Shabrangnameh is one of the heroic poems after Shahnameh which is proceeded to take a revenge of Shabrang, the son of White Dave, from Iranians and his battles with Rostam and Iranians. Although the identification and introduction of the work goes back about a hundred and twenty years ago, knowledge and available studies about it are very scarce and its edited text has also recently been published. Shabrangnameh, the poet of which is unknown, has 2877 lines, and it is estimated that it goes back to the sixth century poets. Because this poem is the reference of two courses of the tendency epic literary topics in the Persian Literature PhD program, in this paper, while introducing edition of this book and designing the hints to determine the probable date of its composition, some proposals have been also presented about a part of cases of introduction and recordings of its text.

Undoubtedly, choosing a proper and suitable methodology for a research is regarded as one of the most fundamental principles of a scientific research. Familiarity and knowledge of these research methodologies and approaches will lead to the emergence of valuable and reliable studies.The book, Research Methodology in Simple Language, is written by Maryam Sadeghi. In her book, the author endeavored to clarify the methods and principles of writing a thesis for the students of Persian Literature.The author of the current article concentrates on surveying and reviewing this book. He also points to the weak and strong points of the book in question.  Based on findings of the article, despite the merits of the book such as dealing with research questions, containing specialized exercises, referring to the tables, and most importantly focusing on the field of Persian Literature, the book has many fundamental problems, including the contradiction between the title of the book and its content, the writer’s  lack of  attention to the basic rules of writing and editing, the presence of confusing sentences suffering from lack of enough information, and its incomprehensibility. These shortcomings will prevent its readers from not only its full understanding but also from benefitting from it.

Contrary to the tradition of some scholars such as Forouzanfar, Homaee, Zarrinkoub who mainly discussed life and thought of the author / poet, some of the works by Dr. Shafiee Kadkani are specific and different because they have emphasized the question of form and the form of literary work apart from the content and theme, and they have sometimes written books (poetry, music) or perfectly have crafted oriented articles (based on formalist). Resurrection of Words:  A Lesson of Speeches on Literary Theory of Russian Formalists has been the most formalist work by him which is discussed in the introduction of the formalism (history, teachings and characters affected), and some of his articles have been included which have been written with inspiration from their ideas. With all the advantages that this book has (such as all works by Dr. Shafiee Kadkani), there are some criticisms leveled against it. The main criticisms are as follows: 1- incomplete expression (and possibly incorrect) background / context of the emergence of Russian Formalism, 2- lack of coherence of theories presented by the author, 3- some irrefutable and non-scientific propositions in the book and 4-, the inclusion of chapters such as "potter motif evolution in the poetry of Omar Khayyam" which is not consistent with formalism space of the book of resurrection of words.

This paper aims to look at the form and the content of a book entitled, A Diachronic Narrative Study: On the Rhetorics of Persian Folktales and Literary Fictions (Safi, 20015) in a much more critical way, taken mostly from the narratological approaches. Firstly, the main four chapters of the book are reviewed. The first chapter introduces the concept of “Metalepsis”, taken from Genette (1980, 1988). It is said that the writer has made no good effort to support his claims on this concept. The second chapter discusses “Ravayatgardani”, i.e, a change in the process of narration, but again the writer has not been successful in the categorization of Revayargardani. The third chapter has taken the second pronoun into consideration. Finally, the writer has gone to study the hypothetical focalization in chapter four, and has been successful to a large extant in dealing with such a concept. At the same time, some claims are made for and against of what the writer has stated within each chapter. While appreciating the efforts made by the writer all through the analysis of the book, some suggestions are made for the writer to take into his consideration.

The main aim of the book “Ambiguity function in the process of reading the text authored by Forough Sahba” is to examine complexities discursivities, and narrative techniques making the stories ambiguous. Although the author attempts to present a host of evidence on ambiguous-making techniques for modern stories, there still exist some criticisms on the structure and content of the book which requires its examination more closely.  Disorganization and weakness in the classification of the book’s contents besides misreading of “ambiguity” are the main drawbacks of the present book. More evidently, reducing the ambiguity in stories, merely modern and postmodern ones, equaling the ambiguity with its complexities and discursivities, and also downgrading the ambiguity which are perceived as strategies for maintaining the author’s authority, are the main motives for writing this paper.

The research method is one of the most important requirements of a scientific and academic research, and books published in the context of the research method can help researchers in understanding new and applied methods of research. The field of literature is one of the disciplines of the humanities, and the need to keep pace with the developments in the humanities in this field should be taken seriously.In this paper, while explaining the evolution of methodology in the humanities, the critical evaluation of 10 books in the field of Persian literature has been studied. The results of this research show that in the part of the literature research books, the traditional conception of research and the concepts of positivism about the nature of science and research are seen. The methodology presented in another part of the books is "an interpretative method"; most of these books have not addressed a critical methodology, and in some cases even critical theories are presented in an uncritical and interpretive nature. Two books out of the ten books reviewed in this study have explored the method of research with a critical approach in literature and have considered the need for critical thinking in different stages of literary research. Part of the traditional and uncritical concepts in these books is rooted in hegemony that defines literature as a tool for teaching and critique of the difficulty of literary works and tasty categories.

For a while I wanted to write a note about the state of literary criticism in our beloved country, and I must thank Mr. Emmarati Moghaddam for providing me with the opportunity to do this by writing "Review and Critique of Muslim Philosophers' Poetic Treatises using Aristotle's Poetry Technique: Translation in Times of Want". But first of all, let me say that this article is not a "response to the criticism of a young and talented scholar", rather a discussion of the "style of criticism" which has become popular in critical writing these days and seems to me to be detrimental to literary criticism; a way part of which is probably related to our generation, and as a teacher of that generation I hold myself responsible and partly to blame for that. Sometimes most critics are middle-aged, sometimes the work of critique is given to the elderly and sometimes younger critics are active. Each of these three situations has its own requirements, benefits, and drawbacks that can be addressed in turn. It seems that in the current situation there are more young, talented and aspiring critics who fortunately enter the field of criticism and theorizing one after another. This situation gives us a clear perspective on literary criticism, provided we are all careful neither to involve into "stagnation and compliment and complacency" nor to fall into the trap of "being uncritical." In the other hand, unlike the masters of the generation before us who often adopting a "strategy of silence" against the criticism of their work, found themselves practically as superior than critics or to be criticized, I think the time of so sacred self-concept and knowing ourselves superior to criticism is over, and by responding to criticism from critics, we can accomplish our task of advancing the process of criticism and possibly directing it. Our response to the criticisms written on our works is, first and foremost, the respect for criticism and, second, for the personality of critic, both of which are useful and have good results. I will try to address some of the objections raised in Mr. Emmarati Moghaddam's article, while criticizing the state of literary criticism in our country.

This paper can point to undeniable considerations in criticizing the literary text of Iran by presenting the correct and additional explanation of Derrida's deconstruction and its cognitive requirements, making it faster in the use of new theories and methods of European critique is in Iran. Mojtaba Golestani's book is also criticized for this failure. Thus, the article shows that in understanding, explaining and criticizing the works of contemporary Iranian writers, they should discuss these issues in order to understand the distance between the reader's world and the text for the reader of his own. The writer of the book deliberately as a researcher, like the modern subject, has transformed the texts of Ale Ahmad into the subjects of his research program and has not been able to communicate with the text. In this article, the process of objecting the texts is largely open in a critically acclaimed book. The result of this study is that the critique of the works of such people as Ale Ahmad Shamloo, Shariati, Nima and others is a function of their historical conditions and activities, which should be taken in a concise and balanced way.

Semantics examines the effective ways of language application, and rhetoricians try to teach the eloquence skills to others and perceive the mystery of the eloquent speech by extracting the effective principles of utterance. The premise of Persian Dari rhetoric books is based on the translation of Arabic rhetorical books with several inserted Persian examples, and has long been quoted the same as a few frequent old examples of the deceased, which indicates that the authors do not properly understand the rhetoric. In this article, the book "Rhetoric 1 (semantics)", which is the textbook of the largest university in the country, Payame Noor, was criticized and evaluated in terms of form, content, methodology and theory. Among the merits of the book, it is possible to mention the topics of semantics on the basis of the Persian grammar categories. Among its defects, it is possible to mention the imposition of the rules of Arabic rhetoric on Persian language, the disregard for the dynamics of language, the appropriation of semantics to literary language, the old black or white (biased) attitude towards Rhetoric, lack of attention to the work’s wholeness and inattentiveness to the oral and auditory aspects of language.

The present article is the result of a critical look at the book “Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective” which is translated to Persian by Dr. Mojtaba Monshizadeh and Dr. Tahereh Ishani. Due to the fact that functional approach to linguistic studies in Iran has gained less attention than generative and cognitive approaches, lack of the presence of such a book in Persian, introducing functional approach to language researchers interested in this approach, was strongly felt. For this reason, translators’ attempt is admirable. One of the challenges translators has faced, has been equivalent choices for technical terms in the named approach and the absence of books in this field in Persian has resulted in the present situation which shows lack of Persian sources in functional linguistics. Other difficulties the translators faced have resulted in the emergence of cases which in their own turn require the revision of the book. Therefore, this article is the introduction of the book, its sections and chapters, as well as its strong and weak points.

The history of Iran’s fiction is a book that tries to do research on Iran’s fiction and its genres as novel, short story, etc. It tries to show their evolution by review on their sources and historical background (folk tales, itinerary, diaries, etc.). The writer has written about the kind of novel as historical or detective novel.However, there are some defects too. These defects include structural defects (as distribution of content) and the methodology. The methodology (evolutionist methodology) itself causes some defects, too, such as ignoring some genres as itinerary and diaries and enabling from expressing the reason of some innovations. A research on the content causes some questions, too. The questions that are left with no answer, or unsatisfactory answers.

One of the important and earnest investigations in the field of “study of Molavi”, through the recent decade, is a book named “The Story of the Beloved Ones’ Secret” that emphasizes on Masnavi researching. The secondary title of this book is “Researching the Historical Living and Experiences of Molana in Masnavi”. The book is written by Qodrat-Allah Taheri and published by Elmi Publication (1392 (or 2013)). Emphasizing on three presumptions, this is probably the only book that independently attempts to investigate and analyze the lived experience of Molavi in the most important mystical writing of him. The book considers the story of Masnavi, especially the most leading ones, to be the alternative reflections of Molavi’s states and actions in his real life. To what extent our claim and research objectives are proven and fulfilled regarding the text based evidenced and statistics with an absolute emphasis on Masnavi is an important matter which we reviewed. This article, first, investigated the advantages and unique characteristics of the book in terms of methodology and insight, and second, it focused on the most important challenging features and defects.

Maulana’s Divan, alongside the Masnavi, has, for centuries, been a favorite book with circles of “Sama’,” people of taste and mysticism, and lovers of sonnets. The first critical edition of the book, edited by Foruzanfar, was published by University of Tehran in ten volumes, from 1957 to 1965. All following editions of the book have been prepared, publically or in private, according to Foruzanfar’s edition. Some editions carry the names of particular authors on them, while some others bear just the publishers’ names. Alongside these publications, the only reliable editions are those prepared by Professor Sobhani and published by Ghatreh Publications in 2002. The edition includes notes and explanations. The Foruzanfar’sedition, with all its advantages, had its critics, too. One of them was Professor Shafi’i Kadkani who, in his prominent Introduction to his Selections from Maulana’s Divan, suggested the need for another critical edition of the book. Kadkani’s last work on Mowlana’s Divan consisted of two volumes, published in 2009. The expectation was that the selection would be based on a new attitude towards the manuscripts of the text, but apart from a few corrections, the study is entirely based on the Foruzanfar’s edition. This paper deals with the quality of the Foruzanfar’s edition, the editions published before and after it, and Kadkani’s exhaustive edition, from a manuscriptological and editorial skills perspectives.

This paper introduces and criticizes Abdollah Hassanzadeh Mirali's "A Survey of Naturalism in Iran." First the linguistic, formal, and writing aspects of the book have been analyzed. The writing and editing mistakes and inaccuracies in formal precisions (from incorrect recordings of words to inappropriate use of technical expressions, and the mismatch between titles and the content) have also been shown. In the rest of the paper, referencing and validity of the references have been studied, and the text has been verified against the references that have been used. The final part of the essay has more specifically evaluated and criticized the theoretical framework of the research, methodology, and content. It has been concluded that the three main weaknesses of the book are failure to identify the specific elements of naturalism in theoretical framework, unsystematic data collection and data analysis in the research, and failure to pay attention to the internal logic of the evolution of naturalist fiction in Iran.

The present paper aims to criticizeGhazaliyat - e- Hafez which appears in 5 volumes and 4397 pages. .In this study, the structural and content- based advantages and shortcomings are discussed which are presented as The rise of wisdom, linguistic Horizons, entrance into speech similarities and fashioning of culture.The content-based shortcomings are then analyzed from two points of view: contextual and textual. Moreover, an independent chapter is devoted to the agreement of the book and the principles and presuppositions of the primary source and those of Islam.The last section of the paper draws conclusions from the discussed issues entailing the final judgment about the book. Sharh-e-Showq is accordingly evaluated as among the most valuable and even among the best of the contemporary body of research in the realm of Hafez studies.It can be asserted that it is one of the richest books in terms of investigation and proficiency. It can also be grouped among the best works in the field within the last hundred years. As such, it can play an effective role in furthering the cultural cause in Iran, both strategically and practically.

Thepresent article has evaluated the last three volumes of Tarikh-e Adabiat-e Koodakan-e Iran (The History of Children’s Literature of Iran) in two general areas: 1. The Generalities and the theoretical grounds, including: 1.1. Not explaining the complete literature of the subject, 1.2. not having a clear theoretical base and an explicit approach toward writing the history of literature as a whole and writing the history of children’s literature in particular; 2. The structural-content problems including: 2.1. Not having a coherent structure, 2.2. Not having a clear terminology, 2.3. Not referring to authentic resources and raising unproven claims, 2.4. Covering a very vast historical domain, 2.5. Not having a clear base for the historical periodization, 2.6. Having deficiencies pertaining to the format and the appearance of the book, 2.7. Having writing and editing errors.As a whole, in spite of the theoretical, structural, and content deficiencies, the real importance of this collection is that it has gathered the source materials and documents (specially the scare documents) relating to Persian children’s literature, and one can introduce it as an important reference book in this field. 

As a communicative-epistemological concept, ambiguity is pivotal to any discussion of reading. Due to its roots in different fields of knowledge, as well as its dependence on age, genre, style, etc., ambiguity finds different embodiments in different circumstances. Therefore, it would be very difficult to discuss the concept without delimiting it to specific ages or genres. This paper is a meta-commentary on “The Function of Ambiguity in the Process of Reading Texts” by Forough Sahba. Via her analysis of some modernist and postmodernist narratives, Sahba has argued that despite the theory of the death of the author, modernist and postmodernist uses of ambiguity show the centrality of the author. The book is informative and especially helpful in defining different types of ambiguity. However, it has some shortcomings: it has no literature review; its classifications of ambiguity are not satisfying; and it has a few inconsistencies in its form and content. Moreover, it is based on a contradictory claim.