Precis writing. I need constructive criticism from seniors.

[Hannibal]

EXAMINATION 1978
I was a firm believer in democracy, whereas he (D. H. Lawrence) had developed the whole philosophy of Fascism before the politicians had thought of it. “I don’t believe,-”he wrote, “in democratic control. I think the working man is fit to elect governors or overseers for his immediate circumstances, but for no more. You must utterly revise the electorate: The working man shall elect superiors for the things that concern him immediately, no more. From the other classes, as they rise, shall be elected the higher governors. The thing must culminate in one real head, as every organic thing must-no foolish republics with no foolish presidents, but an elected king, something like Julius Caesar,” He, of a course, in his imagination, supposed that when a dictatorship was established he would be the Julius Caesar. This was the part of the dream-like quality of all his thinking. He never let himself bump into reality. He would go into long tirades about how one must proclaim “the truth” to the multitude, and he seemed to have no doubt that multitude would listen. Would he put his political philosophy into a book? No in our corrupt society the written word is always a lie. Would he go in Hyde Park-and proclaim “the Truth” from a soap box? No: That would be far too dangerous (odd streaks of prudence emerged in him from time to time). Well, I said, what would you do? At this point he would change the subject Gradually I discovered that he had no real wish to make the world better, but only to indulge in eloquent Soliloquy about how had it was. If anybody heard the soliloquies so much the better, but they were designed at most to produce a little faithful band of disciples who could sit in the deserts of New Mexico and feel holy. All this was conveyed to me in the language of a Fascist dictator as what I must preach, the “must” having thirteen underlining.”


Precis.
Author quotes D.H Lawrences once staunch support for democracy prior to developing a taste for fascism. He deemed an average man was unable to choose leaders other than his immediate working superiors. Moreover, he emphasized a hierarchical electoral system where higher segments of society would choose governors leading to one ultimate ruler. He often bragged the kite of his imagination into higher clouds where he wanted everyone to know his version of the truth. His superficial claims made the author suspicious of his practical approach. Neither would he be writing nor he would be delivering any pompous speech about it. However, author did believe that he could earn a few followers if anybody could hear the dominating tone he used to convey his notions to me.

It took me 40 minutes and it was very difficult for me to understand this passage. I am still confused about it.

[Norymberskie]

I am not an expert but will give you my opinion. It is evident from the first two lines of your precis that you have not understood the passage(do not get discouraged though, the passage is difficult to understand on first reading).

Precis.
Author quotes D.H Lawrences once staunch support for democracy prior to developing a taste for fascism.
Lawrence never supported Democracy.

He deemed an average man was unable to choose leaders other than his immediate working superiors.
He considered democracy good for solving our immediate problems. You misunderstood the line 'The working man shall elect superiors for the things that concern him immediately'. By elect superiors he simply means elect people as leaders. By immediately, he refers to the immediate problems, not immediate superiors.

Moreover, he emphasized a hierarchical electoral system where higher segments of society would choose governors leading to one ultimate ruler.
Looks good.

He often bragged the kite of his imagination into higher clouds where he wanted everyone to know his version of the truth.
The article doesn't mention Lawrence wanting everyone to know his version of the truth. It only says that he imagined himself as the King without caring about how unreal(unpractical?) his thinking was.

His superficial claims made the author suspicious of his practical approach.
The author is not suspicious at all. He clearly mentions 'He never let himself bump into reality' which shows he knew about it instead of being suspicious about it.

Neither would he be writing nor he would be delivering any pompous speech about it.
True. He would stay undecided. I think a better option would be to say 'He would consider different options but when asked which one he would choose, he'd simply change the subject. This convinced the author that Lawrence never intended to actually solve the problems. He just liked talking about them'. I know its too long for a precis but that is the point I understand from the passage.

However, author did believe that he could earn a few followers if anybody could hear the dominating tone he used to convey his notions to me.
Looks good.

You write well, but if you fail to understand the meaning conveyed in the passage, your precis will not be accurate.

[Hannibal]

Thank you norymberskie for your detailed evaluation. I will be writing more in this very thread. Please keep visiting here.

[Norymberskie]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Thank you norymberskie for your detailed evaluation. I will be writing more in this very thread. Please keep visiting here.

Sure. As long as I am motivated for CSS I will keep visiting.

[infinite optimism]

The writer is talking about his reading of D.H Lawrence's book, who was the founder of the fascism.The rest of the paragraph is about Lawrence's arguments in favor of the fascism.

[Hannibal]

Lying is indeed an accursed vice. We are men, and we have relations with one another only by speech. If we recognized the horror and gravity of an untruth, we should more justifiably punish it with fire than any other crime. I commonly find people taking the most ill-advised pains to correct their children for their harmless faults, and worrying them about heedless acts which leave no trace and have no consequences. Lying - and in a lesser degree obstinacy - are, in my opinion, the only faults whose birth and progress we should consistently oppose. They grow with a child's growth, and once the tongue has got the knack of lying, it is difficult to imagine how impossible it is to correct it. Whence it happens that we find some otherwise excellent men subject to this fault and enslaved by it. I have a decent lad as my tailor, whom I have never heard to utter a single truth, even when it would have been to his advantage. If, like the truth, falsehood had only one face, we should know better where we are, for we should then take the opposite of what a liar said to be the truth. But the opposite of a truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field.

The Pythagoreans regard good as certain and finite, and evil as boundless and uncertain. There are a thousand ways of missing the bull's eye, only one of hitting it. I am by no means sure that I could induce myself to tell a brazen and deliberate lie even to protect myself from the most obvious and extreme danger. St Augustine said that we are better off in the company of a dog we know than in that of a man whose language we do not understand. Therefore, those of different nations do not regard one another as men and how much less friendly is false speech than silence.


The ills of lying.
Lying is considered a habitual sin. Ties among men are held by verbal bonds. Lying is an intense offence and must be reprimanded harshly. Parents are often misguided by taking unproductive measures to rectify their children's petty wrong-doings. Conversely, the focus should be solely over curbing lying constantly. Children grow habitual to it and even great men are helplessly compulsive to lying. Unlike the truth, a lie is multi-faceted. Besides, there are innumerous ways of hiding the truth but only one way to speak it. Preferably, a company of one honest fellow is better than many liars. Hence, saying nothing at all is considered more friendly over lying.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by infinite optimism

The writer is talking about his reading of D.H Lawrence's book, who was the founder of the fascism.The rest of the paragraph is about Lawrence's arguments in favor of the fascism.

The passage was very difficult for me.

[Norymberskie]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

Lying is indeed an accursed vice. We are men, and we have relations with one another only by speech. If we recognized the horror and gravity of an untruth, we should more justifiably punish it with fire than any other crime. I commonly find people taking the most ill-advised pains to correct their children for their harmless faults, and worrying them about heedless acts which leave no trace and have no consequences. Lying - and in a lesser degree obstinacy - are, in my opinion, the only faults whose birth and progress we should consistently oppose. They grow with a child's growth, and once the tongue has got the knack of lying, it is difficult to imagine how impossible it is to correct it. Whence it happens that we find some otherwise excellent men subject to this fault and enslaved by it. I have a decent lad as my tailor, whom I have never heard to utter a single truth, even when it would have been to his advantage. If, like the truth, falsehood had only one face, we should know better where we are, for we should then take the opposite of what a liar said to be the truth. But the opposite of a truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field.

The Pythagoreans regard good as certain and finite, and evil as boundless and uncertain. There are a thousand ways of missing the bull's eye, only one of hitting it. I am by no means sure that I could induce myself to tell a brazen and deliberate lie even to protect myself from the most obvious and extreme danger. St Augustine said that we are better off in the company of a dog we know than in that of a man whose language we do not understand. Therefore, those of different nations do not regard one another as men and how much less friendly is false speech than silence.


The ills of lying.
Lying is considered a habitual sin. Ties among men are held by verbal bonds. Lying is an intense offence and must be reprimanded harshly. Parents are often misguided by taking unproductive measures to rectify their children's petty wrong-doings. Conversely, the focus should be solely over curbing lying constantly. Children grow habitual to it and even great men are helplessly compulsive to lying. Unlike the truth, a lie is multi-faceted. Besides, there are innumerous ways of hiding the truth but only one way to speak it. Preferably, a company of one honest fellow is better than many liars. Hence, saying nothing at all is considered more friendly over lying.

Looks good to me. At least from the point of view of understanding the passage, you've done well.