issue110 , 题目太抽象了,麻烦有时间的朋友帮忙看看

clausiusUID: 147331

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.


I do not agree with the author's statement that studying history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. I also disagree with the statement that all historians are storytellers. As far as I am concerned, I maintain that history is a subject only based on facts and historians are not storytellers, but researcher who exploring historic facts. The following discussion will substantiate my standpoint.

Firstly, history is equal to the facts existed in the past. In other words, there is no fiction in history. History is not the mythology, story or fable. Correspondingly, historians are not mythology-tellers, storytellers, or fable-tellers either. As we known that the whole academic system of history is based on considerable information on facts happened in the past, which can only be revealed by digging debris, exploring caverns, or turning to documents. The goal of all these methods is displaying the facts in the past honestly. Therefore, history is a subject without any imaginative things.

Secondly, even though most art works includes some content related much with the historical facts, they are not history, but historical reconstruction, or historical imagination. For instance, in a novel (novel is a kind of imaginative literacy style, there are some materials referring to the historical fact about the civil war in America, however, we cannot use this novel as a history textbook to teach American history, since the historical fact in this book is only a tool to create an imaginative background, and all the book actually does not reflect the history in America, and even distort it. Thus, we cannot call those imaginative books “history ", even if they have some historical fact.

Thirdly, when people talk about history, often they are prone to constructing it by the way that is beneficial to them. Thus, people construct history not because they cannot know history directly, but because they want to do that. A good example in point is Japan. Nowadays most Japanese politicians do not acknowledge that the Japanese armies have invaded China in the Second World War, which, in fact, is a historical fact known to most people in the world. Those Japanese politicians, also people distorting history, even said that the invasion to China is “help China develop economy". Since they held their own benefit by ignoring historical fact, such kind of interpretation of history is not real history, but ridiculous fiction.

Based on the discussion I have mentioned above I reaffirm without any hesitation that history is a subject only based on facts and historians are not storytellers. Art works, though including historical fact, is not history. Similarly, the fact that has been distorted by people is not fact either. Real history is the record that really reflects what happened in the past.

fengboallanUID: 157405

一点了阿呵呵，努力帮该一下
这篇作文我看过你看看haiya的作文，同样的问题
她写得很不错。


I do not agree with the author's statement that studying history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit.别上来就肯定或者否定，因为论述，没得到结论之前不要肯定，想个句子，引出问题。然后再分析。得出一下的论正 I also disagree with the statement that all historians are storytellers. As far as I am concerned, I maintain that history is a subject only based on facts and historians are not storytellers, but researcher who exploring historic facts. The following discussion will substantiate my standpoint.（but开始我觉得句子的跳跃性太大了，step by step说明）

Firstly, history is equal to the facts existed in the past. In other words, there is no fiction in history. History is not the mythology, story or fable. Correspondingly, historians are not mythology-tellers, storytellers, or fable-tellers either. As we known that the whole academic system of history is based on considerable information on facts happened in the past, which can only be revealed by digging debris, exploring caverns, or turning to documents. The goal of all these methods is displaying the facts in the past honestly. Therefore, history is a subject without any imaginative things. 语言比较清晰，但是缺少例证

Secondly, even though most art works includes some content related much with the historical facts, they are not history, but historical reconstruction, or historical imagination.分论点和你的论点的关系我觉得有待考虑，找不到联系。我有点没看懂 For instance, in a novel (novel is a kind of imaginative literacy style, there are some materials referring to the historical fact about the civil war in America, however, we cannot use this novel as a history textbook to teach American history, since the historical fact in this book is only a tool to create an imaginative background, and all the book actually does not reflect the history in America, and even distort it. Thus, we cannot call those imaginative books “history ", even if they have some historical fact.这个例子很不错，但是要找到例子和历史学家的storyteller的联系，需要进一步的说明

Thirdly, when people talk about history, often they are prone to constructing it by the way that is beneficial to them. 这个观点不错，详细点，为什么历史学家会倾向于有利的一面诉说历史。下面你也没有说明白，在深入说一下在例子Thus, people construct history not because they cannot know history directly, but because they want to do that. A good example in point is Japan. Nowadays most Japanese politicians do not acknowledge that the Japanese armies have invaded China in the Second World War, which, in fact, is a historical fact known to most people in the world. Those Japanese politicians, also people distorting history, even said that the invasion to China is “help China develop economy". Since they held their own benefit by ignoring historical fact, such kind of interpretation of history is not real history, but ridiculous fiction.

Based on the discussion I have mentioned above I reaffirm without any hesitation that history is a subject only based on facts and historians are not storytellers. Art works, though including historical fact, is not history. Similarly, the fact that has been distorted by people is not fact either. Real history is the record that really reflects what happened in the past.

楼住需要注意的问题：
1你的分论点要和你的观点统一，分论点支持你的观点，但我发觉分论点地提出却很模糊，找不到共同点
2论述不够深入。举例之前一定深入论证，举例之后，再说明例子与分论点的关系
3层次还比较清晰
一段一个意思
字数少
分析多了
字数就多了
你参看一下别人的文章


我也新手不一定正确
请多见谅

clausiusUID: 147331

谢谢了,限时的情况下,想分析深入也没时间.真是个头痛的问题.谢谢楼上的修改.

clausiusUID: 147331

将文章吸取建议改了一下, fengboallan若看到了麻烦帮忙再看看, 其他朋友也请尽管批. 不胜感激
第三段我将TS换了一下, 应该可以和论点对上号了.

Recently there is a debate over whether historians are storytellers. Some people, including the author, think that studying history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. They also claim that the statement that all historians are storytellers. As far as I am concerned, I do not agree with such statement. I maintain that history is a subject only based on facts, rather than historical construction or imagination. Furthermore, I also claim that historians are specialists who honestly reveal the facts in the past, rather than people constructing those facts. The following discussion will substantiate my standpoint.

Firstly, history is equal to the facts existed in the past. In other words, there is no fiction in history. History is not the mythology, story or fable. Correspondingly, historians are not mythology-tellers, storytellers, or fable-tellers either. As we known that the whole academic system of history is based on considerable information on facts happened in the past, which can only be revealed by digging debris, exploring caverns, or turning to documents. The goal of all these methods is displaying the facts in the past honestly. A good case in point is the existence of archeology, also the basis of the whole system of history. All the work pursued in this field is to collect evidence, such as document, fossil, or specimen, to judge whether something or certain events have really existed in the past. Therefore, history is a subject without any imaginative things.

Secondly, those imaginative historical works, including fictions, films, fables, etc, is not ‘history’. Those books are only imagination by using some historical words to make people understand them more easily. Even though most art works includes some content related much with the historical facts, they are not history, but historical reconstruction, or historical imagination. For instance, in a novel (novel is a kind of imaginative literacy style, there are some materials referring to the historical fact about the civil war in America, however, we cannot use this novel as a history textbook to teach American history, since the historical fact in this book is only a tool to create an imaginative background, and all the book actually does not reflect the history in America, and even distort it. Thus, we cannot call those imaginative books “history ", even if they have some historical fact.

Thirdly, when people talk about history, often they are prone to constructing it by the way that is beneficial to them. In other words, people are more likely to ignore, and even distort those historical facts which may influence their fame or status now. Thus, people construct history not because they cannot know history directly, but because they want to do that. A good example in point is Japan. Nowadays most Japanese politicians do not acknowledge that the Japanese armies have invaded China in the Second World War, which, in fact, is a historical fact known to most people in the world. Those Japanese politicians, also people distorting history, even said that the invasion to China is “help China develop economy". Since they held their own benefit by ignoring historical fact, such kind of interpretation of history is not real history, but ridiculous fiction.

Based on the discussion I have mentioned above I reaffirm without any hesitation that history is a subject only based on facts and historians are not storytellers. Imaginative art works, though including historical fact, is not history. Similarly, the fact that has been distorted by people is not history either. Real history is the record that really reflects what happened in the past.