This being said, it must be taken into consideration that The Return of Martin Guerre uses little concrete factual evidence to support all of Davis’ claims. She may incorporated bias into her explanations for the actions of Bertrande, and she has no way of knowing for certain the thought processes and ideas of de Rols. Davis often makes statements that seem as if she is certain of the notions of Bertrande, using words such as “must have”, and statements such as these should be taken extremely lightly. If she wishes to psychologically analyze Bertrande she should ensure that she uses language that makes it apparent that there is no record of what Bertrande de Rols knew or desired. Davis sheds a new light upon the events of the Martin Guerre mystery and how du Tilh possibly got away with his charade, but her claims should not be considered historical fact.
In addition, the article, The Fog of Memoir, by Gabriel Sherman, proclaims, “the publishing industry’s sole reliance [is] on authors to verify their memoirs” (Sherman). This shows us that we don’t have proof of the credibility of some of these memoirs. We could read a memoir, and be manipulated by the danger of a single story. Articles, newspapers, and books may be exaggerated and far from the truth. Many people will just read an piece of literature or hear of news and assume it’s true without second guessing it, especially if it is from the media.
Despite these seemingly worrisome conditions, Kolbert does not provide any direct opinion or action for us to follow. This is completely understandable though, especially if the author wants to maintain a strictly scientific and research based approach to The Sixth Extinction. The tone and structure of the interior passages are not conducive to personal opinion and thus it is not particularly surprising to see each chapter devoid of them. However, one would expect Kolbert to revisit these issues and present a closing opinion within the conclusion. Instead, the author simply provides two juxtaposing stances on
The interlude of Thomas C. Foster’s How to Read Literature Like a Professor captures theories that I find myself identifying with at large - that there is only one story. When Foster writes this, he speaks of literature and the idea that originality is impossible because we are all retelling the same human experience. While I would agree, I would even go as far to say that it is because experiencing something that no one else has is so rare. It’s so unlikely that the experiences that our lives consist of are truly our own and that is displayed in the lack of originality in storytelling. Foster goes on to explain how archetypes are hidden throughout literature and it can also be seen in the clichés found throughout life.
Also, this book didn’t really have any action, obviously because the book was historical fiction. And honestly I wouldn’t really recommend this as a fun read unless someone had to read a historical fiction book. 3. Describe your reading experience. Was it a fun read?
This begs the question, what right and obligation does an author have to write outside of their experience concerning historical representations? In Debbie Reese’s blog, she argues that a description of historical fiction requires a certain level of historical accuracy that Cooper sometimes lacks. In Jonathan Hunt’s review of the book for Heavy Medal, he contends that Cooper’s work was entirely embedded in fiction, and did not matter whether historical accuracy was maintained. Often through artistic mediums, we are not trying to portray something truly accurate or realistic (apart from realism). Often, a poem or a piece of fiction is never going to be a true representation of, say, someone’s experience of war, it could, nevertheless, evoke a strong feeling.
The text and lecture offers two opposing views on influencec and contribution of Stein work in literature. The professor refutes allegation made on Stein. In one school of thought, the text criticises Stein 's work. The text states the her work had less influence than contemporaries because of her obscure style, no punctuation and no historical significance on American literature, However, professor disagrees with those points and put a cogent case. First, The text mentions that Stein 's work was obscure and hard to read.
There is no authority because nobody likes being told what to do. Logic, and books, are facts that get the point across short and sweet so there is no room for a change in opinion. Logic carries data, evidence, studies, and records to prove a point. There is no way to say that someone in that book is incorrect because facts are facts and that’s just how it goes. Ethos can cause a change because they have the authority to tell you what is “right.” Pathos will make you cry or mad or sad to get their point across.
I require the people who understand what they 're doing," said Schweikart. One of these books, "A People 's History of the Bound together States," by revisionist understudy of history Howard Zinn, particularly incenses Schweikart. Zinn has no sources. I tell understudies, 'Go to the back and look at his sources. ' They say 'Goodness, he doesn 't have any. '
The piece had no hook, from the beginning it lost me with the first reference of T.D. Jakes setting up his thesis statement that American essays preach. When Vincent Cunningham described how the writings are, “argumentative, Insistent, and irritating” he left out boring, which I feel best described his “What Makes an Essay American.” His use of other authors did not support his idea, because I have not read any of the works and I did not feel that the brief reference provided the support necessary. An essay in his opinion should be challenging and constructed soundly to gain the consideration and reaction of the reader. Writing is personal, each having their own method of telling a story, Mr. Cunningham did not grab me from the beginning and
Rather, he leaves the decision of believing the story or not with his listener or reader, although he occasionally gave his opinion about the story’s veracity. He writes, “Personally, I am not entirely convinced by this story about Salmoxis and his underground chamber, but I do not entirely disbelieve it either.” One of the main things impacting Herodotus’ writing was the lack of experience within his writing as he had not witnessed most of these accounts, but acquired the information through interviews of possibly unreliable sources. In Book 7, while talking about Argives, he states that, “ I am obliged to record things I am told, but I am certainly not required to believe them –this remark may be taken to apply as to the whole of my
SECRETS Portia, Brutus’s wife, wanted to know Brutus’s secret for many worthy reasons. Portia cares about her husband and his well being and wants to know what is troubling him, offer her help. A wife or husband should not pressure their spouse into telling them their secrets because they should have already told them. Every situation is different, but a married couple should be very closed and be comfortable to talk to them about anything. Couples should be best friends and not hide things from each other because then there is no trust in the relationship.
Overall, The Good Earth was not a book that captured my attention. This novel left me discontented and I felt as though it ended quite abruptly. I expected for this book to include a bit more action and drama as well. On the contrary, I did like the historical element that was included and also the major plot twist at the end. If anyone wants to know the ending, they’ll just have to read the book to find
She created lot of bias by using positive terms, so it is very subjective and personal. Besides, there was no information about her at all. We do not know who she is, what she does, we are not sure if we can trust her or not. Therefore it is important that we need to have critical thinking whenever we read stories newspaper provides