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 most logically be inferred about the author's estimation of the romantic and novelistic traditions of fiction?
A:The romantic tradition should be considered at least as valuable as the novelistic tradition in the examination of human experience.
B:The romantic tradition should be considered the more vital tradition primarily because Melville is part of that tradition.
C:The romantic tradition should be considered the superior tradition because it is so widespread.
D:The romantic tradition has had as much success in pleasing literary critics as has the novelistic tradition.
E:The romantic and novelistic traditions have always made important contributions to literature, but their most important contributions have been in the twentieth century.
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：
A:The romantic tradition should be considered at least as valuable as the novelistic tradition in the examination of human experience.
答案 .A
题目大意: 关于作者对小说浪漫主义和小说家传统的评价，以下哪一个最能逻辑推理出来？
这篇文章表明，两种传统都与人类经验的检验有关，但他们对这项研究的方法不同。文章认为，梅尔维尔的小说体作为文学的价值不亚于詹姆斯的。
A.浪漫主义传统至少应该和人类经验中的小说传统一样有价值。正确
B.浪漫主义传统应该被认为是更重要的传统，主要是因为Melville是这一传统的一部分。这篇文章没有表明Melville作为浪漫主义作家的地位暗示浪漫比小说传统更“重要”。
C.浪漫主义的传统应该被认为是优越的传统，因为它是如此广泛。这篇文章没有提供关于浪漫主义传统有多广泛的信息。
D.浪漫主义传统在取悦文学评论家方面取得了与小说家传统同样的成功。这篇文章没有提供任何信息表明文学评论家比浪漫主义作品更喜欢浪漫主义作品。
E.浪漫主义和小说家传统对文学有着重要的贡献，但最重要的贡献却是在二十世纪。这篇文章没有提供任何信息表明浪漫主义和小说家传统在二十世纪最重要的贡献。事实上，考虑到梅尔维尔和詹姆斯都在19世纪工作过，这篇文章是否会提出这样的主张似乎值得怀疑。
题目大意: 关于作者对小说浪漫主义和小说家传统的评价，以下哪一个最能逻辑推理出来？
这篇文章表明，两种传统都与人类经验的检验有关，但他们对这项研究的方法不同。文章认为，梅尔维尔的小说体作为文学的价值不亚于詹姆斯的。
A.浪漫主义传统至少应该和人类经验中的小说传统一样有价值。正确
B.浪漫主义传统应该被认为是更重要的传统，主要是因为Melville是这一传统的一部分。这篇文章没有表明Melville作为浪漫主义作家的地位暗示浪漫比小说传统更“重要”。
C.浪漫主义的传统应该被认为是优越的传统，因为它是如此广泛。这篇文章没有提供关于浪漫主义传统有多广泛的信息。
D.浪漫主义传统在取悦文学评论家方面取得了与小说家传统同样的成功。这篇文章没有提供任何信息表明文学评论家比浪漫主义作品更喜欢浪漫主义作品。
E.浪漫主义和小说家传统对文学有着重要的贡献，但最重要的贡献却是在二十世纪。这篇文章没有提供任何信息表明浪漫主义和小说家传统在二十世纪最重要的贡献。事实上，考虑到梅尔维尔和詹姆斯都在19世纪工作过，这篇文章是否会提出这样的主张似乎值得怀疑。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
