“Menard’s true friends have greeted that catalog with alarm, and even with a degree of sadness. One might note that only yesterday were we gathered before his marmoreal place of rest, among the dreary cypresses, and already Error is attempting to tarnish his bright Memory…Most decidedly, a brief rectification is imperative.”

Early on, in the first paragraph, the critic is drawing distinction between two categories of people: those who are Menard’s friends and those who aren’t, and who therefore tarnish his legacy. This sets up the comparing and contrasting between the two similar groups throughout the rest of the text, reinforcing the story’s dual nature.

“i) a study of the essential metrical rules of French prose, illustrated with examples taken from Saint-Simon (Revue des langues romanes, Montpellier, October 1909); j) a reply to Luc Durtain (who had countered that no such rules existed), illustrated with examples taken from Luc Durtain (Revue des langues romanes, Montpellier, December 1909).”

Hidden in the list of accolades, the critic lists two contrasting works: a study and then a response to criticism regarding that study. This serves as a metonym for the story as a whole; these two entries describe the way in which the story itself is constructed, as a review plus a defense, which gives the reader a rhetorical entry point into understanding the text.

“I shall turn now to the other, the subterranean, the interminably heroic production–the oeuvre nonpareil, the oeuvre that must remain—for such our human limitations!—unfinished.”

This declaration represents a transition in the text from correcting Mme. Henri Bachelier’s catalog to analyzing Menard’s work directly. The diction and tone also serve to reinforce the shift—the grandiosity with which the critic speaks of Menard highlights the literary importance that he will place on Menard’s work.