It is just not plausible that the narrator is one of the residents of either town or a collective memory of the residents. Now, one might argue that because the narrator thinks this story “is worth a book in itself. Sympathetically set forth it would tap many strange, beautiful qualities in obscure men”, then he is biased: ergo, he’s an unreliable narrator (1940). However, being biased in and of itself is not the sole criterion for a narrator be... ... middle of paper ... ... Willard). Any interpretation like that is misreading the text.
His use of language and diction further denounce his claims that the book’s enjoyable, which often resonates negatively with the reader and as a result, he isolates his audience by initial biases towards the subject and authors. He strives for objectivity, yet fails to take his personal feelings out of the equation. His over analysis of the book ends with the reader not fully sure exactly what side he’s on. His attempts to back up his claims hurt his initial statements and his evidence only detracts from what he argues at the start. The crux of the matter is the author’s explanation and evidence consists of holes that make up a vague argument where one cannot discern or distinguish a purpose to this
His plays have also been described as lacking action and being too didactic. In Saint Joan, Shaw reduced the intensity of these previously criticized typically Shavian elements and thus, met with much critical success. However, in my view, the play's epilogue is redundant and unnecessary. It essentially repeats and reinforces the events of the play without enhancing the drama. And serves to add historical facts which are either familiar to the audience or which could have been inserted skillfully into the body of the play for greater dramatic effect.
In these articles, Orwell defines the two major problems with these articles: “The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision” (para.9). I agree with Orwell’s argument about the dull use of imagery in these articles, which avoids creativity. Orwell uses a long line of images/metaphors that writers use in their work, which are often misused because the writer does not know the meaning of the terms “Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning” (Orwell para.10). This is an important example of the foolishness of writers that do not understand the metaphors, similes, and symbolic expressions to help the reader understand their ideas in the writing. I also agree that writers do not use words “precisely”, which can confuse the reader.
Despite all of the issues brought up that relate to current American Culture, the literature of the novel was a downfall although it did have some positives to it. The book wasn’t properly written to live up to the expectation of critics. A reviewer of “The Last of the Mohicans” stated, “The main complaints were that stylistically the book was badly written, repetitive, and lacked pace and characterization” (Last). The mechanics of the writing were weakly written by Cooper. It was badly written because all of the sentences weren’t perfect and it was too wordy with unnecessary words.
The author seems to have done a well-researched work, but as mentioned about the research is invalid of insufficient to connect his main argument of very structure of empires promotes decay and that decay in turn facilitates the progressive loss of territories. His writing style is not clear and organized, the structure of writing is flawed, the reason being after reading his work I have a confusion of how his interpretation research of imperial data plotting and parabolas represent relief situation of rise and falls of empires, because one theory is normative and the other theory is descriptive. Also his arguments in the book were built up by his faith because the writer’s theories are imperfect and incomplete. His work could be recommended to specialists in the areas of empires, because the author himself in not a specialist in historical events. The specialist could be able to get a better understanding of the arguments his is making and theories claim that he uses.
This literary lens indicates that author’s intent, emotions prompted, and culture’s external influences result in chaos if used to assess literature (137). However, in Carol Ann Duffy’s “Little Red Cap”, these omitted factors contrarily aim to reinforce complexity and wholeness unachieved by New Criticism’s limited assessment of “formal elements” (137). Due to New Criticism’s focus on objective form and exclusion of outside influences such as authorship, readership, and culture, New Criticism fails to accurately assess Duffy’s “Little Red Cap”, thus showing the critique’s limitations as a universally applicable lens. Rejection of the author’s hand in their own work demonstrates New Criticism’s purposeful ignorance towards the sole reason for the literary work’s creation: the author. The biographical nature of “Little Red Cap” provides the reader with the ability to analyze the poem on a level that surpasses basic symbolism by injecting authenticity into the text.
Modern Criticism of Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin It is extremely difficult for the modern reader to understand and appreciate Uncle Tom’s Cabin because Harriet Beecher Stowe was writing for an audience very different from us. We don’t share the cultural values and myths of Stowe’s time, so her novel doesn’t affect us the way it affected its original readers. For this reason, Uncle Tom’s Cabin has been heavily scrutinized by the modern critic. However, the aspects of the novel that are criticized now are the same aspects that held so much appeal for its original audience. Many people condemn Uncle Tom’s Cabin simply because it is a sentimental novel.
However the responses to the opposition were filled with too many logical fallacies which gave them less substance. The author did support his overall thesis in the body of his piece but the use of emotional charged language, faulty cause and effect, and personal attracts on his sources made his points weak. Works Cited O’Sullivan, John. “Deadly Staked”. National Review Online.
Plagiarism has also negative effect to art. It might be caused by lack of understanding in the essence of it. We know for a fact that art also deals with the creativity. As one person plagiarize, he will never meet the creativity that he can get through art because the idea is not his own, but from the idea of other author. A writer must be sensitive in proper citation in order for him to give the credentials and recognition to the author of the source of idea.