|
project tag
|
|
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I agree, but this can be said of the whole article. For instance, the character descriptions read as if none had any effect upon the lives/experiences the others. Isak, for instance, is a cold, un-affectionate husband who wanted a wife to gratify his personal manly needs as well as provide free labor. That is what really drove his wife to infidelity when she'd been "repaired", and it was the lack of love in her own life that resulted in her killing her own hair-lipped baby out of "mercy". Maybe Hamsun didn't intend to say this, he was after all a nationalist and would want to glorify Isak as a hero, but to any un-biased reader this is obvious. I also feel that the book isn't as relativistic towards evil and good as the article would have one believe. --[[Special:Contributions/64.46.3.66|64.46.3.66]] ([[User talk:64.46.3.66|talk]]) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
I agree, but this can be said of the whole article. For instance, the character descriptions read as if none had any effect upon the lives/experiences the others. Isak, for instance, is a cold, un-affectionate husband who wanted a wife to gratify his personal manly needs as well as provide free labor. That is what really drove his wife to infidelity when she'd been "repaired", and it was the lack of love in her own life that resulted in her killing her own hair-lipped baby out of "mercy". Maybe Hamsun didn't intend to say this, he was after all a nationalist and would want to glorify Isak as a hero, but to any un-biased reader this is obvious. I also feel that the book isn't as relativistic towards evil and good as the article would have one believe. --[[Special:Contributions/64.46.3.66|64.46.3.66]] ([[User talk:64.46.3.66|talk]]) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
The link to Lit React should be removed. It's a high school or early-undergraduate level essay; there is nowhere any reference to the novel's place historically among novels or its place in Hansun's development, and never once puts one concept of literary theory to use. Even the kind of analysis it does try - an apportioning of praise and blame for the characters isn't insightful - it does poorly |
|||
 | Novels Stub‑class High‑importance   | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | Norway Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
The Conclusion section reads more like something you'd find in a review than an encyclopedia. The last sentence (...make it something unique and a work which should be revived, and far better known) particularly reeks of opinion rather than anything factual. Jrs044 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this can be said of the whole article. For instance, the character descriptions read as if none had any effect upon the lives/experiences the others. Isak, for instance, is a cold, un-affectionate husband who wanted a wife to gratify his personal manly needs as well as provide free labor. That is what really drove his wife to infidelity when she'd been "repaired", and it was the lack of love in her own life that resulted in her killing her own hair-lipped baby out of "mercy". Maybe Hamsun didn't intend to say this, he was after all a nationalist and would want to glorify Isak as a hero, but to any un-biased reader this is obvious. I also feel that the book isn't as relativistic towards evil and good as the article would have one believe. --64.46.3.66 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Lit React should be removed. It's a high school or early-undergraduate level essay; there is nowhere any reference to the novel's place historically among novels or its place in Hansun's development, and never once puts one concept of literary theory to use. Even the kind of analysis it does try - an apportioning of praise and blame for the characters isn't insightful - it does poorly
