Reading comp PrepTest 101 · Section 4 · Question 3

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Debate on the quality of James' crime novels
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • The first side of the debate:
    • Critics who over-exaggerate James's merits as a writer (first sentence)
  • The second side of the debate:
    • Critics who find James's writing overly pretentious (first sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • The general dichotomy between slightly dull "highbrow" novels and enjoyable "lowbrow" literature is at the root of the debate surrounding James's detective novels (last sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “exaggerate” (first sentence); "familiar, false opposition” (second sentence); "somehow" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Elaborates on both sides of the debate
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • The first side of the debate (James's work is "high literature" ):
    • James uses meticulous character constructions, elaborate settings, and lots of abstractions (first sentence)
  • The second side of the debate (James's work is overly pretentious):
    • James creates tiresome works that abandon the conventions of the detective genre (second sentence)
  • Examples to support the second viewpoint:
    • Harriet Waugh and Philip Oakes' critiques (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "inverted snobbery" (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author: Recognizes the merits of each side of the debate
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • James's descriptive writing and characterization add "dignity and weight" to her works (first through third sentences)
    • But these narrative devices strongly distract from the plot and aren't always successfully deployed (fourth through fifth sentences)
  • Comparison of James's interests, according to the author:
    • James dedicates more attention to describing the patinas and aromas of a country kitchen than the plot (fourth sentence)
    • James is less interested in the detective elements of her novels than in describing her characters (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "certainly capable of strikingly good writing" (first sentence); "convincing histories and passions" (second sentence); "part of the pleasure of her books" (third sentence); "dignity and weight" (third sentence); "equally true" (fourth sentence); "frequently interfere" (fourth sentence); "can be shameless and thin" (fifth sentence), "often impossible" (fifth sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author: James may be losing interest in the detective novel and should abandon it
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Since James seems to feel increasingly constrained by the conventions of the detective genre, she should perhaps switch to general fiction writing (first through last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "However…" (first sentence) "there is no reason why" (first sentence); "conscious rebellion" (third sentence); "fashionable" (fourth sentence), "reprehensible" (fourth sentence), "perhaps the time has come" (last sentence)

Main Point: Because P.D. James's narrative style is constrained by the traditional conventions of the detective genre, she should migrate to writing general fiction.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Introduction of both sides of the debate

P2, S1 - Rationale for the first side of the debate

P2, S1 - Rationale for the second side of the debate

P3, S3-4 - Author's stance

P4, S5:- Author's recommendation

Resolving a Debate: In this passage, the author describes two opposing viewpoints before expressing their own opinion on the matter. The debate at hand involves P. D. James's unique approach to the detective genre. In the first paragraph, the author introduces the rival opinions: those who strongly believe in James's merits as an author of crime fiction and those who think that she strays too far from the genre's conventions (P1, S1). In the second paragraph, the author elaborates on each side's rationale for their points of view. Finally, in the third and fourth paragraphs, the author offers their opinion, suggesting a compromise between the two previously discussed points of view. This explanation — and subsequent resolution — of two opposing viewpoints strongly suggests a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.

In a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure, the main point will be the author's opinion or mediation/reconciliation of the debate. The author helpfully offers the reconciliation in the fourth paragraph. We summarized this resolution as follows, "Because P.D. James's narrative style is constrained by the traditional conventions of the detective genre, she should migrate to writing general fiction."

Examples: The author uses examples at two different points in the passage to illustrate a specific viewpoint:

• The author mentions the critics Harriet Waugh and Philip Oakes (P2, S3). These examples demonstrate the view that James's detective novels are overly pretentious and stray from the genre's conventions.
• The author references the "patinas and aromas of a country kitchen [that] receive more loving attention than does the plot itself" and that James often makes it impossible to see how the detective arrives at the truth in her novels (P3, S4-5). These examples support the author's claim that James's descriptive, philosophical style interferes with the story in detective fiction.

As is the case with all our minor Meta-Structures, we should have these highlighted or underlined to help us locate them in the likely event that we get a question about them.