Text 3 Is the literary critic like the poet, responding creatively, intuitively, subjectively to the written word as the poet responds to human experience Or is the critic more like a scientist, following a series of demonstrable, verifiable steps, using an objective method of analysis For the woman who is a practitioner of feminist literary criticism, the subjectivity versus objectivity, or critic-as-artist-or-scientist, debate has special significance; for her, the question is not only academic, but political as well, and her definition will provoke special risks whichever side of the issue it favors. If she defines feminist criticism as objective and scientific—a valid, verifiable, intellectual method that anyone, whether man or woman, can perform—the definition not only makes the critic-as-artist approach impossible, but may also hinder accomplishment of the utilitarian political objectives of those who seek to change the academic establishment and its thinking, especially about sex roles. If she defines feminist criticism as creative and intuitive, privileged as art, then her work becomes vulnerable to the prejudices of stereotypic ideas about the ways in which women think, and will be dismissed by much of the academic establishment. Because of these prejudices, women who use an intuitive approach in their criticism may find themselves charged with inability to be analytical, to be objective, or to think critically. Whereas men may be free to claim the role of critic-as-artist, women run different professional risks when they choose intuition and private experience as critical method and defense. These questions are political in the sense that the debate over them will inevitably be less an exploration of abstract matters in a spirit of disinterested inquiry than an academic power struggle, in which the careers and professional fortunes of many women scholars only now entering the academic profession in substantial numbers will be at stake, and with them the chances for a distinctive contribution to humanistic understanding, a contribution that might be an important influence against sexism in our society. As long as the academic establishment continues to regard objective analysis as "masculine" and an intuitive approach as "feminine," the theoretician must steer a delicate philosophical course between the two. If she wishes to construct a theory of feminist criticism, she would be well advised to place it within the framework of a general theory of the critical process that is neither purely objective nor purely intuitive. Her theory is then more likely to be compared and contrasted with other theories of criticism with some degree of dispassionate distance.

The author specifically mentions all of the following as difficulties that particularly affect women who are theoreticians of feminist literary criticism EXCEPT the（）

A:tendency of a predominantly male academic establishment to form preconceptions about women. B:limitations that are imposed when criticism is defined as objective and scientific. C:likelihood that the work of a woman theoretician who claims the privilege of art will be viewed with prejudice by some academics. D:tendency of members of the academic establishment to treat all forms of feminist literary theory with hostility.

The author's primary criticism of the restorationists is that______.

A:they assign to humans a controlling role in the word B:they reject the most workable model for both humans and nature C:their critique of preservationism is not well supported D:their program does not coincide with their principles

Roger Rosenblatt’s book Black Fiction, in attempting to apply literary rather than sociopolitical criteria to its subject, successfully alters the approach taken by most previous studies. As Rosenblatt notes, criticism of Black writing has often served as a pretext for expounding on Black history. Addison Gayle’s recent work, for example, judges the value of Black Fiction by overtly political standards, rating each work according to the notions of Black identity which it propounds.
Although fiction assuredly springs from political circumstances, its authors react to those circumstances in ways other than ideological, and talking about novels and stories primarily as instruments of ideology circumvents much of the fictional enterprise. Rosenblatt’s literary analysis discloses affinities and connections among works of Black Fiction which solely political studies have overlooked or ignored.
Writing acceptable criticism of Black Fiction, however, presupposes giving satisfactory answers to a number of questions. First of all, is there a sufficient reason, other than the racial identity of the authors, to group together works by Black authors Second, how does Black Fiction make itself distinct from other modem fiction with which it is largely contemporaneous Rosenblatt shows that Black Fiction constitutes a distinct body of writing that has an identifiable, coherent literary tradition. Looking at novels written by Black over the last eighty years, he discovers recurring concerns and designs independent of chronology. These structures are thematic, and they spring, not surprisingly, from the central fact that the Black characters in these novels exist in a predominantly white culture, whether they try to conform to that culture or rebel against it.
Black Fiction does leave some aesthetic questions open. Rosenblatt’s thematic analysis permits considerable objectivity ; he even explicitly states that it is not his intention to judge the merit of the various works -- yet his reluctance seems misplaced, especially since an attempt to appraise might have led to interesting results. For instance, some of the novels appear to be structurally diffuse. Is this a defect, or are the authors working out of, or trying to forge a different kind of aesthetic In addition, the style of some Black novels, like Jean Toomer’s Cane, verges on expressionism or surrealism; does this technique provide a counterpoint to the prevalent theme that portrays the fate against which Black heroes are pitted, a theme usually conveyed by more naturalistic modes of expression
In spite of such omissions, what Rosenblatt does include in his discussion makes for an astute and worthwhile study. Black Fiction surveys a wide variety of novels, bringing to our attention in the process some fascinating and little-known works like James Weldon Johnson’s Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man. Its argument is tightly constructed, and its forthright, lucid style exemplifies levelheaded and penetrating criticism.

The author of the text is primarily concerned with（）

A:evaluating the soundness of a work of criticism B:comparing various critical approaches to a subject C:discussing the limitations of a particular kind of criticism D:summarizing the major points made in a work of criticism

Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.
It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.
We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."
Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.

It is indicated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 that （）

A:arts criticism has disappeared from big-city newspapers B:English-language newspapers used to carry more arts reviews C:high-quality newspapers retain a large body of readers D:young readers doubt the suitability of criticism on dailies

Is the literary critic like the poet, responding creatively, intuitively, subjectively to the written word as the poet responds to human experience Or is the critic more like a scientist, following a series of demonstrable, verifiable steps, using an objective method of analysis
For the woman who is a practitioner of feminist literary criticism, the subjectivity versus objectivity, or critic-as-artist-or-scientist, debate has special significance; for her, the question is not only academic, but political as well, and her definition will provoke special risks whichever side of the issue it favors. If she defines feminist criticism as objective and scientific--a valid, verifiable, intellectual method that anyone, whether man or woman, can perform--the definition not only makes the critic-as-artist approach impossible, but may also hinder accomplishment of the utilitarian political objectives of those who seek to change the academic establishment and its thinking, especially about sex roles. If she defines feminist criticism as creative and intuitive, privileged as art, then her work becomes vulnerable to the prejudices of stereotypic ideas about the ways in which women think, and will be dismissed by much of the academic establishment. Because of these prejudices, women who use an intuitive approach in their criticism may find themselves charged with inability to be analytical, to be objective, or to think critically. Whereas men may be free to claim the role of critic-as-artist, women run different professional risks when they choose intuition and private experience as critical method and defense.
These questions are political in the sense that the debate over them will inevitably be less an exploration of abstract matters in a spirit of disinterested inquiry than an academic power struggle, in which the careers and professional fortunes of many women scholars only now entering the academic profession in substantial numbers will be at stake, and with them the chances for a distinctive contribution to humanistic understanding, a contribution that might be an important influence against sexism in our society.
As long as the academic establishment continues to regard objective analysis as "masculine" and an intuitive approach as "feminine," the theoretician must steer a delicate philosophical course between the two. If she wishes to construct a theory of feminist criticism, she would be well advised to place it within the framework of a general theory of the critical process that is neither purely objective nor purely intuitive. Her theory is then more likely to be compared and contrasted with other theories of criticism with some degree of dispassionate distance. (418 words)
Which of the following titles best summarizes the content of the text

A:How Theories of Literary Criticism Can Best Be Used B:Problems Confronting Women Who Are Feminist Literary Critics C:A Historical Overview of Feminist Literary Criticism D:Literary Criticism: Art or Science

Is the literary critic like the poet, responding creatively, intuitively, subjectively to the written word as the poet responds to human experience Or is the critic more like a scientist, following a series of demonstrable, verifiable steps, using an objective method of analysis
For the woman who is a practitioner of feminist literary criticism, the subjectivity versus objectivity, or critic-as-artist-or-scientist, debate has special significance; for her, the question is not only academic, but political as well, and her definition will provoke special risks whichever side of the issue it favors. If she defines feminist criticism as objective and scientific--a valid, verifiable, intellectual method that anyone, whether man or woman, can perform--the definition not only makes the critic-as-artist approach impossible, but may also hinder accomplishment of the utilitarian political objectives of those who seek to change the academic establishment and its thinking, especially about sex roles. If she defines feminist criticism as creative and intuitive, privileged as art, then her work becomes vulnerable to the prejudices of stereotypic ideas about the ways in which women think, and will be dismissed by much of the academic establishment. Because of these prejudices, women who use an intuitive approach in their criticism may find themselves charged with inability to be analytical, to be objective, or to think critically. Whereas men may be free to claim the role of critic-as-artist, women run different professional risks when they choose intuition and private experience as critical method and defense.
These questions are political in the sense that the debate over them will inevitably be less an exploration of abstract matters in a spirit of disinterested inquiry than an academic power struggle, in which the careers and professional fortunes of many women scholars only now entering the academic profession in substantial numbers will be at stake, and with them the chances for a distinctive contribution to humanistic understanding, a contribution that might be an important influence against sexism in our society.
As long as the academic establishment continues to regard objective analysis as "masculine" and an intuitive approach as "feminine," the theoretician must steer a delicate philosophical course between the two. If she wishes to construct a theory of feminist criticism, she would be well advised to place it within the framework of a general theory of the critical process that is neither purely objective nor purely intuitive. Her theory is then more likely to be compared and contrasted with other theories of criticism with some degree of dispassionate distance. (418 words)
According to the author, the debate has special significance for the woman who is a theoretician of feminist literary criticism because

A:women who are literary critics face professional risks different from those faced by men who are literary critics. B:there are large numbers of capable women working within the academic establishment. C:there are a few powerful feminist critics who have been recognized by the academic establishment. D:like other critics, most women who are literary critics define criticism as either scientific or artistic.

______ we need air and water, we need criticism and self criticism.

A:Even though B:So long as C:Just as D:Now that

An author must not be too ______ to criticism.

A:sensible B:sensitive C:senseless D:insensible

An author must not be too ______ to criticism.

A:sensible B:sensitive C:senseless D:insensible