James Shokoff wrote a literary criticism over my poem Ode on a Grecian Urn. Shokoff is a journalist, and strongly discusses his opinion on the poem in Soul-Making in ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn. Shokoff believes that the question he does not have answered in the poem remains an unsolved mystery. Shokoff agrees with my thesis that symbolism and identification is not a weakness of the poem, but shows great significance. In this criticism the main question is, is the “beauty-truth identification a consistent, meaningful conclusion to the poem” (Shokoff)?
The different techniques to explore literary works all lead to new meanings behind the same piece. In Ursula LeGuin’s short story “She Unnames Them,” a Formalistic analytical approach can be taken to find a deeper meaning within the text. By examining the different elements within the text instead of trying to understand the outside influences on the author, the characters, plot, and setting all transform into vital parts of telling her message. The theme that LeGuin is now able to express is that a person’s or thing’s importance does not lie in its name, rather what they do with themselves is their defining features. Through developing her characters in a unique way, LeGuin is able to best lead the reader to find the central message in her
Unless a reader mulls over the effects of utilizing certain types of narration, Zeena will forever be seen as the villain of the story. With this in mind, it is only after realizing the value of Mrs. Hale’s truthful comments that a reader can understand how impactful narration is on the telling of a story. Where Ethan Frome’s words to the narrator were most likely dripping with his predilection for self-preservation, the narrator’s first-person account of Mrs. Hale’s objectivity on the matter ensured that the redeeming qualities of Zeena’s character were not entirely cast
As Edward Morrow says, “To be persuasive we must be believable, to be believable we must be credible, to be credible we must be truthful.” This quote perfectly presents how a person has to be believable in order for people to trust and relate to him/her. This person is someone that has weaknesses, is not a stereotype, expresses his opinions, and has hopes, fears and disappointments. Usually, authors try to write about believable characters in their stories, allowing the readers to connect with them. Holden Claufield is a quintessence of this type of character, since he has the exact same qualities as a believable person. Holden confidently shares his opinions and goals.
Writing using her own syntax technique puts an emphasis on what Dillard wants the reader to pay specific attention to throughout her essays. The expectations a reader might have concerning Dillard’s writing, putting a “hat” on her, is pushed away by Dillard because she knows the importance of writing how she wants, thereby exceeding the expectations of her readers. Dillard understands what it is like to sit under the shadow
However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility.
Specifically, one can respond with either simple agreement, simple disagreement, or agreement and disagreement simultaneously. Via this idea, along with the help of another template, the writer can identify an issue, map some of the voices of controversy, introduce a quotation, state one’s own argument, and qualify said argument. They restate their main idea, that the templates foster the writer’s abilities by ingraining in them useful literary tools. The last argument that Graff and Birkenstein make is that their templates do not stifle creativity, but instead allow for its growth. Their argument raises the point that all creative works are based in patterns and structures.
His position in regards to his argument is directly outlined at the beginning of the text to insure that readers are aware of the author’s intensions. He uses examples of situations in which the current principle of alternative possibilities is faulted and concisely pulls apart each situation to determine exactly what constitutes the excision of morally responsibility. The article clearly outlines Frankfurt’s arguments, however it becomes evident in particular sections that Frankfurt’s arguments become slightly repetitive as he tries to, perhaps over simplify his arguments to ensure his reader understand his position. As someone who has never been exposed to the principle of alternative possibilities and its implications of moral responsibility for ones actions I found Frankfurt’s arguments were well illustrated and provided strong persuasion with appeal to reason. Frankfurt not only provides sound reasoning behind his arguments about how the principle of possible alternatives is false, however, he does suggest possible ways to revise the principle so that it is more accurate.
Various times throughout the essay the author is keen on giving ground to the opposing argument without letting it nullify his own or without tearing down the opposition; after stating the opposition’s side, the author then give a reason as to why his argument is superior. From the beginning of the essay, the author already come across as straightforward using (insert quote example) ——. However, despite seeming frank, the author very quickly picks up strong and engaging language on the subject. This choice of diction indicates the author is speaking to other scholars of a similar degree level who either agree or disagree with him, but based off of the tone, the essay specifically addresses scholars who had studied the subject prior and disagreed with the author’s current viewpoints. The author continually and effectively cites opposing arguments to exemplify his own, giving the opposition ground, then coming in with his own studies to thwart the disagreeing
“Ars Poetica” directly contradicts this Imagist principle, yet manages to teach it at the same time. McLeish opens his poem with the phrase “a poem should be”, and continues to repeat the phrase in lines 7, 9, 15, and 17. The repetition of the word “be” evokes the image of life, emphasizing the idea that a poem is indeed a being; however, repetition, according to McLeish’s principle and the meaning of “Ars Poetica” is a conflicting literacy device within a poem. The most obvious contradiction appears in line 5, “A poem should be wordless”. If a poem “should be wordless” why repeat the phrase “a poem should be” in that very line, or at all?