Arvidson, KenWilliams, MarkMurray, Stuart2026-08-062026-08-061992https://hdl.handle.net/10289/18509This thesis seeks to re-evaluate the New Zealand literature of the 1930s. It does so in the belief that the decade’s writing has been subjected to a variety of critical processes that have resulted in an image of the period which is erroneous. This misreading affects not just the 1930s, but also applies to the wider context of New Zealand literature, as the decade occupies such a pivotal point in the history of that literature. The method of the thesis is an exploration of the decade’s writing by an opening chapter discussing the period in general, and then a series of author-centred chapters. While each author-centred chapter concentrates on one or two principal figures, the contents of each chapter attempt to display a discursive nature, relating each writer to a wider context. The thesis aims to show that the New Zealand literature of the 1930s is a far more flexible and complex body of writing than has hitherto been admitted. The canonisation of the decade as an era of nationalist expression imposes a narrow range of critical attitudes which fail to deal with the full multiplicities of the writing. In order to overcome these limitations, the thesis explores the literature not only in the context of this reductive criticism (attempting to explain the philosophies behind the nationalist rigidities) but also juxtaposes it with international writing from the same period. The codes and structures of literature from Europe (particularly England), the Americas and Australia all inform the New Zealand writing of the 1930s. An analysis of the New Zealand material in this light offers new conclusions on the literature’s significance. These conclusions are defined by useful complexities. The decade’s writing is seen to be far less streamlined than subsequent literary histories portray. Instead, the literature displays a multiplicity of expression; influences and origins blend in expositions characterised by their mobility. Recognition of this mobility challenges the orthodox canonisation of the 1930s. Writers such as Frank Sargeson and A.R.D. Fairburn, who are perceived to express the nationalist tone of the decade, are seen to reflect less of the period’s diversity than Robin Hyde, a writer traditionally peripheralised in the nationalist depiction of the era. The thesis promotes the conclusion that writers such as Hyde and Allen Curnow, seeking to address the complexities of the 1930s in a complex expression of their own, come closest to a mode of writing that reflects the turbulent nature of the decade.enAll items in Research Commons are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.Thesis