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

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.

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.
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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

"When one of the doctors criticizes(批评) me, I get defensive: I feel like a child again, being scolded, and I want to explain that I’ m not wrong. " says Viola, a nurse. This is a common reaction(反 应) to criticism, but not a good one. There are better ways of dealing with criticism.
1. Try to be objective (客观). When Sol was criticized by his new employer for not having made a sale, Sol’s reaction was to feel sorry for himself. "I had put everything I had into making that sale," Sol says," and I felt that I had failed as a person. I had to learn through experience not to react like that to each failure. "
2. Take time to cool down. Rather than reacting immediately to criticism, take some time to think over what was said. Your first question should be whether the criticism is fair from the other person’ s position. The problem may be a simple misunderstanding of what you did or your reasons for doing it.
3. Take positive(积极的) action. After you cool down, consider what you can do about the situation. The best answer may be "nothing". "I finally realized that my boss was having personal problems, and taking them out on me because I was there," says Sheila. "His criticisms didn’t really have anything to do with my work, so nothing I said or did was going to change them. " In Sheila’ s case, the best way to deal with it was to leave her job. However, that’ s an extreme reaction. You may simply explain your opinion without expecting an in-depth discussion. You may even decide that the battle isn’ t worth fighting this time. The key, in any case, is to have a reasonable plan.

The writer thinks Sheila can decide to leave her job because her boss（　）

A:didn’t like her appearance B:refused to change his opinion C:made an unreasonable criticism D:refused to talk to her about the criticism