He provided good evidence to support his argument and corrected the lies put on Benedict’s name. Murphy did lack excitement throughout the book, but it was still a fascinating read. Murphy did fail at appealing to what the common person would like to read. I would not recommend this book to anyone unless they like history and details on military battles. Although Benedict was a traitor to America, Murphy helped explained why and provided better understanding of the events leading up to him deciding to trait.
He asserts, "The veterans lacked any compelling evidence to support their claims,yet they ... ... middle of paper ... ...l to us, at least, and that´s as real as it gets ¨(158). He does a good job in backing up his arguments with the examples provided. This strenghtens and delivers the book in a well organized manner. For the book´s weaknesses, there was some confusion by the end of the chapter because there was an excess amount of abreviations that made it hard to keep up with. This caused confusion while reading and the need to turn back to figure out what the meaning of the abreviations were.
While Fitzgerald tries hard not to make Gatsby and especially Daisy laughable personalities, this is where he ultimately fails. There's not enough ironic distance to his characters. As Gatsby, at least in the eyes of many critics, should represent the idea of the American Dream, the presentation of his character puts the whole concept in question again, without being intended as criticism. This is mainly the fault of another weak character in the novel, Nick Carraway. At first, the only function of Nick in the novel seems to be to act as a reporter, telling us the truth by telling us his shrewd, objective perceptions.
The book, which has a very intresting plot, is a hard book to read. I liked this book for many reasons, but I also disliked it. Mario Puzo, trying to make the book as realistic as possible, had the speech in the book sound like a bunch of nonsense. The characters in the book, sounded very uneducated and it took some effort to think about what they meant and were trying to say. I guess it would be easier to watch the story on the television, but reading it is very confusing.
A Critical Analysis of:Lies My Teacher Told Me "It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things which are not so." -FELIX OKOYE Out of all forms of literature currently known to man, educational textbooks are arguably the least interesting. On top of being incredibly boring, textbooks, especially American history ones, neglect to include the entirety of the information that it should. Because American history textbooks wish only to paint the United States in a bright light, the authors opt to leave out anything that may hurt its image. What Lies My Teacher Told Me attempts to do is lay out uncommonly known facts for the misinformed history students of today.
I didn’t particularly care for the lawyerly torrent of words that were used, either. I am not ignorant and appreciate the need for words of longer than two syllables when discussing literature (or anything more serious than an episode of “Friends”, in fact), but I found it more difficult than usual to get through this article. I found it unconscionably wordy and it felt at times as though he was just stringing fancy words together because they looked all important lined up. However, that’s just my opinion. I was gratified to see that this critic agreed with my interpretation of the Duchess’s demise, viz., the Duke had her murdered.
Flynn, and many other Americans agree , find Zinn’s theory of alternative motive for the foundation of our country, insulting and offensive. Zinn’s approach on History may be new, innovated, and flashy, but Zinn fails to back his opinions up with thorough evidence. And while many Americans and critics have fallen for his work do to its insight and Zinn’s ability to connect with his readers it is not a proper basis for teaching, or for opinion. That is not to say that one should side with Flynn in this debate, for both writers are radical and biased as most authors all. The only thorough way to form a solid and confident opinion is to be well researched and educated on the matter.
Although there is a common understanding among most intellectuals that the culture incorporated a lot of debauchery and corruption, critics of the 1920’s and later decades, such as the 60’s and 80’s have shown disapproval of Stearns’ overly negative assessment. Others, on the other hand, have criticized Stearns and the other authors for being too confident in the future of the American society. Stearns’ book is a compilation of thirty essays that according to their authors speak the truth about the problems of American culture. According to Stearns, the authors didn’t write the book to please their readers, but rather to make them understand the problems with American society (vi). The essays are written on a variety of themes such as problems with the city, politics, education, the law, the family, sex, business, science and philosophy.
On one hand, "the United States consist... ... middle of paper ... ...al. Maybe it was just an overlooked mistake by Holt, but considering that NYT's fact checking department was involved, and considering Holt writes in trusted, widely circulated publications like The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Slate, this is a mistake he simply should not make. Holt's misuse of evidence, poor use of other evidence, lack of support, lack of definition, and almost neutral stance make his arguement impossible to get behind. His message comes across unclear, and I'm still not sure what to think of it. It lacked the power to illicit an immediate response from me, and I'm sure many other readers.
King Richard the Lion Heart is called the Black Knight after he returns from the Crusades. I became very confused while reading this book because of these double names. I had trouble figuring out who Scott was talking about. In my opinion the weaknesses of the double names and far too many characters makes this book unappealing. Yes, it does portray the society’s obsession of the Code of Chivalry very well, but it doesn’t make the book interesting.