J.D. Salinger or Willa Cather, homework help

User Generated

TenqrN

Writing

ENG 1102

Troy University

Description

1. Write a research paper about author J.D. Salinger or Willa Cather.

2. 1600 words minimum, MLA format.

3. You must make substantial use of at least 3 books and at least 5 articles as sources.

4. The paper should be 2 parts. The first half of your paper should be biography of the author. For the second half, find literary criticism of one or more of the author's works, and report on what those critics say about the work(s).

5. All information except direct quotes is to be presented in your own words. In addition, turn in copy of source pages(any kind of pictorial document is fine), and highlight the sentences that you quoted in your paper. [ DO NOT just give me the link about the sources, I need specific page and sentences you used in your paper]

6. I have attached some files about the example of source pages, pls turn in your source pages like this.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Ever an accomplished mimic, Roth knew in 1960, when he first parodied him in print, that he could imitate Richard Nixon's style and vocal mannerisms to humorous and satiric effect." But it was not until 10 years later that he produced a full-length comic satire on the man, then in his first term as president of the United States, and on the people surrounding him. As the subtitle indicates, Our Gang, Starring Tricky and His Friends (1971) is, unlike Roth's other books, in the form of a playscript or movie scenario, mostly in dialogue, with two chapters as dramatic monologues. It originated in the pieces published in the New York Review of Books, which form the work's first two chapters.2 Subsequently Bantam Books published the book in paperback editions, including the “Watergate Edition" (1973) and the "Pre-Impeachment Edition" (1974), each with a new preface by the author. Like Roth's other books, Our Gang has been translated into many languages, but it is generally regarded as a minor work, or one of Roth's “least significant" fictions (Rodgers, 107). Roth's critics nevertheless concede that the book is often amusing and its satire sharp. As Dwight MacDonald said in his New York Times review, Our Gang is “a political satire that I found far-fetched, unfair, tasteless, disturbing, logical, coarse and very funny—I laughed out loud sixteen times and giggled internally a statistically unverifiable amount. Of course, Dwight MacDonald, hardly a Nixon lover, would. But his judgment, like his reactions, is apt: the book has all the strengths and weaknesses he indicates. Moreover, MacDonald's later comparison to Swiftian satire, invited by Roth's first epigraph from A Voyage to the Houyhnhnms, is justified. Like his illustrious forebear, Roth indulges in fantasies and distortions—often gross distortions, such as President “Dixon's" attitude toward the My Lai massacre, or his skull sessions in football uniform—to drive home his points. But unlike Swift, Roth uses a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel; subtlety is rare in Our Gang. Then again, Roth was obviously outraged and angry, for those were outrageous and infuriating times. Page 104 | Top of Article In his own comments on the book Roth defends his brand of humor by linking it to the tradition of American political satire as represented by James Russell Lowell's Biglow Papers and David Ross Locke's “Nasby Letters," to H. L. Mencken's "Gamalielese," and to the broad comedy of Olsen and Johnson, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, and other slapstick comedians (RMAO, 44–47). The “ferocity" of political satire in our earlier history, especially in the period before and after the Civil War, is, he says, practically forgotten today, when scarcely any satiric writing exists, apart from newspaper cartoons. As for decorum, that is precisely what Roth means to attack, or, rather, what hides behind it: “All I'm saying, of course, is that the level of comedy in Our Gang isn't exactly what it Page 1 Chapter 1 The Ironic And The Irate Since 1959 Philip Roth has been publishing steadily, an average of a book every twenty-three months—all but three having something to say directly about Jews. The cheers and the groans continue. While Roth has insisted he does not speak for American Jews or expound Judaism, he has given America a gallery of semitic stereotypes. Sophie and Alexander Portnoy, 1 Brenda Patimkin, Eli the Fanatic, and Nathan Zuckerman are household names. Zuckerman, himself a novelist taken by critics to be Roth's alter ego of the late seventies and eighties—to be the successor to Gabe Wallach, Alexander Portnoy, David Kepesh, and Peter Tarnopol—spent several novels protesting that he stood for nothing more than the power of art to illuminate life. From The Ghost Writer (1979)2 to The Counterlife (1987)3 Zuckerman kept declaring that his Jews were not the Jews and that his protagonists were not himself. He accused misreaders of willful self-impoverishment, of reducing fiction to some petty biographic detective game. Only fiction, this fictitious character insisted, has the power to convey the many-sidedness of fact. Misunderstood Zuckerman, making those pronouncements to get the world off his back but with few illusions about getting himself off his back, was succeeded in the early nineties by a character bearing his author's name. Layered within Roth's fiction are authors and authors of authors, blurring the
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

hello, its a ...


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags