Foram encontradas 492 questões.
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
Each of the fragment from the text presented below is followed by a suggestion of rewriting. Decide whether the suggestion given maintains the meaning, coherence and grammar correction of the text (C) or not (E).
“At odds with”: As bizarre as
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decidewhether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
The idea expressed by the fragment “diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries” stands in sharp contrast to the one introduced by “horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature”.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decidewhether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
The expressions “two level games” and “double-edged diplomacy” (R.8) refer to a kind of diplomacy characterized by the presence of two types of actors: political leaders and technical diplomats.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decidewhether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
As far as textual unity is concerned, “Yet” provides a transition from the first to the second paragraphs, and establishes a contrast between the ideas in each of them.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decidewhether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
From the third paragraph, it is correct to infer that the more complex the diplomatic scenario, the more necessary the presence of leaders is.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In reference to the text, decide whether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
Discussions about inclusiveness and diversity in diplomatic circles have led to the expansion of the power of some countries.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In reference to the text, decide whether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
The text presents an opposition between club diplomacy and network diplomacy, which are different and irreconcilable ways of settling international conflicts.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In reference to the text, decide whether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
In the first paragraph, the author presents the main ideas he collected from “Most of the recent scholarly works” on which his argument is built along the text.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text for question.
Most of the recent 1 scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In reference to the text, decide whether the following statement are right (C) or wrong (E).
The hierarchical structure of the diplomatic services in the 21st century is remarkably different from that prevalent in the previous centuries.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Texto para a questão.
No modesto apartamento em que mora na rua Conde de Bonfim, Graciliano Ramos mostrou-me alguns originais dos seus trabalhos. Via de regra, escreve em papel sem pautas, de um só golpe, ao calor da composição. A forma definitiva vem depois. Emenda muito. E até mesmo quando passa a limpo, com sua letra explicativa de escrevente de cartório, corta muita coisa, tudo o que depois vai achando ruim. Às vezes risca linhas inteiras. As palavras morrem sob o traço forte de tinta de uma igualdade assombrosa, como feito à régua.
Graciliano guarda os originais dos livros já publicados. Assim pude verificar um curioso detalhe da feitura de Vidas Secas. Os capítulos, datados, indicaram-me a ausência de seguimento na elaboração da narrativa. “Baleia”, o nono capítulo, foi o primeiro a ser escrito, em 4 de maio de 1937. Um mês e pouco depois, precisamente no dia 18 de 16 junho, escreveu o quarto capítulo, “Sinha Vitória”. E assim todo o livro, que não obedeceu a nenhum plano antecipado.
— Escrevi a história de um cachorro de meu avô — conta o romancista, cigarro Selma com ponta de cortiça entre os dedos queimados de fumo. — Os episódios foram-se amontoando. O livro foi crescendo. E assim arrumei Vidas Secas, que pensei em chamar “O mundo coberto de penas”, título de um dos capítulos do livro.
A vida de Graciliano Ramos está sempre presente na sua obra, no que ela tem de mais humano e doloroso.
— Caetés é uma história de Palmeira dos Índios. São Bernardo se passa em Viçosa. Angústia tem um pouco do Rio, um pouco de Maceió e muito de mim mesmo. Vidas Secas são cenas da vida de Buíque [Pernambuco].
Todos esses romances exigiram do autor um longo e penoso trabalho de composição.
— Não sou como José Américo — disse —, que primeiro escreve na cabeça e depois transporta o livro para o papel. A obra de criação, para mim, é quase sempre imprevista. E espontânea. Refaço tudo, depois. Escrever dá muito trabalho. A gente muitas vezes não sabe o que vai fazer. Sai tudo diverso do que se imaginou.
Francisco de Assis Barbosa. Graciliano Ramos, aos cinquenta anos. Reportagem biográfica. In: jornal Diretrizes, Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Biblioteca Nacional RJ, 1942. Apud: Ieda Lebensztayn e Thiago Mio Salla (Orgs.). Conversas – Graciliano Ramos. 3.ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2014, p. 119 - 20.
Julgue (C ou E) o item, a propósito das ideias e de aspectos morfossintáticos do texto de Francisco de Assis Barbosa.
O trecho “A vida de Graciliano Ramos está sempre presente na sua obra, no que ela tem de mais humano e doloroso.” poderia ser reescrito, sem prejuízo das informações originais do texto e de sua correção gramatical, da seguinte forma: Está sempre presente na obra de Graciliano Ramos aquilo que, na sua vida, é mais humano e doloroso.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Cadernos
Caderno Container