American literature of the early 20th century saw the rise of a number of influential authors writing in a new style. Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, E.E. Cummings, and Ezra Pound, among many others, left an undeniably deep impact on how we write, even today. The author and poet Gertrude Stein is sometimes included in such lists, but her work is notably less influential than that of her contemporaries. For a number of reasons, critics have often pinned her work as an eccentricity worthy of little more than a historical footnote.
For one, Stein’s works tend to be inaccessible to the reader, primarily because she did not clearly communicate thoughts and emotions in much of her writing. Literary critic Edmund Wilson asserted that Stein’s shortcoming was that she took many of the concepts that underlay Cubism, a style of painting that emphasized visual representation without clear emotion or meaning, and attempted to apply them to language. This resulted in work that relied heavily on the sounds of the words used, rather than on the meanings they held.
Moreover, Stein’s work rarely included conventional punctuation. Her sentences blend together into long, unbroken chains, without commas or periods to signal where one idea ends and another begins. In avoiding punctuation so often, Stein made her prose and poetry unnecessarily difficult to decipher. Few authors have avoided punctuation in the same way because it simply distracts from the writer’s message and adds little value, if any.
Certainly, it is easy to be deceived as to Stein’s literary influence by the historical importance of Stein’s salon—regular gatherings in her home frequented by a number of renowned artists. However, in studies of American literature, the work produced by a figure is far more valuable than are their social connections. Although Stein was close with several major authors and artists of the time, that fact alone does not give her real historical significance.
The reading and the lecture presents contrasting views about Gertrude Stein. The reading, on one hand criticised Stein on various occasions, the lecture, on other hand supports her work by giving relevent claims.
Firstly, the lecturer talks about the irrelevant punctuations not used by Stein in her work. She says that punctuations are like crutch which are used by authors with weak writing and Stein certainly didn't need it. Although, reading complains about lack of punctuations in Stein's writing, the lecturer claims that critics are biased to say such.
Next, she asserts that Stein influenced the future of art by creating the work with underlaying cubism. Meanwhile, the reading decries about Stein's work-it heavily relied on the sounds of the words which she used and was hard to communicate thoughts and emotions, the lecturer posits that it was the most influencial piece of Stein's art.
Refuting that Stein's social salon weren't any of historical importance, the lecturer claims that Stein's social gathering motivated many of the art lovers then and was of immense value, contrasting the view presented in the reading-the value of social connections is not as much valuable as one's work and Stein's closeness with several major authors and artist of the time doesn't give her real historical significance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...s with weak writing and Stein certainly didnt need it. Although, reading complains ab...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 35, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...t. Refuting that Steins social salon werent any of historical importance, the lectu...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 371, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...al major authors and artist of the time doesnt give her real historical significance.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1114.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 211.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27962085308 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81127787577 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64712202274 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578199052133 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 315.9 419.366225166 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 105.030278372 49.2860985944 213% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 139.25 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.375 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0234154508691 0.272083759551 9% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0117791714663 0.0996497079465 12% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0236245151511 0.0662205650399 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0147686221066 0.162205337803 9% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0154141663029 0.0443174109184 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.2008830022 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.