issue110 第一篇也是最后一篇发在这里了，恳请狂拍

weeeUID: 184217

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.

According to the speaker, historians are essentially storytellers for the reason that they have to construct history by interpreting discrete evidence, which the author asserts is more of a creative pursuit than an objective one. While I concede that it is necessary and meaningful for historians to build up a clear picture of history by the interpretation of evidence available to them, I disagree strongly that such exploration is a creative and subjective process. Additionally, I also take exception to the author's assertion that defines historians as storytellers which is potentially misleading and might confuse the real nature and mission of historians with that of other widely accepted storytellers such as poets, novelists and play writers.  

Admittedly, almost all work of the historians bases on the interpretation of evidence at hand since historians cannot experience the past in person. For example, historians who desire to research into the spread of some life-threatening epidemics in Europe during the medieval ages have to resort to the historic records and documents to find relevant evidence and then analyze, sort out and apply the useful information to present the concrete and clear picture of the special situation during that time. Even for the historians who record the life of the contemporary society can not witness all the matters and it is wholly possible that they carry out researches on the affairs that take place in other places that they have never been personally. Imagine, for example, a hypothetical historian who has never traveled to Asia intends to conduct research on the regime of Taliban in Afghanistan. What he/she does is similar to the historians focusing on the history of the past, that is to gather innumerable information, to pick out the meaningful ones and then interpret these evidence. Although this example is merely an imagination, but it, along with the former example, pinpoints the nature and mission of historians primarily rely on interpreting evidence to construct history.

Nevertheless, I disagree with the author insofar as such process of interpreting evidence is a creative rather than an objective one. To illustrate this point, I would like to make an analogy between the work of physicist whose tasks are to interpret the physical world around us and that of historians. Any observant person can easily find out that although the subject matter of the two kinds of researchers are fundamentally distinct, the process that they have to follow to complete their tasks is similar, both of which involves the process mentioned above. Some people may argue that in physics there are countless principles, theories and axioms that researchers can comply with to ensure the objectivity  of their researches. However, although there might lack so many rigid frameworks for historians to abide by, the underlying assumption that any serious historian is required to follow is to establish all their interpretations on the basis of the factual evidence. In reality, it is a universal groundwork for both historians and physicists to base all their endeavor on fact and objectivity. In short, the inquiry of historians is an objective process by nature.

Moreover, I contend that " storytellers" might be an inappropriate term to define historians, which easily induce people to confuse the work of historians with that of other true storytellers such as novelists and so forth. Yet a clear line must be drawn between the usually called storytellers and historians. While the former can create any historic events unfetteredly for whom history only serves as the carrier of the emotion and feeling that they try to convey the later have to respect and follow the historic fact rigidly. Historians are by no means granted the license to create history in line with their envision and imagination. Although the personal experience, training, perspective and other innate aspects of historians tend to result in the bias and deviation in the interpretation from facts, these are the inextricable and objective elements to successful interpretation of history.  For example, although storytellers such as Charles Dickens can create various fake  historical events to mirror the poverty and social stratification during the Victorian era historians focusing on the society of the same time period have to depict the social picture accurately and precisely according to the records passed down from that time. In short, it is inaccurate and improper to view historians as storytellers which might grant historians excessive rights in distorting history rather than interpreting it.

To sum up, while I consent to the author that the work of historians indispensably involves the interpretation of historic evidence, I strongly disagree to view this process as a creative and subjective one. Furthermore, it is preposterous to call historians storytellers which deviates from the true tasks and nature of historians.

还有四天马上就要考试了，心里很没底，今天才发现一篇历史类也没写过， 写的不知所云，兄弟姐妹们给点儿意见吧，

weeeUID: 184217

自己顶一下，那位大虾帮忙看一下啊，限时的，43分钟
修改过错字了

鬼谷子UID: 159645

如果你不急的话
我明天早上给你改
刚刚连续改了5个累了
呵呵

weeeUID: 184217

多谢斑竹了，辛苦了
等待你的宝贵意见

weeeUID: 184217

啊，已经淹到这么后面了

鬼谷子UID: 159645

No.1 issue110 第一篇也是最后一篇发在这里了，恳请狂拍
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.

According to the speaker, historians are essentially storytellers for the reason that they have to construct history by interpreting discrete evidence, which the author asserts is more of a creative pursuit than an objective one. While I concede that it is necessary and meaningful for historians to build up a clear picture of history by the interpretation of evidence available to them, I disagree strongly that such exploration is a creative and subjective process. Additionally, I also take exception to the author's assertion that defines historians as storytellers which is potentially misleading and might confuse the real nature and mission of historians with that of other widely accepted storytellers such as poets, novelists and play writers. 【开头有点长，还有模板的痕迹，不知道你是不是限时写的，不过把论证过程在开头概述一下这种写法我是很喜欢的，但是我还是觉得考试的时候最好把时间多用在body上面，开头简洁一点就可以了】

Admittedly, almost all work of the historians bases on the interpretation of evidence at hand since historians cannot experience the past in person. For example, historians who desire to research into the spread of some life-threatening epidemics in Europe during the medieval ages have to resort to the historic records and documents to find relevant evidence and then analyze, sort out and apply the useful information to present the concrete and clear picture of the special situation during that time. Even for the historians who record the life of the contemporary society can not witness all the matters and it is wholly possible that they carry out researches on the affairs that take place in other places that they have never been personally【这里缺了个词？】. Imagine, for example, a hypothetical historian who has never traveled to Asia intends to conduct research on the regime of Taliban in Afghanistan. What he/she does is similar to the historians focusing on the history of the past, that is to gather innumerable information, to pick out the meaningful ones and then interpret these evidence【evidence不能用these】. Although this example is merely an imagination, but it, along with the former example, pinpoints the nature and mission of historians primarily rely on interpreting evidence to construct history. 【语言的功底不错，长句子用的很好，不过，问题是如果全是长句子的话会适得其反的，最好长短交替着用，显得文章有活力，而且句式多变。】
Nevertheless, I disagree with the author insofar as such process of interpreting evidence is a creative rather than an objective one. To illustrate this point, I would like to make an analogy between the work of physicist whose tasks are to interpret the physical world around us and that of historians. Any observant person can easily find out that although the subject matter of the two kinds of researchers are fundamentally distinct, the process that they have to follow to complete their tasks is similar, both of which【指代什么？】 involves the process 【是说上一段的process吗，直接写出来好一点】mentioned above. Some people may argue that in physics there are countless principles, theories and axioms that researchers can comply with to ensure the objectivity of their researches. However, although there might lack so many rigid frameworks for historians to abide by, the underlying assumption that any serious historian is required to follow is to establish all their interpretations on the basis of the factual evidence. 【怎么证明呢？】In reality, it is a universal groundwork for both historians and physicists to base all their endeavor on fact and objectivity. In short, the inquiry of historians is an objective process by nature.
【这段的问题是，你似乎是在说“当然是这样”，却没证明为什么会这样。而且，最好有具体例子】

Moreover, I contend that " storytellers" might be an inappropriate term【因为你是持反对意见，即使你都主张历史研究是客观的，那么这里你就应该更强硬一点，坚决的反对，而不是用might be】 to define historians, which easily induce people to confuse the work of historians with that of other true storytellers such as novelists and so forth. Yet a clear line must be drawn between the usually called storytellers and historians. While the former can create any historic events unfetteredly【好像没有副词形式】 for whom history only serves as the carrier of the emotion and feeling that they try to convey 【这里应该有个逗号吧】the later【latter】 have to respect and follow the historic fact rigidly. Historians are by no means granted the license to create history in line with their envision【这个是动词】 and imagination. Although the personal experience, training, perspective and other innate aspects of historians tend to result in the bias and deviation in the interpretation from facts, these are the inextricable and objective elements【觉得这里说inextricable还可以，怎么会objective 呢？】to successful interpretation of history. 【发现你把类似于让步的部分放在这样的对比中间说出来了，很巧妙】For example, although storytellers such as Charles Dickens can create various fake historical events to mirror the poverty and social stratification during the Victorian era【这里点个逗号如何】 historians focusing on the society of the same time period have to depict the social picture accurately and precisely according to the records passed down from that time. In short, it is inaccurate and improper to view historians as storytellers which 【该是who】might grant historians excessive rights in distorting history rather than interpreting it. 【这句说的不好，应该是说这样就否定了史学家工作也就是历史研究的客观性本质】

To sum up, while I consent to the author that the work of historians indispensably involves the interpretation of historic evidence, I strongly disagree to view this process as a creative and subjective one. Furthermore, it is preposterous to call historians storytellers which【还是who】 deviates from the true tasks and nature of historians.

【这篇文章不好写，不过感觉你写的还不错。问题是不能整篇都是在用长句的，这样不可能高分的，而且影响语言的流畅和力度。还有就是很多的地方你没有论述的很透彻，很多的为什么没说出来，这个也是应该改进的地方。建议语言多点变化，尽量简练一点，然后，多点时间放在让论述证明更严密的过程中。加油！祝你考出好成绩！】