0

This question, posted in its entirety below, was recently posted. It rapidly attracted close votes and is currently on hold.

While I can see that it's arguably downvote-worthy (do your own damn homework, you pesky kids!), it's on-topic and seems very answerable.

Why has it been closed?

enter image description here

14
  • 8
    In the sense that I can’t understand what they’re asking?
    – Adamant
    Feb 4 '17 at 11:07
  • @Adamant - Per my earlier comment; It seems totally clear that he's asking for a textual analysis of the way in which a set of characters are portrayed, with small examples to show it. e.g. Lobelia is entitled, greedy and duplicitious; "after he had relieved her of several small (but rather valuable) articles that had somehow fallen inside her umbrella", etc, etc. –
    – Valorum
    Feb 4 '17 at 11:12
  • 3
    I downvoted because it doesn't acknowledge being a homework question, and treats prospective answerers as, well, people to dump own homework to, specifically by asking for "specific evidence" and almost ordering to use adjectives. I voted to close because it doesn't contain an actual question in the question body.
    – Gallifreyan
    Feb 4 '17 at 11:55
  • 2
    @Gallifreyan That last part is easy to fix by an edit (which I've just done).
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Feb 4 '17 at 12:18
  • @Gallifreyan - Does it need to contain a question in the body? Sure the one in the title is sufficient.
    – Valorum
    Feb 4 '17 at 12:47
  • I don't know I up voted.
    – KyloRen
    Feb 4 '17 at 12:50
  • 2
    Voted to reopen, but would've given more downvotes if I could. Not only does the question not respect the people who are supposed to answer it, it also doesn't show any sign of self-improvement.
    – Gallifreyan
    Feb 4 '17 at 13:06
  • Agreed that it's not unclear. It should have been closed as primarily opinion-based, since literary analysis isn't strictly objective.
    – Anthony Grist
    Feb 4 '17 at 13:27
  • 2
    @AnthonyGrist Not all questions have to be strictly objective. Literary analysis is a textbook example of Good Subjective by SE standards; such questions lend themselves well to excellent, detailed, and well-supported answers.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Feb 4 '17 at 13:39
  • 1
    @Randal'Thor I know they don't have to be strictly objective, but I'm also not convinced that literary analysis questions - or, at least, this literary analysis question - are "good subjective". I don't think "also provide explanation" is sufficient to excuse a question that is still essentially "What do you think about this topic?"
    – Anthony Grist
    Feb 4 '17 at 13:46
  • For me, it's too vague. If there had been any attempt to clarify it in the question body I wouldn't have voted to close. As is, I don't know what the questioner is asking. It just reads as 'give me some information on the characterisation of the Sackville-Bagginses'. It's answerable. But at the same time it's not clear what aspect of the Sackville-Bagginses the questioner is curious about. Questions should have a specific focus, not just invoke random literary analysis.
    – The Dark Lord
    Feb 4 '17 at 13:54
  • 1
    I downvoted for lack of research and voted to reopen.
    – FuzzyBoots
    Feb 4 '17 at 14:09
  • The question has now been reopened. Without trying to second-guess the close-voters' motives, I'm just going to drop a link to our site's policy on homework questions and also to the Good Subjective, Bad Subjective SE blog post.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Feb 4 '17 at 18:25
  • It's closed again. For the same reason :-)
    – Valorum
    Feb 5 '17 at 8:26
1

I was the first person to vote to close it the second time, because despite the helpful comments - especially Valorum's - I think it's still unclear.

He's asking for a textual analysis of the way in which a set of characters are portrayed with small examples to show it. e.g. Lobelia is entitled, greedy and duplicitious; "after he had relieved her of several small (but rather valuable) articles that had somehow fallen inside her umbrella", etc, etc - Valorum

  • Which Sackville-Bagins, or is it both of them?
  • Should it be an overall picture that applies to both of them? or should it be an analysis of each of them separately?
  • I would guess that "Textual analysis" is overblowing what the homework assignment is asking for, but it's... unclear.
  • How do we know he wants "small examples"?
6
  • Yes, there are a number of clarifying follow-up questions that are essentially necessary to give an answer to this question, without the context of say, the instructor's rubric or the rest of the assignment. Aside from that, not all the votes to close were for "unclear", but also "too broad" which is also applicable.
    – user31178
    Feb 5 '17 at 3:44
  • 1
    A good answer would cover all the points you've raised. Which one? Why not both!, Individual or family? Why not both! Small examples or larger quotes? Why not give them a selection!
    – Valorum
    Feb 5 '17 at 8:55
  • @CreationEdge For the record: of the 10 close-votes so far, eight were for "unclear", one for "too broad", and one with a custom "off-topic" reason.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Feb 5 '17 at 13:38
  • 1
    @Valorum That "Good" answer seems like it needs to cover too much to be good, because the scope is too broad.
    – user31178
    Feb 5 '17 at 18:41
  • @Randal'Thor I'd probably change mine if I could. Sometimes when you feel it's both it's just a matter of a mental coin flip for which reason you actually click.
    – user31178
    Feb 5 '17 at 18:41
  • @CreationEdge - Nah. It can probably be accomplished in under a few dozen lines of quotes and maybe 5-10 lines of text. In a day or two, I'll post it on Literature:SE with a pre-prepared answer.
    – Valorum
    Feb 5 '17 at 18:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .