Self-study
P1
The work of South African writer Ezekiel Mphahlele has confounded literary critics, especially those who feel compelled to draw a sharp distinction between autobiography and fiction. ███
Intro topic ·
Writer Ezekiel Mphahlele and how to classify his work
If critics who want a sharp distinction between autobiography and fiction are "confounded" by Mphahlele, then Mphahlele's work probably doesn't fit those categories
Critics' perspective ·
Difficult to categorize Mphahlele's work
Two examples: an autobiography and a novel, with the novel apparently including autobiographical details
Author's response to critics ·
Mphahlele intentionally defies categorization
Critics say Mphahlele's autobiography is too fictional and his novel too autobiographical, but they miss the point
P2
████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ███████ █████ █
Expand on critics' perspective ·
Backhanded praise for novel
Critics imply that "The Wanderers" isn't great literature, dismiss it because it features real people
Mphahlele's response to critics ·
They're wrong; novel does feature an important fictional element
Author's explanation of Mphahlele's motivation ·
Social ideals underlie his work
Unclear what "humanist" and "integrationist" mean, but they're social ideals, and the author thinks they come through well in Mphahlele's writing; meanwhile, critics think Mphahlele's vision is incomplete
P3
█████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ███
Contrast ·
Mphahlele's views against critics' views mentioned earlier
Critics concerned with categorizing Mphahlele's work as autobiography (fact) v. fiction, but Mphahlele says there's no such thing as pure fiction or absolute fact in novels
More on Mphahlele's motivation ·
Melds fact and fiction
Takes real experiences and then works in fictional elements to convey his social message
Main point ·
Mphahlele intentionally melds fact and fiction in order to get his social message across
Differences between autobiography and fictional novel don't matter
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Spotlight
3.
The author uses the phrase
a
the critic believes ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████
This answer mixes up the different critics’ comments. Later in the second paragraph, there are other critics who are “outright dismissive” of Mphahlele’s novel because it contains autobiographical elements. But the comment we’re being asked about isn’t about distinctions between literary genres. It’s about great literature and whether Mphahlele’s work meets the requirements of great literature.
b
the comment is ████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████
(B) might be tempting if you thought the question was asking about the author’s opinion concerning the critic’s comment. But we’re not asked whether the author agrees with the critic or what the author would say in response to the critic. We’re just asked about the meaning of “negative subtext” – what is the negative subtext contained in the critic’s comment? That negative subtext is the idea that Mphahlele’s work isn’t actually great literature. What the author thinks about this negative opinion is not relevant to this question.
c
the requirement of █████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████
The comment we’re being asked about concerns the requirements of great literature. The critic is suggesting that Mphahlele’s novel isn’t great because the qualities it displays don’t meet the requirements of great literature. The comment isn’t about the requirements of fiction generally.
d
the requirements for █████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ██
(D) is very tempting, because part of the critic’s comment is suggesting that the requirements described are not actually the requirements for great literature. But what’s missing from (D) is the point that the critic believes Mphahlele’s novel isn’t great literature. This is the negative aspect of the critic’s comment. It’s easier to understand the critic’s point if you think of it as a sarcastic comment. The critic isn’t suggesting that anyone thinks anger, firsthand experiences, and topicality are the requirements of great literature. Instead, the critic is telling us that these features, which Mphahlele’s work contains, are not enough to make his work great.
e
the requirements for █████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ██████████
(E) best captures the negative subtext in the critic’s comment. The critic is suggesting that Mphahlele’s work isn’t great literature, because it doesn’t meet whatever the true requirements of great literature are.