Passage Discussion

[yoohoo081]

Hello~ Can you help break down the paragraphs?
For me, when I go back over the Qs and try to match with what I had underlined or circled as important- None matched.
I don't think I understood the passage properly.

Paragraph 1:
General Idea- what Mexican American literature is perceived as
(literature by US citizens of Mexican descent)

Details of features- written in both English & Spanish; work is Mexican(tradition/ myth) but geographical setting in US; different content & concern from Mexican literature

Paragraph2:
General Idea- More characteristics of Mexican American literature

Details- simple in structure; common themes of struggle to overcome agricultural adversity; feelings of being distanced from traditions of rural Mexico & strive to hold them; images of the land (Mexico) symbolize culture, spiritual & religious benefits of working land

Paragraph 3:
View of Mexican writing by Critics - Later compar to Mexican American literature in view of Mexican literary community

Detail characteristics are described

Paragraph 4:
Purpose of Mexican American writers- to form new identity

Author's PV: Very scholarly & not emotionally for or against Mexican American literature or Mexican Literature.

For me, I thought the scale (although harder to identify) was between
New Mexican literature references to Mexico vs. New Mexican literature having own identity (this was the "heavier" side)

Please correct me if I misunderstood any of the passages & if possible to do a more correct PEAR analysis.
Thank you!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post!

I think your outline looks pretty okay, but I disagree with you on one major point: the author definitely does take a side. At the end of the third paragraph, he or she dismisses the Mexican establishment's criticism of Mexican American literature: "But the apparent simplicity of what this [Mexican literary] community sees as parochial concerns belies the thematic richness of Mexican American writing." In other words, the Mexican literary establishment wrongly views Mexican American literature as simplistic and narrowly regional in focus.

The next paragraph goes on to explain how Mexican American literature is in fact really rich in thematic content. So the author definitely can be seen as a fan of Mexican American literature. (Not that he dislikes Mexican literature, but he disagrees with their criticisms of their north-of-the-border counterparts.)

You dig?

[yoohoo081]

Gotcha.

I read last sentence in 3rd paragraph as a fact, not as Author's PV.
Also, makes sense that last paragraph expands on the thematic richness after just dismissing the idea.

Misinterpreting the passage as "facts" and not "PV" made it tough, but I see what this was talking about.

THANK YOU!