issue110

bssUID: 2163624

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."

Although exploring history can be a creative enterprise, saying that all historians
are storytellers is misleading.
A. It should be admitted that the study of history is not a purely objective pursuit.
B. However, there are marked differences between historians who adhere to a strict set of academic rules and storytellers who mainly rely on the use of imagination.

Time 90+ word: 420


The speaker asserts that when we concern with the study of history, we become storytellers. Although this issue sounds a convincing one, far more analysis must be paid attention to the relationship between historians and storytellers. In my opinion, historians are very different from the storytellers, in fact the historians are explorers.

Although exploring history can be a creative enterprise, saying that all historians are storytellers is misleading. It is widely accepted that we can never know the past directly. So it should be admitted that the study of history is not a purely objective pursuit. In fact, exploring history just depends on the evidence from the discovery by the scientist. And most of the evidence are the truth things in the past. This can help the study of history objective.

There are marked differences between historians who adhere to a strict set of academic rules and storytellers who mainly rely on the use of imagination. As we all known, history is a kind of social science. And the meaning of the social science means objective. But the storytellers are famous for theirs imagination. We can not deny that storytellers can tell without imagination, but the distinction between historians and storytellers is distinct. First, history studying is focus on the evidence which have been discovered, but storytellers can say things without the evidence. Second, though we can never know the past directly, but the issue making are not from the imagination, and in fact some evidence were given by the people who lived in the past. This can help the historians know the past indirect.

Moreover, the work for the historians must construct the history by interpreting evidence, and try to explore the thing which happened in the past and unknown by us. But, the storytellers are group of people who write the story by imagination or the truth explored by the historians. The story about the “ Gone with the wind” is known by us. By the storytellers, we know the state in that time, but we can not know the state objective pursuit. If we read a book written by the historians, we can know the state easily.

Yet a society cannot leave historians. It is necessary for everyone to know that state is valuable. Historians not only construct history by interpreting evidence, but also explore the history. The most important work for historians is explored the past, and given the advice to us.  But, storytellers did not do this.

In conclusion, although we can never know the past directly, it does not mean that exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit.
In fact, the things which mentioned by the historians are more objective than the storytellers. So we can never say that historians are storytellers.


不知道为什么每次的issue都是那么的抽象，然后都属于辩证型的，想批还不好批，想赞成还不容易。建议下次的题目好好选择一下，然后大家最好到一起讨论一下这几篇issue的提纲。

bssUID: 2163624

这次因为时间关系，晚上6点才找到题目，所以下次渡渡一定要把题目完整的发上来哈。再有就是写得很烂，估计是所有issue中最差的，艾。。。。逻辑很乱，所以bhn帮我找找语法错误就好了，如果可以给我提供以下你的意见，对于逻辑上的改进，我看了你的逻辑感觉不错，不知道你怎么想出来的。就先这样巴。有空我在改这篇论文。！

bhnUID: 2177959

The speaker asserts that when we concern with the study of history, we become storytellers. Although this issue sounds a convincing one, far more analysis must be paid attention to the relationship（语法错误，你看看主谓宾，还有被动语态） between historians and storytellers. In my opinion, historians are very different from the storytellers, in fact the historians are explorers.

Although exploring history can be a creative enterprise, saying that all historians are storytellers is misleading. It is widely accepted that we can never know the past directly. So it should be admitted that the study of history is not a purely objective pursuit. In fact, exploring history just depends on the evidence from the discovery by the scientist（科学家太模糊了吧，应该是考古学家之类的）. And most of the evidence are the truth things(?????) in the past. This can help the study of history objective(---ly).

There are marked differences between historians who adhere to a strict set of academic rules and storytellers who mainly rely on the use of imagination. As we all known, history is a kind of social science. And the meaning of the social science means objective. But the storytellers are famous for theirs imagination. We can not deny that storytellers can tell without imagination, but the distinction between historians and storytellers is distinct. First, history studying is focus on the evidence which have been discovered, but storytellers can say things without the evidence. Second, though we can never know the past directly, but the issue making are not from the imagination, and in fact some evidence were given by the people who lived in the past. This can help the historians know the past indirect. （历史学家与故事家的不同—历史学家客观）

Moreover, the work for the historians must construct the history by interpreting evidence, and try to explore the thing which happened in the past and unknown by us. But, the storytellers are group of people who write the story by imagination or the truth explored by the historians. The story about the “ Gone with the wind” is known by us. By the storytellers, we know the state in that time, but we can not know the state objective pursuit. If we read a book written by the historians, we can know the state easily.（还是写两者的不同—探索未知）

Yet a society cannot leave historians. It is necessary for everyone to know that state（这个词什么意思，不懂。） is valuable. Historians not only construct history by interpreting evidence, but also explore the history. The most important work for historians is explored（exploring） the past( 这个说得也太抽象了，探索历史是什么，不深入), and given（giving） the advice to us.  But, storytellers did（do） not do this.(两者的不同—探索历史)

In conclusion, although we can never know the past directly, it does not mean that exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit.
In fact, the things which mentioned by the historians are more objective than the storytellers. So we can never say that historians are storytellers.
感觉写得很混乱，每段都是在说一个问题，没有层次感，好像不断的在重复一句话，原因我觉得是没有花时间去想，没有好好写提纲，把每个小段的写作方向都写出来，就不会这么乱了。另外可以找一点原因支持一下历史学家不能客观反映现实的理由，这样就可以显示以下你分析问题的复杂性。

你的论点是历史学家是探索者，但是你有没有给探索者下一个定义，也没有深入分析历史学家是怎样具体的进行探索的，也没有举出实例。这样就不能支持你的论点。