveal his own ideas. Arthur Mezener believe that Steinbeck uses his characters to express his own ideas, but he objects to this method on the ground that " …the characters are constantly being forced to display in an implausible way Steinbeck's theory about them.”⁶⁴ Since Mizener never fully explains how or why this method of Steinbeck's is a failure, his opinion is of little significance. Steinbeck's purpose in this novel is not to present characters merely as characters. The majority of critics
object to Steinbeck's method of characterization, because they believe his characters lack reality. Peter Lisca has fonnd the best way for a critic to analyze an author's method of characterization. While there are scant objective grounds for determining whether a novel's characters are real, one fruitful approach is to consider fictional characters not only in relation to life but in relation to the reat of the fiction of which they are a part. Considered in terms of the part which they play in this novel, the characters are quite successful in presenting Steinbeck’s view.
A look at Margaret Marshall’ criticism of the “Grapes of Wrath” reveals the basic error in most criticism of Steinbeck. “The character of Ma and the Preacher are early Steinbeck. Ma is presented from the very beginning on page 100 as a concept, not developed as a character. There are many such substitutions for characterization, which is Steinbeck 's weakest point."⁶⁵ What Margaret Marshall interprets to be Steinbeck's weakest point is actually his strongest point in this novel, if one looks at the characters in relation to the fiction. His portrayal
of a character as a concept not a substitute for characterization but is his method of characterization. As he develops the character of Ma Joad, he is actually developing the concept that everyone must work toqether as one big family in order to survive under the conditions to which they are exposed. easy and Tom Joad represent still another concept. In their final decision to dedicate their lives to help their own people, they project Steinbeck 's theory that the only way for these people to help themselves is to unify. "Steinbeck 's ideal man has the ability to transcend individuality and see the whole picture.”⁶⁶ In this novel the development of character itself is not as important, as the development of Steinbeck’s concept through characterization.
“Whatever value the Joads have as individuals is ‘incidental’ to their primary function as a personalized group Kenneth Burke has pointed out that “… most of the characters derive their role, which is to say their personality, purely from their relationship to the basic situation.” What he takes to be a serious weakness is actually one or the book’s greatest accomplishments. The character’s are so absorbed into the novel’s materials that the reader’s response goes beyond sympathy tor the individuals to moral indignation at their social condition.”⁶⁷
Mr.Beach is a strong advocate of Steinbeek’s portrayal of crharacter as a concept. "In each case, the speaker is like a chorus in ancient tragedy, embodying the collective sentiments of a large group. He believes that Steinbeck exercises great resourcefulness in reconciling hia theory with imaginative art. He supports
Steinbeck's method of using characters to express his views, because fiction has small tolerance for the abstractions of an author.