issue110 请高手指教，越写越没信心 ：（ (sally)

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."

syllabus:
1 首先让步说明作者的论点有一定的正确性，因为那种可以直接回到过去的场景只是出现在电影小说等虚构的东西中。虽然电影中的时光机器未必就不能出现在现实中，改变历史也未必就是痴人说梦，但是就现阶段的情况而言，历史仍然是单向的，是不可逆转的，而且是唯一的事实。但是作者接下来的观点有误，根据以上的分析，既然历史是唯一的，就来不得半点虚构。创造性这个字眼对于历史来讲只能是基于对真实情况的描述而不是对历史的无中生有，历史研究这还是应该持有一种客观的态度。
2 第二，根据对story和history的定义，storyteller和historian是有本质的不同的。历史学家研究的目的是认识历史，所以他的“故事”是以史实为基础的，是客观的，是对历史的还原；而一般的将故事的人可以大量的加入自己主观的东西，他的目的则是去创造。所以如果说，历史学家是storyteller的话他讲述的也是客观的历史。在中国人的观念中，说书人就是那些讲着三国演义的人，而历史学家则是严肃严谨甚至非常严格的研究者
3 此外,我认为作者将storyteller和historian联系起来是非常有趣的，设想一下，如果真的将枯燥乏味的历史和有趣的故事结合起来，是不是也算是一种创新呢？或者说是不是应该用storyteller说故事的方式来讲述历史呢？这样的话，学校里的历史课会更变得更加吸引人吧？

History, by the definition of a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or an institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events.  While story is an account or a recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious. There seems to be two different perspectives presented in the above statement which I basically disagree. One involves which attitude should the historian take when interpreting evidence, creative or objective, while another compares the differentiate from a storyteller to a historian. Facing such a complicated question, I intend to analyze them separately.

To begin with, I concede that people cannot know the past directly，the circumstance that men can go back to the past only exist in a film or a fiction which is created by one's imagination. Though it is possible that as technology advanced man can invent time machine in the reality, and so forth it is not a dream to change the passed history, we should still wait a long time to see it under today's acknowledge. Hence history is single directed and disable to be reversed, and more closely, unique. Nevertheless, the following claim the speaker insists is questionable. According to the analysis above, there could not be even a little fiction now that history is solely. Creativity to history is merely description instead of creation, an objective attitude towards history is indispensable to the faculty of historian.

Secondly, according to the definition of history and story, there are essential differences between a storyteller and historian. The only job a historian do is to reveal the events that once happened in the past, as a consequence his so called story is based on the reality and objective, more accurate, a retrospect of the history. Meanwhile a storyteller in common sense may increase mass of subjective things in his story, purpose of his is to create and appreciate the listeners. Thereby,  historian act as an objective storyteller when we connect him with storyteller. For instance, when mentioned storyteller, a majority of we Chinese will come into mind an image of a man telling historical novels. These novels, no mater describe which period of time, are basically based on the events in history, and added fiction more or less in order to be more attractive. On the contrary, as involved historian, a serious, strict even rigorous researcher will appear in mind suddenly. As the storyteller differentiate from historian so much, the speaker could not equalize them in a such simple way.

In addition, it is positive of the writer to make the linkup between the storyteller and historian. Imagine, is not it creativity if we combine the dull history with interesting story? Or in other word, could we impart history in a storyteller's way instead of the usual on? Thus, at least the history lessons will be more attractive for the younger pupill.

In conclusion, several opinions insist by the speaker are flawed, we could not confuse the storyteller and the historian as they are essentially different from each other. While, in another way, this confusion may inspire us a brand new way of history teaching.

[ Last edited by superficial on 2005-12-10 at 01:30 ]

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."
syllabus:
1 首先让步说明作者的论点有一定的正确性，因为那种可以直接回到过去的场景只是出现在电影小说等虚构的东西中。虽然电影中的时光机器未必就不能出现在现实中，改变历史也未必就是痴人说梦，但是就现阶段的情况而言，历史仍然是单向的，是不可逆转的，而且是唯一的事实。但是作者接下来的观点有误，根据以上的分析，既然历史是唯一的，就来不得半点虚构。创造性这个字眼对于历史来讲只能是基于对真实情况的描述而不是对历史的无中生有，历史研究这还是应该持有一种客观的态度。
你的思考力我很欣赏，比较有深度，但是提个意见，你可以把第一点分成两部分（在一起显得太混乱）Ａ同意作者的观点：我们不能直接理解历史Ｂ反对作者的观点：历史是有创造性的．
2 第二，根据对story和history的定义，storyteller和historian是有本质的不同的。历史学家研究的目的是认识历史，所以他的“故事”是以史实为基础的，是客观的，是对历史的还原；而一般的将故事的人可以大量的加入自己主观的东西，他的目的则是去创造。所以如果说，历史学家是storyteller的话他讲述的也是客观的历史。在中国人的观念中，说书人就是那些讲着三国演义的人，而历史学家则是严肃严谨甚至非常严格的研究者
非常棒的一个论点
3 此外,我认为作者将storyteller和historian联系起来是非常有趣的，设想一下，如果真的将枯燥乏味的历史和有趣的故事结合起来，是不是也算是一种创新呢？或者说是不是应该用storyteller说故事的方式来讲述历史呢？这样的话，学校里的历史课会更变得更加吸引人吧？
对于第３，个人觉得写了２就不必再写３了，因为你要尽量平均分配辨析的重点．看题目，其实我把题目分成了５个重点部分，分别是红黄蓝绿紫．第一点中我给你改的Ａ是论证红色那部分。Ｂ是论证兰色那部分，你的第２点论证了绿色部分，但是姿色和黄色部分你并没有谈及，相反，你的第３点又重复把重点防在了绿色部分．　所以这样分配有点不均匀．你可以把最后一点的重点防在论证你对姿黄两部分上．

History, by the definition of a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or an institution, often including动词 an explanation of,注意标点，这里加个逗号就清晰多了 or commentary on those events.  While story is an account or a recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious.while引导转折句的前半句，后面呢？？ There seems to be two different perspectives presented in the above statement which I basically disagree. One involves which attitude should the historian take when interpreting evidence, creative or objective, while another是两个观点就用the other,记住用法，one..the other compares the differentiate名词 from a storyteller to a historian. Facing such a complicated question, I intend to analyze them separately.

To begin with, I concede that people cannot know the past directly，这里可以断句了the circumstance that men can go back to the past only exist in a film or a fiction which is复数 created by one's imagination. Though it is possible that as technology advanced用一般现在时态吧，advances man can invent time machine in the reality, 一般来说都是举了两个以上例子后再说so forth,这里时间机器只是一个，再加一个吧and so forth 这里和上面是一个句子吗？？it is not a dream to change the passed history, we should still wait a long time to see it under today's acknowledge.假设这里是一个单独的句子，那么你要表达的意思是不是：改变历史不是梦想了，但我们要经过很长时间才能使之实现？如果是的话建议这个句子可以修改为：It's not a intangible dream to change to passed history, but still we have to work a unimaginable long time to make it true.这里，在dream前面加个intangible or unpractical之类的词可以强调出以前人们对这种想法的负面态度（大家觉得是痴人说梦不切实际），另外的一个改动是把你原句的waite改为work因为人类只有主动去努力才能改变而不是被动得等．还有在长时间前加个unimaginable不可思议的，为后面做铺垫，表示这在目前看来是不可能的[/color] Hence history is single什么意思？ directed and disable to改成cannot吧，被动 be reversed, and more closely, unique不要用这个词语，我猜你想说的是历史是一个客观事实吧，所以不能改变．那么最好把unique改成objective fact. Nevertheless, 这和前面没有转折的关系吧，你上面已经说了Hence，history cannot be reversed and it an objective fact,其实这里是一个顺称关系，所以用consequently or therefore或者直接断句另起一句比较好the following claim the speaker insists is questionable. According to the analysis above, there could not be even a little fiction now that history is solely. Creativity to history 不要用creativity，要引起奇异，改为exploring history is merely description instead of creation, an objective attitude towards history is indispensable to the faculty of historian.
从提纲上看出你要表达的观点很明白，但写的时候要注意在用转折的时候你要强调的是哪个方面，不然反倒说到相反的地方去了，句子结构有待加强，注意句子之间过度词的使用以增加段落的流畅感．

Secondly, according to the definition of history and story, there are essential differences between a storyteller and  a historian. The only job a historian do is to reveal the events that once happened in the past, as a consequence his so called story is based on the reality and objective, more accurate, a retrospect of the history. 这个对historian的解释不是很到位，你自己再改改，首先only job就不太好，显然太绝对了，让ＥＴＳ找到了漏洞Meanwhile a storyteller in common sense may increase mass of subjective things in his story, purpose of his is to create 及物动词，你的宾语呢？难道是listeners??and appreciate the listeners. Thereby,  historian act as an objective storyteller when we connect him with storyteller，这句没把想表达的表达出来，感觉象在玩文字．建议改为：historican acts as an objective storyteller when we connect his with a passed events narrator.. For instance, when mentioned storyteller, a majority of we Chinese will come into mind an image of a man telling historical novels. These novels, no mater describe which period of time, are basically based 意思重复on the events in history, and added fiction more or less in order to be more attractive. On the contrary, as involved　referred to 好点吧 historian, a serious, strict even rigorous researcher will appear in mind suddenly. As the storyteller differentiate from historian so much, the speaker could not equalize them in a such simple way.结尾起到了画龙点睛的作用，很好！！
感觉在阐述historian 和storyteller不同的时候有点混乱，建议不要交叉叙述，就分别将storyteller是什么，主要job是什么，然后用while做一个转折说historian又是怎么回事，这样一下子就鲜明多了。最后加上你的画龙点睛的总结就肯定是非常出彩的段落．
In addition, it is positive of the writer to make the linkup between the storyteller and historian. Imagine, is not it creativity if we combine the dull history with interesting story? Or in other word, could we impart history in a storyteller's way instead of the usual on? Thus, at least the history lessons will be more attractive for the younger pupill.
这段我不做具体修改了，在提纲中已经提到过，我觉得这段放在这里不是很好．

In conclusion, several opinions insist by the speaker are flawed, we could not confuse the storyteller and the historian as they are essentially different from each other. While, in another way, this confusion may inspire us a brand new way of history teaching.
结论太专项了，只概括了historian 和 storyteller的不同，而忽略了你论述了的其他部分．显得没有总结性．修改下吧

分析得较为深入，但要注意整体清晰度的问题，另外，语法和句子结构方面注意一下，会有进步的，加油．

[ Last edited by sallyxindu on 2005-12-10 at 15:45 ]

superficialUID: 2151788

感动！实在是感动！！ 今晚上不睡了，写完阿狗给大家做点事！！

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

啊，不知道怎么回事啊！～～～～后面的怎么全变成兰色的了，superficial，我可不是全盘否定了你的，我只是修改了其中一些，给了点建议，全部变成兰色纯是技术问题，可能我用颜色的时候出了问题

xiaonawangUID: 2114716

Originally posted by sallyxindu at 2005-12-10 15:47
啊，不知道怎么回事啊！～～～～后面的怎么全变成兰色的了，superficial，我可不是全盘否定了你的，我只是修改了其中一些，给了点建议，全部变成兰色纯是技术问题，可能我用颜色的时候出了问题

常见问题，你在修改的时候，把一些中括弧给丢掉了，导致全部变成蓝色。

maylUID: 2162549

组长太牛了

gtrandUID: 2156108

History, by the definition ofby definition, is a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or an institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events.此句没有动词。写长句子时尤其不能疏忽  While story is an account or a recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious.没有主干 There seems to be two different perspectives presented in the above statement withwhich I basically disagree. One involves which attitude should the historian take when interpreting evidence,: creative or objective, while anotherand the other compares the differentiate from compares a storyteller to a historian. Facing such a complicated question, I intend to analyze them separately.多余

　　前两句与后几句的内容并不连贯，也许可以不用在这里而用在后面的论证过程中。
　　原文的推理是这样的：我们无法直接知晓过去的事情，而必须依靠对证据的解释来复原历史　－－－＞历史在更大的程度上是创造性的而非客观的　－－－＞所有历史学家都是讲故事的人（因为讲故事是创造性的）。可以看出，原文的实质性漏洞出现在第二个环节中。如果第二个环节成立，则结论也基本上是可以成立的。因此没有必要把它分成两个截然不同的层次来反驳。

To begin with, I concede that people cannot know the past directly，。the circumstance that men can go back to the past only exist in a film or a fiction which is created by one's imagination.Only in films or fictions could people go back to the past. Though it is possible that as technology advanced man can invent time machine in the reality, and so forth it is not a dream to change the passed history, we should still wait a long time to see it Though it might be possible that a time machine would be invented as a result of technological advancement someday, thus allowing people to cross the time channel back to the past, we have to wait for a while for that day.. Hence history is single directed and disable to be reversed, and more closely, unique.At least for now, history is a one-way trip and can not be reversed. Nevertheless, the following claim which claim?the speaker insists is questionable. According to the analysis above, there could not be even a little fiction now that history is solely历史不能用"unique" 或者"solely"来描述。. Creativity to history is merely description instead of creation, an objective attitude towards history is indispensable to the faculty of historian.Even though some subjective interpretations are unavoidable, creativity should never take the place of objectivity.

上段的问题是让步过多，转折太突然。在一连串“我承认”的事实后面，突然就说“原主张还是有问题。”因此有必要在这里加上另外一个段落来论证，为什么历史研究主要是客观的。在这里可以用上历史的定义，以说明研究的目的是客观的；研究的对象是客观的；研究的材料也是客观的。如一块石头就是一块石头，一块瓦器碎片不能当成瓷器碎片来对待等等。

Secondly, according to the definition of history and story, there are essential differences between a storyteller and historian.Even if a historian sometimes sound like a storyteller, their jobs still have significant difference.   The only job a historian do is to reveal the events that once happened in the past, as a consequence his so called story is based on the reality and objective, more accurate, a retrospect of the history. Meanwhile a storyteller in common sense may increase mass of subjective things in his story, purpose of his is to create and appreciate the listeners. Thereby,  historian act as an objective storyteller when we connect him with storyteller. While a historian should not allow too much subjectivity to stand in the way of his pursuit, a storyteller is free from any such restricitons. The only limit of a storyteller is his or her ability to imaginze and to create. For instance, when mentioned storyteller, when the word 'storyteller' is mentioned,a majority of we Chinese will come into mind an image of what comes into the minds of many Chinese people is the image of a man telling stories, in a teahouse in the past and on the radio or television nowadays.  a man telling historical novels. These novels, no mater describe which period of time, are basically based on the events in history, and added fiction more or less in order to be more attractive. On the contrary, as involved historian, a serious, strict even rigorous researcher will appear in mind suddenly. As the storyteller differentiate from historian so much, the speaker could not equalize them in a such simple way.The stories told are mostly based on famous historical novels. In those stories, an emperor might be found to be the son of a monk and a simpleton might play a critical role in protecting the country from an invasion. While such kinds of illogical events make us laugh, we clearly understand that they can be taken only as novels, not the real history.

u]In addition, it is positive of the writer to make the linkup between the storyteller and historian.Of course, sometimes it is meaningful to link a historian with a storyteller.Imagine, is not it creativity if we combine the dull history with interesting story? For example, isn't it also creative if we relate the history, which is mostly dull,  in a vivid way as a storyteller does? Or in other word(s), could we impart history in a storyteller's way instead of the usual on? Thus, In that way, we can make history more interesting,at least so for  history lessons.

In conclusion, several opinions insist by the speaker are flawed,这是argument的结尾方式。 although the intrinsic limitations in history study mean that historians can not be completely objective,  they do not mean that we should regard historians as storytellers. Fundamentally, the study of history is an objective pursuit, though the vivid way of storytelling might help make it less boring.we could not confuse the storyteller and the historian as they are essentially different from each other. While, in another way, this confusion may inspire us a brand new way of history teaching.不要了


印象：作者的想法有新意，语言总的来讲也不错。
问题：在关键的地方展开得不够，过于集中攻击对方的结论而不是论据上了。

[ Last edited by gtrand on 2005-12-11 at 05:55 ]

superficialUID: 2151788

印象：作者的想法有新意，语言总的来讲也不错。
问题：在关键的地方展开得不够，过于集中攻击对方的结论而不是论据上了。

gtrand你的鼓励是对我最大的支持，我一定继续努力！

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

Originally posted by gtrand at 2005-12-11 05:45
History, by the definition ofby definition, is a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or an institution, often including an explanation of  ...

　
改得非常棒！！！，