题目信息
Critics maintain that the fiction of Herman Melville
(1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack
of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its
occasionally inscrutable style. A more serious, yet
problematic, charge is that Melville is a deficient
writer because he is not a practitioner of the “art of
fiction,” as critics have conceived of this art since the
late nineteenth-century essays and novels of Henry
James. Indeed, most twentieth-century commentators
regard Melville not as a novelist but as a writer of
romance, since they believe that Melville's fiction
lacks the continuity that James viewed as essential
to a novel: the continuity between what characters
feel or think and what they do, and the continuity
between characters' fates and their pasts or original
social classes. Critics argue that only Pierre (1852),
because of its subject and its characters, is close to
being a novel in the Jamesian sense.
However, although Melville is not a Jamesian
novelist, he is not therefore a deficient writer. A more
reasonable position is that Melville is a different
kind of writer, who held, and should be judged
by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite
different from James's. It is true that Melville wrote
“romances”; however, these are not the escapist
fictions this word often implies, but fictions that
range freely among very unusual or intense human
experiences. Melville portrayed such experiences
because he believed these best enabled him to
explore moral questions, an exploration he assumed
was the ultimate purpose of fiction. He was content
to sacrifice continuity or even credibility as long
as he could establish a significant moral situation.
Thus Melville's romances do not give the reader
a full understanding of the complete feelings and
thoughts that motivate actions and events that shape
fate. Rather, the romances leave unexplained the
sequence of events and either simplify or obscure
motives. Again, such simplifications and obscurities
exist in order to give prominence to the depiction of
sharply delineated moral values, values derived from
a character's purely personal sense of honor, rather
than, as in a Jamesian novel, from the conventions of
society.
(1819–1891) has limitations, such as its lack
of inventive plots after Moby-Dick (1851) and its
occasionally inscrutable style. A more serious, yet
problematic, charge is that Melville is a deficient
writer because he is not a practitioner of the “art of
fiction,” as critics have conceived of this art since the
late nineteenth-century essays and novels of Henry
James. Indeed, most twentieth-century commentators
regard Melville not as a novelist but as a writer of
romance, since they believe that Melville's fiction
lacks the continuity that James viewed as essential
to a novel: the continuity between what characters
feel or think and what they do, and the continuity
between characters' fates and their pasts or original
social classes. Critics argue that only Pierre (1852),
because of its subject and its characters, is close to
being a novel in the Jamesian sense.
However, although Melville is not a Jamesian
novelist, he is not therefore a deficient writer. A more
reasonable position is that Melville is a different
kind of writer, who held, and should be judged
by, presuppositions about fiction that are quite
different from James's. It is true that Melville wrote
“romances”; however, these are not the escapist
fictions this word often implies, but fictions that
range freely among very unusual or intense human
experiences. Melville portrayed such experiences
because he believed these best enabled him to
explore moral questions, an exploration he assumed
was the ultimate purpose of fiction. He was content
to sacrifice continuity or even credibility as long
as he could establish a significant moral situation.
Thus Melville's romances do not give the reader
a full understanding of the complete feelings and
thoughts that motivate actions and events that shape
fate. Rather, the romances leave unexplained the
sequence of events and either simplify or obscure
motives. Again, such simplifications and obscurities
exist in order to give prominence to the depiction of
sharply delineated moral values, values derived from
a character's purely personal sense of honor, rather
than, as in a Jamesian novel, from the conventions of
society.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A:make a case for the importance of skillful psychological motivation in well-written novels and romances
B:contrast the romantic and novelistic traditions and assert the aesthetic superiority of the romantic tradition
C:survey some of the responses to Melville's fiction put forward by James and twentieth-century literary critics
D:argue that the charges made against Melville's fiction by literary critics are suspect and misleading
E:note several accusations made against Melville's fiction by literary critics and refute one of these accusations
参考答案及共享解析
共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等； 如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论
本题耗时：
已选答案：
正确答案：
E:note several accusations made against Melville's fiction by literary critics and refute one of these accusations
答案 E
题目大意
这篇短文的主要目的是，我们的目的是要找到这篇文章的主要目的，这就需要对文章的结构和它的目标有一个牢固的理解。但它的主要论点是支持梅尔维尔的小说是有效的这一观点，尽管它并没有遵循亨利·詹姆斯的小说观。
此外，文章还为梅尔维尔的小说辩护，认为梅尔维尔对小说的目的有一个同样有效的概念：一个与詹姆斯有根本区别的概念
A.巧写心理动机在长篇小说和爱情小说中的重要性，这篇文章表明，Melville的力量并非源于对动机的描述。
B.对比浪漫主义和小说家传统，断言浪漫主义传统的审美优势，这篇文章特别提到了梅尔维尔的小说，并不意味着“写得好的小说或浪漫故事”都有任何特殊的特征。
C.詹姆斯和二十世纪文学评论家对梅尔维尔小说的一些回应，这篇文章并不是简单地对梅尔维尔小说的文学反应进行综述，而是进一步论证梅尔维尔作品的文学价值。
D.认为文学评论家对梅尔维尔小说的指控是可疑和误导的。因为这篇文章反对对梅尔维尔作品的某些批评，所以有人可能会说，这篇文章的作者认为对梅尔维尔的一些批评是“可疑的”。然而，这篇文章中没有任何东西暗示这一点适用于对梅尔维尔作品的所有批评。此外，这篇文章中没有任何东西表明这些批评家的作品是“误导性的”。
E.注意到文学批评家对Melville小说的几次指责，驳斥了其中的一项指控。这篇文章的主要目的是反驳Melville文学批评家对他的小说的一些负面评价。
题目大意
这篇短文的主要目的是，我们的目的是要找到这篇文章的主要目的，这就需要对文章的结构和它的目标有一个牢固的理解。但它的主要论点是支持梅尔维尔的小说是有效的这一观点，尽管它并没有遵循亨利·詹姆斯的小说观。
此外，文章还为梅尔维尔的小说辩护，认为梅尔维尔对小说的目的有一个同样有效的概念：一个与詹姆斯有根本区别的概念
A.巧写心理动机在长篇小说和爱情小说中的重要性，这篇文章表明，Melville的力量并非源于对动机的描述。
B.对比浪漫主义和小说家传统，断言浪漫主义传统的审美优势，这篇文章特别提到了梅尔维尔的小说，并不意味着“写得好的小说或浪漫故事”都有任何特殊的特征。
C.詹姆斯和二十世纪文学评论家对梅尔维尔小说的一些回应，这篇文章并不是简单地对梅尔维尔小说的文学反应进行综述，而是进一步论证梅尔维尔作品的文学价值。
D.认为文学评论家对梅尔维尔小说的指控是可疑和误导的。因为这篇文章反对对梅尔维尔作品的某些批评，所以有人可能会说，这篇文章的作者认为对梅尔维尔的一些批评是“可疑的”。然而，这篇文章中没有任何东西暗示这一点适用于对梅尔维尔作品的所有批评。此外，这篇文章中没有任何东西表明这些批评家的作品是“误导性的”。
E.注意到文学批评家对Melville小说的几次指责，驳斥了其中的一项指控。这篇文章的主要目的是反驳Melville文学批评家对他的小说的一些负面评价。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
