Issue110 新人报到，下月中旬考

lqqmUID: 180532

Issue110  第1篇 大家多多指点！
480字 1小时

------题目------
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.
------正文------
The study of history is different from facts in history. The later is objective, unable to be changed, while the former is a subjective process which depends on the ideas of historians and many other factors. Therefore, I agree with the speaker's opinion which compares historians to storytellers, with the reasons followed.

In the first place, the absence or lack of material is the main reason that makes it impossible for us to revivify the history to what it uses to be. Different from archivists, whose function is to preserve evidence, good historians should piece together all the evidence and construct the history based on their knowledge and attitudes. Especially when it comes to the ancient history, there is very little information available. For example, the living status of our ancestors three thousands years ago is a mystery to contemporary people, because historians can only get trivial evidence from some old literary works or legends. In this situation, what historians could and need to do is to interpret them. The less information we could handle, the more similar to stories their interpretation seems.

In the second place, study of history is heavily influenced by the subjective thoughts of historians. People with different background, characteristics and attitudes will surely hold diverse views to the same historical event. Furthermore, politics also plays a weighty role in studying history. Take World War II for example; Asian people could never forget the crime committed by the Japanese soldiers during 1930's and 1940's. However, even nowadays Japanese government still honors some major war criminals as the heroes. In fact, the opinions of any government inevitably have some influence on the interpretations of history, more or less. Especially in some autocratic countries, historians have become the tongues of the politicians.

Moreover, history has never been a solitary discipline. Anyone studying history should not ignore the relationship between history and literature. Most of the literary works are based on some events in specific period in history. Furthermore, the appearance of historical fictions blurs the boundary between history and literature. And some prominent characters of literature, such as lifelikeness and imagination, have also been applied in the interpretation of history.

After all, to represent the historic events is the final aim of all the historians. The study of history would lose its meaning if it deviates from the aim. Thus, standing to the truth is always the most important requirement for an excellent historian.

To sum up, the insufficiency of materials and the subjective essence of revivifying history prevent historians to render an absolutely objective history. Moreover, social factors such as political pressures set up a limitation for the study of history. Therefore, it is not exaggerated to compare historians to storyteller. But the most important thing which should not be neglected is that facts are the foundation of the study of history and conformity to truth is still the first criterion for a historian.

poohUID: 146994

------题目------
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.
------正文------
The study of history is different from facts in history. The later latter is objective, unable to be changed, while the former is a subjective process which depends on the ideas of historians and many other factors. Therefore, I agree with the speaker's opinion which compares historians to storytellers, with the reasons followed.

In the first place, the absence or lack of material is the main reason that makes it impossible for us to revivify the history to what it uses to be uses?改成used吧 . Different from archivists, whose function is to preserve evidence, good historians should piece together all the evidence and construct the history based on their knowledge and attitudes. Especially when it comes to the ancient history, there is very little information available. For example, the living status of our ancestors three thousands years ago is a mystery to contemporary people, because historians can only get trivial evidence from some old literary works or legends. In this situation, what historians could and need to do is to interpret them. The less information we could handle, the more similar to stories their interpretation seems.最后这句很精彩

In the second place, study of history is heavily influenced by the subjective thoughts of historians. People with different background backgrounds, characteristics and attitudes will surely hold diverse views to the same historical event. Furthermore, politics also plays a weighty role in studying history. Take World War II for example; Asian people could never forget the crime committed by the Japanese soldiers during 1930's and 1940's. However, even nowadays Japanese government still honors some major war criminals as the heroes. In fact, the opinions of any government inevitably have some influence on the interpretations of history, more or less. Especially in some autocratic countries, historians have become the tongues of the politicians. 这一段条理清楚，例子比较恰当吧，但是这个例子似乎还没有说完，如果说日本政府已经把这些criminals 当作heros写入了history, 这就写到了点子上。

Moreover, history has never been a solitary discipline. Anyone studying history should not ignore the relationship between history and literature. Most of the literary works are based on some events in specific period in history. Furthermore, the appearance of historical fictions blurs the boundary between history and literature. And some prominent characters of literature, such as lifelikeness and imagination, have also been applied in the interpretation of history. 这个论点找的很不错，不容易想到。但是本段没有深入展开，只是停留在了表面，比如：the appearance of historical fictions blurs the boundary between history and literature，那么是如何blur的？如果把这点展开讨论就可以增加本文的深度

After all, to represent the historic events is the final aim of all the historians. The study of history would lose its meaning if it deviates from the aim. Thus, standing to the truth is always the most important requirement for an excellent historian. 这个final aim有点孤零零的感觉，它跟你的thesis是什么关系呢？stand to truth 是说historians不同于storyteller吗？如果是，就不要把话只说一半，一定要说到点子上，在是否stand to truth上来比较二者的不同。

To sum up, the insufficiency of materials and the subjective essence of revivifying history prevent historians to render an absolutely objective history. Moreover, social factors such as political pressures set up a limitation for the study of history. Therefore, it is not exaggerated to compare historians to storyteller. But the most important thing which should not be neglected is that facts are the foundation of the study of history and conformity to truth is still the first criterion for a historian.
Your concluding para is not bad. 全文比较流畅，有几处的用词和句子也比较精彩，对题目的理解也比较到位，写的不错，但是如果能说理更透彻更准确就更好了。

lqqmUID: 180532

感谢pooh，第一个给我改作文的人
给了我很大鼓励！

poohUID: 146994

加油!你写的不错:)