Many people like to eat pizza, but
not everyone knows knows how to make it. Making the perfect pizza can be complicated,
but there are lots of ways for you to make basic version at home.
When you make pizza, you must
begin with the crust. The crust can be hard to make. If you want to make the
crust yourself, you will have to make dough using flour, water, and yeast. You
will have to knead the dough with your hands. If you do not have enough time to
do this, you can use a prepared crust that you buy from the store.
After you have chosen your crust,
you must then add the sauce. Making your own sauce from scratch can take a long
time. You have to buy tomatoes, peel them, and then cook them with spices. If
this sounds like too much work, you can also purchase jarred sauce from the
store. Many jarred sauces taste almost as good as the kind you make at home.
Now that you have your crust and
your sauce, you need to add the cheese. Cheese comes from milk, which comes
from cows. Do you have a cow in your backyard? Do you how to milk the cow? Do
you know how to turn that milk into cheese? If not, you might want to buy
cheese from the grocery store instead of making it yourself. When you have the
crust, sauce, and cheese ready, you can add other toppings. Some people like to
put meat on their pizza, while other people like to add vegetables. Some people
even like to add pineapple! The best part of making a pizza at home is that you
can customize it by adding your own favorite ingredients
As used in paragraph 1, which word
means the opposite of “complicated”?
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.
The passage suggest that twentieth-century
Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s novels more if the novels, as the
Marxists understood them, had
