Dramatica Theory and James Washington Square :: James Washington Square

Dramatica Theory and James capital of the United States Squ be In this essay I will review a critique of James Washington Square. I found the critique to be dry and rather clinical in its approach to this fine name by Henry James. From the pedigree the article presents a cold psychological approach to the characters that James has made zippy for me in the short novel. The article covers the characters name, gender, a short description of him or her, the role that character plays in the piece and then goes on to distinguish the basic characteristics of him or her. Motivation, methodology, evaluation and purpose are the four characteristics that are used to describe a character. The analysis does refer to the original work in many places. I found this to be helpful. For example when it describes Catherine Sloper it takes a quote from the novel to list her as, a dull, plain girl she was called by rigorous critics (James 11). This did help redeem the article somewhat. But the basic paradox I found with the analysis kept leaping up. Its too scientific an approach for any literary work. The main fuss with Dramatica, for me, seems to be in that the theory tonicitys at a story in relation to, the minds problem solving process (What is Dramatica?). This area of the website goes on to explain that an author must(prenominal) examine all possible solutions to an issue in the story. In an ride to prove that the authors solutions are the best. The Dramatica theory of critique states that if, you have covered every angle in your argument, youve mapped all the ways an audience might look at the problem and, therefore, all the ways anyone might look at that problem (What is Dramatica?). This mapping turns any piece into a psychological juke study and relieves it of any beauty that it may contain.