Right now, I am looking at a shelf
full or relics, a collection of has-beens, old-timers, antiques, fossils. Right
now I am lolling at a shelf full of books. Yes that’s right. If you have some
spare cash (the doing rate is about $89) and are looking to enhance your reading
experience, then I highly suggest you consider purchasing an e-reader.
E-readers are replacing the books of old, and I welcome them with open arms (as
you should).
If you haven’t heard of an e-reader
and don’t know what it is, then please permit the following explanation. An
e-reader is a device that allows you to read e-books. An e-book is a
book-length publication in digital form, consisting of text, images, or both,
and produced on, published through, and readable on computers or other
electronic devices. Sometimes the equivalent of a conventional printed book,
e-books can also be born digital. The Oxford Dictionary or English defines the
e-book as “an electronic version of a printed book, “but e-book can and do
exist without any printed equivalent.
So now you know what an e-reader is.
But you still may be wondering why they put printed books to shame. E-readers
are superior to printed books because they save space, are environmentally friendly,
and provide helpful reading tips and tools that printed books do not.
E-readers are superior to printed
books because they save space. The average e-reader can store thousands of
digital book, providing a veritable library at your fingertips. What is more,
being the size and weight of a thin hardback, the e-reader itself is relatively
petite. It is easy to hold and can fit in a pocketbook or briefcase easily. This
makes handling ponderous behemoths such as War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and
Les Miserables a breeze. Perhaps the only drawback to the space-saving aspect
of an e-reader is that it requires you to find new things to put on your
shelves.
In addition, e-readers are superior
to books because they are environmentally friendly. The average novel is about
300 pages long. So, if a novel is printed 1000 times, it will use 300,000
pieces of paper. That’s a lot of paper! If there are about 80,000 pieces of
paper in a tree, this means it takes almost 4 trees to make these 1000 books.
Now, we know that the average bestseller sells about 20,000 copies per week.
That means that it takes over 300 trees each month to sustain this rate. And
for the super bestsellers, these figures increase dramatically. For example,
the Harry Potter book series has sold over 450 million copies. That’s about 2
million trees! Upon viewing these figures, it is not hard to grasp the severe
impact of printed books on the environment. Since e-reader use no trees, they
represent a significant amount of preservation in terms of the environment and
its resources.
Finally, e-reader are superior to
books because they provide helpful reading tips and tolls that printed books do
not. The typical e-reader allows its user to customize letter size, font, and
line spacing. It also allows highlighting and electronic bookmarking.
Furthermore, it grants users the ability to get an overview of a book and then
jump to a specific electronic bookmarking. Furthermore, it grants users the
ability to get an overview of a book and then jump to a specific location based
on that overview. While these are all nice features, perhaps the most helpful
of all is the ability to get dictionary definitions at the touch of a finger.
On even the most basic e-reader, users can conjure instant definitions without
having to hunt through a physical dictionary.
It can be seen that e-readers are
superior to printed books. They save space, are environmentally friendly, and
provide helpful reading tips and tools that printed books do not. So what good
are printed books? Well, they certainly make nice decorations.
Which of the following best
describes the organization of this passage?
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
It can be inferred from the passage
that Whately found Dickens’ characters to be
