Most recent public comments by Yelena Melnichenko https://nowcomment.com/users/11339 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302028 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302028 Perhaps she believed that this would divide her attention from other causes and her individuality, taking away her credibility if she identified too strongly with a group. Feminism might also frown upon the idea that a woman must be rich and stand in a spotlight for people to listen, but Hellman seemed to know that and took advantage of it. Which doesn't quite support feminism Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302027 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302027 Her experience as being the black sheep of the family most likely motivated her to stand up for her own beliefs and embrace that difference. When she stood up for women's rights and other political beliefs she was an outside in her own right, though not completely alone, and embraced the fact that she was the opposition. She fought for what the black sheep of society wanted. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302026 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302026 The biography challenges the way we look at a person by introducing the different aspects of her life and her personality. Based on our time period, and political beliefs, we will most likely view her differently. It's implying that this biography leaves room for change and interpretation rather than establishing rigid fact. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302025 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302025 It's meant to say that everything about her was difficult. Even writing about her was a challenge because she could not be plainly put down on paper. Her lifestyle made it difficult for authors and that's exactly how she wanted it, as she destroyed most of her stuff. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302024 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302024 Using that specific word was a clever way of referencing her 'play of life' and how she was dynamic and vibrant with probably everything she did. It implied that this way of life was the only way she knew and in fact probably had a negative connotation too if she had to stick up for what she believed in dramatically because it may have caused her to ignore the facts. Perhaps it indicates a stubbornness. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302023 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25204?scroll_to=302023 This paragraph makes me think of Lillian as a strong, independent, woman who was passionate about her causes with great confidence in them and herself. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302022 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302022 It wasn't perfect, with wavering faith at times, but it was something that was worked on time after time and made strong. As a couple they most likely understood the struggles of others because of their own and knew just how much people deserved a second chance. They cared about one another and they cared about the world and that was enough for them to spur change. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302021 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302021 This paragraph serves almost as a parallel foil to the previous. It compares Eleanor's struggle with something, and the person who helped her overcome it, in comparison to FDR's struggle and who helped him. Eleanor was able to involve herself in politics when it wasn't expected, showing the faith he had in her, the way that Eleanor had faith in FDR. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302020 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302020 Her concern with his health helped him break out of his shell and build confidence with her encouragement. She was the female figure that drove him forward, unlike his mother, and made him challenge himself to succeed. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302019 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302019 The introduction of the other biographies establishes her range of knowledge in the matter and how the versatility of subjects probably impacts the way she'd investigate FDR and Eleanor. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302018 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25273?scroll_to=302018 The lead probably wants to establish what we already know, or should know, in order to introduce a new element and something we maybe DON'T know.It forms a kind of 'turn' in the writing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:10 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287614 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287614 It compliments the author in a way that shortly and sweetly describes his work, establishes his authority, and finally summarizes the impact that he's had on literature. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:02 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287612 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287612 The New Critics took a drastically different approach to writing and analyzing literature. They disregarded context and author's intention and focused largely on the text that was supposed to speak for itself, regardless of time period. As the meaning would apparently change over time. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:02 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287611 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287611 Cowley demonstrated a genuine passion for true publication and print for the love and essence of writing and change rather than profit. He was very aware of his surroundings and was frustrated by the changes he'd witnessed in the writing world. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:02 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287610 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287610 Cowley retreated from the conflict and chose not to acknowledge the political issues at hand because he had unpopular opinions that would perhaps get him in trouble. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:02 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287608 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287608 As he's saying that Cowley wasn't as well known or respected, he supports it with vocabulary that demonstrates his observations. He intentionally enhances Edmund Wilson's status by referring to him as 'coeval'. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:02 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287607 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25205?scroll_to=287607 The 'lost generation' is full of those that are struggling to follow the path of 'good', to avoid sin, and to follow the usual path in society. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:46:11 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25200?scroll_to=284731 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25200?scroll_to=284731 The paragraph includes the difficulties that the author had writing the biography, and in that we see a variety of struggles that come along with writing and getting the absolute truth and best way of seeing something. It isn't only about the subject. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:58 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25200?scroll_to=284729 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25200?scroll_to=284729 Biographies are necessary aspects of understanding literary works because they allow readers to reach into the personal world of an author and figure out what exactly makes them tick, what spurred their literary achievements, and why they chose to pursue the path they did. Often, we see pieces of the author/artist in the pieces that they produce. Getting insight into the creative process and emotional reasoning allows readers to better understand the work, the historical significance,and the reason for it being written. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:58 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275742 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275742 This paragraph introduces the idea that Rollyson's biography was innovative in its cause and portrayed Plath in a way that others haven't before. He states that, in a time of "biography wars", many were able to publish but not so many were able to publish it as skillfully. The insight, and digging into the depth, is what made his biography so special to the reviewer. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275741 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275741 The qualifications given assert that Marshall may have knowledge and insight into Plath, Lowell, and Bishop's lives that others may not. This adds credibility to the work because it establishes authority. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275740 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275740 In this context, it is a reverent work of resurrection because of the doggedness of the author, the time and work put into the biography, and just HOW much respect and admiration he must have had for Plath to do her biography justice. It requires more than standard kudos to perform the 'proper' kind of resurrection, and the reviewer is saying that the author gave what was needed. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275739 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275739 The reviewer seems to believe that the author lacks credibility because he fails to account for the differences in their marriages, careers, and perhaps social lives. I believe that he is correct, in a way. It is important to not only look at marital problems, but also how the individuals life as a whole impacted them. The life of a screen actress will wildly differ from a poets. There are different standards and requirements for work, different social standards, a different reputation and set of followers, etc. All of these aspects, as well as those related to personal relationships, pull a story together. It may only be sheer coincidence that the powerful male intellectuals were present in both suicides. After all, it is no surprise that a powerful woman would attract a powerful man. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275738 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275738 The reviewer refers to the authors admiration and perhaps likeness with Plath's writing. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275737 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275737 The author uses ‘boilerplate’ to signify that it’s been overused and, as others stated, routine. This means he intends to approach writing his biography in a fresh way. This was necessary during the rush to write the best Plath piece. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275735 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275735 "Sylvia mania" is used to describe the way in which literary fans would obsess, perhaps irrationally, over her and her work, holding her work as the highest standard. The reviewer means to say that the 'craze' was dwindling and Bishop would have her time to shine and prove Plath wrong. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:52 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275733 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25199?scroll_to=275733 He's setting up the fact that change is imminent and in the biography it shows a different style than usual. Deeper, perhaps harder to understand. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:51 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271490 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271490 I think that the 'unreason' stands to define all of their actions. It describes Assia's obliviousness to the situation, Hughes' thoughtless and inconsiderate behavior, and Sylvia's inability to see the truth. With that, Assia became both the bad guy and the victim, Sylvia focused her energy on destroying the wrong aspect of her life, instead of ending her marriage, and Hughes' continued into oblivion, both denying to himself the consequences of his actions and losing his child. All of those were unreasonable yet only 2 out of 3 could dare use 'love' as an excuse. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271489 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271489 The review comes to a dramatic and screeching halt as it is revealed that Assia took her own life as well as her child's. Not only that but it allows readers to follow the story along as it happened and come to their own conclusions. He started by building Assia's character from a preconception, led us into the true reason she stuck around, revealed Hughes character, and then explained the tragic ending to this 'love' story. In that, she may have slyly implied that Hughes, always having justified his actions, needed to apologize for being the catalyst to such a tragedy. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271488 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271488 I may be misinterpreting the question, but I believe the reviewer is suggesting that a review be as objective as possible in order to show all sides of the story and not belittle Hughes or his literary achievements. However, I disagree with her inability to condemn his actions. Many people get away with such cruel intentions and insane justifications for their behavior, and it's not fair that they be treated differently based on literary merit. I believe it would be refreshing to read an indictment of a literary man and his indiscretions, as that would be the truly objective observation. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271487 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271487 I never quite viewed Assia as a 'femme fatale' because it is easy to see that, in convoluted situations like these, there are different sides to a story. Assia was unfortunately just another woman who fell under HIS spell and was led on by his charm and empty promises. Although Sylvia never saw it that way, Assia was blinded by love and she was not the one to blame. Her husbands indiscretions were his fault alone. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271478 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271478 The word "vessel" does not imply any actual emotion or feelings attached to the human in question. It simply implies that Assia was, quite literally, an object of his affection. She was not an equal. Nor was she loved. He played cat and mouse and used her to fulfill his desires amidst his boring life. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271477 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271477 If Hughes was the "sexual stalker" he is labeled as, it completely discredits the idea of Assia being a femme fatale. Naturally, the allure of Assia would be exaggerated. He would view 'the other woman' in ways that he no longer saw his wife, and perhaps used her as a way of denying his own feelings. It is easier to cast the blame on the charming young woman that has captured your attention than to admit your loyalty is wavering. And we see that "Hughes eventually tired of Assia too" and that supports the idea that he was only in it for the chase and the sexual appeal. The femme fatale would possibly not allow for herself to "dwindle into a wife". Once one catches the prize, it is no longer appreciated. He most likely only desired her because he could not have her. And perhaps, after he did, he began to see her for who she really is, just another woman. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271476 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271476 Referencing other material not only gives the reader background information, but also asserts the reviewers credibility. It can be deduced that she is well-read and knowledgeable on the topic she is writing about. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271474 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271474 Femme Fatale, as it sounds, is French for 'Fatal Woman'. Although it isn't a literal term, it implies that the woman sets out to ruin relationships or lives. She has the power to seduce, to charm, and to get away with metaphorical murder. It is used here because Assia is described as being the one to ruin Sylvia as well as her relationship. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271472 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271472 The juxtaposition is meant to highlight the irony in their meeting. Every author writes so that their words come to life. And Plath's "Daddy" came through in human form when she saw Assia. She'd been the almost poster child for her writing. I would imagine why this would be exciting for Plath. Not only would she see her writing come to life, but she might also find inspiration for more poetry. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271471 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25198?scroll_to=271471 The term "dark lady" stands to depict both a mysterious and alluring illustration of Assia. She was not only portrayed as maleficent, but also captivating. Agon was also used to show just how dramatic and intense the situation was. The reviewer is trying to dip into the style of twentieth-century poetry. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:48 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267453 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267453 Opening with a question immediately places the reader into the piece. Whether or not they want to be, they're already sucked in. And thus, he makes the reader think. What DOES it mean? And then continue to read to find out the answer. Not only does it challenge the reader, but it sets up the arc of the piece from the start. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:41 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267452 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267452 The final paragraph very concisely wraps up the review by stating that the author had done a fine job of explaining Faulkner in shorter terms, but only because he spent such a large portion of time on a topic that obviously required in-depth knowledge and understanding. Not only does it compliment the author, but it also compliments the complexity and range of Faulkner's work. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:41 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267451 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267451 He 'solves' the problem by succinctly summarizing the collection of photos with an adjective and descriptive sentence. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:41 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267450 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267450 I believe they were considered unworthy of mention because of how novel and unconventional his writing was. Like the reviewer said "he was bound to irritate some viewers" while on his quest to "shatter the norms of storytelling." People don't usually embrace, or particularly like, change. So it is no surprise that Faulkner's rush into the modern didn't fare well with some. Although, it's almost irrelevant because of the lack of impact they had on his career. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:41 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267449 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267449 Literati, those who're particularly interested in and intensively study literature are important to authors such as Faulkner because their approval defines his success and prestige as a writer. People such as those 'experts' in the field have the power to compare, contrast, and criticize his work and it seemed as though it was difficult for them to quickly grow on him. Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:44:03 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267448 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267448 The difference between propitious and decisive is that the former is more lenient than the latter. It asserts less authority and shows guidance and direction, rather than command. Using these words in the last sentence seems to imply that Cowley's work wasn't as strong as it could have been, and certainly wasn't as strong as, although appreciated more than, Faulkner's. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267447 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267447 I believe he's referencing his experience to not only assert his credibility but, also, explain that although he'd written a book on Faulkner, his work and character leave much to be discovered. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267446 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267446 The last sentence fits to highlight the fact that Faulkner was an apparent genius at combining themes and ideas in his writing. He managed to escape derivatives and creative his own sense of style by playing with concepts. In saying that, he supports his previous arguments and explain why it is that viewers are truly so fascinated with his work. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267445 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267445 I believe that he's trying to say Faulkner was perhaps misunderstood at times and definitely took time to truly comprehend. Although, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. He believes that the complexity is the reason for readings that may be convoluted to some, and that it simply takes a trained eye to spot right away. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267444 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267444 The point is that Faulkner's work was at its best when it came from his mind alone. His unique style and brilliance are all results of his staying true to himself rather than trying to be somebody else. As someone once said, "You can only be the best version of yourself. Everyone else is taken." And I think he's trying to say that Faulkner did just that. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267443 The reviewer is showing his fondness and appreciation of Faulkner, as well as involving readers by projecting his feelings onto them. He believes that Faulkner is as brilliant as he believes he is, and that he's best understood directly than through description. I believe this shows a rather wise understanding of his work. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267442 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267442 I think, just as the quote above, the text implies that his work should simply speak for itself. Aside from the in-depth analysis that will undoubtedly ensue, it's necessary to see it for what it is and appreciate that value. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267441 https://nowcomment.com/documents/25186?scroll_to=267441 The function of the quote is to do more than simply tell the readers that Faulkner was revolutionary. It's meant to highlight his talents, his novelty, and the effects. It's far more suitable to describe it in a way that truly shows how his work impacted literature and gives credit where it's due. Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:45:40 +0800