What is the author's tone in The Log from the Sea of Cortez by John Steinbeck?

The book is written almost entirely in the first person, although it is notable that Steinbeck nearly always uses "we" rather than "I". This reflects his sense of the expedition as a joint venture between himself and his friend Ricketts, as well as both authors' insistence to their publisher that the book was jointly written. Because the two friends share many philosophical viewpoints, it is often difficult to determine where one person's thinking leaves off and the other's begins. Because of the use of the term "we" to refer to any number of the expedition's members, and Steinbeck's tendency to treat Tiny and Sparky as interchangeable, it is nearly impossible to determine who is specifically doing what.

In many areas, Steinbeck simply gives a more polished voice to Ricketts's ideas, whose writing style is frequently not as accessible as Steinbeck's. In other cases, Steinbeck inserts material from essays written by Ricketts prior to the expedition where he deems it relevant. Finally, there are many sections where Steinbeck explores his own thinking about man's place in the natural world, the interrelationships between organisms and communities, and the value of scientific research.

In the first version of the book, the authors followed their original intent to present the voyage in two different lights: a purely scientific one, and a more impressionist, subjective narrative. Because the Log of the Sea of Cortez presents only the narrative portion of the original book, it is largely subjective in nature. The Log does shift between being a description of events throughout most of the book to a few chapters devoted almost entirely to more rigorous exploration of science and philosophy. While attempts are made to present both in the context of the voyage, there are clear differences between them and the shifts are sometimes abrupt. However, taken together they make an interesting and entertaining whole, particularly to readers who enjoy the occasional philosophical diversion.