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.
Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the passage?
A:Melville's Unique Contribution to Romantic Fiction
B:Melville's Growing Reputation Among Twentieth-Century Literary Critics
C:Melville and the Jamesian Standards of Fiction: A Reexamination
D:Melville and the Jamesian Standards of Fiction: A Reexamination
E:The Art of Fiction: James's Influence on the Novelistic Tradition
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：
C:Melville and the Jamesian Standards of Fiction: A Reexamination
答案 C
题目大意：正确的标题
鉴于文章的内容，这些选择中哪一个可以最合理地用作标题？这篇文章的主要目的是反驳那些将梅尔维尔的小说作品描述为浪漫小说的评论家的批评。这些评论家认为，梅尔维尔的作品缺乏重要的文学价值，因为他们无法满足詹姆斯的小说文学价值标准，这一标准被文学评论家广泛接受。这篇文章认为，Melville的小说将用Melville自己所拥护的标准来更恰当地评价，这些标准与杰姆斯的标准有很大的不同。
A.梅尔维尔对浪漫小说的独特贡献
B.Melville在二十世纪文学批评家中的声望
C.Melville与詹姆士的小说标准：复审。这一选择反映了Melville小说的文学价值不是用詹姆士的标准来恰当地判断这一段落的中心思想，而是用Melville自己的小说终极目的的概念来恰当地判断。
D.浪漫主义与小说家：两种传统的共同假设
E.小说艺术：詹姆斯对小说传统的影响
题目大意：正确的标题
鉴于文章的内容，这些选择中哪一个可以最合理地用作标题？这篇文章的主要目的是反驳那些将梅尔维尔的小说作品描述为浪漫小说的评论家的批评。这些评论家认为，梅尔维尔的作品缺乏重要的文学价值，因为他们无法满足詹姆斯的小说文学价值标准，这一标准被文学评论家广泛接受。这篇文章认为，Melville的小说将用Melville自己所拥护的标准来更恰当地评价，这些标准与杰姆斯的标准有很大的不同。
A.梅尔维尔对浪漫小说的独特贡献
B.Melville在二十世纪文学批评家中的声望
C.Melville与詹姆士的小说标准：复审。这一选择反映了Melville小说的文学价值不是用詹姆士的标准来恰当地判断这一段落的中心思想，而是用Melville自己的小说终极目的的概念来恰当地判断。
D.浪漫主义与小说家：两种传统的共同假设
E.小说艺术：詹姆斯对小说传统的影响
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
