<p>Kael made much out of the progress in her writing from the semiformality of her early essays to the unbuttoned exuberance of her late ones, but I think it mattered more to her than it did to her readers, for whom the early writings were already a jolt. The voice was already there. That voice became instrumental in reshaping the American critical language, stripping it down and making it colloquial. But between, say, the rich bombast of H.L. Mencken and the late Kael’s fanciful slang, there were significant way stations, such as Dwight Macdonald and James Agee, both of whom Kael admired. These writers were consciously direct and informal; so she was, but by the end of her career she was so bent on bringing the FIZZ of the American vernacular into literary usage that her slang took on a richness of its own. She said she wanted to talk about movies the way people talk about them leaving the theater, and her prose does seem to replicate the human voice.</p>
<p>What best describes Kael’s view of “the fizz”?
a. It is lively and compelling.
b. It was previously more vibrant that it is now.
c. It is very American in its strict formality.
D. It was adopted by too many film critics.
E. It is loud and abrasive</p>
<p>The answer is A. I used the process of elimination on this question and came up with A, but I’m trying to adopt the Collegeboard’s way of thinking. Would Collegeboard approach this question by using “She said she wanted…voice” as evidence? But in my view, you would have to assume that going out of the theatre, people would be lively and compelling. Can one assume this (I guess you can… but I thought that you should never assume ANYTHING on critical reading questions).</p>
<p>Also, if anyone has this QAS, could you give me an explanation for number 20 on section 9 (this question was on the same section) as well (specifically why E is right and why C is wrong)?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>This whole paragraph in general talks about how Kael wanted to bring informality and colloquialism into American literature…“The voice was already there. That voice became instrumental in reshaping the American critical language, stripping it down and making it colloquial.” “These writers were consciously direct and informal;”</p>
<p>But the major evidence,like you said, looks to me like…“leaving the theatre” sentence. People usually do talk about movies they just watched enthusiastically (lively and compelling matches here) as they are leaving the theatre. Don’t you? Don’t you have a lot to say about what parts you liked, what parts you didn’t like, etc etc? So yea, I would agree that that is the major clue here.</p>
<p>Okay, I might sound ■■■■■■■■ and this might not make sense, but you would technically have to assume that they would talk lively because the text didn’t DIRECTLY say that the they were talking in a lively manner. I thought we weren’t supposed to assume anything. </p>
<p>Also, I understand the main idea.</p>
<p>Really old thread but let’s renew it! I’m pretty sure you could get the answer by process of elimination (much more efficient than looking for the choice in the passage). E) It is loud and abrasive, never said this, one may assume this given the nature of coming out of a movie but this answer is a “true to you answer” to me since some people may identify with this answer choice D) Probably the opposite since you could infer that she was making new ground (being influenced by two writers) C) This isn’t KAEL’s view, this is our view or more specifically John bennets B) No indication what so ever, it says vibrant so people may be attracted to the answer but this answer is poor</p>
<p>That leaves us with A) it is lively and compelling. If one were to look back in the passage one would see ear the beginning of the paragraph “Kael made much out of the progress in her writing from the semiformality of her early essays to the unbuttoned exuberance of her late ones” and later “but by the end of her career she was so bent on bringing the FIZZ” Fizz goes hand and hand with unbuttoned exuberance since they are near the end of Kael’s career. So you may safely say that it is lively and compelling since theres much enthusiasm and excitement in Kael’s later writings.</p>