[ اللغة الانجليزية ] : l|][Ξ¯▪ Last Year 1st Semester ▪¯Ξ][|

[مينولوبي كروز]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة حلمي كبير

محد عنده اكسس للقروب طيب .!!!!

والله حتا انا ياقلبي حاولت مو راضي يقبلني مدري شالسالفه او انا ماعرفتله


بس اذكر مره رحتلها قلتلها ضيفيني كانت فاتحه اللاب وحاولت عيا معها بعدين اخر شي قالت الضاهر في مشكله بالنت


الى اليوم وانا اتسائل وش دخلل النت

[ms.2012]

آهم شيء حشيش كآتبت لهم ع السبوره ... مين بيخبط عالباب ؟؟؟ >> مو هذا العربي اللي يدرسونه ترى
ياحليلها لها وحششه والله ......


دريدي أنا كمآن رحت ومالقيتها بالكليه فلو تنزلينها بفجر ولا تهونين تسوين خير فيناآ ... الله يوفقك ياآرب ...


لوست ممكن أرسلك أيميلي كمآن وترسلين لي تآريخ اللغه .. لأني مصوره من بنت وخطها ماينقرآ أبد أبد ... >>>>> مشتغله أنا طراره من اليوم

بالتوفيق لنا جميعا ً

[ms.2012]

محد عنده اكسس للقروب طيب .!!!!

أنا ضايفتني معها بالقروب ..إذا تبن أكاونتي ترسلين لها منه ماعندي مشكله ...

[Lost 3]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة ms.2012

آهم شيء حشيش كآتبت لهم ع السبوره ... مين بيخبط عالباب ؟؟؟ >> مو هذا العربي اللي يدرسونه ترى
ياحليلها لها وحششه والله ......


دريدي أنا كمآن رحت ومالقيتها بالكليه فلو تنزلينها بفجر ولا تهونين تسوين خير فيناآ ... الله يوفقك ياآرب ...


لوست ممكن أرسلك أيميلي كمآن وترسلين لي تآريخ اللغه .. لأني مصوره من بنت وخطها ماينقرآ أبد أبد ... >>>>> مشتغله أنا طراره من اليوم

بالتوفيق لنا جميعا ً

يب عاااادي أرسليلي أيميلك ’ أصصلا لو ع طوول ارسلتي لي ايميلك مآفي مشكله
عااد شسمه خطي حوسه بس أهم شي ينقرآ

[never give up]

نزلت ملزمة النقد بمكتبة فجر ؟

[**مــياســة**]

بنآت شنو الاشيآء النآقصصة بمحاضرات تفريغ د نجلا او معلومات ناقصة
اللي لازم نسوي لها بحث !!

[honey eyes]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة lunatic

honey eyes ان شاء الله مايكون من ريتشارد مااعطتنا عليه شي
احسه يناسب short questions بس
بس ليش توقعتيه هو <<<< خفت زود

لاا قصدي انه ممكن تجيب لنا شي عليه من داخل التكست نفسه مثل اللي جابته لنا بالكويز
هذا الي فهمته منها
يعني مثل ماقلتي شورت كوسشنز
اما الأيسآي بالنسبة للناقدين الأولين اقرأي شرح التكست من ملازم اللعام ( فيه أشياء واجد من التكست)
ريتشآرد أقرأي التكست نفس ماسوينا بالكويز
ليفز هذا مافيه عليه شرح تكست بملازم اللعام ولاهي شرحت منه شي هالسنة
فأعتقد أن شاءالله انه ماراح يجي عليه من التكست
كل اللي فيه ثيريز بس خذي ع التكست فرره سريعه عشان تاخذي فكرة عنه
وتعرفي وش فيه

[ms_butterfly]

هااااي ياحبيبتي دريدي دريمز نزلتيها في المكتبه ياليت تردين عشان ابي اروح اخذها


حطيتيها في مكتبه فجر ولالا

[يآحلآتي]

بنات هذي نزلتها من قبل بس بنزلها مره ثانيه للفايده

Cultural approach

كيف انقسم نقده الا 4 مراحل

Leavis in his writing was one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century English literary criticism. He introduced a "seriousness" into English studies, and some English and American university departments were shaped very much by Leavis’s example and ideas. Leavis appeared to possess a very clear idea of literary criticism and he was well known for his decisive and often provocative, and idiosyncratic, judgements. Leavis insisted that valuation was the principal concern of criticism, and that it must ensure that English literature should be a living reality operating as an informing spirit in society, and that criticism should involve the shaping of contemporary sensibility .
Leavis's criticism is difficult to directly classify, but it can be grouped into four chronological stages. The first is that of his early publications and essays including New Bearings in English Poetry (1932) and Revaluation (1936). Here he was concerned primarily with reexamining poetry from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries, and this was accomplished under the strong influence of T. S. Eliot. Also during this early period Leavis sketched out his views about university education.
He then turned his attention to fiction and the novel, producing The Great Tradition (1948) and D. H. Lawrence, Novelist (1955). Following this period Leavis pursued an increasingly complex treatment of literary, educational and social issues. Though the hub of his work remained literature, his perspective for commentary was noticeably broadening, and this was most visible in Nor Shall my Sword (1972).
Two of his last publications embodied the critical sentiments of his final years; The Living Principle: ‘English’ as a Discipline of Thought (1975), and Thought, Words and Creativity: Art and Thought in Lawrence (1976). Although these later works have been sometimes called "philosophy", it has been argued that there is no abstract or theoretical context to justify such a description. In discussing the nature of language and value, Leavis implicitly treats the sceptical questioning that philosophical reflection starts from as an irrelevance from his standpoint as a literary critic - a position set out in his famous early exchange with Rene Wellek. Others, however, have argued that although Leavis's thinking in these later works is hard to classify - itself an important datum - it provides valuable insights into the nature of a language.
On poetry

كيف نقده بالشعر

Though his achievements as a critic of fiction were impressive, Leavis is often viewed as having been a better critic of poetry than of the novel. In New Bearings in English Poetry Leavis attacked the Victorian poetical ideal, suggesting that nineteenth-century poetry sought the consciously ‘poetical’ and showed a separation of thought and feeling and a divorce from the real world. The influence of T. S. Eliot is easily identifiable in his criticism of Victorian poetry, and Leavis acknowledged this, saying in The Common Pursuit that, ‘It was Mr. Eliot who made us fully conscious of the weakness of that tradition’ (Leavis 31). In his later publication Revaluation, the dependence on Eliot was still very much present, but Leavis demonstrated an individual critical sense operating in such a way as to place him among the distinguished modern critics.
The early reception of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound's poetry, and also the reading of Gerard Manley Hopkins, were considerably enhanced by Leavis's proclamation of their greatness. His criticism of John Milton, on the other hand, had no great impact on Milton's popular esteem. Many of his finest analyses of poems were reprinted in the late work, The Living Principle.
On the novel

كيف كان مع النوفل

As a critic of the novel, Leavis’s main tenet stated that great novelists show an intense moral interest in life, and that this moral interest determines the nature of their form in fiction (Bilan 115). Authors within this "tradition" were all characterised by a serious or responsible attitude to the moral complexity of life and included Jane Austen, George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and D. H. Lawrence, but excluded Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens. In The Great Tradition Leavis attempted to set out his conception of the proper relation between form/composition and moral interest/art and life. This proved to be a contentious issue in the critical world, as Leavis refused to separate art from life, or the aesthetic or formal from the moral. He insisted that the great novelist’s preoccupation with form was a matter of responsibility towards a rich moral interest, and that works of art with a limited formal concern would always be of lesser quality.

F. R. Leavis

كيف تاثر بمدرسة النقد الحديثه

F.R. Leavis was a teacher at Cambridge University. His employment as an educator had a profound affect on his criticism, (as did his geographical location). Many of the other New Critics lived in the United States. For Leavis, living across the ocean in England gave him a different, if related, perspective. F. R. Leavis was not entirely a New Critic, but his close analysis of the poem itself (“the words on the page”) and his belief that a poem should be self-sustaining (its reason for being should exist only inside its text and meaning), make him important to New Criticism. Leavis’s major influences include T.S. Eliot and Matthew Arnold and his major works include The Common Pursuit, The Great Tradition, Revaluation, and Education and the University.
While New Criticism was especially dominant in the 1940s and 1950s, Leavisite criticism became especially dominant in the 1970s. Leavis became, according to A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, “the major single target for the new critical theory of the 1970s and beyond” (Selden, 23). Leavis’s criticism did not have a clearly defined theory, (in fact he refused to define his theories at all), but it was based on a “common sense” approach which dealt closely with the text of the poem.
Leavis believed that there were “great works” of literature, therefore remaining a strong supporter of an existing canon. He also had defined ideas about what was poetry and what was not. He did not hesitate to dismiss many popular authors as non-poetic. Tennyson, Lang (“The Odyssey”), and Browning were a few of those who he dismissed as writing in poetic form, but not writing true poetry. He believed that poetry should express something personal about the poet and the poet should be emotionally involved with the poem. Leavis also believed that the poet was (or should be) and enlightened being and be profoundly affected by life. Leavis says, in his book New Bearings In English Poetry, “poetry matters because of the kind of poet who is more alive than other people, more alive in his own age.” A poet must also have the “power of making words express what he feels” and this should be “indistinguishable from his awareness of what he feels.” He should be “unusually sensitive, unusually aware, more sincere and more himself than any ordinary man should be.” If a poet and his or her work did not conform to Leavis’s ideas, the poem was not poetry (at least, certainly not great poetry). Some of those authors who he felt accomplished “true” poetry were Eliot, Hardy, Yeats and De La Mare.
Leavis’s criticism had a sense of the past. It related historical context to the poem and poet. The era that the poem was written in and the types of poetry that were being composed in that particular era, he believed, had an effect on the poetry that was composed, the ideas behind it, and the shape/form of that poetry. Historical and social backgrounds were not a focus of Leavis’s criticism. However, the focus of Leavis’s criticism was always on the text in terms of words and how they related to one another, (their ambiguities and contrasts).

Literature and Society

كيف كان يشوف الادب

Frank Raymond Leavis (14July 1895-14 April 1978) was an influential British Literary critic of the early-to-mind-twentieth century. He was born in Cambridge, England, in 1895. He was educated at a local independent private school. Leavis has been frequently (but often erroneously) associated with the American school of New Critics, a group which advocated close reading and detailed textual analysis of poetry over an interest in the mind and personality of the poet, sources, the history of ideas and political and social implications. Leavis possessed a very clear idea of literary criticism. Leavis insisted that evaluation was the principal concern of criticism, and that it must ensure that English literature should be a living reality operating as an informing spirit in society, and that criticism should involve the shaping of contemporary sensibility. According to Leavis, literatureand society are closely related. They are interrelated.
The relation between literatureand society is like body and soul. Society is body and literature its soul. He points out that the study of literature is the study of human life or inherent human nature. To him, human life is synonymous to society. The society plays a great role in making writers. The making of a successful writer occurs only when there is an adequate social collaboration / cooperation. Leavis quotes an example regarding William Blake, who lacked a public, which resulted in his loss of seriousness in writing. Thus the lack of a congenial / helpful society and the absence of adequate social collaboration failed Blake’s power to achieve the artistic achievement. Social collaboration is very essential for the nourishment of a writer’s artistic powers.
Blake’s artistic power lacks of social collaboration. But Jon Buayan is opposite to Blake. He was able to produce a human masterpiece in from of The Pilgrum’s Progress despite its moralizing aim. He got the artistic power Social Collaboration. This was because Bunyan belonged to his civilization of his time. He was at home with his society. The advantage that Buyan enjoyed was that during his time there was a popular culture of the people and he could mingle the popular culture with literary culture in his book.
By giving example of Bunyan’s allegorical book ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’ Leavis brings the idea that without adequate social collaboration successful works of literature will not occur. Thus he established the intimate relationship between literature and society. In Dryden’s Love For All, he shows how people of all classes and different religions, caste and belief live together in a very peaceful can led the best society. Best society can produce best and immortal literature. They are interrelated, interdependent and co-operative. None can go without other. Society is unproductive without literature and literature is blind without society. After all we can say that F. R. Leavis is a modern critic who exhibits who relationship betweenliterature and society.

Some of the accusations of Leavis:
One of the misrepresentation concerned Leavis’s views on university education.
He was accused of being both elitist and anti-democratic, when he protested against “the transition from quality to quantity in education,” against the universities “turning out hordes of ‘substandard’ would-be researchers,” thereby debasing ”research,” and against the accelerating drift of Americanization leading us headlong towards the Comprehensive University; and when he suggested that “neither democratic zeal nor egalitarian jealousies should be permitted to dismiss or discredit the fact that only a limited portion of any young adults is capable of profiting by, or enjoying, university education. The proper standard can be maintained only if the students the university is required to deal with are-for the most part, at any rate of university quality. If standards are not maintained somewhere the whole community is let down".another misrepresentation Leavis suffered from all his life concerned his English style. He was frequently accused of “clumsiness of expression,” “nervous mannerisms of style,” “ramshackle use of language.” One critic compared his English to “a third former’s translation of Cicero”; another described it as “cokelike in its roughness and chill”; and still another blamed him for his “imprecise prose and bad temper.”
. When Leavis’s book on Lawrence was being published in America the publisher’s “stylist” wrote to Leavis suggesting that he clarify a particular sentence in the book. Leavis’s reaction was: “I am not going to attempt that kind of paraphrase for the American or any other reader. It’s like being asked to have a different kind of mind and to have written a different kind of book.
There I stand and, as Luther said, ‘I can no other.’ I tried the sentence on Q.D. Leavis (my severest critic), and she says it would give no trouble to anyone who can read the book.” Clarity of expression, A.E. Housman said, is not a virtue but a duty. But so is fidelity to one’s own thought in all its subtlety and complexity.F.R.Leavis did not have a theoretical approach to criticism. Or rather, he did not overtly have one. Roland Barthes would have criticized him for not declaring his ideology: his value system. Therefore, it is hard to determine whether he had any consistency in his criticisms. Leavis objected to ideologies, such as Marxism, because they dealt with abstractions and a whole world outside the text, whereas his concern began and ended with the printed word. As Eagleton writes ,the text almost became ‘reified’ as Leavis limited his focus to it. If a text can be studied in isolation, then the question raised is why Leavis needs to write about Wordsworth, the poet, instead of just his work. By writing about Wordsworth, Leavis has gone beyond the text.
There is more than just a hint that Leavis knows something of Wordsworth’s life: ”his generously active sympathies had involved him in emotional disasters that threatened his hold on life.”
However, Leavis has not begun with a close reading of any literary text, as he wanted to do. Rather, it would appear that this is an examination of Wordsworth, itself and himself; for Wordsworth can mean both text and author, just as Shakespeare can. To do this it means involves using psychology. It would appear that Leavis is writing with an ideology in mind, and that he is guilty of the same crime that he has accused others of. For instance, Leavis uses abstractions. “Impersonality” is certainly treated as one by Vincent Buckley and, according to him, it is not the only word that Leavis employs in a specialized way.
Another accusation of Leavis is that even though he had written with critical acumen and insight on Mark Twain and T.S. Eliot, the Ezra Pound of Hugh Selwyn Mauberley, as well as about “The Americanness of American Literature,” where he referred to the “American centra1 tradition ” “carrying with it the promise of a robust continuing life” and suggested that “in Jane Austen, Dickens, Hawthorne, Melville, George Eliot, Henry James, Conrad, and D.H. Lawrence we have the successors of Shakespeare,” he was accused of being anti-American. And this because, among other things, he contemplated, as he calls it, “the nightmare of the intensification of what Matthew Arnold feared,” namely, the danger of England becoming a greater Holland or a little America; interpreted the general acceptance, in England, of Hemingway as a great writer, as a sign of the collapse of standards; and showed his astonishment at American academics writing on novels from Jane Austen to D.H. Lawrence with “utter insensitiveness to those refinements of perception, distinction, valuation and interest which imply the collaboratively created human reality they depend on, and, voided of which the novelist’s theme becomes a mere opportunity for such gratuitousness of ‘interpretation’ as the critic’s need to be original may prompt him (or her) to contrive.”
Another thing which is Leavis’s commitment to creativity which needs to be stressed because his detractors have chosen to ignore it, dismissing him as a ‘righteous moralist’ instead of examining what he actually says. The critic’s task, wrote Leavis was ‘not to subscribe to or apply some specific ethical theory or scheme’ to a work, but to keep alive a sense of the literary heritage, that world of ‘human values and significances which is created and maintained by continuous collaborative human activity’ (1972: 174). Leavis is very careful not to define these ‘human values and significances’ because that would be to limit them, to enclose them within the bounds of an enlightenment view of language as purely a means of expression.
i.a.reachards:

[nonaaaa]

بنات بلنسبه لدكتوره نجلا ابد ابد لاتسوون كووبي بيست انتبهووو هي تهتم في طريقتك في حل الاساله من وجهة نظر ناقده يعني لو تحطين رايك مع راي الناقد بتعطيك درجاات كثيرره عليه لانها اكثر من مره قالت انا ما اختبر شي انتي حفظتيه يعني ما تختبر معلومات الرردي هي عارفتها الزبددده تفلسفووو فلسفه مو صاحيه وانتي تحلين تخيلي نفسك ناقد وقاعد ينقد النقاد الثانين



يلا بلتووفيق نصيحه ع الماشي