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 can logically be inferred from the passage about the author's application of the term "romance" to Melville's work?
A:The author uses the term in a broader way than did Melville himself.
B:The author uses the term in a different way than do many literary critics.
C:The author uses the term in a more systematic way than did James.
D:The author's use of the term is the same as the term's usual meaning for twentieth-century commentators.
E:The author's use of the term is less controversial than is the use of the term “novel” by many commentators.
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：
B:The author uses the term in a different way than do many literary critics.
答案 .B
题目大意: 作者对Melville作品的“浪漫”一词的应用可以推断出什么？
这篇文章的作者将称之为Melville的小说《罗曼史》，前提是这个术语没有使用这个术语的贬义内涵（特别是许多批评Melville作品的人所使用的）。
A.作者比梅尔维尔本人更广泛地使用了这个词。文章中没有关于梅尔维尔如何，甚至是否使用“浪漫”一词的信息。
B.作者使用这个词的方式与许多文学评论家不同。正确
C.作者用比杰姆斯更系统的方式使用这个术语。文中没有具体说明詹姆斯使用“浪漫”一词。
D.作者使用的术语与二十世纪评论家的术语通常的含义相同。这篇文章的作者特意用“浪漫”一词，避免了Melville作品中一些批评家使用的逃避现实的贬义。
E.与许多评论员使用“小说”一词相比，作者使用“小说”一词的争议较小。
题目大意: 作者对Melville作品的“浪漫”一词的应用可以推断出什么？
这篇文章的作者将称之为Melville的小说《罗曼史》，前提是这个术语没有使用这个术语的贬义内涵（特别是许多批评Melville作品的人所使用的）。
A.作者比梅尔维尔本人更广泛地使用了这个词。文章中没有关于梅尔维尔如何，甚至是否使用“浪漫”一词的信息。
B.作者使用这个词的方式与许多文学评论家不同。正确
C.作者用比杰姆斯更系统的方式使用这个术语。文中没有具体说明詹姆斯使用“浪漫”一词。
D.作者使用的术语与二十世纪评论家的术语通常的含义相同。这篇文章的作者特意用“浪漫”一词，避免了Melville作品中一些批评家使用的逃避现实的贬义。
E.与许多评论员使用“小说”一词相比，作者使用“小说”一词的争议较小。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
