Reading comp PrepTest 132 · Section 3 · Question 5

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • An writer confounds critics; Author explains
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Critics - Mphahlele’s autobiography is too fictional; his fiction is too autobiographical
  • Author - Mphahlele doesn’t fit labels - he uses prose to advance social message

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Criticism of Mphahlele’s work; Mphahlele’s response; Author’s response
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Criticism - Even positive has negative subtext
  • Example - The Wanderers - Praised firsthand experiences (and other things), but others dismiss for autobiography
  • Mphahlele - Fictional relationship serves as beginning/end
  • Author - Mphahlele has a strong vision of the future “wonderfully articulated”
  • Critics balk (how do we get there?)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Mphahlele’s views on writing
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Mphahlele - Can’t write just fact or fiction - experiences pervade fiction, and maximizing social message changes facts
  • Mphahlele (Author) - Writing isn’t about classification but about transmitting ideas
  • Quote

Main Point: Those who criticize the works of Mphahlele for not clearly falling into autobiography or fiction don’t recognize that he writes to convey a social message and thus classifying him misses the point, as Mphahlele himself recognizes.

Lines 1-4 - An opposing point

Lines 12-14 - More of the opposing view

Lines 16-17 - The Author’s view on Mphahlele

Lines 18-19 - More from critics

Lines 30-33 - Mphahlele defends his work

Lines 33-35 - The Author’s defense of Mphahlele’s works

Lines 46-51 - Mphahlele’s thoughts on writing

Lines 51-53 - Mphalele and the Author on writing

Defending an Artist from Critics - One common Humanities Meta-Structure is Defending an Artist from Critics. In this type of passage, the Author highlights criticism of an artist and why that criticism is wrong. It’s important to track the view of the Critics, why the Author thinks they’re wrong, and what the artist thinks, if that’s present in the passage. Putting all of this together led us to the main point as we stated it above.

A lot of this passage dealt with a split between autobiography and fiction. The Critics felt that there was a distinct line between the two, while the Author and Mphahlele believed that it could be broken down in service of conveying a social message. As such, we need to be careful when answering questions that we know from whose viewpoint it’s being asked, and either draw a distinction between fiction and autobiography if the Critics’ view is being asked about, or blur that distinction for questions about the Author’s or Mphahlele’s view.