ACT Exam  >  ACT Questions  >  Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic&... Start Learning for Free
Adapted from "Why a Classic is a Classic" in Literary Taste: How to Form It by Arnold Bennet (1909)
The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop Stubbs's Select Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply don't know from one day to the next what will please them.
In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.
And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompany King Lear or Hamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.
Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?
  • a)
    They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.
  • b)
    Shakespeare is easily accessible.
  • c)
    Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.
  • d)
    Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: H...
The author of this passage seems to have little faith in the ability of the majority to come to the “right” conclusion without the influence of the minority. It is therefore easy to rule out the majority of answer choices on the grounds that they reflect a faith in the capabilities of most people. The author explicitly states his feelings in lines 34–36 when he claims: “But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes—not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist.”
Explore Courses for ACT exam

Similar ACT Doubts

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageHUMANITIES: The Tain Bo Culainge: Early Irish EpicIreland has the oldest vernacular literature inEurope. Where other early European authors wrotetheir literary works in Latin, the Irish began writingdown their stories in their own language starting at least(5) as early as the 6th century A.D. and continuing to themodern day. While much of the earliest Irish writinghas been lost or destroyed, several manuscripts sur-vive from the late medieval period (12th through 16thcenturies). These books usually contain collections of(10) stories, many of which are much older than the booksthemselves.One of the most famous of these collections is theepic cycle, The Tain Bo Culainge, which in translationmeans “The Cattle Raid of Cooley.” It’s often abbre-(15) viated to simply The Tain. In its narrowest sense, theraid refers to a series of battles fought by the north-ern Irish province of Connacht to steal a magic bullfrom the neighboring province of Ulster. However, thecycle includes many other legends that together tell the(20) national story of the people of Ulster, especially dur-ing the reign of the great Ulster king, Conchobor macNessa.According to The Tain, Queen Medb of Connachtorders the raid because there are only two magic bulls(25) in all of Ireland, and, as her husband, Aillil, has thefirst, she determines to acquire the second. Her deter-mination makes more sense when one considers thelaws of the time. Wives were considered legal equalsto men if they came into their marriage with as much(30) or more property than their husbands. If she had less,the wife would be a legal dependent of her husbandand, like a child, would have limited rights of her own.Irish queens were used to having their own politicalautonomy and making their own political deals. Medb’s(35) insistence on equaling the property of her husband wasfor reasons far more serious than vanity.During the cattle raid, Medb’s forces are joinedby Fergus, the former king of Ulster, and his men.The bull is defended by the current king, Conchobor,(40) and the young warrior, Cu Chulainn. The middle ofthe story tells of how Cu Chulainn single-handedlyfends off Medb’s army while Conchobor’s men strug-gle against an ancient curse. In the end, many warriorsdie, both bulls are killed, and peace is re-established(45) between Connacht and Ulster.Of course, this is merely plot. Thematically, thework explores several great issues that would occupymedieval authors for over six hundred years. One ofthe most important was the lovers’ triangle between(50) the king, the queen, and the warrior hero. Think of theromances of King Arthur, Queen Guinevere, and SirLancelot, or those of Tristran, Isolde, and her husband,King Mark. In The Tain, Queen Medb takes up withthe warrior Fergus, with the approval of her husband,(55) in order to guarantee Fergus’ allegiance during the war.Of course, in the early Irish versions, the message isfar more subtle than an extramarital affair. Accord-ing to Irish mythology, Medb was a demigoddess—thepersonification of power itself. As she herself notes,(60) power never goes long without a suitor. Still, evenMedb’s daughter, Finnabair, is tied linguistically tothe Arthurian legend: Finnabair and Guinevere aredifferent spellings of the same name.At least as interesting as the raid itself are the(65) remscela (literally, the “before stories”) that tell howthe situation for the raid came to be. The remscelatell how the bulls were originally two pig-keepers whoknew magic; the stories explain how the Ulstermencame to be cursed with debilitating pain whenever their(70) country was in danger. They explain who Cu Chulainnwas and how he got his name. And, most poignantly,the remscela tell how Fergus lost his crown and whyhe agreed to fight against his countrymen. This laststory, told in the tragic legend of Deirdre and the Sons(75) of Usnech, is one of the most striking of all the Irishmyths.Over twelve hundred years old, The Tain is cer-tainly an epic work—but epic doesn’t necessarily mean“dead.” If the images meet a cultural need, they can(80) come back to life as living artistic works. During theEnglish occupation of Ireland and continuing throughthe Irish Revolution, many artists plumbed the depthsof Irish mythology to create what they saw as an imageof Ireland free of English cultural repression. Writers(85) still call on The Tain for inspiration, just as ancient Irishbards once called on the ghost of Fergus to tell themthe true story of the Cattle Raid of Cooley.Q.The author most likely includes the information in lines 60–63 (“Still even Medb’s daughter, Finnabair, … same name”) to suggest that

Directions:In the passages that follow, some words and phrases are underlined and numbered. In the answer column, you will find alternatives for the words and phrases that are underlined. If you think that the original version is best, choose “NO CHANGE,”. You will also find questions about a particular section of the passage, or about the entire passage. These questions will be identified either by an underlined portion or by a number in a box. Look for the answer that clearly expresses the idea, is consistent with the style and tone of the passage, and makes the correct use of standard written English. Read the passage through once before answering the questions. For some questions, you should read beyond the indicated portion before you answer.The following paragraphs may or may not be in the most logical order. Each paragraph is numbered in brackets, and One Question will ask you to choose where Paragraph 4 should most logically be placed.PassageSacajawea: Girl Guide1. Probably one of the most well-known members of the Shoshone Indian tribe, Sacajawea may have been (1) Americas first introduction to the plight of the working mother. As depicted in numerous works of art, photos, and statues, (2) Sacajawea is most famous for accompanying Lewis and Clark on their expedition to the Pacific Ocean. From early April of 1805 until the summer of 1806, the 17-year-old Sacajawea and her infant son rode horseback across mountains and rivers from North Dakota to the west coast. She demonstrated a sense of calm and quiet determination throughout the trip, as reflected in (3) their journals kept by the other members of the tireless group.She was always described as being helpful and unobtrusive, caring for her child while at times aiding the party in obtaining supplies and finding easier pathways through treacherous territory. (4)2. Sacajawea’s early life was (5) traumatic; she was stolen as a young girl from her Shoshone home by a rival tribe. Soon after, however, French-Canadian Toussaint Charbonneau bought Sacajawea and made her his wife. At age 16, she gave birth to her son and (6) with her husband, son, and the Lewis and Clark party, her trek began shortly thereafter.While historians often refer to Sacajawea as an official guide for this expedition, she was only included on (7) it’s roster because she was married to Charbonneau, a well-known fur trapper. Along the way, because of her familiarity with her homeland, she was able to serve as both an interpreter and an aid for finding shortcuts and easier routes.3. At one point on this historic journey, Sacajawea (8) is reunited with her Shoshone home and family. Although she found that (9) most - believe it or not - of her immediate family members had perished, her surviving brother, Cameahwait, had become the chief of the Shoshone tribe. Sacajawea was able to negotiate with her brother for horses and (10) supplies, as well as for a map and guide so that they could press forward with their mission. (11)4. Controversy surrounds the end of Sacajawea’s life. Some historians list (12) the year of 1812 as the year she died at the age of 25. Shoshone history, however, records Sacajawea as living the remainder of her life on the reservation where she was born and dying there at age 97.5. Many of the personal narratives of this momentous trip refer to Sacajawea’s demeanor and the oftentimes subtle role she played in the trip’s success. One such account describes a river crossing in which Sacajawea’s boat nearly capsized during a storm. As the boat tipped onto its side, Sacajawea carefully and calmly began retrieving the many books and precious instruments that fell into (13) them. Fortunately, the items had been wrapped in waterproof material and remained intact. The group was convinced that all would have been lost had it not been for Sacajawea’s methodical and composed actions.6. (14) Despite the questions surrounding her death, there is no question that Sacajawea left her mark on American history.Q. (2)Which of the following alternatives to the underlined portion would NOT be acceptable?

Directions: Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageHUMANITIES: William Faulkner: Great Southern AuthorBorn in Mississippi in 1897, William Faulkneris touted as the master of such revolutionary literarydevices as stream of consciousness, multiple narra-tions, and time-shifts within a narrative. During a(5) career that spanned more than three decades, Faulknerproduced literary works filled with emotional turmoiland unflinching honesty. His unique interpretation ofhistory is highlighted in the symbolism and imageryof his writing. It has also been argued that Faulkner’s(10) works are some of the best representations of SouthernGothic literature ever written.It is clear that Faulkner’s Deep South roots greatlyinfluenced his writing. He was a prolific writer whoseworks both parallel and depart from popular myths of(15) southern culture. Faulkner’s remarkable understandingof race relations and his clever satire of Southern characters stemmed from his memories of growing up inrural Mississippi. He set many of his short stories andnovels in the fictional Yoknapatawpha County, based(20) on what Faulkner referred to as “my own little postagestamp of native soil,” Lafayette County, Mississippi.It was there, immersed in traditional southern lore, thatWilliam Faulkner began to write of the great political,social, and economic transformation taking place in the(25) Deep South, depicting traditional society in timelesshuman dramas.Faulkner came from an old and relatively promi-nent Southern family. He grew up surrounded bytraditional folklore, family stories, accounts from the(30) Civil War, and lectures about being a Southern gentle-man. In his works, Faulkner examined how traditionalvalues and beliefs affected Southern society after theCivil War. Faulkner particularly abhorred the rampantracism and abuse that African Americans suffered in(35) the South. Although Faulkner’s novels do not shy awayfrom describing the brutality and anguish that life canbring, his works are filled with profound compassionand humor. Faulkner refused to avoid painful or contro-versial issues and he was intrigued with understanding(40) human freedom. His work explores, condemns, andanalyzes obstructions to human freedom and happi-ness by examining racism, shame, fear, false pride,and abstract ideals. Much of Faulkner’s exploration isdone using brilliant symbolism and exquisite dialogue.(45) For example, his novel The Sound and the Fury,published in 1929, dealt with the painful demise ofa distinguished southern family and demonstrated arich variety of literary styles, relying most heavily onstream-of-consciousness writing, in which a character’s(50) thoughts are conveyed in a manner roughly akin to theway the human mind actually works.Faulkner’s mastery of unique literary styles wasformally recognized when, much to his surprise, hewas awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1949.(55) Always his own harshest critic, William Faulkner con-sidered many of his books failures because they did notlive up to his high expectations. However, it is clear thatFaulkner’s experimental literary techniques simultane-ously perplexed and challenged his readers, who were(60) more often than not inspired by his insightful analysisof the human spirit. Faulkner continued to explorethe interconnections between his characters and theircounterparts in the real world until his death in 1962.In the months before his death, Faulkner updated(65) his will, leaving the bulk of his manuscripts to theFaulkner Foundation at the University of Virginia,where he had been appointed its first Writer-in-Residence. While the original documents are protected,electronic versions of the collection are freely available(70) to scholars of great Southern literature and others inter-ested in gaining additional insight into the life’s workof a truly revolutionary American author.Q.With which of the following statements about Faulkner’s literary style would the author most likely agree?

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageHUMANITIES: Tennessee Williams: Celebrated Southern Gothic WriterAmerican literature encompasses many uniquestyles and genres, including Southern Gothic. As itsname implies, the literature reflects life in the AmericanSouth. It maintains some of the characteristics of(5) Gothic writing, such as use of the supernatural orthe ironic; however, Southern Gothic does not focuson creating tension and suspense as do other Gothicgenres. Instead, its storylines examine Southern peopleand their postbellum social structure.(10) Writers in the genre generally spurn the pre-Civil-War stereotype of the plantation gentleman and theglamorous Southern belle. Instead, the authors developcharacters that are sinister or reclusive and not par-ticularly pleasant on the surface. Nevertheless, these(15) characters usually have redeeming qualities that allowand encourage the reader to sympathize with their sit-uations and dilemmas. It is through these immoral andunhappy personalities that the Southern Gothic writeris able to present and explore moral issues of the(20) American South, such as slavery and bigotry, withoutblatant accusations.Many American authors are known for theirSouthern Gothic style. Playwright Tennessee Williams(1911-1983) is among the most celebrated. Williams’(25) long list of plays and novels include the Pulitzer Prizewinning stage dramas A Streetcar Named Desire (1948)and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1955). Williams’ charac-ters are known to be modeled directly on membersof his own family. For instance, it is speculated that(30) the pitiable character Laura in The Glass Menagerie(1944) is modeled after Williams’ mentally disabledsister Rose. In the same play, Amanda Wingfield issaid to mirror Williams’ own mother. Williams evenportrays himself in Suddenly, Last Summer (1958) and(35) The Glass Menagerie. His adult life, plagued withdepression and alcoholism, appears to play out in hisembroiled characters.If Tennessee Williams was a tormented man, itwas due in no small part to his troubled family.(40) As a seven-year-old in Mississippi, Williams contracteddiphtheria and remained housebound for two years.His mother, fearing for Tennessee’s mental wellbeing,pushed him toward creative arts during his period of ill-ness. It was she who bought him a typewriter at age 13,(45) which he heartily accepted.Having already moved once, the Williams familyeventually relocated to St. Louis, where Tennessee’sincreasingly abusive father Cornelius squeaked outa living as a traveling shoe salesman. Tennessee’s(50) mother Edwina was a genteel sort prone to smother-ing. The most traumatic event in the young writer’slife, however, occurred when his sister Rose, describedas a slender, refined beauty, was diagnosed withschizophrenia.(55) Various treatments were unsuccessful duringRose’s years of residence in mental asylums. In 1943,the Williams parents consented to the now-defunct pre-frontal lobotomy in an effort to treat her schizophrenia.The operation was ruinous and Rose lay vegetative(60) for the rest of her life. The fallout came whenTennessee blamed his parents for authorizing the oper-ation. In the 1960s, he wrestled with the notion thathe, too, would go insane. A decade of depression tookhold. He would, at least nominally, overcome it, but(65) Tennessee Williams’ family life would haunt him therest of his days.Q.The author’s attitude toward the subject of the passage can best be characterized as

Directions:In the passages that follow, some words and phrases are underlined and numbered. In the answer column, you will find alternatives for the words and phrases that are underlined. If you think that the original version is best, choose “NO CHANGE,”. You will also find questions about a particular section of the passage, or about the entire passage. These questions will be identified either by an underlined portion or by a number in a box. Look for the answer that clearly expresses the idea, is consistent with the style and tone of the passage, and makes the correct use of standard written English. Read the passage through once before answering the questions. For some questions, you should read beyond the indicated portion before you answer. The following paragraphs may or may not be in the most logical order. You may be asked questions about the logical order of the paragraphs, as well as where to place sentences logically within any given paragraph.PassageA Medical JournalWorking as an editor for my university’s medical journal is very(1) demanding, and myfellow editors and(2) I spentlong hours year-round maintaining the various parts of the publication.(3) In late summer, theeditorial board reconvenes in anticipation of the new fall semester. We develop a formalcall for papers(4) nationwide research institutions are distributed to,from which we gather a wide variety of papers and reports dealing with all areas of medicine, human biology, and public health.(5) Researchers, and authors, are notified of our calls for papers through our web site, e-mail list, and the flyers that we mail.(6)They all receive submissionsby the end of October 21 every year. Editors read each work carefully over the following(7) month and submittheir critiques to the other members of the board.(8) They always getas many bad papers as good ones.(9)Those we have trouble deciphering are(10) immediately declining, and if the formatting is poor, we insist on a revised copy from the author. The editors agree that each paper must reflect the professional standards of the journal and the medical community.(11) For instance,they choose those works that they feel provide the most beneficial information for the journal’s readers. Despite this policy, disagreements can still occur.(12) With passion, editors argue often for their choices.By January, we have enough content to fill three monthly issues of the journal. Once we finalize the(13) layout, we sendall three issues to the print shop. When the pallet-loads of journals arrive in our office, we hire some undergraduates to address, sort, and bundle them for mailing. In the intervening time, the editorial board(14) meetsagain to plan the next three issues and to call for more papers. The sixth and final issue of the year appears in June, and once all work is done, we take off to enjoy a fewmonths of(15) vacation, well-earned.Q. (5)

Top Courses for ACT

Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for ACT 2025 is part of ACT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the ACT exam syllabus. Information about Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for ACT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for ACT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for ACT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Adapted from"Why a Classic is a Classic" inLiterary Taste: How to Form Itby Arnold Bennet(1909)The large majority of our fellow-citizens care as much about literature as they care about airplanes or the policies of the Legislature. They do not ignore it; they are not quite indifferent to it. But their interest in it is faint and perfunctory; or, if their interest happens to be violent, it is spasmodic. Ask the two hundred thousand persons whose enthusiasm made the vogue of a popular novel ten years ago what they think of that novel now, and you will gather that they have utterly forgotten it, and that they would no more dream of reading it again than of reading Bishop StubbssSelect Charters. Probably if they did read it again they would not enjoy it—not because the said novel is worse now than it was ten years ago; not because their taste has improved—but because they have not had sufficient practice to be able to rely on their taste as a means of permanent pleasure. They simply dont know from one day to the next what will please them.In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is originally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him as sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reinforced by the ardor of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savoring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvelous stage-effects which accompanyKing LearorHamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.Q. Why does the author believe the majority can be convinced of Shakespeare’s genius?a)They faithfully accept the reasoning of the minority.b)Shakespeare is easily accessible.c)Greater literacy rates have increased the capacity of the majority.d)Genius will always inevitably be appreciated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice ACT tests.
Explore Courses for ACT exam

Top Courses for ACT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev