issue110，高频题，请大家狂拍

混事魔王UID: 157546

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

The speaker claims all historians are storytellers because exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. Personally, I hold an opposite standpoint with the speaker. Historians are not and should not be storytellers. My reasons go as the following:

Historians and storytellers are different because their obligations are diverse. Historians’ job is to draw the description of the past and tell us such things as the culture, way of thinking and religion beliefs at that time. Storytellers are to tell some creative stories by their imagination aiming at attract readers or inspire listeners. Obviously the obligations of these two jobs vary significantly. Through a little comparison historians bear much more fearsome tasks. They are not only expected to tell us what affairs happened at a particular time in history but also and the most important is to develop those affairs into historical law. However, storytellers need only to say what they want, neither do they need to interpret their sayings into a systematic way. In a word, the career of historians and storytellers are in different realm. From this point to say, we cannot simply assert historians are storytellers.

Moreover, the process of working between historians and storytellers varies significantly. From on side, the way of probing historical facts and synthesizing those facts into a systematic subject require their ability of judgment, experience and knowledge. On the way of reconstruct history, historians have to collect data and do some validation, to manage them in a logical way, to reinterpret the way we have built. For historians should try to make their research as close to the historical facts as possible, their jot call for high degree of accuracy because lacking accuracy would deviate our historians away from the discovering the truth. Thus historians have to gain a certain abilities to ensure they are their accuracy. Collecting date and evidence and confirming them are carried out carefully and deliberately, and many approaches have been tried by historians in order to better understand the information available properly. Working on this path, historians have to respect the truth and try to find them out. However on the other hand, storytellers are comparatively much easier in their work. What storytellers really need is to cope with listeners, no basis they must obey, and nothing they have to find out. Their work is mostly in a casual way. Evidently historians are completely different from storytellers as a result of varied working.

Admittedly, storytellers and historians share some similarities in their work. As we all know, both qualified historians and storytellers require a high power of imagination. Most successful stories share the merit of creative and fantasy, like gone with the wind and pride and prejudice. They are all created by imagination rather than facts. Similarly, historians must contain the quality of imagination as well. Imaginably, the facts we have collected are always vague and incomplete to catch the truth, hence the only path to reach the point is to imagine and point out the most possible situation. In reality, most of our history knowledge is derived in this way. After all, we don't have a personal experience in ancient time, therefore some scenes of that period we have induced in historical books are fabricated by our historians based on imagination and information they have got. However, it is improper for us to conclude historians are storytellers due to this mere similarity.

To sum up, historians are definitely not storytellers even though they have some similarities, because their obligations and details of working are absolutely different. Hardly can I imagine what history research would be provided that all of our historians are storytellers.


感觉题很变态
写得自己都不知道自己在说什么了
欢迎大家踩踏！

xqmelissaUID: 140370

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


The speaker claims all historians are storytellers because exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit.  How about restate the topic, other than copy it. Personally, I hold an opposite standpoint with the speaker. Historians are not and should not be storytellers. My reasons go as the following:

Historians and storytellers are different because their obligations are diverse. Historians’ job is to draw the description of the past and tell us such things as the culture, way of thinking 这是什么表达啊？没见过 and religion beliefs at that time. Storytellers storytellers’ job is are to tell some creative stories by their imagination aiming at attract attracting readers or inspire inspiring listeners. Obviously the obligations of these two jobs vary significantly. Through a little comparison historians bear much more fearsome tasks. They are not only expected to tell us what affairs happened at a particular time in history but also and the most important is to develop those affairs into historical law 这句话语法有问题啊，你自己查一下. However, storytellers need only to say what they want, neither do they need to interpret their sayings into a systematic way. 不是吧？什么是你所谓的“a systematic way”呢？比较乱的说 In a word, the career of historians and storytellers are in different realm. From this point to say, we cannot simply assert historians are storytellers.

Moreover, the process of working between historians and storytellers varies significantly. From on one side, the way of probing historical facts and synthesizing those facts into a systematic subject require requires their ability of judgment, experience and knowledge. On the way of reconstruct history, historians have to collect data and do some validation maybe “tests”，我觉得是检验, to manage manage them them指代不清 in a logical way, to reinterpret and reinterpret the way we have built should be built. For historians should try to make their research as close to the historical facts as possible, their jot jobs call for high degree of accuracy because lacking accuracy would deviate deviates our historians away from the discovering the truth from the truth. Thus historians have to gain a certain abilities to ensure they are their accuracy. Collecting date and evidence and confirming them are carried out carefully and deliberately, and many approaches have been tried by historians in order to better understand the information available properly. Working on this path, historians have to respect the truth and try to find them out. 怎么觉得你这么长的一段就是翻来覆去的说那一个意思啊？需要检验，需要准确，太罗嗦了！ However on the other hand, storytellers are comparatively much easier in their work. What storytellers really need is to cope with listeners, no basis they must obey, and nothing they have to find out. Their work is mostly in a casual way. Evidently historians are completely different from storytellers as a result of varied working.

语言问题基本没有给你挑啊，自己检查一下
Admittedly, storytellers and historians share some similarities in their work. As we all know, both qualified historians and storytellers require a high power of imagination. Most successful stories share the merit of creative and fantasy, like gone with the wind and pride and prejudice. They are all created by imagination rather than facts. Similarly, historians must contain the quality of imagination as well. Imaginably, the facts we have collected are always vague and incomplete to catch the truth, hence the only path to reach the point is to imagine and point out the most possible situation. In reality, most of our history knowledge is derived in this way. After all, we don't have a personal experience in ancient time, therefore some scenes of that period we have induced in historical books are fabricated by our historians based on imagination and information they have got. However, it is improper for us to conclude historians are storytellers due to this mere similarity.

To sum up, historians are definitely not storytellers even though they have some similarities, because their obligations and details of working are absolutely different. Hardly can I imagine what history research would be provided that all of our historians are storytellers.


后两个段落没有仔细看，但是总体而言觉得跑题了，尤其BODY3，跑的太厉害了！
你看看题目，说的是：历史学家是不是一个讲故事的人。
你不同意观点，认为不是讲故事的，那么应该讨论为什么不是。
你的BODY1说：一个主观，一个客观，没问题！
BODY2说：工作过程不同。而在段落之中，你一直在说的是历史学家需要检验证据的真实性，需要准确，可是好象依旧是BODY1的意思啊，就是客观性的问题啊。
而BODY3偏的比较远了，说有相似性，但是你的总POSITION，在开头段说的是“Historians are not and should not be storytellers”，是不是联系不上了呢？

这个题目前两天我也想过，如果你写否定意见呢，我觉得你可以从客观性和科学性上说，而这两个正好被你揉到一起了，所以显得很乱的样子，我觉得啊。

不过，我觉得否定的观点不好写，我就想到了这两方面，而且例子不好举。

我准备写肯定的观点：就是历史学家就是讲故事的人。
TS为：
1、历史学家在复述历史的时候会搀杂自己的主观意见，导致不同的人写出来的东西不同，比如司马迁的史记对秦国的评价很低，但其他人的评价比较高等。
2、历史学家的知识面不一定够宽，以致于在还原历史的时候会造成偏差，还原上的错误。
3、以前的资料有些可能被篡改过，导致我们无法确知真实的过去。
我的这个观点在我的ISSUE221的BODY3中有体现的，你去看一下：
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175682

另外，你的语言比上一次好多了，不过还有些细节问题，估计不会太影响成绩吧，反正能注意点最好了。

你这篇文章，类似的和相关的文章可能有许多前人写过，或者还有范文。你可以搜索一下，对照一下这些文章。 或参照该帖：《在本版找前人作文的方法》http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthr ... hlight=%CC%E2%BA%C5

希望你也能多多修改其他朋友的文章。尤其是提点结构上和想法上的建议。因为你不可能每个题目都练过来啊，看别人的题目，自己脑子过一遍,既可以给别人提建议，自己又多了一次训练的机会.为别人服务的人优先得到斑竹的修改哦！

xqmelissaUID: 140370

恩，还有一点
不要全用理证，很难说清楚的
最好例证

xqmelissaUID: 140370

啊
还有,你只是比较了historians和storytellers的区别
但是题目问的是historians是不是storytellers,你却没有说
对吧?

nmlyUID: 109487

我觉得首先你的文章为了看起来整体的结构更紧密
POSTION应该改成类似
"Historians are not storytellers due to their different obligations and processes of working, although they indeed share some similarities"


但是从整篇文章来看,我觉得虽然不算跑题,也是没能抓住重点,题目中花了这么大笔墨写了一个because.....不能这么不给它面子不理它吧

小狗圆圆UID: 155823

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

一下为引用:by xqmelissa
[我准备写肯定的观点：就是历史学家就是讲故事的人。
TS为：
1、历史学家在复述历史的时候会搀杂自己的主观意见，导致不同的人写出来的东西不同，比如司马迁的史记对秦国的评价很低，但其他人的评价比较高等。
2、历史学家的知识面不一定够宽，以致于在还原历史的时候会造成偏差，还原上的错误。
3、以前的资料有些可能被篡改过，导致我们无法确知真实的过去。

我觉得姐姐的TS和论点结合的不够紧密吧,
1.        主观性导致复述有偏差
2.        知识面导致复述有偏差
3.        资料导致记录有偏差
我这样有概括了一下,不知道是不是和姐姐的原意相似,
1.        是不是将故事的人就是靠主观的呀,历史学家也不能客观的再现历史,所以我就说历史学家是将故事的人. 我觉得姐姐没有把TS和中心的论述结合起来,怎么论述因为是一个受主观影响的过程所以历史学家就成了将故事的人那?
2.        问题同上,角度相似,都是从历史学家的主观角度谈
3.        与论点无关吧,历史学家在这个过程中的作用??^_^!

个人认为这个题目包涵三层意思:
1,我们怎样的know the past
2. exploring history
3. the role of historian
我的提纲(刚刚想的不成熟):
的确,我们不可能回到过去experience history, 我们只能通过story了解历史,however, when it comes to the role of history, I consider, 他们不仅要将故事,更要真实和公正的讲故事,more importantly的是他们要构建一个完整的历史,并用历史帮助我们了解规律预测未来.因此,speaker的观点太片面
1.        我们在故事中了解历史.在没有文字的时候,我们的即使通过部落里的storyteller来了解我们的过去,祖先的事迹,祖先的文化;文字出现之后,我们能更好的记录历史,了解历史,从历史事件我们了解前人的思想和经验,理念等(最好举个例子,我还没有想好,给各提示?).反过来,如果没有故事的话,我们就是在吹嘘我们的文明,也没有任何称之为经验的东西.
2.        对于人们的这种在故事中了解历史的需求,历史学家要学会讲故事,并且为了使人们更好的了解历史,历史学家应该客观的,公允的记述历史,还历史本来的面目.(有点像姐姐的第一段,就举那个例子轮园了说吧)
3.        历史学家如果只局限在将故事就失去了历史研究本身的意义了.历史研究使为了构建一个完整的历史,有因果和内在逻辑关系的历史,而不是一个按照时间堆砌的时间构成的历史.更重要的使,我们不仅要从历史时间中学习经验,更重要的使要通过历史的客观规律了解我们以后社会发展的方向,而这些需要历史学家的工作.

个人观点,知道姐姐使牛人呀,我是小辈讨教一下!^_^!

lionelUID: 51199

本题就两个句子，每个句子都出现了storyteller这个特殊的名词。特别是第二句，也就是总结句，题目作者再次强调这个观点历史学家是storyteller。因此，文章的展开应该围绕着storyteller。如果这还不够理解题目作者的苦心，估计ETS的出题人要吐血了。

另外，根据webster的权威解释，STORYTELLER和LIAR是同义词

lionelUID: 51199

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus

Main Entry: storyteller
Function: noun

Synoyms: LIAR, Ananias, falsifier, fibber, fibster, perjurer, prevaricator

小狗圆圆UID: 155823

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

原来是那个意思呀,谢谢呀, 给出了一个因果关系的提示,应该考虑一吧,个人观点,还有原文是3句吧

xqmelissaUID: 140370

我觉得你的观点有问题的，你只是将题目拆成了三段，但是我不认为这种破题方法适用于这个题目，因为这个题目就是要说的是“历史学家是不是一个讲故事的人”，而题目中的因果关系不过是作者的一个推理罢了，可用可不用吧

混事魔王UID: 157546

太感谢楼上几位了！


如果我这么写：
1。历史学家是靠严密的推理和客观事实工作
2。storyteller是靠想象和灵感创作
3。历史学家要避免成为storyteller

行不行？

xqmelissaUID: 140370

行吗？
考虑考虑

但是我认为题眼是说历史学家究竟是不是讲故事的人（骗子），而你说的似乎一、二还是在分别阐述吧，你觉得呢？