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 of the passage would be most likely to agree that a writer's fiction should be evaluated by which of the following criteria?
A:How consistently that fiction establishes credibility with the reader
B:How skillfully that fiction supersedes the presuppositions or conventions of a tradition
C:How completely that fiction satisfies the standards of judgment held by most literary critics
D:How well that fiction fulfills the premises about fiction maintained by the writer of the fiction
E:How well that fiction exhibits a continuity of subject and style over the course of the writer's career
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:How well that fiction fulfills the premises about fiction maintained by the writer of the fiction
答案 .D
题目大意: 这篇文章的作者最有可能同意作家的小说应该用下列哪个标准来评价？
本文认为，尽管梅尔维尔的小说不能满足亨利·詹姆斯小说的文学价值标准，但它们仍然具有不同的文学价值。尤其是，它们符合梅尔维尔自己的小说观所规定的标准。
A.那部小说如何始终如一地建立起读者的信任。这篇文章的作者不太可能同意小说必须建立与读者的可信度。在文章中，作者建议梅尔维尔准备牺牲他的小说中的一些可信度，如果这样做能帮助他建立一个重要的道德环境。
B.小说如何巧妙地取代了传统的预设或惯例。这篇文章中没有任何东西表明作者会同意小说必须“取代传统的前提或惯例”的观点，而作者指出Melville的小说不能满足杰姆斯对一部优秀的文学小说的标准，这并不意味着Melville的作品取代或取代了任何传统。
C.那部小说完全符合大多数文学评论家的判断标准。这篇文章的作者清楚地拒绝了这个标准，实际上反对许多评论家的标准。注意作者的立场，即基于文学评论家广泛接受詹姆斯的文学小说标准的批评不一定适用于所有小说。
D.小说如何满足小说作者自己的前提。正确。文章作者认为，梅尔维尔的小说必须参照梅尔维尔自己的标准，而不是詹姆斯或接受詹姆斯标准的评论家的标准来评判。
E.那部小说在作者的职业生涯中表现出的主题和风格的连续性有多好。这篇文章没有提到风格在职业生涯中的延续性。因此，文中没有任何内容表明作者会接受它。
题目大意: 这篇文章的作者最有可能同意作家的小说应该用下列哪个标准来评价？
本文认为，尽管梅尔维尔的小说不能满足亨利·詹姆斯小说的文学价值标准，但它们仍然具有不同的文学价值。尤其是，它们符合梅尔维尔自己的小说观所规定的标准。
A.那部小说如何始终如一地建立起读者的信任。这篇文章的作者不太可能同意小说必须建立与读者的可信度。在文章中，作者建议梅尔维尔准备牺牲他的小说中的一些可信度，如果这样做能帮助他建立一个重要的道德环境。
B.小说如何巧妙地取代了传统的预设或惯例。这篇文章中没有任何东西表明作者会同意小说必须“取代传统的前提或惯例”的观点，而作者指出Melville的小说不能满足杰姆斯对一部优秀的文学小说的标准，这并不意味着Melville的作品取代或取代了任何传统。
C.那部小说完全符合大多数文学评论家的判断标准。这篇文章的作者清楚地拒绝了这个标准，实际上反对许多评论家的标准。注意作者的立场，即基于文学评论家广泛接受詹姆斯的文学小说标准的批评不一定适用于所有小说。
D.小说如何满足小说作者自己的前提。正确。文章作者认为，梅尔维尔的小说必须参照梅尔维尔自己的标准，而不是詹姆斯或接受詹姆斯标准的评论家的标准来评判。
E.那部小说在作者的职业生涯中表现出的主题和风格的连续性有多好。这篇文章没有提到风格在职业生涯中的延续性。因此，文中没有任何内容表明作者会接受它。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
