- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon May 23, 2016 3:50 pm
#25368
Passage Discussion
The passage focuses on the relationship between Dostoyevsky and a particular strain of Russian literary criticism—the radical critics.
Paragraph One:
The author begins this Humanities passage by outlining two opposing directions in Russian literary criticism. One regards art as removed from the reality of everyday life, while the other demands that art be intrinsically tied to that reality. The second (“radical”) view is discussed in greater detail than the first. At line 9, the author shifts to a third viewpoint—that of Dostoyevsky. His views on reality as foundational to all literature are implicitly contrasted with the first strain of literary criticism, but that divergence is never fully explained. Instead, the author focuses on differentiating Dostoyevsky’s understanding of reality from that of the radical critics, prefiguring a more substantive discussion comparing these two viewpoints.
Paragraph Two:
In this paragraph the author describes Dostoyevsky’s conception of reality as inherently subjective and shaped by our experience of it. The “fantastic” is a significant part of that reality, a view that represents a sharp departure from the radical critics’ demand that reality be depicted “as it is.”
Paragraph Three:
In the third paragraph the author continues to differentiate Dostoyevsky’s views from those of the radical critics. Here, the question is whether art should serve a particular political function. Predictably, the radical critics insist that it does—a position Dostoyevsky rejects as a contradiction in terms. For him, good writing requires the work to be “artistic,” i.e. to express the author’s thoughts in characters and images. Dostoyevsky’s criteria of artistry appear as a direct quotation in lines 36-41, which would be important to highlight.
Paragraph Four:
In the final paragraph the author adds yet another point of divergence between Dostoyevsky and the radical critics. The critics require that art be “useful,” a demand Dostoyevsky perceives as unsatisfactory.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
There are three Viewpoints presented in the passage: Those of the critics who maintain that “art stood high above the present and the everyday” (lines 3-4); the radical view insisting that art be based on concrete reality and serve a particular political view (lines 5-9); and that of Dostoyevsky, who disagrees with the radical critics first by viewing reality as a subjective experience that cannot be depicted “as it is,” and second by dismissing the utilitarian goals of an artwork as less important than the artistic merit of the work itself.
The Structure of this passage is as follows:
Paragraph One: Introduce two competing views of Russian literary criticism and compare them to that of Dostoyevsky’s.
Paragraph Two: Juxtapose Dostoyevsky’s understanding of “reality” with that of the radical critics.
Paragraph Three: Elaborate on the radical critics’ insistence that art serve a particular political view, and explain why Dostoyevsky rejects that position. This paragraph also contains Dostoyevsky’s criteria for defining a work as truly “artistic.”
Paragraph Four: Discuss the radical critics’ requirement that art be “useful,” and explain why Dostoyevsky regards such a requirement as unsatisfactory.
The author’s Tone is scholarly. Although the author does not explicitly support Dostoyevsky’s view, the argument/counterargument structure of each paragraph implies a tacit endorsement of it.
The passage introduces three Arguments, two of which are compared and contrasted in greater detail.
The Main Point of this passage is to describe Dostoyevsky’s views on art and literature, and compare them to those of the radical critics.
The passage focuses on the relationship between Dostoyevsky and a particular strain of Russian literary criticism—the radical critics.
Paragraph One:
The author begins this Humanities passage by outlining two opposing directions in Russian literary criticism. One regards art as removed from the reality of everyday life, while the other demands that art be intrinsically tied to that reality. The second (“radical”) view is discussed in greater detail than the first. At line 9, the author shifts to a third viewpoint—that of Dostoyevsky. His views on reality as foundational to all literature are implicitly contrasted with the first strain of literary criticism, but that divergence is never fully explained. Instead, the author focuses on differentiating Dostoyevsky’s understanding of reality from that of the radical critics, prefiguring a more substantive discussion comparing these two viewpoints.
Paragraph Two:
In this paragraph the author describes Dostoyevsky’s conception of reality as inherently subjective and shaped by our experience of it. The “fantastic” is a significant part of that reality, a view that represents a sharp departure from the radical critics’ demand that reality be depicted “as it is.”
Paragraph Three:
In the third paragraph the author continues to differentiate Dostoyevsky’s views from those of the radical critics. Here, the question is whether art should serve a particular political function. Predictably, the radical critics insist that it does—a position Dostoyevsky rejects as a contradiction in terms. For him, good writing requires the work to be “artistic,” i.e. to express the author’s thoughts in characters and images. Dostoyevsky’s criteria of artistry appear as a direct quotation in lines 36-41, which would be important to highlight.
Paragraph Four:
In the final paragraph the author adds yet another point of divergence between Dostoyevsky and the radical critics. The critics require that art be “useful,” a demand Dostoyevsky perceives as unsatisfactory.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
There are three Viewpoints presented in the passage: Those of the critics who maintain that “art stood high above the present and the everyday” (lines 3-4); the radical view insisting that art be based on concrete reality and serve a particular political view (lines 5-9); and that of Dostoyevsky, who disagrees with the radical critics first by viewing reality as a subjective experience that cannot be depicted “as it is,” and second by dismissing the utilitarian goals of an artwork as less important than the artistic merit of the work itself.
The Structure of this passage is as follows:
Paragraph One: Introduce two competing views of Russian literary criticism and compare them to that of Dostoyevsky’s.
Paragraph Two: Juxtapose Dostoyevsky’s understanding of “reality” with that of the radical critics.
Paragraph Three: Elaborate on the radical critics’ insistence that art serve a particular political view, and explain why Dostoyevsky rejects that position. This paragraph also contains Dostoyevsky’s criteria for defining a work as truly “artistic.”
Paragraph Four: Discuss the radical critics’ requirement that art be “useful,” and explain why Dostoyevsky regards such a requirement as unsatisfactory.
The author’s Tone is scholarly. Although the author does not explicitly support Dostoyevsky’s view, the argument/counterargument structure of each paragraph implies a tacit endorsement of it.
The passage introduces three Arguments, two of which are compared and contrasted in greater detail.
The Main Point of this passage is to describe Dostoyevsky’s views on art and literature, and compare them to those of the radical critics.