Trickster vs. Picaro

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong5% picked this

   It has systematically denigrated the literary traditions of

   The author doesn't say anything this accusatory. She's not saying that they are purposefully and systematically defiling the literary traditions of Native Americans. She's just saying, "I see why y'all think these two are similar: superficially, they are. But you shouldn't be equating them. They're wicked different."

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong14% picked this

   Its use of the trickster appellation has nothing to do with the Native

   The 2nd sentence of the first paragraph acknowledges the similarities between the trickster and the picaro, so saying the critics' use of trickster has nothing to do with the Native American trickster character is an absolute claim the passage doesn't support. The author's entire argument presupposes that the critics ARE connecting the picaro to the trickster — that connection is the very problem the passage diagnoses. If the critics' use had nothing to do with the Native American figure, the author wouldn't need to spend four paragraphs explaining the difference.

   14%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything13% picked this

   Its reading of picaresque novels is at odds with its reading of Native

   First of all, we have no idea if these critics have ever read a trickster story. This answer is making it seem like these critics have read the trickster stories and came away with some interpretation, but we don't know if they have. They might just be familiar with the term 'trickster' but haven't ever read the source material. For example, I know there's some concept from Nietzsche about "a superman", but I haven't read Nietzsche. I might try to wield his concept of "superman" without every reading him. That doesn't mean my reading of his work is incorrect. It just means that my impression of what that term means is off. Perhaps more importantly, these critics are using picaro and trickster interchangeably, so their reading of picaresque novels would be in harmony with their reading of trickster stories, not at odds. Our author would think equating picaro and trickster is at odds with a correct reading of picaresque novels and trickster stories. But she wouldn't say that the critics' reading of one is at odds with their reading of the other.

   13%
4. D

   Opposite9% picked this

   It reflects an attempt to be precise in the use of

   The author, if anything, is accusing them of being too fuzzy in their use of literary terminology. Pretending like picaro and trickster are synonyms is glossing over a lot of key differences, so that would be an imprecise equivalence to draw.

   9%
5. E

   Correct59% picked this

   It bases its analysis on an incomplete understanding of

   Why this is right

   This answer is frustrating because it singles out a misunderstanding of trickster stories in a way the passage didn't. Who's to say that these critics have a poor understanding of trickster stories? Maybe their incorrect use of "trickster" comes from a poor understanding of picaro stories? Here's where our common sense would have to kick in a bit. The criticism we're talking about is focused on 16th and 17th century European literature, so these dudes are way more likely to be experts at picaro stories but novices when it comes to Native American trickster stories than vice versa. The best reason to come home to this answer is that our Support Window said, "Yet closer examination reveals that applying the term 'trickster' to both characters obscures essential differences between them." closer examination reveals = this criticism was based on an incomplete understanding. If close examination reveals something, then your understanding prior to that close examination was incomplete.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   59%