issue110 又回到1个小时~~~烦我~~~~~

so猫UID: 148633

issue110
"When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we never know the past directly but must consttuct it by interpreting evidence, explring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

History is forever a mystery for everyone in the world since it is impossible for anyone to go back to the past and to see what really happened years ago. Historians's job is to narrate and describe the events and people in the past time. Thus the speaker claimed that all the historian are storytellers. I strongly agree with the conclusion that for a successful historian, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than objective pursuit.

Historians are different from archaeologists. Archaeologists are those people who strive to seek for things that existed in the past, such as the ancient craven or past arts; while it is not necessary for  historians to search in the earth or under the sea for flint stone or some other ancient tools. The obligation of a historian is by utilizing the evidence supplied by archaeologist and the existed record on certain era to manage to fix these pieces together to make a full scene about the past. From this point of view, the acquirements of these two professional alters-the objection and carefulness for a archaeologist, and the inspiration and imagination for historian.

After analysis of the distinction between the duties of archaeologists and historians, question still remains whether it is reasonable to say exploring history is much more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. Since the evidences supplied by archaeologist are always incomplete and the current records of the past is more or less with some kinds of prejudice, historian himself has to utilize his own brain to analyze and generalize the relationship of these pieces of information. Thus it can never be avoided that imagination and hypothesis may exist in a historian's narration towards a historical event.  Take the history of ancient China for example. The existed documentary on the Xia dynasty, which is believed the first dynasty in China, is limited and there are few relic discovered; therefore historian have to try their best to "guess" the process of this dynasty. Thus, the controversy exists almost in all the perspectives toward the era of the history. The reason why there are numerous explanations and diverse descriptions on one specific event lie in the difference among the minds and perspectives of these historians.

Admittedly, the imagination and inference play important role in describing the history; however, the objection can never be ignored. The historians, although utilize their imagination and inspiration when they strive to find out a proper explanation to connect all these clues or a clever perspective to make their "story" interesting and attractive, can never become novelist and play writer who can imagine without any boundary to express their own feelings and create non-existed stories the way they prefer. The restrictions on the historians are those clues. It is their obligation for historian to "tell" the story lying behind those silent things, not to "create" them. If a historian creates story as history intentionally, he/she can no longer be a successful historian.

A successful historian is the one who could see through the left relics and documentary thus to tell the story which has been preserved for thousands of years. He/she has the awareness of and insight into the truth in these silent witnesses of time. These pieces of information can be regarded as beautiful beads; while the historian is considered as a piece of thread that connects the beads as a whole to make a grave necklace.   

郁闷啊 时间又上去了~~~
中间被人打断了一下 要我给他改作文
我汗
下次我写作文再不开QQ了 烦人~~

写了一个小时的 是不是比37分钟的强点
大家还是酱紫 留下建议的同时估计估计分数
偶真的不怕打击的 反正我有信心比3分高~~

imongUID: 140258

写得不错嘛，看得出来严重参考了老外280

提一点：tell a story/ create a story其实是很精彩的分析，不过可以考虑考虑有没有比tell+create更加好的用词组合，主要是避免写着写着自己晕菜。另外，Thesie是这个：I strongly agree with the conclusion that for a successful historian, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than objective pursuit. 而body3：the objection can never be ignored. 不对劲吧？

Thesis里面要预先把TS包括进去哦（至少不能独立成这个样子），要不然怎么叫做control，organize，define your essay呢？从一开始就提出&分析清楚objective vs subjective（arch vs historian），tell（其实用interpret比较好） vs create （后面那个），那就基本可以喽~

分数嘛，4.5吧。比37分钟那个好多了。

so猫UID: 148633

严重参考~~~
听起来好象有抄袭的嫌疑~~~
汗一下~~~~

papajohnsUID: 127722

呵呵,的确看的出来有参考的痕迹.不过总的说来楼主的语言功力不错.
我也刚写过这片,(在第4页,昨天刚发就摔的好远以后)观点与你相反不知有没有时间看看,互相交流一下.

hkkk5257UID: 155661

我觉得开头有铺垫感觉要好一些， 但是我请教大侠， 怎么在考场上相处合适的第一句啊——万事开头难啊？or 在下面想好几个成品，考试直接用吗？给点经验，如何让开头写的更smoothly啊？
要去上课了，真的没时间仔细学习了，回来继续请教～！

dawnspeakerUID: 152586

这篇文章我给分的话，比4.5要高
开头很棒，第一段史学家与考古学家的比较那个真是很棒很棒的。我想我写的话是根本想不到这么好的地方。

猫儿还是能写出高质量的文章来的，也是能把时间压缩到很短（比如那个37分钟的帖子）；只不过两个结合是有些路子要走，不过我认为，不远了。快猫加鞭。

smallponyUID: 142978

第一段史学家与考古学家的比较，我觉得还应再斟酌，历史学家就是半个考古学家，不然为什么总听到这样的报道：“在某某土堆下面发现的瓶瓶罐罐对研究某代历史有参考价值”？
我的观点跟你的正好相反：不管历史学家手头的资料有多么复杂，他依旧讲的是“事实“。不过我的文章差好远了，你就当看看另一种观点好了
My article:
   Although they can never know the past directly, historians’ responsibility is to reconstruct the historical events as accurately as possible by analysing and interpreting all documents on hand. Therefore, most professional historians are objective.
   Generally speaking, the work of a historian is to let people understand what had happened in a certain time in the past and what such time's impact on today's lives is. In their research, conserved documents such as old records, books published at that time, letters and all things that can say something about the past. It is a common sense that the earlier that the time is, the less historical documents can be handed down. Therefore, not every epoch has enough records to tell people and historians what was it like. However, people still have their own history constructed by historians. If all historians are storytellers, people will have no so-called history and what they have are only historical novel and imagination. Surely, such inference is groundless.
   In fact, to distinguish the essence of the issue presented by the author, people must admit the fact that sometimes for lack of meaningful evidence, historians have no choice but to make assumption about what on earth had happened. While such assumption has essential differences form the creative enterprise of storytellers. Those storytellers imagine some inexistent stories in order to abstract audience or interpret a concept. Nevertheless, historians make some deduction to prove the existent fact that may took place in a certain time. Moreover, such assumptions are built on the base of the knowledge, experience, trends, the hint of trace and scientific, objective deduction. For instance, no one has exactly known how Hitler died in 1945 because of only two adust bodies were founded in the relic. But after the careful research over a long period of time, historians finally conclude that those two bodies are just Hitler and his lover with the help of the records of Hitler’s dentist. While, many other people suspect that Hitler don't commit suicide at that time and escaped abroad. The latter suspicion does be more interesting but unfortunately lacks of sufficient evidence. Through this example, people can realize that storytellers can create some abstracting "facts", but as responsible founders of history, historians have no right to juggle the fact proceeded from whatever excuses or reasons.
   To be exclusive, people must acknowledge another fact that there do be some irresponsible historians who consider the exploring of history is a creative enterprise rather than an objective pursuit. Under this case, they should be called storytellers or poor storytellers. And also, among those outstanding historians, there are some cases that they are inclined to put their own prospective on historical issues. So, as an efficient historian, one should not only contribute his enterprise to the fact but also struggle with his own subjective views which beyond the fact.
  As a conclusion, people should always have an objective attitude towards the interpretation from those historians and only by this way, people can impel the development of historical research.  (504 words)

so猫UID: 148633

这个关于论点 不好说 因为这些题目本来就没有指望所有人都是一边倒的状态
你的文章我看了看 不错的说 就是字数单薄了点 但看你全文还是完整流畅的 所以还是很不错的
逻辑上我比较不喜欢第二个body那种超级无敌长的段落 觉得说得有点杂 条理还不是那么清楚
一起加油吧~~