Comments based on the article "In Camp, Reading 'Les Miserables' "

1. Headline: "In Camp, Reading 'Les Miserables' "
Byline: Louis P.Masur
Date: Feb.9, 2013.
Publication name: The New York Times The Opinion Pages.
Link: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/in-camp-reading-les-miserables/

2. The article titled "In Camp, Reading 'Les Miserables' " provides a deeper explanation of the story behind 'Les Miserables'. It discusses information about the Civil War, the July Revolution from the 1830's, and other battles as well. The writer explains some information about the author.

3. A. The writer did a little research into the history of this story.The author of the story was also interviewed, but with only question. The comments were very cruel from other readers.  There was barely any history. For example, he only discusses the author's history in one line. It states that "He was an opponent of slavery, and in 1859 defended John Brown. "Insurrection," he said, was a "sacred duty."

B. The vocabulary used was very easy to understand, but the sentences were confusing. A perfect example, is when it states that "Perhaps the most dramatic example of how the novel filtered into the imagination of the solider cane from Wilky James, the younger brother of William and Henry James." This sentence could be phrased much better. It makes no sense.

C. There were no good quotes. There were mostly negative comments concerning the book.A perfect example of the most negative comment states that " There is a great deal of trash mixed with the good: long and worthless episodes, not sufficiently connected with the story," claimed the Christian Advocate.

4. A. The lead was very weak because it just mentions when the story was published. That information should be included later on in the story, instead of in the beginning.
B. The nut graph was filled with cruel comments.It was a very weak and negative lead.
C. The ending was very weak because it just had a long passage that could have been shortened.
D. The story organization was weak and made no sense. It was all over the place if it was review and is supposed to make authors understand the story, it did a terrible job at it.
5. I disliked the entire piece. It lacked history about the author. It lacked information about his other published works and incorporated all negative comments. The passage was five miles long and it made the story drag.