My thesis statement is that the world of the worlds is stupid and the text in out-of-date. The structure of this book was set on the year of 1898. One of the languages that is not how we talk is on page four “It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same.” Who use the word infusoria anymore? When you read the book what did you think? When my brain thinks of this book it thinks of “oh my gosh really”. On page seventy-eight the narrator says “ hist” as in a whisper. “Hello it is not hist it is pist not hist”. Really you need to think Mr. H.G. Wells. Then he uses “vast”. What in your right mind would make you put the vast as a word in a book? On the page one-twenty-nine he put “what the devil it is”. Really who would say that my brain even tells me not to say that? You just do not just go outside and say “Hey honey, what devil it is”. What. If you haven’t got my point yet then you should look in a dictionary and …show more content…
H.G. Wells you would probably think that the slang we use now is bad well read your book and then tell me who is worse, (your language or the current language that we use in the United States of America.) How about you take notes on our slang and update you book because what you write is just the wrong way to write. Now do you get my point the Mr. H.G Wells? How many times have you got people tell you this book is bad? On page one-thirty-three, “He uses the word curate”. Question, what does that word curate mean? Personally I am very surprised in book two it is more understanding to my point of view. The second book has so much present tense words for people to understand. when we read the book it just sounded weird and stupid so that is how the students responded. With a type of “uhh this book is going to be horrible”. Me personally thought about taking the words of the book and change them to modern language. On page two-hundred he tries to get us to pay attention to injected. because he puts it in capital and bold
...onally transposing indirect to direct quotation, putting words into people mouths and blending two separate eye witness's accounts. How can one read a novel for knowledge gaining purposes when the structure appears so flawed? The use of modern and old English are combined in the sentence structure. The highly academic vocabulary not only is confusing, but breaks the flow of the book when that is the evident purpose for the format of the book. The confusing order in which Starkey retells events and the ineffective and useless information that is put in for building character personalities.
Ward & Trent, et al. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907–21; New York: Bartleby.com, 2000
Ward & Trent, et al. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907–21; New York: Bartleby.com, 2000
This is my personal reflection about this book. First and foremost, I would like to say that this book is very thick and long to read. There are about nineteen chapters and 278 pages altogether. As a slow reader, it is a quite hard for me to finish reading it within time. It took me weeks to finish reading it as a whole. Furthermore, it is written in English version. My English is just in average so sometimes I need to refer to dictionary for certain words. Sometimes I use google translate and ask my friends to explain the meaning of certain terms.
... it was nice to not feel overwhelmed by the language used in the book. Overall, this book was insightful, entertaining and extremely helpful. I loved this book and highly recommend it.
This hideous new world was the outcome of an experiment of science. The creation of this dispassionate world was the result of the Ford’s pursuit in scientific knowledge. At this point the world has become unreal and has been corrupted. The values of these inhabitants and their morals are completely foreign to me.
...’ (21). These rhetoric questions force readers to stand on her side and to ponder in her direction. She compares the contents of the twentieth-century chapters in current books to ‘a modern-art museum’ (22), which ironically and humorously criticizes the fancy design of the current books. She also directly quotes the original texts to show the changes of current books such as a paragraph from Sellers’ book ‘As It Happened’.
However, due to the narration of the books being different both books have different effects on the reader. Andrea narrates in a disengaged way where she doesn’t want the reader to sympathise for her but to listen to the struggles she went through as she uses a childlike lexicon narration, written in a curt way showing her stoicism. One the other hand, Masters narrates in a self-deprecating and adds humour to Stuarts misfortunes. Masters narrates in third person however he does the unusual that doesn’t happen in biographies and adds his own opinions in the book making himself a character as well. Both books are narrated different and are written in a different style but the way they narrate helps to generate
...s, the story of The War of the Worlds lives on centuries later. It is very suiting that the book is carried on into real world events. Like the desire to know the unknown was driven by this story, inspiring scientists and astronomers today. As well as fear was carried on through the radio broadcast. This makes the story that much greater developing it’s widespread influence. A true statement of how popular this story is the fact that it’s a British book, yet an American classic.
Moulton, Charles Wells. Moulton's Library of Literary Criticism of English and American Authors through the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: Volume 1. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1966. Print.
The War of the Worlds is a novel by H. G. Wells that was published in 1898. It takes place where it was written, in England. It fantasizes the idea of Martians inhabiting the Earth and attempting to take it over. It contains an extensive and descriptive plot, a realistic and extensively developed character, and an exciting style that goes into amazing detail yet does not get exceedingly boring.
This book was a good read for me, but I also read book reviews to help me keep track on what I am reading. These book reviews just made a better understanding of what I was reading.
Harris, Roy. "The Misunderstanding of Newspeak." George Orwell. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. 31-34.
...nd enjoyable. The one thing that did bug me was that Youngs does not directly tie his thesis directly to the end of the book. It would have been helpful for the reader to be able to confirm Youngs’s intention for writing the book, but since he fails to re-introduce his argument in the end, it left me questioning that intention.
Every era teaches in the best methods that are available to them. Who are them? For instance, when The New-England Primer was written they believed it was what was best for the children. There were no other recourses to teach children. In the past, children tended to learn ABCs, spelling and religious content through memorization. However, in the present day ABC by Dr.Seuss is a book parents have the opportunity to choose from; they have the resources to choose other books to read to their children to teach them their ABC’s. ←------ A little confusing. The most notable feature is that the book emphasis on imaginative play. Just a suggestion. Both books are aimed towards a certain audience, have different alphabet sections and both puritan and present day parents wish for different outcomes. Both (Repetitive) parents want their children to learn something in particular from the book that is being read. They both (repetitive) construct the identities of children and child-readers differently, because of the era they are placed in. You use the word BOTH a lot. Maybe use another word.