Critics maintain that the fiction of Herman Melville (1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its occasionally inscrutable style. A more serious, yet problematic, charge is that Melville is a deficient writer because he is not a practitioner of the “art of fiction,” as critics have conceived of this art since the late nineteenth- century essays and novels of Henry James. Indeed, most twentieth-century commentators regard Melville not as a novelist but as a writer of romance, since they believe that Melville’s fiction lacks the continuity that James viewed as essential to a novel: the continuity between what characters feel or think and what they do, and the continuity between characters’ fates and their pasts or original social classes. Critics argue that only Pierre (1852), because of its subject and its characters, is close to being a novel in the Jamesian sense.
However, although Melville is not a Jamesian novelist, he is not therefore a deficient writer. A more reasonable position is that Melville is a different kind of writer, who held, and should be judged by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite different from James’s. It is true that Melville wrote “romances”; however, these are not the escapist fictions this word often implies, but fictions that range freely among very unusual or intense human experiences. Melville portrayed such experiences because he believed these best enabled him to explore moral questions, an exploration he assumed was the ultimate purpose of fiction. He was content to sacrifice continuity or even credibility as long as he could establish a significant moral situation. Thus Melville’s romances do not give the reader a full understanding of the complete feelings and thoughts that motivate actions and events that shape fate. Rather, the romances leave unexplained the sequence of events and either simplify or obscure motives. Again, such simplifications and obscurities exist in order to give prominence to the depiction of sharply delineated moral values, values derived from a character’s purely personal sense of honor, rather than, as in a Jamesian novel, from the conventions of society.
D错在suspect,作者说那些人说的对,M的作品就是romantic,就是不连贯,就是很隐晦,所以作者不会认为那些人对M的评价的猜测性的;
E,确实有好几个批评在针对M的作品:(1)情节不够精彩,风格太过隐晦;(2)不够James,如在想法和行为、个人命运与过去经历和社会背景间缺乏连贯性,不是小说,是romantic。后面作者就在说确实是romantic,不连贯、简化是为了更好地探索内心啊。所以只是反驳了后一个批评,没有理会前面那个。
several accusations包括:lack of inventive plots,occasionally inscrutable style,not a practitioner of the “art of fiction,”
refute one of these accusations是指:not a practitioner of the “art of fiction,”
看到d就没往下看。。。。虽然觉得mislead和suspect有点过,感觉通篇作者很客观,,anyway还是懒得看5e了,。
作者没有否定 the fiction of Herman Melville (1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its occasionally inscrutable style这个说法,只是否定了deficient的说法