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.
Which of the following statements best describes the author’s method of argumentation in lines 24–31?
The author describes an important standard of evaluation used by critics of Melville and then attacks that standard.
The author admits a contention put forward by critics of Melville but then makes a countercharge against those critics.
The author describes a charge advanced by critics of Melville and then points out a logical flaw in this charge.
The author provides evidence that seems to support a position held by critics of Melville but then demonstrates that the evidence actually supports a diametrically opposed position.
The author concedes an assertion made by critics of Melville but then mitigates the weight of the assertion by means of an explanation.
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 D。
作者在文中提出了批评家指责梅尔维尔缺乏创造性情节和难以理解的风格的看法,并提出了一个更严重而有问题的主张,即他是一个不全面的作家,因为他不是创作者艺术形式的实践者,取而代之的是他的小说缺乏了亨利·詹姆斯所认为必不可少的连贯性。然而,作者指出,尽管梅尔维尔不是詹姆斯式的小说家,但他也不是一个不全面的作家,更合理的观点是他是一个不同类型的作家,他持有与詹姆斯截然相反的有关小说写作的假设,因此他认为只有皮埃尔,因为它的主题和人物,才能够接近詹姆斯意义上的小说。因此,这里的作者策略是提供了一种似乎支持批评家对梅尔维尔的看法的证据,但又表明这些证据实际上支持一种截然相反的观点,因此答案为D。
这道题很tricky...需要能够正确的识别出来Melville wrote “romances”这个成分在critics的argument中到底是什么作用。
critics的逻辑是Melville wrote “romances”-》Melville is a deficient writer
因此,高亮部分引用的Melville wrote “romances”这个描述,不是a contention,也不是a charge,charge应该是Melville is a deficient writer。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论