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 author draws which of the following conclusions about the fact that Melville's fiction often does not possess the qualities of a Jamesian novel?
A:Literary critics should no longer use Jamesian standards to judge the value of novels.
B:Literary critics who have praised Melville's fiction at the expense of James's fiction should consider themselves justified.
C:Literary critics should no longer attempt to place writers, including Melville and James, in traditions or categories.
D:Melville and James should be viewed as different sorts of writers and one should not be regarded as inherently superior to the other.
E:Melville and James nevertheless share important similarities and these should not be overlooked or slighted when literary critics point out differences between the two writers.
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：
D:Melville and James should be viewed as different sorts of writers and one should not be regarded as inherently superior to the other.
答案.D
题目大意：关于Melville的小说往往不具备小说的特质作者得出哪个结论：
最后一段的第二句话是这样说的：梅尔维尔是一个不同的作家，他对小说有着不同于詹姆斯的预设，也就是说，Melville对小说持有不同的标准，需要以这些标准来评价Melville，而不是james的标准。
梅尔维尔和詹姆斯应该被视为不同类型的作家，一个不应该被视为天生优于另一个。Melville和杰姆斯有着重要的相似之处，当文学批评家指出两个作家之间的差异时，这些观点不应被忽视或忽视。
A.文学批评家不再应该用詹姆士的标准来评判小说的价值。这篇文章表明杰米斯标准可能不适合Melville的小说。然而，这并不意味着JAMISS标准对于其他小说的价值判断是无效的。
B.那些以詹姆斯的小说为代价赞扬梅尔维尔小说的文学评论家应该认为他们自己是正当的。这篇文章没有提到那些以詹姆斯的小说为代价赞扬梅尔维尔小说的评论家。事实上，这篇文章从未提及詹姆斯的小说。
C.文学评论家不再试图把作家，包括Melville和杰姆斯，以传统或类别。这篇文章并没有暗示批评家应该避免对作家进行分类。事实上，第19至20行的段落表明梅尔维尔不是詹姆斯主义小说家，这本身就是一种分类。
D.梅尔维尔和詹姆斯应该被视为不同类型的作家，一个不应该被视为天生优于另一个。正确。这准确地表达了作者得出的一个结论，即梅尔维尔和詹姆斯对小说创作都是合理的
E.Melville和杰姆斯有着重要的相似之处，当文学批评家指出两个作家之间的差异时，这些观点不应被忽视或忽视。作者指出Melville和杰姆斯的写作没有任何重要的相似之处。事实上，作者强调了两位作者的作品之间的某些关键区别。
题目大意：关于Melville的小说往往不具备小说的特质作者得出哪个结论：
最后一段的第二句话是这样说的：梅尔维尔是一个不同的作家，他对小说有着不同于詹姆斯的预设，也就是说，Melville对小说持有不同的标准，需要以这些标准来评价Melville，而不是james的标准。
梅尔维尔和詹姆斯应该被视为不同类型的作家，一个不应该被视为天生优于另一个。Melville和杰姆斯有着重要的相似之处，当文学批评家指出两个作家之间的差异时，这些观点不应被忽视或忽视。
A.文学批评家不再应该用詹姆士的标准来评判小说的价值。这篇文章表明杰米斯标准可能不适合Melville的小说。然而，这并不意味着JAMISS标准对于其他小说的价值判断是无效的。
B.那些以詹姆斯的小说为代价赞扬梅尔维尔小说的文学评论家应该认为他们自己是正当的。这篇文章没有提到那些以詹姆斯的小说为代价赞扬梅尔维尔小说的评论家。事实上，这篇文章从未提及詹姆斯的小说。
C.文学评论家不再试图把作家，包括Melville和杰姆斯，以传统或类别。这篇文章并没有暗示批评家应该避免对作家进行分类。事实上，第19至20行的段落表明梅尔维尔不是詹姆斯主义小说家，这本身就是一种分类。
D.梅尔维尔和詹姆斯应该被视为不同类型的作家，一个不应该被视为天生优于另一个。正确。这准确地表达了作者得出的一个结论，即梅尔维尔和詹姆斯对小说创作都是合理的
E.Melville和杰姆斯有着重要的相似之处，当文学批评家指出两个作家之间的差异时，这些观点不应被忽视或忽视。作者指出Melville和杰姆斯的写作没有任何重要的相似之处。事实上，作者强调了两位作者的作品之间的某些关键区别。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
