I believe this depends solely on personal preference. A work of literature that you like may not be good to somebody else, so the way you feel about something makes it either good or bad. I believe I am pretty comfortable determining the quality of literature given that I have read a lot of books and have an overall grasp of each literary era throughout history. It can be easy to critique a text if you are knowledgeable enough about that particular era, style of writing, and general context, but it could also be quite difficult depending on the topic of that work.
The author has used rhetorical devices like parallelism to emphasize the miserable and hopeless condition of the migrants who were despised and hated but had no option but to swarm the town to fight hunger and survive.
<u>Explanation
:</u>
The chapter talks about the agrarians who were ruined by industrialization. Industries and technology pushed them on the roads. They moved in search of food and to give their families a meal to survive.
Parallelism has been employed at places to underline the misery, the dejection and distress.
For instance, in one of the paragraphs, just to stress on the simplicity of the agrarian folks before they were brought near to doom: ‘a simple agrarian folk who had not changed …….. who had not farmed. They had not grown up….’
This repetition of phrases and clauses is parallelism. The chapter is replete with such examples. It lends it unity and realism and appeals to emotions.
Trojan (one of the most complicated threats)
