Passage Discussion

[romance_is_all]

1. Author's critic of critics. The critics treated James' novel in two extreme. And they often assume a false assumption.
2. More details on critics's positions.
3. Author's support for James as a capable writer. He discussed James writing critically.
4. A suggestion for James, to break the boundary of detective genre.

[maryadkins]

Great breakdown. Let me just add a bit.

P1: False dichotomy is introduced as applied to one novelist. There is a false dichotomy between enjoyable novels being low-brow and high-brow novels being dull. PD James' critics fall for this fallacy.

P2: Elaboration on critics of novelist who fall for the false dichotomy. Some praise her, some find her pretentious and tiresome.

P3: Author's opinion of the novelist. There are problems with her writing, but also good things.

P4: Author's analysis of novelist and a recommendation. Time for her to step out of the genre and write mainstream work.

Scale:

PD James is a genre writer and she is getting beyond herself

-Some critics

v.

PD James should step out of the genre stifling her

-Author

This is a tough scale to come up with I think because after the first paragraph we THINK the scale is going to be the author against this false dichotomy. But turns out, it's a bit more than that. The author goes so far as to say, critics are wrong, but she is currently a genre writer, and it's time for her to step out of that box.

[bhumit.mba2]

Hi,

This is my first post as a register user, although I have benefited a lot from your forums and posts as an offline visitor. Big thank you to all the members and tutors for your helpful ideas and analysis

[layla_chenjq]

Hi! Althoigh in some degree I can get those questions right, I'm still confused about the structure and some ideas in the passage.

1
I admit that Para.1 states the false dichotomy. But how this false assumption connect with para.2? The dichotomy just simply says enjoyable novel>>lowbrow while dull novel>>highbrow. And about the critics in Para.2, some think PDJ's novels are great, others think they are not. What do those two opinions have something to do with the dichotomy in Para.1?

2
In the Line 46 and around, the passage says that PDJ's determination to leave ambiguity in the solution of the crime points to a consious rebellion against the traditional neatness of detective fiction. Why the unambiguity chose by PDJ is the opposite of neat detective fiction? Am I understanding it wrong?

3
In line 50, I don't quite understand " for one writer to prescribe to another". Who's the writer and who's the another in this passage?

Thank you guys for helping me out:)

[CelineN599]

Can i get the scale for this, please?