Some either read for fun, for education, to stimulate their fantasy, or to become tired. All reasons regulate the pace of reading. The reading pace is, nevertheless, bound to be subjective and differs from reader to reader. A generalisation of one particular reading pace, that can be mathematically derivated, is impossible, because various aspects matter and result in individual reading
The story gives us such an overflow of different topics that we find it hard to search the truly main source. If it were any other book, it would have become too overwhelming for the reading but because of the extent of the story the author manages to let the topics mend over in each other without being too overbearing to comprehend all the
The characters must be relatable to evoke sympathy from readers and must have a unique storyline. No one will feel attached to a character that has a plain, boring story. Second, the book must have an intriguing plot and/or plot twists. To keep readers engaged, a novel must have good or interesting plot. A key element of this is having plot twists or unexpected turns to keep readers guessing or to keep them “in to” the book.
Many of my books touch on the dark side of human nature, but I think that’s what keeps them realistic. Readers can only take so much saccharine content before they get bored. To paraphrase Elmore Leonard I try to leave out the boring parts. How did you come up with the title? Why "Restless Hearts"?
One of the obvious strengths of the book is that the author creates a release which offers an in-depth explanation of the major points. The author spends enough time and space to elaborate the ideas he presents, and this makes it possible for readers to understand the information without having many doubts and suspense as it would occur if Eksteins could provide a shallow description. The second vital element of the book is that the author makes use of the works of several other authors to make his work reliable, and one which does not evoke suspension from users. The use of other writers’ works to explain his ideas give readers the opportunity to conduct further research on the topic to acquire more enlightenment on the implications of the Great War in Europe. The primary limitation in the book, however, is that the author fails to use visual presentations to make it easy for readers to understand some of the concepts in the book.
The novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck characterizes its characters with the act of doing things without a valid reason but was establish to further understand the connection between the characters in the story. Along with an interesting plot and setting, as well as themes that tackles critical belief about life that the author trying to convey, the novel is truly worthy of the recognition and praise it has retained throughout the decades. In the novel, we see that the characters had different strength and
This source was relevant to me research because it makes some good points that will help me in my writing. I have no reason to suspect that this source is biased in any way. The source was useful to a certain extent. Though it did have critical evaluation, it was only one paragraph. There wasn’t enough information there for me to grasp the idea of the book was talking about.
While a main idea is absolutely essential, it’s not the whole piece. It’s difficult for the readers to understand what a writer wants to express, only by a single sentence to go on and on. So to make the writing better the writer should include lots of interesting details, with more clarity. The writing is further interesting if it is presented in a way where the reader imagines the scenario. • Good writing conveys a clear sense of purpose: Most of the faculties agree that good writing delivers a clear sense of the writer’s purpose.
He finds his writing to be invaluable and believes he could do much better. However, though he believes he should produce better writing, he maintains a fixed mindset about the actual manifestation of better writing. He equally believes that he will never be capable of better writing. When asked about his feelings toward his writing, he spoke shortly and looked around and up while discussing it, which could indicate recollection or boredom (Changing Minds, n.d.). His posture is slouched and facial expressions display irritation about the discussion.
This is where I learned the most about myself as both a writer and a reader. Initially, when writing my first draft, I focused on just the most prominent aspects of the article such as how Schulz framed her argument through a story and kept things factually and historically based rather than outwardly asserting her bias. Both subjects became the crux of my analysis, but my original draft lacked the analysis aspect a bit in that I had to dig deeper and provide better examples to support my stance. For example, in my original draft I focused a bit too much on bias and went to the extreme of saying that Schulz kept all bias out of her narrative and kept it completely objective. After further digging into Schulz’s background, and for what publication this article was established under, I had to rephrase this subject to acknowledge the bias but counter-argue why her credentials does not devalue the points she makes in “Citizen Khan.” I was prompted to reevaluate the phrasing and depth of the topics I addressed in my analysis by the comments on the first draft by my Professor.