- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:52 pm
#27129
Passage Discussion
Paragraph One:
This passage is a literary criticism passage regarding the work of Ezekiel Mphahlele, a South African writer whose works have confused literary critics, “especially those who feel compelled to draw a sharp distinction between autobiography and fiction.” From this we know that Mphahlele apparently blurs this line.
Mphahlele’s two best-known works are Down Second Avenue and The Wanderers; the former work has been criticized as “too autobiographical,” and the latter as overly fictional. Down Second Avenue, published in 1959, is an account which details Mphahlele’s life from age five to the beginning of his self-imposed exile at age 38. The Wanderers was published in 1971 and is a fictionalized account of his life from the beginning of his exile. The author’s perspective on Mphahlele can be found in the last sentence of this first paragraph: “those who focus on traditional labels inevitably miss the fact that Mphahlele manipulates different prose forms purely in the service of the social message he advances.”
Paragraph Two:
Continuing with the theme that literary critics do not understand Mphahlele, the author asserts that even favorable critical reviews of Mphahlele often carry a negative subtext. The author cites an example of a review which compliments The Wanderers, while at the same time questioning whether the book meets the criteria for great literature. The chief criticism of The Wanderers is that it is largely autobiographical and is filled with real-world characters. Mphahlele’s defense points to the fictional father-son relationship that opens and closes The Wanderers. The author then describes Mphahlele’s social activism—the writer is described as a humanist and an integrationist—and points out that his writings are meant to reflect his vision of the future. Reviews are often still critical, however, because Mphahlele provides no plan for bringing this vision to fruition.
Paragraph Three:
In this paragraph, the author of the passage notes that Mphahlele does not seem concerned with drawing a clear distinction between autobiography and fiction. Instead, Mphahlele asserts that no novelist can write pure fiction or absolute fact—details must be drawn from the writer’s experiences, dictating that they be somewhat factual, but are conveyed to maximize the effectiveness of the work’s social message, and therefore “inevitably fiction.” Mphahlele believes that the writing is not about classification, but about the transmission of important ideas. Without some sort of social criticism, Mphahlele asserts, writers are irrelevant.
SUMMARY: This passage introduces the reader to Ezekiel Mphahlele and critics’ discomfort with the fact that his two best-known works blur the line between autobiography and fiction. The author’s attitude: “Mphahlele manipulates different prose forms purely in the service of the social message he advances.” The passage provides criticisms of Mphahlele’s works, discusses the writer’s social message, and points out Mphahlele’s view that social criticism is a vital component of any relevant work.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
Paragraph One:
This passage is a literary criticism passage regarding the work of Ezekiel Mphahlele, a South African writer whose works have confused literary critics, “especially those who feel compelled to draw a sharp distinction between autobiography and fiction.” From this we know that Mphahlele apparently blurs this line.
Mphahlele’s two best-known works are Down Second Avenue and The Wanderers; the former work has been criticized as “too autobiographical,” and the latter as overly fictional. Down Second Avenue, published in 1959, is an account which details Mphahlele’s life from age five to the beginning of his self-imposed exile at age 38. The Wanderers was published in 1971 and is a fictionalized account of his life from the beginning of his exile. The author’s perspective on Mphahlele can be found in the last sentence of this first paragraph: “those who focus on traditional labels inevitably miss the fact that Mphahlele manipulates different prose forms purely in the service of the social message he advances.”
Paragraph Two:
Continuing with the theme that literary critics do not understand Mphahlele, the author asserts that even favorable critical reviews of Mphahlele often carry a negative subtext. The author cites an example of a review which compliments The Wanderers, while at the same time questioning whether the book meets the criteria for great literature. The chief criticism of The Wanderers is that it is largely autobiographical and is filled with real-world characters. Mphahlele’s defense points to the fictional father-son relationship that opens and closes The Wanderers. The author then describes Mphahlele’s social activism—the writer is described as a humanist and an integrationist—and points out that his writings are meant to reflect his vision of the future. Reviews are often still critical, however, because Mphahlele provides no plan for bringing this vision to fruition.
Paragraph Three:
In this paragraph, the author of the passage notes that Mphahlele does not seem concerned with drawing a clear distinction between autobiography and fiction. Instead, Mphahlele asserts that no novelist can write pure fiction or absolute fact—details must be drawn from the writer’s experiences, dictating that they be somewhat factual, but are conveyed to maximize the effectiveness of the work’s social message, and therefore “inevitably fiction.” Mphahlele believes that the writing is not about classification, but about the transmission of important ideas. Without some sort of social criticism, Mphahlele asserts, writers are irrelevant.
SUMMARY: This passage introduces the reader to Ezekiel Mphahlele and critics’ discomfort with the fact that his two best-known works blur the line between autobiography and fiction. The author’s attitude: “Mphahlele manipulates different prose forms purely in the service of the social message he advances.” The passage provides criticisms of Mphahlele’s works, discusses the writer’s social message, and points out Mphahlele’s view that social criticism is a vital component of any relevant work.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
- Paragraph One: Introduces Mphahlele, the author’s two best known books, and critical response to the works which blur the line between autobiography and fiction in an effort to convey a social message.
Paragraph Two: Cites critiques of Mphahlele’s The Wanderers based on the work’s autobiographical framework. Mphahlele is characterized as a humanist and integrationist looking to provide a vision for the future, but reviewers remain critical because this vision is unaccompanied by plans for its achievement.
Paragraph Three: Points out that Mphahlele is largely unconcerned with literary classification, because the writer believes that every work represents of mix of fact and fiction, and because a more important concern for any relevant writer, according to Mphahlele, is to provide social criticism.