Group items tagged

Argument: Animal Farm is a modern satire. Claim: -The novel satires Russia's perversion of socialism -The animal's revolt is a symbol for any modern revolution -Any revolution is ultimately self-defeating Evidence: -"The use of multiple historical references gives a universal quality to this work." -"The rise of a ruling class of intellectual workers, the development of a leader figure, the use of scapegoats, and, above all, the rewriting of history and the misuse of language for party purposes, all figure in this satire" http://search.ebscohost.com.lib.chandleraz.gov/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lfh&AN=MOL0089900020&site=lrc-live

Argument: The meaning of the word equal within Orwell's two texts allow different readings due to the exploitable ambiguities of its meaning Claim: If "equal" can mean something desirable and good, it can also in a primary sense mean no more than "identical" or "same." Evidence: "The concept of political equality no longer existed, and this secondary meaning had accordingly been purged out of the word equal.(6)" "Whereby "equal" starts to lose its libertarian meaning and comes to mean no more than "identical." The term "equal" may, at the beginning of Animal Farm, hold its revolutionary connotation intact, but by the end of the book it carries a drastically reduced and sinister meaning."

Arthur Cleveland Coxe wrote "The Writings if Hawthrone" to criticize Nathaniel Hawthorne for his work The Scarlet Letter. He criticizes Hawthorne for the inspiring "social licentiousness" and making fun of all religion. He believes that the subject matter is inappropriate a romance novel and that woman everywhere would be offended that they were painted in a negative light. Coxe's argument while coherent and consistent lacks logic because he provides next to no proof of his argument. His argument is a shallow criticism that doesn't attempt to understand the work on a deeper level. The only evidence Coxe provides is the subject matter of the novel and the Nathaniel Hawthorne's participation in a six-month stay in a Transcendentalist commune. He argues that because Hawthrone associates himself with enlightened ideals he must be trying to destroy the Gospel. He deduces "this sort of sentiment must be charged to the doctrines enforced at 'Brook-Farm.'" His assumptions hold no basis because he doesn't provide any proof from the text other than dialogue that he finds disgusting. The author concludes that Hawthorne is trying to obliterate morality with The Scarlet Letter and suggest adulterous relationships are acceptable. The author's belief is not without bias to say the least. His criticism was published in The Church Review and further research reveals the author was the second Episcopal bishop of New York. Of course he would overlook the satirical purpose of The Scarlet Letter because he did not see anything wrong with the way they Puritans treated Hester Prynne.

argument: the comparison of Orwell's books and the affect his life had on them claim: Orwell put an unerring finger on the totalitarian element in anarchism itself, the nightmare of a society ruled by a public opinion so powerful that it can take the place of law.... evidence: The evidence lies not within the article itself but within the comparison of both 1984 and Animal Farm

Argument: To a God Unknown is a novel riddled with the power idea of the something to believe in; faith. Faith is in the forefront of the novel because Joesph, the main character, believes in the universe as whole rather than his brothers strong Christan beliefs. By being an out lier of the family ultimately leads to the farm dramatic drought. Evidence: "the central theme of the novel is belief," Joesph's pagan beliefs are vastly different than those of his brother and of those of the time period. his were somewhat structured on "little more than fluttering of leaves on tree, and the chill breath of wind before it rains. My thoughts: Damian Kelleher is simply criticizing the obvious spiritual differences between the family, however, he allows the reader to understand that the novel gives off a feeling of Steinbeck actually writing of his own life. This is interesting because in a lot of his novels he writes or adds an idea of religion. The addition of religion brings froth the the realization that he is attempting to sway the public to his religion or just to leave what is different becoming eerily close to religious proganda.

Purpose: The primary literary critiques that the authors target is: the setting of the novel, the characteristics of Lennie and George, followed by multiple themes of the book. The story Of Mice and Men takes place in a town called "Soledad" which translated into English means solitude or loneliness. The setting is quite clever considering that all but two characters in the novel face a lifestyle of solitude; ironically, the two that don't suffer loneliness are the main subjects of the story. Lennie and George represent a committed companionship, which in many ways, complete and compliment one another. According to Howard Levant, "The good life is impossible because humanity is flawed" however throughout the entire novel the strong duo, Lennie and George, express a high level of dedication to reach their ultimate goal, which leads to the theme of the story, commitment. Evidence: "One of the themes of Of Mice and Men is that men fear loneliness, that they need someone to be with and to talk to who will offer understanding and companionship."(Pizer) "The dream of the farm merely symbolizes their deep mutual commitment, a commitment that is immediately sensed by the other characters in the novel."(Owens) "Lennie has been seen as representing "the frail nature of primeval innocence" and as the id to George's ego or the body to George's brain."(Owens) ""Ain't many guys travel around together.... I don't know why. Maybe everybody in the whole damn world is scared of each other." (Steinbeck) Reflection: The evidence is nicely organized along with carefully placed throughout the article. Louis Owens and Harold Bloom used several affective quotes from the novel itself to help support their ideas in response to past criticisms of the book. The authors did not simply claim past criticisms as incorrect however used sufficient evidence to reinforce their own thoughts as true. I did not notice any bias present in the article but only a well-organized analys

Tokugawa Ieyasu purpose of the article was to explain the historical aspects of the actual "Taiko" himself and not the character of the Taiko in Eiji Yoshikawa's novel. The article is effective since it only relies on facts and history rather than a personal opinion or argument. The main focus for the audience who have already read Taiko is the realism and accuracy Yoshikawa portrayed in his novel. Such instances as, "the emperor being unable to grant such a title to someone of Hideyoshi's lowly lineage" and "being unable to become an adopted son for not being a shogun" are familiar events that were included in Taiko. There is no evidence that particularly helps or hinders Ieyasu's case since there is no argument, it is purely informational. That being said, there are some key points about the Taiko that are interesting to readers that were not included in the novel, such as, "Hideyoshi unwisely attempted to invade Korea again in the Battle of Keicho. This time the Japanese encountered a well-prepared joint defence of Korea and China. The result was a stalemate". Similarly to Yoshikawa's Musashi, Yoshikawa conveniently leaves out points which has certain effects that he feels unnecessary for the sake o storytelling. The article also goes on to explain certain details of the aftermath of the war and how Hideyoshi died and his son, Hideyori, became his successor. Ieyasu goes on to say the overall effect Hideyoshi had on Japan after his death , "during the Sengoku period, it became common for peasants to become warriors, or even for samurai to farm due to the constant uncertainty of no centralized government".