PrepTest 134

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Debate between two schools of Russian literary criticism (art that transcends reality vs. art that's realistic and useful) and Dostoyevsky's middle ground (little distinction between fantasy/reality)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of approaches to Russian literary criticism during Dostoyevsky's time, according to the author:
    • First: Art is high above reality (second sentence)
    • "Radical": Art should be based in reality and useful (second sentence)
    • Dostoyevsky: Art should be based in reality, but reality includes fantasy (third through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "significant and opposing" (first sentence); "went deeper" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Dostoevsky vs. the radical critics on reality (Dostoyevsky thought reality is subjective and fantastical)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between radical critics and Dostoevsky's conception of reality, according to the author
    • The radicals thought reality should be depicted as it is, but Dostoyevsky responded that reality is shaped by perception and includes another realm called the "fantastic" (first through last sentences)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Dostoevsky vs. the radical critics on art's purpose (Dostoyevsky didn't think art must be political, just that it is fully realized)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between radical critics and Dostoevsky's thoughts on art's purpose, according to the author:
    • The radicals thought that art must serve political view and formal aspects secondary if it achieved goals (first and third sentences)
    • Dostoevsky held that this is a "shameful" approach and that art can't achieve goals unless it's artistic (first, second, and fourth sentences)
  • Dostoevsky's definition of "artistic": For novels, fully realized and well-written (sixth through last sentences)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Dostoevsky vs. the radical critics on whether art needs to be "useful" (Dostoyevsky doesn't think we can predict which art will become useful)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between radical critics and Dostoevsky's thoughts on art's purpose, according to the author:
    • The radicals thought that art must be "useful" at all costs, but Dostoyevsky doesn't think you can predict which art will become useful (first through last sentences)
  • Example of an art that's become useful over time, according to Dostoyevsky:
    • The Iliad (third sentence)

Main Point: While the radical Russian literary critics felt that literature needed to reflect reality as it was and be useful, Dostotevsky believed that reality can include different perspectives and fantastical elements and that art's "usefulness" is an unsatisfactory criterion, as art must be fully realized above all else.

Describing a Debate: This passage best fits the Describing a Debate Meta-Structure.* Although the first paragraph introduces three separate viewpoints, the crux of the passage concerns the debate between Dostoyevsky and the radical Russian literary critics of his day. The author does not explicitly take sides (although there are clues that they prefer Dostoyevsky's approach), so we thought it's best to call this a Describing a Debate passage rather than a Resolving a Debate passage (which would require the author to explicitly endorse one side or find a compromise position).

In a Describing a Debate passage, the main point is generally a description of both sides of the debate or the assertion that there is a debate. So, we incorporated the radical critics and Dostoyevsky's views into our anticipated main point.

*You could go in a few directions with this Meta-Structure, though. Most of the passage involves reporting Dostoyevsky's viewpoint, so you could definitely classify this as a Reporting a Viewpoint passage. If you assume that the author endorses Dostoyevsky's view (and there are tonal hints that they do), then you could call this a Resolving a Debate passage or use one of several Critical Meta-Structures to describe this passage (Criticizing a Viewpoint, Rebutting Critics, and Correcting the Record would all fit). The point of Meta-Structures isn't about finding the one "correct" Meta-Structure — the point is helping you think about the shape of the passage's argument. Any one of these Meta-Structures would help you figure out that shape.

Comparisons: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. Throughout the passage, the author contrasts two views that oppose each other (to a certain degree — they both ground themselves in reality, even if their conceptions of it are different). As such, we should expect questions about these contrasts.

A couple of notable things in this passage. First, the author brings up a viewpoint — that art "stood high above the present and everyday" (P1, S2) — in the first paragraph and then never revisits it! This is weird, and it might lead to a question, but it also means that the viewpoint isn't key to the passage's main point. Not only does the rest of the passage focus on the radicals and Dostoyevsky, but there's no clear overlap or point of contrast between Dostoyevsky and this first view (other than the fact that Dostoyevsky explores reality).

Second, there are a lot of quotes from Dostoevsky, so we should clearly understand his viewpoint and anticipate getting some questions about it.

Third, as we noted in the Meta-Structure section, the author here is much more absent than we normally see. They contrast two viewpoints, but the author doesn't explicitly take sides. (Although there are some tonal hints, like describing the radical position as "meaningless," "shameful," and "unsatisfactory" in Dostoyevsky's eyes, that suggest the author is on Team Dostoyevsky). We should remember that when analyzing answers for questions about the passage or the author.

Finally, note that Dostoyevsky's definition of reality is weird. He says that writing based in reality can include fantasy, as there's "no distinction in principle" between them. That's probably not how you'd define reality — it's definitely not how we'd define reality — but it is how Dostoyevsky defined it, and the author never highlights it as wrong or weird, so we can't bring our view on it to the passage.