This statement is one most indicative of the unique authorial style found in all of Kundera?s works, particularly his most famous novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Unlike previous traditional, non-autobiographical novels, Kundera chooses to indirectly reveal himself as the narrator, who, while omniscient in the control of his characters, poses questions of deep philosophical interest that even he cannot answer. This method has become problematic, however, as many critics have wrongly proclaimed this technique to represent the author?s hatred for the totalitarian regime under which his novel was written; in doing so, not only have they wrongly labeled Kundera ?a passionate defender of Western culture? (Angyal 4), but they also have ignored the larger, philosophical issues that Kundera attempts to accomplish in the novel. While many of the themes in the novel undoubtedly reveal the totalitarian regime for what it is, it will be argued that the role of the intrusive author serves to create a sense of play and freedom of movement that digs deeper than history or politics to get to the heart of more important philosophical issues.
Huckleberry Finn: Strength vs. Weakness Some people consider the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain as a classic, while others perceive it as a weak and trivial novel. The strengths and weaknesses that are seen throughout this novel have brought up a huge controversy on whether it shows greatness or creates confusion for readers in the end. One strength that Mark Twain presents is the realistic actions and feelings of the young boy, Huck, and how he makes him a relatable character. A noticeable flaw in the book is the last 12 chapters, which are irrelevant to the rest of the story because they only act as distractions and take away from the main idea.
Bryson’s claim that the overwhelming uncertainty of the fictional tale cloaks the novel’s supposed purpose is invalid for the likelihood that Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter to successfully portray his appreciation of the ambiguity that surrounded both the Puritan community and... ... middle of paper ... ...gible, understood image of a person known to embody a certain trait, Hawthorne’s vague description of his characters’ outward actions allow the reader to string together their own rope between the several inner and outer dimensions that in reality form an identity; alas, making indulging The Scarlet Letter a more active experience than it already is. Bryson’s argument that Hawthorne’s ambiguity was destructive of meaning is countered by the possibility that demanding the reader’s presence to interpret a variety of themes in the novel was Hawthorne’s aim. Since ambiguity is a substantial part of humanity, whether it be modern day or Puritan Boston, an author can only try to tackle a concept that perpetual, yet constantly developing. The Scarlet Letter successfully dares to incorporate psychology into fiction, a barrier that had little been overcome before its time.
It’s really hard to put as much complexity in less than twenty thousand words than you can in over a hundred. Which makes me think that a short story anthology may not be the ideal vehicle for editor Jetse de Vries’ ambitions. Dismayed by the amount of dystopian sf out there on the market, he aims to showcase sf that depicts futures better than what we have now. Not in a naive, pollyanna-ish way, but in a real and believable way. I find myself sympathetic to his goal: since time immemorial, humans have been complaining that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that the Golden Age or Age of Heroes is behind us, that we’ve diminished in some fundamental way.
Flaws in Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" Mark Twain's novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is by any means a classic. However, there are several flaws. First of all the coincidence that everything happens with in my mind detracts some from the story. The other major problem is that the book seems to drag on and on the closer you get to the end, as if Twain had a page quota to fill and was not worried about the story. The other problem brought up on our hand-out was Huck's lack of seriousness in what was a very serious situation for Jim.
Brandon Brito Pre-Ap English Ms. Conway 05-28-14 History is a powerful thing, the interpretation and exposition of past events into the language of our generation that is of something resembling “Justification and objectivity” is impossible from the start as once said by Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn’s “A Peoples History” is an eye opener to those that read it- apprising them with the information about history that is either told incorrectly or left out injuring their mentality on that topic. Howard Zinn induces the readers “Oohs” and “Ahhs” with his mind blowing taste of realization of history. His informative words not only change our view of history but also change our view of the future. This is history from the perspective of the people who lived it .Zinn tells it like it was; he tells us all the history we didn't learn in the classroom, the history that got taken out in order to make the NY state curriculum easier to teach..
But instead dilutes the true them of the book, and the reason for which is was made. In conclusion, one finds that because of problems found within the characters, plot, and theme of the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, that this piece of classical literature is not perfect. Clearly by realizing its faults one can see that even a well-known and loved book is often no better than any of the mediocre novels of today. Classical works can indeed be judged, and many are far from perfect. Work Cited: Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird.
An example of a critique which accepts the critical opinion that the novel is "defective in structure" is James E. Miller's 1958 essay "My Ántonia: A Frontier Drama of Time." I group his essay here because he spends the bulk of the essay arguing that the defect of structure is overcome when we look at the cyclical nature of time in the novel as its unifying theme. This article does seem to be one of the first ones that looks to disprove the "failure" of Cather's narration. Of course, by disproving this argument, Miller is still working within the context of failure/success which I don't think other writers (read male authors) are judged by. Miller begins his argument by pointing out that many critics "have felt the unified emotional impact of My Ántonia and have grappled with the puzzling problem of the book's actual lack of consistent central action or unbroken character portrayal" (Miller 52).
These are some crucial questions whose answers were supposed to limit and define the scope of "literature". However, various literary and critical schools have advanced different and contradictory responses to these same questions, which have consequently led to a failure in producing an authoritatively established definition of "literature". This failure can be ascribed to many reasons, but because the length of the paper doesn't allow to tackle all of them, the forthcoming paragraphs will be devoted to discuss only two main reasons. The first reason is the difficulty to distinguish between "fact" and "fiction" in some works which, as it will be clarified in the few coming paragraphs, were anthropological and documentary and were later seen as fictional, or vice versa. The second reason resides in the different perspectives upon which different literary theories have based their views about literature.
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.