issue110 大家请指教

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

Issue110
"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."
Outline
1，        在探究历史的过程中会发现很多新的东西，所以同意作者的观点：探究历史是创造性的工作
2,storyteller的定义的什么？如果仅仅是讲述的人，那么我们不必关注学习历史，只要顺便得看下电影，书籍或通过其他的媒介就能达到同样的效果。此时，我们storyteller的定义就是narrator
3,如果没有别人提供历史的证据，比如记者，摄影师，我们就没有办法construct历史，那么，我们必须通过其他的渠道了解历史。在这一点上，作者认为我们必须通过证据建造历史是极端和荒唐的。
正文

I hold the same attitude with the arguer insofar as that researching into history is generally been done in a creative way rather than a rigid process of pursuing a given object. It is undeniable that some new phenomena and findings, which were concealed by certain reasons when our progenitors explored at first hand and therefore they remain as the vestige and undiscovered matters of the researched area of histroy, would pop up. In this case, if we add these new things into the already-established history system, we are actually conducting a project of creation. Concession granted that there’s a lack of guarantee that we inevitably would encounter new things, creation in exploring history still exists in that people become more sophiscated and sagacious and penentrating-thinking after being exposed to the world full of information, facilities for experiment, opportunities for doing all-rounded investigation and the like, thereby, they will view things in a more mature perspective and eventually have a more rational and comprehensive recognition of the past. The illunimating example I would like to cite to demonstrate this point is the constitution of Bill of Rights. It’s the succeeding constantly-reformed Amendments in which lawmakers showed their shrewd acquaintanceship of the deficiency of the former constitution that optimize it. Also, public’s attitude towards Culture Revolution of China has transformed from acclamation and fidelity in passed history to condemnation and dissent as it is displayed now. With people’s notions inclueded in the term history as part of it, we can easily see that the history has been created and added with new elements, so, it’s certain that probing into history is more of a creative enterprise than it it an chase of an object.

However, the auther’s charicerization of the role of “storyteller” carries some ambiguites which should be addressed. Acctually, there’s fundemental distinction lies between the occupation of a narrator and a fashioner,or creator as it always be referred to. Yet, both the two persons’ tasks in employment apply well to the responsbility of a storyteller. In this sense, if we consider a storyteller a narrator, we needn’t study history with strenuous effort, for instance, staying up to read professional historical documents, dicussion with historians to understand a certain issue profoundly, in order to be a narrator, also, we don’t even have to concern ourseflves with the study of history.However, brief exposure to TV programes, nespapers, magzines, radios and other kind of media is sufficient to provide us with enough knowledge to compendiously grasp the important idea of the relevant history,thereby being able to introduce to others as a narrator. In orther words, unless we endow the”history” with a definition of creator, we do not have to exert a lot or even be concerned with history but just read or watch some pertinent materials passingly to achieve the aim of being a storyteller.

In addition to this, the arguer’s standpoint that we can only construct history by provided envidence is too extreme and preposterous as well, I say “extrem” is because that the arguer precipitously shrinks the possibility of other accesses to knowing history by declaring so. I say “preposterous” is in that, firstly, is there a guarantee of existence of provided envidence at any time? Had there’s no journalist to write reports about history accordingly, no photographers to shoot visible pictures and the like, could people obtain envidences based on which we are to construct history? The answer is an absolute”no”. Also, the auther neglects tha fact that it’s one thing to attempt to explain evidence, it’s quite another thing to construct and create hisstory by inventing new envidence for the sake of creating more penetrating and interesting story to bolster our own point of view.（想找例子来支持，一直没想到合适的啊，555）

In sum, I strongly agree with the auther in that explorying history is a creative action but can only be achieved by the help of the evidence-collectors like journalists and photographers and the like. And historian’s job is more of creation than of mere interpratering envidence. If this process is defined as “storytelling”, it’s somewhat plausible, but this doen’t mean a simple conduct of telling what you have been infused with by other outer media to other people.
７１１字，没限时

[ Last edited by sallyxindu on 2005-12-10 at 13:55 ]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

残了，berlinbear我又忘了用WROD修改了，你别骂我啊55，下次不敢了

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

希望大家给例子论证方面多给建议，谢谢拉

superficialUID: 2151788

Issue110
"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."
Outline
1，        在探究历史的过程中会发现很多新的东西，所以同意作者的观点：探究历史是创造性的工作
2,storyteller的定义的什么？如果仅仅是讲述的人，那么我们不必关注学习历史，只要顺便得看下电影，书籍或通过其他的媒介就能达到同样的效果。此时，我们storyteller的定义就是narrator
3,如果没有别人提供历史的证据，比如记者，摄影师，我们就没有办法construct历史，那么，我们必须通过其他的渠道了解历史。在这一点上，作者认为我们必须通过证据建造历史是极端和荒唐的。
正文

I hold the same attitude with the arguer insofar as that researching into history is generally been done in a creative way rather than a rigid process of pursuing a given object. It is undeniable that some new phenomena and findings, which were concealed by certain reasons when our progenitors explored at first hand and therefore they remain as the vestige and undiscovered matters of the researched area of histroy, would pop up. In this case, if we add these new things into[add to是固定搭配吧] the already-established history system, we are actually conducting a project of creation. Concession granted [好短语，用来让步的吧，很独特！]that there’s a lack of guarantee that we inevitably would encounter new things, creation in exploring history still exists in that people become more sophiscated and sagacious and penentrating-thinking[penetrating] after being exposed to the world full of information, facilities for experiment, opportunities for doing all-rounded investigation and the like, thereby, they will view things in a more mature perspective and eventually have a more rational and comprehensive recognition of the past. The illunimating[illuminating] example I would like to cite to demonstrate this point is the constitution of Bill of Rights. It’s the succeeding constantly-reformed Amendments in which lawmakers showed their shrewd acquaintanceship of the deficiency of the former constitution that optimize it[这句话感觉上有点头重脚轻，主语成份很复杂但是谓语宾语只有两个单词啊]. Also, public’s attitude towards Culture Revolution of China has transformed from acclamation and fidelity in passed history to condemnation and dissent as it is displayed now. With people’s notions inclueded in the term history as part of it, we can easily see that the history has been created and added with new elements, so, it’s certain that probing into history is more of a creative enterprise than it it[把it去掉是不是读起来顺嘴点] an chase of an object.

However, the auther’s charicerization[characterization] of the role of “storyteller” carries some ambiguites[ambiguities] which should be addressed. Acctually, there’s fundemental[fundamental] distinction lies between the occupation of a narrator and a fashioner,or creator[fashioner在这里是想表达革新者的意思吗？不知道有没有这个意思啊，请教！如果是取创造者的意思就和creator意思重复了呢] as it always be[应该用一个明确的be动词较好吧？was/is] referred to. Yet, both the two persons’[这里用person感觉体现不出两者是有职业的这个意思] tasks in employment apply well to the responsbility of a storyteller. In this sense, if we consider a storyteller a narrator, we needn’t[need not 书面英语的标准表达方式是这样吧 记得新东方教材上不让用这种缩略] study history with strenuous effort, for instance, staying up to read professional historical documents, dicussion[discussing] with historians to understand a certain issue profoundly, [这里是不是该新断一句了]in order to be a narrator, also, we don’t even have to concern ourseflves[ourselves] with the study of history.However, brief exposure to TV programes, nespapers,[newspapers] magzines, radios and other kind of media is sufficient to provide us with enough knowledge to compendiously grasp the important idea of the relevant history,thereby being able to introduce to others as a narrator. In orther words, unless we endow the”history” with a definition of creator, we do not have to exert a lot or even be concerned with history but just read or watch some pertinent materials passingly to achieve the aim of being a storyteller.

In addition to this, the arguer’s standpoint that we can only construct history by provided envidence is too extreme and preposterous as well, I say “extrem”[extreme] is because that the arguer precipitously shrinks the possibility of other accesses to knowing history by declaring so. I say “preposterous” is in that, firstly, is there a guarantee of existence of provided envidence at any time? Had there’s [there is]no journalist to write reports about history accordingly, no photographers to shoot visible pictures and the like, could people obtain envidences based on which we are to construct history? The answer is an absolute”no”. Also, the auther neglects tha[the] fact that it’s[it is] one thing to attempt to explain evidence, it’s[it is] quite another thing to construct and create hisstory[history] by inventing new envidence for the sake of creating more penetrating and interesting story to bolster our own point of view.（想找例子来支持，一直没想到合适的啊，555）

In sum, I strongly agree with the authe[author]r in that explorying[exploring] history is a creative action but can only be achieved by the help of the evidence-collectors like journalists and photographers and the like. And historian’s job is more of creation than of mere interpratering envidence. If this process is defined as “storytelling”, it’s somewhat plausible, but this doen’t[does not] mean a simple conduct of telling what you have been infused with by other outer media to other people.

[感觉sally的这篇文章三段论述之间的逻辑性不是很好，是不是可以考虑加一些承上启下的连词加强逻辑联系？ 我觉得如果每篇文章的论述之间的联系如果很紧（即使不紧密强加上让他们具有逻辑关系的连词）再加你的对句子的控制以及对词语的出色运用，评分时这样的文章肯定就是高分文章了。我只是从一些低级失误比如格式，比如拼写，比如语病的方面给你的文章提出建议吧，再多了也只能建议一下提纲了，对于你对句式的选择以及词语的运用上真的没什么发言权，只有学习的份了，还希望能有前辈参与我们小组的互改。]

BerlinbearUID: 207694

Issue110
"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."
Outline
1，        在探究历史的过程中会发现很多新的东西，所以同意作者的观点：探究历史是创造性的工作
2,storyteller的定义的什么？如果仅仅是讲述的人，那么我们不必关注学习历史，只要顺便得看下电影，书籍或通过其他的媒介就能达到同样的效果。此时，我们storyteller的定义就是narrator（感觉上好像这个因果关系有点牵强的说）~3,如果没有别人提供历史的证据，比如记者，摄影师，我们就没有办法construct历史，那么，我们必须通过其他的渠道了解历史。在这一点上，作者认为我们必须通过证据建造历史是极端和荒唐的。
正文

I hold the same attitude with the arguer insofar as that researching into history is generally been done in a creative way rather than a rigid process of pursuing a given object. It is undeniable that some new phenomena and findings, which were concealed by（for是不是更好一点呀？） certain reasons when our progenitors（这里是不是想用被动呀？句子读的有点不太明白~） explored at first hand and therefore they remain as the vestige and undiscovered matters of the researched area of histroy（history）, would pop up. In this case, if we add these new things into the already-established history system, we are actually conducting a project of creation. Concession granted that there’s a lack of guarantee that we inevitably would encounter new things, creation in exploring history still exists in that people become more sophiscated and sagacious and penentrating-thinking after being exposed to the world full of information, facilities for experiment, opportunities for doing all-rounded investigation and the like, thereby, they will view things in a more mature perspective and eventually have a more rational and comprehensive recognition of the past. The illunimating (illuminating)example I would like to cite to demonstrate this point is the constitution of Bill of Rights. It’s the succeeding constantly-reformed Amendments in which lawmakers showed their shrewd acquaintanceship of the deficiency of the former constitution that optimize it. Also, public’s attitude towards Culture Revolution of China has transformed from acclamation and fidelity in passed history to condemnation and dissent as it is displayed now. With people’s notions inclueded(included) in the term history as part of it, we can easily see that the history has been created and added with new elements, so, it’s certain that probing into history is more of a creative enterprise than it it an chase of an object.

However, the auther’s (author's) charicerization(characterization) of the role of “storyteller” carries some ambiguities which should be addressed. Acctually,(actually) there’s fundemental distinction lies between the occupation of a narrator and a fashioner,or creator as it always be referred to. Yet, both the two persons’ tasks in employment apply well to the responsbility of a storyteller. In this sense, if we consider a storyteller a narrator, we needn’t study history with strenuous effort, for instance, staying up to read professional historical documents, dicussion with historians to understand a certain issue profoundly, in order to be a narrator, also, we don’t even have to concern ourseflves(ourselves) with the study of history.However, brief exposure to TV programes, nespapers, magzines, radios and other kinds of media is sufficient to provide us with enough knowledge to compendiously grasp the important idea of the relevant history,thereby being able to introduce to others as a narrator. In orther words, unless we endow the”history” with a definition of creator, we do not have to exert a lot or even be concerned with history but just read or watch some pertinent materials passingly to achieve the aim of being a storyteller.
（总觉得这段的逻辑关系不是很明确，不是很具说服力~~与历史学家交流，读相关书籍等也是努力学习的一种表现呀~~）

In addition to this, the arguer’s standpoint that we can only construct history by provided envidence is too extreme and preposterous as well, I（个人觉得is中尽量避免用第一人称会比较好吧，不会显得很主观，呵呵~~） say “extrem” is because that the arguer precipitously shrinks the possibility of other accesses to knowing history by declaring so. I say “preposterous” is in that, firstly, is there a guarantee of existence of provided envidence at any time? Had there’s no journalist to write reports about history accordingly, no photographers to shoot visible pictures and the like, could people obtain envidences based on which we are to construct history? The answer is an absolute(absolute感觉上有点绝对化了，前面可以加个限定词修饰一下~~)”no”. Also, the auther(author) neglects tha fact that it’s one thing to attempt to explain evidence, it’s quite another thing to construct and create history by inventing new envidence for the sake of creating more penetrating and interesting story to bolster our own point of view.（想找例子来支持，一直没想到合适的啊，555）

In sum, I strongly agree with the auther(author) in that explorying history is a creative action but can only be achieved by the help of the evidence-collectors like journalists and photographers and the like. And historian’s job is more of creation than of mere interpratering envidence. If this process is defined as “storytelling”, it’s somewhat plausible, but this doen’t mean a simple conduct of telling what you have been infused with by other outer media to other people.
(我觉得结尾的论述反而逻辑条理很清晰，如果能好好发散一下补充到文中的论证会好很多。整篇文章的中间部分略显得论证有些苍白，我觉得这与文章的题材有关，历史类的题目是我们平时很少接触和阅读的，所以写起来会感觉困难，我自己在写得时候也觉得吃力。不过通过多做几次的练习和知识补充是肯定可以攻克的！~~呵呵 另外，部分例子我用红色标出来了，方便总结~~)

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

谢谢superficial and berlinbear的帮助，你们的建议很好啊，谢谢．我想这篇文章我致命的错误就是对storyteller的理解有了偏差，Random House Webster上的解释是
１，a person who tells or writes story
2, a person who tells trivial falsehoods , fibber
而我当时用我安装的盗版金山查的时候居然说storyteller有创造者的意思，所以我在论述的时候就把storyteller分为a person who tells story和创造者来写．这种问题出在考场上就完蛋了．呵呵

[ Last edited by sallyxindu on 2005-12-10 at 21:25 ]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

Issue110
"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."
Outline
1，        因为我们不能直接客观得了解历史，而只能根据别人提供的证据来构造历史，在这个过程中我们不免要加入很多主观的思考和对历史新的定义，所以这个过程是创造性的。
2，        但是，这个construct的过程我们必须要倚赖别人，如journalist, photographer给我们提供历史证据，否者所有都是徒劳。
3，        storyteller在Random House Webster上的定义是：A a person who tells or writes story;B a person who tells trivial falsehoods ,fibbers，而historians的工作是以客观事实为基础的，研究对象也是客观的，他们是依据史实并将其以story的形式（如书籍，文章，lecture等）表现出来，而并非是捏造史实，所以，说all historians are storytellers 是不对的
正文
I hold the same attitude with the arguer insofar as that the research into history is more be conducted in a creative way than in a rigid process of pursuing a given object. As declared by the arguer that it is utterly impossible for us to get back to the remote antiquity where and when the “history”took place to witness the whole and vivid process of the events, thereby obtaining the firsthand and objective information about these happenings。People living in present, however,can deduce and construct the past in virtue of both literal and pictorial envidence. It is undeniable people would inevitably inject some of their own subjective point of view in the construcing process. For instance, when concerned with the history in Tang Dynasty, people may add their inveterate impression on Tang Dynasty as an era of prosperity to the recognition of the history even thought the section of that history they researched  is of more depression.In this case, researchers have actually created the history of Tang Dynasty to be an absolute promising one with a lot of negative factors ignored, no matter it is fact-related or totally imaginary. In addition to this, with the advent of modern technologies and more penetrating ideology of people, numerous improvements would be applied into the new explaination of the past on the bases of the relevant available shreds of evidence.An illuminating example I would like to cite is the constitution of the Bill of Rights, it’s the succeeding reformed Amendments that optimize the constitution so as to the present Bill of Rights is somewhat a perfect one as presented now. In terms of this,exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is a chase of an object.
Nevertheless,the work of constructing history hinges on the feasibility and existence of envidence. Consider first if there are no journalists to write past-related reports for historians, no phogographers to shoot visible photos concerning the events,could historians get any access to the evidence based on which they can construct history? On condition that all the assumptions made above trun out to be true, historians will inextricably be relegated to a lower position as merely either a daydreamer or a nihilist. Let’s tract back to history ,a lot of big pots succeeded learning lessons from the evidence their predecessors rendered.Newton once stated: If I have seen father than Descartes,it’s because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.Copernicus put forward Heliocentralism based on the evidence of geocentralism postulated by Aristotle. Under such circomstance,only with the support and interpretation of feasible envidence could historian’s job be a promising or even smooth project.
What’s more, the characterization of the role of “storyteller”carries some ambiguities which should be addressed. According to the explainaion in Random House Webster, “storyteller”is defined as,first,a person who tells or writes story;second, a person who tells falsehood,fibber. As a result, if the “storyteller”we refer to is a fibber as stated in Webster,it’s preposterous to say all historians are storytellers in that the research aim of a historian is objective, the process of his researh is objective, the materials he uses are objective and the results he gains, if any, are objective. All the elements connected with a historian are of objectivity and authenticity,thus ridiculous should historians are considered to be fibbers whose nature is oppositely to distort rather than deduce truth in a mendacious way.
To sum up,the exploration of history is a creative enterprise with a great deal of new improvements,subjective ideas, new thoughts poping up. However, to avoid the precariousness of any research, historians’ work should depend on provided evidence presenting both the reasonableness and authenticity,otherwise the work of a historian would be meaningless or even misleading.
上次由于理解问题的确有些跑题，修改过后重新发上来，希望berlinbear等再指教，sally先感谢你们了