【Fundamental Course of Writing】
凡事一篇文章,无论第一看多么的恶心,静下心来用这20个问题问过自己,都能找到思路。然后再和几个朋友做一下brainstorming和即时辩论,保证一篇很好的提纲就能做出来
1As a writer, you can begin by asking yourself questions and then answering them. Your answers will bring your subject into focus and provide you with the material to develop your topic. Here are twenty questions or "thought starters" that present ways of observing or thinking about your topic. Each question generates the type of essay listed in parentheses after the question.
1. What does X mean? (Definition)
2. What are the various features of X? (Description)
3. What are the component parts of X? (Simple Analysis)
4. How is X made or done? (Process Analysis)
5. How should X be made or done? (Directional Analysis)
6. What is the essential function of X? (Functional Analysis)
7. What are the causes of X? (Causal Analysis) BE EACW
8. What are the consequences of X? (Causal Analysis)
9. What are the types of X? (Classification)
10. How is X like or unlike Y? (Comparison)
11. What is the present status of X? (Comparison)
12. What is the significance of X? (Interpretation)
13. What are the facts about X? (Reportage)
14. How did X happen? (Narration)
15. What kind of person is X? (Characterization/Profile)
16. What is my personal response to X? (Reflection)
17. What is my memory of X? (Reminiscence)
18. What is the value of X? (Evaluation)
19. What are the essential major points or features of X? (Summary)
20. What case can be made for or against X? (Persuasion)
1(Adapted from Jacqueline Berke's Twenty Questions for the Writer)
追星剑特训之一 Terminology 关键字眼
先看这样一道题:
issue144. "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."
issue15. "The stability of a society depends on how it responds to the extremes of human behavior."
不妨看看这里的depends。如果说社会稳定依赖于、取决于其对极端行为的反应的话,窃以为这里的动词未免有些夸张。诡辩一点的说,如果在absence of the extremes的情况下,是不是就没法判断the stability of a society了呢?与其说depends,倒不如说reflect比较合适。我破题的思路,也即从depends这个关键词入手,通过分析找到并建立新的关键词予以取代,从而建立自己的论点。这和issue144例有所不同,但核心都在于:抓住关键词。
再看两个:
issue17. "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
issue176. "The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each."
issue15. "The stability of a society depends on how it responds to the extremes of human behavior."
不妨看看这里的depends。如果说社会稳定依赖于、取决于其对极端行为的反应的话,窃以为这里的动词未免有些夸张。诡辩一点的说,如果在absence of the extremes的情况下,是不是就没法判断the stability of a society了呢?与其说depends,倒不如说reflect比较合适。我破题的思路,也即从depends这个关键词入手,通过分析找到并建立新的关键词予以取代,从而建立自己的论点。这和issue144例有所不同,但核心都在于:抓住关键词。
再看两个:
issue17. "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
issue176. "The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each."
显然,这两个题目就同时涉及到对两个方面的关键词的辨认和分析。Issue17的关键词在于just law和unjust law,obey与disobey;而issue176则更为复杂,science与reassure,art与upset。可以尝试用上面144和15里面提到的基本方法,先识别一下关键字,然后再结合着整个的题目观点,根据自己的认识来重新选择和建立关键字,从而建立自己的论点,再进行写作。 [追星剑特训]Chapter1.2 More 比较级
事实上,可以猜得到,原作者的本意是强调imagination和knowledge“都重要”,“都不可少”,但是这件事到了英文就有点麻烦。我们在中文里面说“哪件衣服好?”“两件衣服都好”的时候,往往imply的是“两件衣服同样好”——在这里潜在的给出了“比较”;但是到了英文,如果说“both of them are important”,这里面挖地三尺从北京挖到阿根廷也找不出来“they are of the same importance”的含义来。前者是对彼此的独立定性,后者才涉及比较。如果按照中文的“两个都好”来写“both are good”,中文的潜台词可才没带过去。这也是一个超典型的语言背景背叛思维的例子。
而对于某些题目不打算写balance,而打算旗帜鲜明地支持某一方的文章,写起来相对更容易一些。这里面只要注意一下:如果不是一边倒而是有让步的话,注意不要让让步抢了正文的风头;如果是一边倒,那就只管去发挥好了。原则仍然是:要把contrast体现出来,把contrast做足了
[追星剑特训] Chapter1.3 1+1 得寸进尺
破题issue52. "Education encourages students to question and criticize, and therefore does little to promote social harmony."
破题的首要思路当然是对题目做出正面回应。首先作者提出Education encourages students to question and criticize这一事实性命题(注意这里不是倾向性命题,关于事实性命题和倾向性命题的关系下次专门谈),那么作为回应,必须确立自己的观点:到底我自己认为,Education是不是encourage students to question and criticize的?根据不同人的不同背景经历,立刻能够得到丰富的答案:例如,在中学或者大学度过了美好时光在专业学术上正在大展才华,因而对本校的教育很满意的人,可能就立刻回应“同意作者论点”并以自身为例;而曾饱受应试教育摧残高中摧残到考大学大学摧残到考硕士研究生外加自己颇有些愤青思想的人,可能就要趁机大骂作者胡说了;甚至更进一步的,如果有人把眼光放远些之后,例如同时考虑到各个国家之间差别及其影响时,可能就正好用上Chapter1.1里面提到过的Terminology的方法,把Education这个concept给细细梳理先——来个不同国家Education不一样,然后再确立详细的论点——不同Education做法不一样。当然还有更多的可能的态度,在此不一一列举。
同意前半Education encourage student to question and criticize的人,对后半的看法可能截然不同。例如,有人认为,按照古训,民总是愚的好,要是都enlighten了那还了得,一个个都能对社会评三评四例如对政府政策来个冷言冷语蛊惑人心的话整个社会马上就乱掉,的确是对social harmony大大的不利——这就是一种看法。与其恰好相反的看法,则是提出question and criticize是为发展带来的契机,通过发现问题解决问题整个社会得到进步,然后整体的social harmony得到促进和提高,同时再找个历史上的某个时期教育搞得好同时社会超级和谐的例子——又是一种观点。相应的,如果用Terminology的方法把social harmony给拆掉,仍然可以写得出来。
花样儿远不止这几种。对前面反对Education encourages的人而言,后面有可能继续反对,有可能反过来却去支持,有可能拆Terminology,甚至加上前面不同Education对应后面不同的与social harmony的关系,等等。统计学的乘法原理在这里一用,就会发现可能的论点是翻着番儿的增加。