Hi Andrew!

First off, let me just say that I am quite at home, reading your lit paper. For me, 20th century lit gives its readers the broadest and yet most refined works out there. There is literally something for everyone.

Anyway, what I noticed about your paper is that it oscillates between historical and literary concerns. There's a lot of background on futurism and surrealism, to the detriment of the literary analysis. You could amp up the historical front and place these schools of thought in conversation or competition with each other (i.e. how did the realists view the futurists and vice versa? do they have a lasting impact? what current or later writers can we connect to these two movements? what is the public perception of the movements? Marinetti mastered the art of polemics, that's for sure. What happens to critical discourse when viewed through the futurist or surrealist lens?).

Or you could forego the history for straight up literary analysis, in which you just dig into the texts, pulling out gems and relating the prose to the world from which it sprang (i.e. critical reception,  any influence that your primary texts exerted over future writers). With the literary analysis, you can assume that your literary scholar/reader is already familiar with futurism and surrealism, or capable of finding the info elsewhere.

I hope this has been helpful. I liked the short story you posted on your page and how you make use of long silences that just have to be filled with something. It's like we have a compulsion for noise, even if that noise just translates into nothing.

-Meghan

For Andrew's paper, click here.

Thanks for the advice. I'm glad this didn't completely bore you. Yea, the twentieth century was a great one for literature. So many different movements and genres came about during this time. There literally is something for everybody. Even people who don't like reading would probably get a kick out of surrealism and dadaism. I wonder what will come out of this century. that's up to us!