Group items tagged

Argument: Novick determines in his review of a reproduction of "Man and Superman" that not only were the actors inadequate for their roles, but the rules inadequate for the actors. Though the play is considered 'a Comedy and a Philosophy', the philosophy of it overtook the human element of drama. According to Novick, the play was beyond present-day theatergoers in its length and construction. Evidence: "Bernard Shaw's "three-ring circus," as H. L. Mencken called Man and Superman, "with Ibsen doing running high jumps; Schopenhauer playing the Calliope and Nietzsche selling peanuts in the reserved seats," runs a paltry three hours and fifteen minutes…." "The wisdom of both these alternatives is dubious, but no more so, perhaps, than that of exposing the theatre-going population of the Boston area to the night air past its bedtime. When we succeed in breeding our descendants into supermen, a super-theatre may come into being to present Man and Superman entire." Thoughts: Novick has a more forgiving view of the play itself than of the actors, a perception which comes with the post-humorous protection of Shaw's legacy over his works. This review gives a mid-twentieth century review of the production long after Shaw's death, as opposed to Walkley's critique of Shaw in his day.

Cody Villanueva Jensen AP LIT 20 January 2011 Literary Analysis #2 The novel not only portrays a sense of classic literature, but for Bill Robinson Life of Pi is presumably an award winner. Based on what Robinson says is "straightforward and innocent in a way that is entertaining and highly engaging," he praises this novel for its mere simplicity and uniqueness that not only is carried through Martel's text but his overall idea and organization of the novel. As perceived to be a novel of such grace and simplicity, it seems as if Robinson connects more intimately to this novel due to the fact of its heavy affiliation with religion. Within his review not only does he state Martel's thoughts , in this case being "This is a novel of such rare and wondrous storytelling that it may, as one character claims, make you believe in God." but praises it by saying "Could a reader ask for anything more?" Due to Robinson's religious arousal this is a possible bias toward readers of religious ambiguity or unaffiliated preference. Even though Robinson's praise Martel for such a genius novel, he rarely comments on any of the downsides the novel contains. It takes him to the end where he finally comments on a small portion of the novels ending and how it "drags a bit at the end," but is simply reinstating what other reviews may say. The author in conclusion contains an overall affectionate appeal to this novel with rare and minimal critiques, possibly due to a assumed bias. Robinson not only praise's this novel in words but it seems as he pushes this novels to review for an accredited award based on his overall high ratings for the novel.

In what is known as one of Beckett's most infamous works, it appears that what occurs on stage and even between the actors and audience is a game. In his review of the work, Atkinson boldly claims that it was "Impressive in the macabre intensity of the mood", making it a close contender with Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". While the argument of the article may not be relatively easy to pick up, upon closer inspection of the critique it may seem as if Atkinson has no opinion on the matter due to the highly interpretive and almost incomprehensible manner in which Beckett's works are put forth. Atkinson even states "Don't expect this column to give a coherent account of what--if anything-- happens. Almost nothing happens in the sense of action." So what exactly can be said about the work? Clearly Beckett has found a knack in creating a feeling of nothing, in "Endgame" as well as in "Waiting for Godot", the settings are never clearly described, and what little details are given out may in fact be seen in infinite number of ways. For example the author, Atkinson, has seen the other works of Beckett before reviewing his latest, this article being published the day after the debut in new york on Jan. 29, 1958, which would indeed give him a bias as to how he would experience the work. If someone were to review the play who had never seen anything of Beckett's before, it may be almost certain that most of what is said would be confusion, and misunderstanding about the purpose of the play. I feel that Atkinson, having had the experience, accurately portrays the works in his article/review. Beckett is a modern writer who plays out work in an old style. His two plays mentioned before are both considered comedies, but not in the laugh out loud sense, but the classical interpretation of what comedies where meant to be. Yet still creating an almost post- apocalyptic environment while maintaining an elevated psychological approach to the viewing experience.

Book review.

Book review.

Argument: * Russ Allbery breaks down Catch-22 as a great novel, but not without its flaws. What makes this review and criticism so imporant in research of Heller's novel are the (opinion-based) negative sides of the novel as a whole. Such negative connotations include the "monotonous" circle made by Heller in arguments (such as paradox made by not ordering combat missions chronologically when related to the novel's conclusion) and the fact that many would categorize the story with a main theme of humor - which Allbery denies is the core of Heller's work. Allbery goes on to summarize how the term "Catch-22" was integrated into the English language (via slang) and that Heller's work is truly a 'best-of' even if flaws persist. Evidence: * "Catch-22 didn't entirely succeed for me as a comedy. The huge ensemble cast was mostly too unbelievable and exaggerated for me to find funny" (Allbery) * "Due in part to the way that Heller stresses paradoxes and insoluable conflict, the writing can be quite repetitive and a bit circular." (Allbery) * "Heller provides as a clue the linearly increasing number of missions the airmen had to fly before theoretically being allowed to rotate home, but ordering can still be frustrating." (Allbery) * "The war acts in this book like a force of nature. Nearly everyone just accepts that it's happening and tries to ignore it, or revels in fighting it, without really thinking about it. It's only Yossarian, normally trying to maintain a long-suffering sarcasm, who occasionally can't help but tell the blunt truth." (Allbery) Thoughts: * While this is somewhat an opinionated "summary" of Catch-22, it is the only review I have that stresses some of the negative sides to the novel; from my view, the strengths of the novel further stand out amidst these criticisms. It is a strong point to make that Heller used too many "circle arguments" for it shows his position in writing the novel and how certain themes may have lead

Argument: Jon Krakauer is too emotionally invested in the tale of Chris McCandless to write an unbiased and factual book. Claim: In his book, Into The Wild, author Jon Krakauer "makes his presence known throughout the novel" and "fails to see that in fact his authorial presence is both inescapable and distracting to the reader". Evidence: Krakauer writes about the emotions and feelings of McCandless in his, Krakauers, own words, instead of simply relaying facts. The author of this article, 'erinberman' writes that "If Krakauer had wanted to remain a silent author, he would have let Chris's words speak for themselves, instead of try to capture the essence of his fleeting thoughts and emotions." PURL: http://erinberman.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/into-the-wild-by-jon-krakauer-book-review/

Argument: Dexter Filkins, of the New York Times Book Review, delivers a tough critique of Where Men Win Glory by Jon Krakauer. Filkins believes that "This would have been a better book had it been a hundred pages shorter." Claim: Much of the background about Pat Tillman's life is unnecessary. Also, the tiny details that Krakauer recounts are "banal and inconsequential." Evidence: "Tillman doesn't arrive in Afghanistan until Page 230." The book is supposed to be about the death of Pat Tillman, and the ensuing cover-up, but Krakauer talks too much about Tillman's early life and the NFL. However, once Tillman reaches Afghanistan and Krakauer starts telling the story he promised, the book takes a turn for the better. Filkins writes "The death of Tillman is handled deftly" and that "Krakauer performs a valuable service by bringing them [facts] all together". http://go.galegroup.com.lib.chandleraz.gov/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A207732676&v=2.1&u=chandler_main&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w

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.

Arguement: Becoming a writer is a journey; Gantos used his journey in many different ways. Claim: Gantos' used the hard times in his life to motivate him to be a writer. Evidence: "It (prison) is where I went from thinking about becoming a writer, to writing." -Jack Gantos Claim: Mistakes and downfalls lead Gantos to become a more intellegent writer. Evidence: "his unsparing portrayal of his fears, failings, and false starts... is brillant and authentistic." Claim: Gantos used his journey to define his writing techniques. Evidence: Gantos' spare narrative style and straightforward revelation of the truth have, together, a cumulative power that will capture not only a reader's attention but also empathy and imagination."

Roxanne Llamzon writes about the main idea of the play An Enemy of The People and the meaning behind Ibsen's writings and the real meanings behind his work. Llamzon says, "In An Enemy of the People, he shows the tyranny of the majority. The majority is seen as a "tyrant" because the leaders of society are afraid to do what is right since they are the people's mercy." This means that I should look for quotes about how Ibsen targets leaders of a society and the political system in the play, as this is his real purpose in writing the play. Llamzon directly states that Ibsen's opinion on these political leaders are is that to them "the idea and threat of the majority keeps [them] from acting honestly." This relates to our society and the way that the officials that are elected do not do what they think is the right thing, but rather what will get them re-elected and popular among those who voted for them. Roxanne Llamzon says that Henrik Ibsen's writings are devoted to the purpose of getting this point across, as it is the motivation behind the plays that he writes.

Branislav L. Slantchev's purpose of discussing Eiji Yoshikawa's, Taiko, is to relate this work to Yoshikawa's more popular title, Musashi, and to also show the few faults Yoshikawa has made in his writing. Slantchev's opinion is that since so few people know of Yoshikawa, those who are familiar will become enthralled and find his work flawless. Slantchev is one of the few to finally go against the majority critical opinion and voice his personal issues with Yoshikawa. The article begins with a general summary of Taiko with an explanation of the tale as one that is about bringing "prosperity to the ravaged land is an inspiring, if bloody, tale of courage, imagination, and political intrigue." This statement already sets up the beginning with the multiple literary similarities between Taiko and Musashi. The article even discusses the "historical reality" still being "fictionalized." Nevertheless, Slantchev still continues to praise Yoshikawa when speaking of the engaging narrative and attention to battles until he reaches the character development. Slantchev argues, "Hideyoshi is so likable, he appears terribly one-dimensional." This statement is supported by the fact that even though the main character, Hideyoshi, has a "monkey face" he is still able to have success when it comes to the opposite sex. Slantchev recommends many other novels that would actually contain a more balanced point of view. Ultimately, Slantchev still ties his argument back to how Yoshikawa is still a stunning author that has the ability to write a complex mixture of "loyalty, honor, calculation, and greed that is bound to baffle the foreigner." There is a perfect consistency of admiration as well as points of dissatisfaction within the article. Thorough evidence is provided for all of the arguments made. Slantchev does appear to possess a slight bias in writing his article, as he occasionally slants his writing in comparing Taiko to Musashi almost too often. Al

book reviewe of Fight Club

Reviews plot.

I'm having some issues with the website, but I do have the analysis saved if you end up needing a hard copy :)

Argument: The author aims to demonstrate that the conspicuous insertion of Yann Martel's religious beliefs in "life of Pi" is destructive to Martel's attempts to encourage his readers to believe in GOD and religion. However, the author quickly asserts that the problem is simply not very relevant! He even goes as far as admitting that he - a firm atheist - began to affirm a faith in god after reading the novel, under the pretense that the impossibility of the tale encourages the growth of the reader's imagination and therefore his/her faith in God. Evidence: "...the fiction...reveals a truth by explicit sermonising rather than as a natural conclusion drawn from the relationships and events it presents, [and] is displeasing, even 'immoral'" "As he travels through the pages...the reader[s]...atheist or already committed follower[s], experience some major revelation to the spirit, coming to, or restoring, a belied in GOD." "...the simple narrative may reveal virtues and ethics, yet is primarily concerned with entertaining the reader...in magical ways which powerfully invoke the active imagination." "...the novel occupies too perfectly 100 chapters. Yet the miraculous outcomes of this definite structure...defy explanation, logic, reality. This is magic realism in its most subversive form..." Thoughts: the author successfully uses significant support to lend credibility to his argument and does a good job of doing so. He did a fantastic job of explaining and defining his view point and overall I thoroughly agree with his criticism of "Life of Pi".

Literary analyst Sumangali Morhall argues that author Eiji Yoshikawa humanizes the man Miyamoto Musashi rather than the ledgend, Musashi. In her analysis, she states, "This is ostensibly a book of swordsmanship, and includes its share of martial combat, but that element is neither gratuitous nor glamourised - it serves to support rather than blemish the story's purpose" (Morhall). Overall, Morhall delivers her argument in a descriptive manner, elaborating on the logos of the novel along with her personal opinion and perception of the novel. Her evidence is fluid and does not contradict itself whatsoever. Morhall originally states that Yoshikawa turns the legend of Musashi into the man, Musashi, and continues to support her statement while describing the accomplishments of Yoshikawa, both poetically and historically. The information provided is nothing out of the ordinary from what the majority of critical analysts agree over Yoshikawa's writings. Yoshikawa is praised for his historical accuracy on martial arts and culture included in Musashi. Morhall concludes her article praising Yoshikawa, but also explaining that the reader will get more "gracefulness" than "grisly." This statement would be hard to argue with seeing that Yoshikawa does somewhat glamorize the life of a swordsman, not necessarily in unrealistic terms, but in how Yoshikawa chooses to craft his syntax in his story as seen in this passage from the chapter entitled Art of War: "While he felt pity for this obstinate tenacity characteristic of orphans, he was aware of a void deep within their stubborn hearts. They seemed to him doomed to yearn desperately for that which they could not have, for the parental love with which they were never blessed" (Yoshikawa, 63). The only implicit bias that may be discovered within this analysis would be that Morhall does not indicate any faults present within Yoshikawa's Musashi. Morhall even goes as far to say that Yoshikawa is a "master," whi

Hilda Kirkwood's purpose is to review and talk about the short story called Franny and Zooey by J. D. Salinger. She explains how Salinger's writing style and techniques add to the overall effect of the short story he wrote. She also touches upon the themes of the story, which I found interesting because it was similar to the themes of the Catcher in the Rye. Kirkwood sets up her criticism in a somewhat organized manner. Her ideas and thoughts are not logically in order, however, they all relate to each other and connect very nicely. The author provides direct quotes from the story to further enhance and help her explanation of the plot and characters. She is able to focus on Salinger's writing style while still be consistent with the specific details from the book. In my opinion I think there is enough evidence to support the author's case. She includes many examples from the story to help support her case on Salinger's techniques as an author. Kirkwood concludes that Salinger is an amazing writer and his writing is unique. Also, the message of Franny and Zooey was to "connect" and somehow the characters weren't able to. Assumptions on the short story may contribute to the author's purpose because the book appeared in the New Yorker, so the author knows the story is worthy writing about. The fact that the author praises Salinger as a writer numerous times throughout the criticism contributes makes the author a little bias. The author is passionate about Salinger's writing style and I can tell simply by her explicit statements on him. I can tell that Kirkwood knows that Salinger is known for writing about being connected because that was his main focus in the Catcher in the Rye.