顶! 迟点关闭 我关注着呢
本书作者揭露出隐藏在伦敦狭小、肮脏的偏僻街道里的恐怖和暴力。因此他为我们写了邪恶的费金，残暴的比尔·赛克斯，以及一大群窃贼强盗。这些人撒谎、欺诈、偷盗，害怕进监狱，害怕郐子手把绞索套到他们的脚颈上，在惴惴不安中生活。小奥利弗·特威斯特——一个孤儿，他被投入一个充满贫困与犯罪的世界，忍饥挨饿，挨打挨骂，从来没有人爱他。他为我们写出了南希——可怜、凄惨、悲苦的南希，她生活在一个残忍的世界中，却挣扎着要忠实于她所爱的人。 Dickens had already achieved renown with The Pickwick Papers. With Oliver Twist his reputation was enhanced and strengthened. The novel contains many classic Dickensian themes - grinding poverty, desperation, fear, temptation and the eventual triumph of good in the face of great adversity. Oliver Twist features some of the author's most enduring characters, such as Oliver himself (who dares to ask for more), the tyrannical Bumble, the diabolical Fagin, the menacing Bill Sykes, Nancy and 'the Artful Dodger'. For any reader wishing to delve into the works of the great Victorian literary colossus, Oliver Twist is, without doubt, an essential title.
《雾都孤儿》是查尔斯.狄更斯第二部长篇小说.这位年仅二十五岁的小说家决心学习英国现实主义画家威廉·荷加斯(William Hogarth,1697一1764)的榜样,勇敢地直面人生,真实地表现当时伦敦贫民窟的悲惨生活.他抱着一个崇高的道德意图:抗议社会的不公,并唤起社会舆论,推行改革,使处于水深火热中的贫民得到救助.正因为如此,狄更斯历来被我国及前苏联学者界定为"英国文学上批判现实主义的创始人和最伟大的代表".对此,我有一些不同的见解:文学艺术是一种特殊的社会意识形态,它必然是社会存在的反映.但是,我们决不能把反映现实的文学都说成是现实主义文学,把"现实主义"的外延无限扩展.事实上,作家运用的创作方法多种多样,因人而异,这和作家的特殊气质和性格特点密切相关.狄更斯的创作,想像力极为丰富,充满诗的激情,他着意渲染自己的道德理想,处处突破自然的忠实临摹,借用一句歌德的话:它比自然高了一层.这和萨克雷,特洛罗普等坚持的客观.冷静,严格写实的方法有显著的区别. 试以《雾都孤儿》为例,(一)个性化的语言是狄更斯在人物塑造上运用得十分出色的一种手段.书中的流氓,盗贼,妓女的语言都切合其身份,甚至还用了行业的黑话.然而,狄更斯决不作自然主义的再现,而是进行加工,提炼和选择,避免使用污秽,下流的话语.主人公奥立弗语言规范,谈吐文雅,他甚至不知偷窃为何物.他是在济贫院长大的孤儿,从未受到良好的教育,所接触的都是罪恶累累,堕落不堪之辈,他怎么会讲这么好的英文呢?这用"人是一切社会关系总和"的历史唯物主义观点是无法解释的.可见,狄更斯着力表现的是自己的道德理想,而不是追求完全的逼真.(二)在优秀的现实主义小说中,故事情节往往是在环境作用下的人物性格发展史,即高尔基所说的"某种性格,典型的成长和构成的历史".然而,狄更斯不拘任何格套,想要多少巧合就安排多少巧合.奥立弗第一次跟小偷上街,被掏兜的第一人恰巧就是他亡父的好友布朗罗.第二次,他在匪徒赛克斯的劫持下入室行窃,被偷的恰好是他亲姨妈露丝·梅莱家.这在情理上无论如何是说不过去的.但狄更斯自有天大的本领,在具体的细节描写中充满生活气息和激情,使你读时紧张得喘不过气来,对这种本来是牵强的,不自然的情节也不得不信以为真.这就是狄更斯的艺术世界的魅力.(三)狄更斯写作时,始终有一种"感同身受的想象力"(Sympathetic imagination),即使对十恶不赦的人物也一样.书中贼首,老犹太费金受审的一场始终从费金的心理视角出发.他从天花板看到地板,只见重重叠叠的眼睛都在注视着自己.他听到对他罪行的陈述报告,他把恳求的目光转向律师,希望能为他辩护几句.人群中有人在吃东西,有人用手绢扇风,还有一名青年画家在画他的素描,他心想:不知道像不像,真想伸过脖子去看一看……一位绅士出去又进来,他想:准是吃饭去了,不知吃的什么饭?看到铁栏杆上有尖刺,他琢磨着:这很容易折断.从此又想到绞刑架,这时,他听到自己被处绞刑.他只是喃喃地说,自己岁数大了,大了,接着就什么声音也发不出来了.在这里,狄更斯精心选择了一系列细节,不但描绘了客观事物,而且切入了人物的内心世界,表现了他极其丰富的想像力.他运用的艺术方法,不是"批判现实主义"所能概括的.我倒是赞赏英国作家,狄更斯专家乔治·吉辛(George Giss-ing,1857-1903)的表述,他把狄更斯的创作方法称为"浪漫的现实主义"(romantic realism).我认为这一表述才够准确,才符合狄更斯小说艺术的实际. 最后还要讨论一下E.M.福斯特在他的名著《小说面面观》中对狄更斯人物塑造的贬低.据他说,狄更斯只会塑造"扁形人物",而不会塑造"浑圆人物",在小说艺术上属于"较低层次".事实真是这样吗?试以《雾都孤儿》中的南希为例,作一番研究分析.我认为,南希这个人物有无比丰富,复杂的内心世界,远比E.M.福斯特所称羡的一切"浑圆人物"更富于立体感和活跃的生命力.南希是个不幸的姑娘,自幼沦落贼窟,并已成为第二号贼首赛克斯的情妇.除了绞架,她看不到任何别的前景.但是,她天良未泯,在天真纯洁的奥立弗,看到往日清白的自己,同情之心油然而生.她连奉贼首之命,冒称是奥立弗的姐姐,硬把他绑架回贼窟时,内心充满矛盾.归途中,她和赛克斯谈起监狱绞死犯人的事,奥立弗感觉到南希紧攥着他的那只手在发抖,抬眼一看,她的脸色变得煞白.后来,她冒着生命的危险偷偷地给梅莱小姐和布朗罗通风报信,终于把奥立弗救了出来.梅莱和布朗罗力劝南希挣脱过去的生活,走上新生之路,但南希不忍心把情人赛克斯撇下.赛克斯在得知南希所作所为后,他只能持盗匪的道德标准,把南希视为不可饶恕的叛徒,亲手把她残酷地杀害.狄更斯在给这两个人物取名时是有很深的用意的,南希(Nancy)和赛克斯(Sikes)英文缩写是N和S,正是磁针的两极.他俩构成一对矛盾,既对立又统一,既相反又相成,永远不可分离.南希离不开赛克斯,宁愿被他杀害也不肯抛弃他;而赛克斯也离不开南希,一旦失去她,他就丧魂失魄,终于在房顶跌落,脖子被自己的一条绳子的活扣套住而气绝身死.南希的形象复杂,丰富又深刻,不但不是"扁平"的,而且达到极高的艺术成就. 狄更斯的小说经得起各种现代批评理论的发掘和阐释,不断产生发人深省的新意,将永久保持读者的鉴赏兴趣和专家们的研究兴趣.参考资料：baidu帖吧我觉得要让自己编写的杂志能吸引读者的眼球，要从多方面着手。包括文本的精美编排；插图的合理布局；杂志内容要有深度和内涵，让人读后能产生共鸣，有所启迪等等。我建议在杂志中可以添加一些世界名画作为装饰和点缀，把作者查尔斯.狄更斯生平做一详细介绍，并把他别的文学作品也做一些简单的归纳和比较！关键是要去揣摩读者的心理，将心比心，假想自己是读者，喜欢看怎么样的英语杂志，从而去编写杂志。句子结构不要过于复杂，以满足不同层次的读者水平！！封面可以设计的比较简约美观，富有时代气息！！
关于狄更斯和他的小说艺术,心里早有一些想法,趁写这篇前言之便,说出来,就正于广大狄更斯爱好者. 《雾都孤儿》是狄更斯第二部长篇小说.这位年仅二十五岁的小说家决心学习英国现实主义画家威廉·荷加斯(William Hogarth,1697一1764)的榜样,勇敢地直面人生,真实地表现当时伦敦贫民窟的悲惨生活.他抱着一个崇高的道德意图:抗议社会的不公,并唤起社会舆论,推行改革,使处于水深火热中的贫民得到救助.正因为如此,狄更斯历来被我国及前苏联学者界定为"英国文学上批判现实主义的创始人和最伟大的代表".对此,我有一些不同的见解:文学艺术是一种特殊的社会意识形态,它必然是社会存在的反映.但是,我们决不能把反映现实的文学都说成是现实主义文学,把"现实主义"的外延无限扩展.事实上,作家运用的创作方法多种多样,因人而异,这和作家的特殊气质和性格特点密切相关.狄更斯的创作,想像力极为丰富,充满诗的激情,他着意渲染自己的道德理想,处处突破自然的忠实临摹,借用一句歌德的话:它比自然高了一层.这和萨克雷,特洛罗普等坚持的客观.冷静,严格写实的方法有显著的区别. 试以《雾都孤儿》为例,(一)个性化的语言是狄更斯在人物塑造上运用得十分出色的一种手段.书中的流氓,盗贼,妓女的语言都切合其身份,甚至还用了行业的黑话.然而,狄更斯决不作自然主义的再现,而是进行加工,提炼和选择,避免使用污秽,下流的话语.主人公奥立弗语言规范,谈吐文雅,他甚至不知偷窃为何物.他是在济贫院长大的孤儿,从未受到良好的教育,所接触的都是罪恶累累,堕落不堪之辈,他怎么会讲这么好的英文呢?这用"人是一切社会关系总和"的历史唯物主义观点是无法解释的.可见,狄更斯着力表现的是自己的道德理想,而不是追求完全的逼真.(二)在优秀的现实主义小说中,故事情节往往是在环境作用下的人物性格发展史,即高尔基所说的"某种性格,典型的成长和构成的历史".然而,狄更斯不拘任何格套,想要多少巧合就安排多少巧合.奥立弗第一次跟小偷上街,被掏兜的第一人恰巧就是他亡父的好友布朗罗.第二次,他在匪徒赛克斯的劫持下入室行窃,被偷的恰好是他亲姨妈露丝·梅莱家.这在情理上无论如何是说不过去的.但狄更斯自有天大的本领,在具体的细节描写中充满生活气息和激情,使你读时紧张得喘不过气来,对这种本来是牵强的,不自然的情节也不得不信以为真.这就是狄更斯的艺术世界的魅力.(三)狄更斯写作时,始终有一种"感同身受的想象力"(Sympathetic imagination),即使对十恶不赦的人物也一样.书中贼首,老犹太费金受审的一场始终从费金的心理视角出发.他从天花板看到地板,只见重重叠叠的眼睛都在注视着自己.他听到对他罪行的陈述报告,他把恳求的目光转向律师,希望能为他辩护几句.人群中有人在吃东西,有人用手绢扇风,还有一名青年画家在画他的素描,他心想:不知道像不像,真想伸过脖子去看一看……一位绅士出去又进来,他想:准是吃饭去了,不知吃的什么饭?看到铁栏杆上有尖刺,他琢磨着:这很容易折断.从此又想到绞刑架,这时,他听到自己被处绞刑.他只是喃喃地说,自己岁数大了,大了,接着就什么声音也发不出来了.在这里,狄更斯精心选择了一系列细节,不但描绘了客观事物,而且切入了人物的内心世界,表现了他极其丰富的想像力.他运用的艺术方法,不是"批判现实主义"所能概括的.我倒是赞赏英国作家,狄更斯专家乔治·吉辛(George Giss-ing,1857-1903)的表述,他把狄更斯的创作方法称为"浪漫的现实主义"(romantic realism).我认为这一表述才够准确,才符合狄更斯小说艺术的实际. 最后还要讨论一下E.M.福斯特在他的名著《小说面面观》中对狄更斯人物塑造的贬低.据他说,狄更斯只会塑造"扁形人物",而不会塑造"浑圆人物",在小说艺术上属于"较低层次".事实真是这样吗?试以《雾都孤儿》中的南希为例,作一番研究分析.我认为,南希这个人物有无比丰富,复杂的内心世界,远比E.M.福斯特所称羡的一切"浑圆人物"更富于立体感和活跃的生命力.南希是个不幸的姑娘,自幼沦落贼窟,并已成为第二号贼首赛克斯的情妇.除了绞架,她看不到任何别的前景.但是,她天良未泯,在天真纯洁的奥立弗,看到往日清白的自己,同情之心油然而生.她连奉贼首之命,冒称是奥立弗的姐姐,硬把他绑架回贼窟时,内心充满矛盾.归途中,她和赛克斯谈起监狱绞死犯人的事,奥立弗感觉到南希紧攥着他的那只手在发抖,抬眼一看,她的脸色变得煞白.后来,她冒着生命的危险偷偷地给梅莱小姐和布朗罗通风报信,终于把奥立弗救了出来.梅莱和布朗罗力劝南希挣脱过去的生活,走上新生之路,但南希不忍心把情人赛克斯撇下.赛克斯在得知南希所作所为后,他只能持盗匪的道德标准,把南希视为不可饶恕的叛徒,亲手把她残酷地杀害.狄更斯在给这两个人物取名时是有很深的用意的,南希(Nancy)和赛克斯(Sikes)英文缩写是N和S,正是磁针的两极.他俩构成一对矛盾,既对立又统一,既相反又相成,永远不可分离.南希离不开赛克斯,宁愿被他杀害也不肯抛弃他;而赛克斯也离不开南希,一旦失去她,他就丧魂失魄,终于在房顶跌落,脖子被自己的一条绳子的活扣套住而气绝身死.南希的形象复杂,丰富又深刻,不但不是"扁平"的,而且达到极高的艺术成就. 狄更斯的小说经得起各种现代批评理论的发掘和阐释,不断产生发人深省的新意,将永久保持读者的鉴赏兴趣和专家们的研究兴趣
Oliver TwistSearch all of Oliver Twist: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------FROM: Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles DickensBY: Gilbert Keith ChestertonIn considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Moli鑢e or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories. This first element was present in Dickens, and it is very powerfully present in Oliver Twist. It had not been present with sufficient consistency or continuity in Pickwick to make it remain on the reader's memory at all, for the tale of "Gabriel Grubb" is grotesque rather than horrible, and the two gloomy stories of the "Madman" and the "Queer Client" are so utterly irrelevant to the tale, that even if the reader remember them he probably does not remember that they occur in Pickwick. Critics have complained of Shakespeare and others for putting comic episodes into a tragedy. It required a man with the courage and coarseness of Dickens actually to put tragic episodes into a farce. But they are not caught up into the story at all. In Oliver Twist, however, the thing broke out with an almost brutal inspiration, and those who had fallen in love with Dickens for his generous buffoonery may very likely have been startled at receiving such very different fare at the next helping. When you have bought a man's book because you like his writing about Mr. Wardle's punch-bowl and Mr. Winkle's skates, it may very well be surprising to open it and read about the sickening thuds that beat out the life of Nancy, or that mysterious villain whose face was blasted with disease. As a nightmare, the work is really admirable. Characters which are not very clearly conceived as regards their own psychology are yet, at certain moments, managed so as to shake to its foundations our own psychology. Bill Sikes is not exactly a real man, but for all that he is a real murderer. Nancy is not really impressive as a living woman; but (as the phrase goes) she makes a lovely corpse. Something quite childish and eternal in us, something which is shocked with the mere simplicity of death, quivers when we read of those repeated blows or see Sikes cursing the tell-tale cur who will follow his bloody foot-prints. And this strange, sublime, vulgar melodrama, which is melodrama and yet is painfully real, reaches its hideous height in that fine scene of the death of Sikes, the besieged house, the boy screaming within, the crowd screaming without, the murderer turned almost a maniac and dragging his victim uselessly up and down the room, the escape over the roof, the rope swiftly running taut, and death sudden, startling and symbolic; a man hanged. There is in this and similar scenes something of the quality of Hogarth and many other English moralists of the early eighteenth century. It is not easy to define this Hogarthian quality in words, beyond saying that it is a sort of alphabetical realism, like the cruel candour of children. But it has about it these two special principles which separate it from all that we call realism in our time. First, that with us a moral story means a story about moral people; with them a moral story meant more often a story about immoral people. Second, that with us realism is always associated with some subtle view of morals; with them realism was always associated with some simple view of morals. The end of Bill Sikes exactly in the way that the law would have killed him -- this is a Hogarthian incident; it carries on that tradition of startling and shocking platitude. All this element in the book was a sincere thing in the author, but none the less it came from old soils, from the graveyard and the gallows, and the lane where the ghost walked. Dickens was always attracted to such things, and (as Forster says with inimitable simplicity) "but for his strong sense might have fallen into the follies of spiritualism." As a matter of fact, like most of the men of strong sense in his tradition, Dickens was left with a half belief in spirits which became in practice a belief in bad spirits. The great disadvantage of those who have too much strong sense to believe in supernaturalism is that they keep last the low and little forms of the supernatural, such as omens, curses, spectres, and retributions, but find a high and happy supernaturalism quite incredible. Thus the Puritans denied the sacraments, but went on burning witches. This shadow does rest, to some extent, upon the rational English writers like Dickens; supernaturalism was dying, but its ugliest roots died last. Dickens would have found it easier to believe in a ghost than in a vision of the Virgin with angels. There, for good or evil, however, was the root of the old diablerie in Dickens, and there it is in Oliver Twist. But this was only the first of the new Dickens elements, which must have surprised those Dickensians who eagerly bought his second book. The second of the new Dickens elements is equally indisputable and separate. It swelled afterwards to enormous proportions in Dickens's work; but it really has its rise here. Again, as in the case of the element of diablerie, it would be possible to make technical exceptions in favour of Pickwick. Just as there were quite inappropriate scraps of the gruesome element in Pickwick, so there are quite inappropriate allusions to this other topic in Pickwick. But nobody by merely reading Pickwick would even remember this topic; no one by merely reading Pickwick would know what this topic is; this third great subject of Dickens; this second great subject of the Dickens of Oliver Twist. This subject is social oppression. It is surely fair to say that no one could have gathered from Pickwick how this question boiled in the blood of the author of Pickwick. There are, indeed, passages, particularly in connection with Mr. Pickwick in the debtor's prison, which prove to us, looking back on a whole public career, that Dickens had been from the beginning bitter and inquisitive about the problem of our civilisation. No one could have imagined at the time that this bitterness ran in an unbroken river under all the surges of that superb gaiety and exuberance. With Oliver Twist this sterner side of Dickens was suddenly revealed. For the very first pages of Oliver Twist are stern even when they are funny. They amuse, but they cannot be enjoyed, as can the passages about the follies of Mr. Snodgrass or the humiliations of Mr. Winkle. The difference between the old easy humour and this new harsh humour is a difference not of degree but of kind. Dickens makes game of Mr. Bumble because he wants to kill Mr. Bumble; he made game of Mr. Winkle because he wanted him to live for ever. Dickens has taken the sword in hand; against what is he declaring war? It is just here that the greatness of Dickens comes in; it is just here that the difference lies between the pedant and the poet. Dickens enters the social and political war, and the first stroke he deals is not only significant but even startling. Fully to see this we must appreciate the national situation. It was an age of reform, and even of radical reform; the world was full of radicals and reformers; but only too many of them took the line of attacking everything and anything that was opposed to some particular theory among the many political theories that possessed the end of the eighteenth century. Some had so much perfected the perfect theory of republicanism that they almost lay awake at night because Queen Victoria had a crown on her head. Others were so certain that mankind had hitherto been merely strangled in the bonds of the State that they saw truth only in the destruction of tariffs or of by-laws. The greater part of that generation held that clearness, economy, and a hard common-sense, would soon destroy the errors that had been erected by the superstitions and sentimentalities of the past. In pursuance of this idea many of the new men of the new century, quite confident that they were invigorating the new age, sought to destroy the old entimental clericalism, the old sentimental feudalism, the old-world belief in priests, the old-world belief in patrons, and among other things the old-world belief in beggars. They sought among other things to clear away the old visionary kindliness on the subject of vagrants. Hence those reformers enacted not only a new reform bill but also a new poor law. In creating many other modern things they created the modern workhouse, and when Dickens came out to fight it was the first thing that he broke with his battle-axe. This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell. That which pedants of that time and this time would have called the sentimentalism of Dickens was really simply the detached sanity of Dickens. He cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Constitutional Conservatives; he cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Manchester School. He would have cared quite as little for the fugitive explanations of the Fabian Society or of the modern scientific Socialist. He saw that under many forms there was one fact, the tyranny of man over man; and he struck at it when he saw it, whether it was old or new. When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby. When he imagined himself to be fighting old laws he gave a sort of vague and general approval to new laws. But when he came to the new laws they had a bad time. When Dickens found that after a hundred economic arguments and granting a hundred economic considerations, the fact remained that paupers in modern workhouses were much too afraid of the beadle, just as vassals in ancient castles were much too afraid of the Dedlocks, then he struck suddenly and at once. This is what makes the opening chapters of Oliver Twist so curious and important. The very fact of Dickens's distance from, and independence of, the elaborate financial arguments of his time, makes more definite and dazzling his sudden assertion that he sees the old human tyranny in front of him as plain as the sun at noon-day. Dickens attacks the modern workhouse with a sort of inspired simplicity as a boy in a fairy tale who had wandered about, sword in hand, looking for ogres and who had found an indisputable ogre. All the other people of his time are attacking things because they are bad economics or because they are bad politics, or because they are bad science; he alone is attacking things because they are bad. All the others are Radicals with a large R; he alone is radical with a small one. He encounters evil with that beautiful surprise which, as it is the beginning of all real pleasure, is also the beginning of all righteous indignation. He enters the workhouse just as Oliver Twist enters it, as a little child. This is the real power and pathos of that celebrated passage in the book which has passed into a proverb; but which has not lost its terrible humour even in being hackneyed. I mean, of course, the everlasting quotation about Oliver Twist asking for more. The real poignancy that there is in this idea is a very good study in that strong school of social criticism which Dickens represented. A modern realist describing the dreary workhouse would have made all the children utterly crushed, not daring to speak at all, not expecting anything, not hoping anything, past all possibility of affording even an ironical contrast or a protest of despair. A modern, in short, would have made all the boys in the workhouse pathetic by making them all pessimists. But Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe that he is living in a just world. He comes before the Guardians as the ragged peasants of the French Revolution came before the Kings and Parliaments of Europe. That is to say, he comes, indeed, with gloomy experiences, but he comes with a happy philosophy. He knows that there are wrongs of man to be reviled; but he believes also that there are rights of man to be demanded. It has often been remarked as a singular fact that the French poor, who stand in historic tradition as typical of all the desperate men who have dragged down tyranny, were, as a matter of fact, by no means worse off than the poor of many other European countries before the Revolution. The truth is that the French were tragic because they were better off. The others had known the sorrowful experiences; but they alone had known the splendid expectation and the original claims. It was just here that Dickens was so true a child of them and of that happy theory so bitterly applied. They were the one oppressed people that simply asked for justice; they were the one Parish Boy who innocently asked for more.
英语专业毕业论文选题
1、浅析雾都孤儿的反讽性
2、海明威短篇小说中的老人形象分析
3、论英源外来词的翻译
4、从电影三个白痴看印度的社会问题
5、教师提问对学生思维发展的影响
6、浅谈英语阅读中的词汇教学方法
7、山东省英语教育培训机构现状调查
8、初中英语教学中微课的构建与应用
9、远大前程一部成长小说角度下的教育小说
10、论喜福会中中美文化的冲突及磨合
11、传播学视角下旅游文本的汉英翻译策略研究
12、角色扮演活动在小学英语课堂中的有效性研究
13、“场依存，场独立”认知风格对高中生英语阅读的影响
14、中国幼儿英语浸入式教学方法探究15、从女性主义角度研究紫色
雾都孤儿 Oliver Twist Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens’, is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century. The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to expose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London. The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic experiences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty. How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don’t think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded. For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose’, he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself. To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people’s honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom offer to help others. On the other hand, they attach importance to money and benefit. In their opinion, money is the only real object while emotions and morality are nihility. If they cannot get profit from showing their ‘kindness’, they draw back when others are faced with trouble and even hit a man when he is down. They are one of the sorts that I really detest. Francis Bacon said in his essay, ‘Goodness, of all virtues and dignities of the mind, is the greatest, being the character of the Deity, and without it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin.’ That is to say a person without goodness is destined to lose everything. Therefore, I, a kind person, want to tell those ‘vermin-to-be’ to learn from the kind Oliver and regain the nature of goodness.
我也是写这个 正找材料呢 交流交流哦
In considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Molière or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories.
Oliver Twist, written in 1837-38. Tells the story of an orphan boy, whose adventures provides a description of the lower depths of London. Oliver Twist is born in a workhouse in 1830s, England. His mother, whose name no one knows is found on the street and dies just after Oliver’s birth. He is brought up in the workhouse where he and other orphans are maltreated and constantly starved. One day, because Oliver asks for more gruel, he is dent to an undertaker to work as an apprentice, Noah Claypole, makes disparaging comments about Oliver’s mother, Unable to bear it, Oliver attacks him and run away to London. There he falls into the hands of a gang of thieves headed by old Jew Fagin. In the thieve’s den Oliver is taught the skill of pocking and stealing and is forced to steal. He is rescued for a time by the kind-hearted Mr Brownlow. But Nancy and other gang members find him and bring him back .It finally turns out that a mysterious man Monks wants to make the boy a criminal. Once Oliver is forced to help a burglar,Bill Sikes, in a burglary. In the course of it, Oliver is shot and badly wounded, the kindly care from Mrs Maylie and her beautiful adopted niece Rose brings him back to health, Nancy, who now repents for what she has done, tries to help .she tells Rose and Mr. Brownlow of the mystery about Oliver’s origin and is found out by the gang and brutally murdered by Bill Sikes. Persued by his guilty conscience and an angry mob, he inadvertently hangs himself while trying to escape. Fagin is arrested and executed .It is now know that Monks is the half -brother of Oliver and he does all this for the purpose of seizing the whole of their father’s property. Rose is revealed in the end to be the sister of Oliver’s dead mother. Oliver is finally adopted by Mr Brownlow. Monks is exiled and dies in prison. Bumble, the self –important beadle of the workhouse who has conspired with Monk, become an inmate of the workhouse over which he formerly ruled.
《雾都孤儿》是狄更斯第二部长篇小说。这位年仅二十五岁的小说家决心学习英国现实主义画家威廉•荷加斯（William Hogarth,1697一1764）的榜样，勇敢地直面人生，真实地表现当时伦敦贫民窟的悲惨生活。他抱着一个崇高的道德意图：抗议社会的不公，并唤起社会舆论，推行改革，使处于水深火热中的贫民得到救助。正因为如此，狄更斯历来被我国及前苏联学者界定为“英国文学上批判现实主义的创始人和最伟大的代表”。对此，我有一些不同的见解：文学艺术是一种特殊的社会意识形态，它必然是社会存在的反映。但是，我们决不能把反映现实的文学都说成是现实主义文学，把“现实主义”的外延无限扩展。事实上，作家运用的创作方法多种多样，因人而异，这和作家的特殊气质和性格特点密切相关。狄更斯的创作，想象力极为丰富，充满诗的激情，他着意渲染自己的道德理想，处处突破自然的忠实临摹，借用一句歌德的话：它比自然高了一层。这和萨克雷、特洛罗普等坚持的客观。冷静、严格写实的方法有显著的区别。试以《雾都孤儿》为例，（一）个性化的语言是狄更斯在人物塑造上运用得十分出色的一种手段。书中的流氓、盗贼、妓女的语言都切合其身份，甚至还用了行业的黑话。然而，狄更斯决不作自然主义的再现，而是进行加工、提炼和选择，避免使用污秽、下流的话语。主人公奥立弗语言规范、谈吐文雅，他甚至不知偷窃为何物。他是在济贫院长大的孤儿，从未受到良好的教育，所接触的都是罪恶累累、堕落不堪之辈，他怎么会讲这么好的英文呢？这用“人是一切社会关系总和”的历史唯物主义观点是无法解释的。可见，狄更斯着力表现的是自己的道德理想，而不是追求完全的逼真。（二）在优秀的现实主义小说中，故事情节往往是在环境作用下的人物性格发展史，即高尔基所说的“某种性格、典型的成长和构成的历史”。然而，狄更斯不拘任何格套，想要多少巧合就安排多少巧合。奥立弗第一次跟小偷上街，被掏兜的第一人恰巧就是他亡父的好友布朗罗。第二次，他在匪徒赛克斯的劫持下入室行窃，被偷的恰好是他亲姨妈露丝•梅莱家。这在情理上无论如何是说不过去的。但狄更斯自有天大的本领，在具体的细节描写中充满生活气息和激情，使你读时紧张得喘不过气来，对这种本来是牵强的、不自然的情节也不得不信以为真。这就是狄更斯的艺术世界的魅力。（三）狄更斯写作时，始终有一种“感同身受的想象力”（Sympathetic imagination），即使对十恶不赦的人物也一样。书中贼首、老犹太费金受审的一场始终从费金的心理视角出发。他从天花板看到地板，只见重重叠叠的眼睛都在注视着自己。他听到对他罪行的陈述报告，他把恳求的目光转向律师，希望能为他辩护几句。人群中有人在吃东西，有人用手绢扇风，还有一名青年画家在画他的素描，他心想：不知道像不像，真想伸过脖子去看一看……一位绅士出去又进来，他想：准是吃饭去了，不知吃的什么饭？看到铁栏杆上有尖刺，他琢磨着：这很容易折断。从此又想到绞刑架，这时，他听到自己被处绞刑。他只是喃喃地说，自己岁数大了，大了，接着就什么声音也发不出来了。在这里，狄更斯精心选择了一系列细节，不但描绘了客观事物，而且切入了人物的内心世界，表现了他极其丰富的想象力。他运用的艺术方法，不是“批判现实主义”所能概括的。我倒是赞赏英国作家、狄更斯专家乔治•吉辛（George Giss－ing，1857—1903）的表述，他把狄更斯的创作方法称为“浪漫的现实主义”（romantic realism）。我认为这一表述才够准确，才符合狄更斯小说艺术的实际。
1． 直译法这是最常见的译法。在不违背电影情节、内容及不致引起错误联想的前提下，以生动、形象的译入语再现片名。如：Snow White and Seven Dwarfs（白雪公主与七个小矮人）；All Quiet On the Westernfront（西线无战事）；Dances With Wolves（与狼共舞）。但这种形式与内容都可直接对应的作品较少。因而要在主要精神、具体事实、意境气氛等方面都达到对等，采用直译加意译的方法是完全必要的。如Ghost（人鬼情未了）；讲述美国苹果电脑公司及微软电脑公司创立者事迹的Pirates Of Sillicon Valley译为“硅谷传奇”。 再如，The Living Daylights（黎明生机）；2． 意译法如上文所述，很多片名本身含有丰富的文化内涵。直译难以体现其中精髓，译者在综合、分析、理解原片内容、风格、情节甚至于文体等的基础上，对片名进行创造性加工，将它译成能反映原片特点的译名，以实现其文化、审美、经济等方面的对等。如：One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest中，Cuckoo’s Nest与杜鹃窝无关，它是个习语，为“疯人院”之意，因此，该名后被纠正为“飞越疯人院”。Midnight Cowboy中的cowboy本意为“牛仔”，是美国特有文化，与汉文化中的“牛郎”并无关系，但作为折衷，“午夜牛郎”似可接受。再如，Butch Cassidy and the Sandance Kid译为“神枪手与智多星”，生动了体现了该片内容、情节，优于最早的“虎豹小霸王”。尤其值得一提的是，有些片名本身虽然表示人名或地名，但却是有意虚构出来的，且与电影内容有紧密的联系。此时，若能音译的同时，又能体现片名的内涵，当然再好不过。否则，以意译为佳。如Cash Mccall（商海情深）；Shane（原野奇侠）。优秀的意译片名有很多，下面再举几例，以供欣赏：The Best Years of Our Lives：黄金时代；Singing In the Rain：万花嬉春，雨中曲；Rebel Without a Cause：善子不孝谁之过，阿飞正传；Lawrence Of Arabia：沙漠枭雄；It’s a Wonderful Life：风云人物；It’s Not Me, It’s Him：冒名顶替；Big Bully：冤家路窄，等。3． 音译法很多片名本身常为表示人名、地名的特殊名词，在不致引起译入语文化的曲解时，可直接将其音译。如： Rocky：（洛基）；Casablaca（卡萨布兰卡）。但众多例子表明，纯音译的例子很少，因为表示片名的人名、地名多为国内观众所不知。由此应考虑音译加意译这一方案，以取得令人满意的效果。如Patton：巴顿将军；Forrest Gump：阿甘正传；King Kong：大金刚等等。4． 另译以上译法都难以实现对等时，或译名是死译、乱译的结果，导致译名晦涩难懂，可采用另译。如：Earthquake最初译为“地震”，给人一种科教片的感觉，与原片内容相距极远。后译为“惊魂夺命”较好地实现了对等。再如，Gia。Gia是名模Gia Carangi的缩略，若音译，毫无意义，现根据故事内容，译为“霓裳情挑”；Speed讲述的是发生在一列高速奔驰的列车上排除一颗定时炸弹的故事。故事情节迭宕起伏，扣人心弦，真正反映了“生”与“死”全系于列车之“时速”，译名“生死时速”可谓经典之作。上乘之作还比如：Entrapment（将计就计）；Playing By Heart（随心所欲）；Matrix（黑客帝国）；The Duke（亿万富犬）；While You Were Sleeping（二见钟情）；It Happened One Night（一夜风流）；George Wallace(风云传奇)等。四字词是汉语词汇的一个重要特征。由以上译例可看出，四字词作为译名使用频率很高，它们在很大程度上能立刻引起观众认同感。因此，四字词的译名往往有出奇制胜的效果，被译者广泛使用。所谓直译，就是在译文语言条件许可时，在译文中既保持原文的内容，又保持原文的形式---特别是指保持原文的比喻、形象和民族、地方色彩。传统的片名翻译理论认为，保留原片名“原汁原味”、“原风原貌”的直译是最佳译法。“原汁原味”、“原风原貌”亦即鲁迅先生所说的保持“异国情调”和“洋气”。在我们所接触到电影中相当一部分都是用此方法翻译的，此类翻译方法浅显易懂，忠于原题。例如：How’s Moving Castle《哈尔的移动城堡》，提到“城堡”顾名思义指的是一座固定的建筑物，而“移动”一词的限定不仅增加了片名的神秘色彩，而且足以引起观众的好奇心，因此直译此片名不失为翻译的最佳方案。影片讲述的是一个可以飞来飞去的神奇城堡，传说有一个法力无边的邪恶魔法师住在里面，他好收集年轻女孩并且吸食她们的灵魂，还有人说他喜欢吃她们的心脏。镇上的所有年轻姑娘都被警告不要单独出门，以免被抓到邪恶的城堡被恶魔吞噬。而就是这样一个传说中可怕的城堡却给我们演绎了一段凄美的爱情故事，展示了人与人之间的真情。通过直译方法来达到先声夺人，引人入胜的例子数不胜数，再如：Batman Begins 《蝙蝠侠的诞生》，Beauty and the Beast《美女与野兽》，The Pink Panther《粉红豹》，The Producers《制作人》，Corpse Bride《僵尸新娘》，Pride and Prejudice《傲慢与偏见》，Hair《头发》，Monsters,Inc.《怪兽公司》，Lion King《狮子王》， A Beautiful Mind《美丽心情》，The Little Mermaid《小美人鱼》，The Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King《指环王-王者归来》，Sleeping Beauty《睡美人》，Mystic River 《神秘之河》，21Grams《21克》，Whale Rider《鲸骑士》,Cold Mountain《冷山》），Walk the Line《一往无前》，Brokeback Mountain《断背山》，Polar Express《极地特快》，Catwoman《猫女》，Million Dollar Baby《百万宝贝》，Crash《冲撞》，Superman Returns《超人归来》，The Constant Gardener《不朽的园丁》，Kindergarten Cop《幼稚园特警》，Evil《邪恶》,Twin Sisters《孪生姐妹》,Shark Tale《鲨鱼故事》等等。 上面的例子中，读者不难发现，译文和原文重合程度惊人，几乎可以达到字字对应的翻译，但直译不是死译或硬译，不可能是逐词逐句翻译的罗列。 例如：Sound of Music译作《音乐之声》，是直译的经典范例之一，是电影史上传颂最广的一部活泼、温馨的音乐电影，清新有致，雅俗共赏。既有幽默的情趣，又有深沉凝重的感情，在各国的民意测验中经常被评为"最受欢迎的影片"，是全世界票房最高的电影之一。天性自由、善良的美丽修女玛利亚，奥地利美丽的阿尔卑斯山的山坡、清澈的湖泊、雅致的别墅，一群活泼可爱的孩子，以及反纳粹、追求自由的勇气，这一切都深深地打动着世界各地人们的心。正是这样脱俗、清新的一部影片港台却意译作《仙乐飘飘处处闻》，此句语出唐代大诗人白居易名篇：《长恨歌》“骊宫高处入青云，仙乐风飘处处闻”，如此译法一是给人感觉沉冗，二是与有悖于原文的意境。不妥！其他例子还有很多，比如：War of the World《世界大战》，Kingdom of Heaven《王朝天国》，Father of the Bride《新岳父大人》， Pieces of April 《四月的碎片》，Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind《纯洁心灵的永恒阳光》，Dances with Wolves《与狼共舞》，Memories of a Geisha 《艺妓回忆录》， City of God《上帝之城》，Girl With a Pearl Earring《戴珠耳环的女孩》等等。II音译 在翻译片名的时候，外来人名、英语专有名词、地点、历史事件、以及汉语中无法对应的词汇，一般以此种方式来翻译。例如：Mulan《花木兰》，描述的是匈奴军队在单于率领下大举进攻入侵中原，北朝皇帝命令每家每户必须出一人赴前线抗敌。木兰毅然决定替年事已高、行动不便的父亲从军，在宗庙守护神“木须龙”和忠实的蟋蟀“叽叽”的帮助下，女扮男装以自己的勇猛和聪明拯救了整个军队,杀死了单于，保卫了自己的祖国。最后，木兰光明正大地恢复了女儿身，衣锦还乡，为家族赢得了无上的光荣。本片是迪斯尼公司拍摄的动画大片，但却是由中国家喻户晓的故事《木兰从军》改编而成，是以外国人的审美观，来诠释中国的古代传说，因此简单明了的音译《花木兰》足以激起老百姓对木兰形象的无限刻画。Aladdin《阿拉丁》，说到阿拉丁相信大家并不陌生，改编于神话《天方夜谭》，叙述少年阿拉丁的冒险故事，阿拉丁在宠猴阿布及通灵魔毯的帮助下，与邪恶的巫师展开一场对决。虽然有一些原文中的人名、地名等不为观众们所熟知，但因其音节少、简短，采用音译也能为广大观众所接受，如：Elary《埃垃瑞》,Chicaco《芝加哥》，Ryan《瑞恩》,Harry Potter《哈里伯特》，Munich《慕尼黑》,Capote《卡波特》，Syriana《辛瑞钠》，Rosetta《罗赛塔》等。 当然并不是每个西方人物、地名、历史事件都以音译的方式来翻译，一些容易引起误导或给观众摸棱两可的音译片名是我们所极力避免的。比如： Waterloo Bridge ，Peter Pan , Dumbo, Pinocchio, Oliver Twist等等这些片名，若按音译，显而易见应该翻译为《滑铁卢大桥》《彼德•潘》《丹波》等。如此以来从片名中我们既无法体会那荡气回肠的爱情，也无法想象小朋友心目中英雄的偶像—小飞侠，更不用说那长着一双蓝眼睛和一对超大号的耳朵的小飞象……III意译 每一个民族语言都有它自己的词汇、句法结构和表达方法。当原文的思想内容于译文的表达形式有矛盾不宜采用直译法处理时，就应采用意译法。 1.以原片名为基础，结合影片内容做适当的润饰，例如：Chicken Little《四眼天鸡》，Little是影片主人公的名字，直译我们可以把该片译作《小鸡小小》，但如此译法虽然忠于原题，但不能吸引观众的眼球，也无法给观众任何的感染力。对于此片还有不同的译法，如：《鸡仔总动员》《小鸡大电影》。看到“总动员”，可能有的观众的反映马上会是：怎么又是“总动员”？Finding Nemo《海底总动员》,Toy Story《玩具总动员》,Cars《赛车总动员》The Incredibles《超人总动员》，Valiant《鸽战总动员》……是不是除了“总动员”我们的翻译人员就无词可选了呢？而把Chicken Little译作《四眼天鸡》可谓令人拍手称绝：“四眼”形象地刻画了戴着一副小眼镜可爱天真地小鸡Little,“天鸡” 谐音“天机”。影片讲述的是小鸡Little 看到一片“天”掉了下来，惊慌的他使整个小镇的人们处于慌乱之中，当大家发现那只不过是一颗“橡果”时，他成为了小镇的笑柄。为了挽救自己的名声，证明自己不是胆小鬼，鸡如其名的小不点参加了棒球队，成了镇上的英雄。可是就在那个晚上，“天”又掉了下来，天真的掉下来了吗？整天对于“天”纠缠不清的小鸡，被称做天鸡或许也不为过吧！。类似的例子还有许多，比如：Big Momma’s House《卧底肥妈》，Finding Nemo《海底总动员》,Hanging Up《电话情未了》，Gone With the Wind《飘》，，Collateral《借刀杀人》，Something’s Gotta Give《爱是妥协》，Master andCommander:the Far Side of the World《怒海争锋》,Closer《偷心》，Sideways《酒杯人生》,Taffic《毒品交易》，Home Alone《小鬼当家》，Epicenter《浩劫惊魂》，Tootsie《窈窕淑男》，Wallace & Gromit:The Curse of the Were-Rabbit《超级无敌掌门狗—人兔的诅咒》，The Cooler《倒霉鬼》等等。 2.舍弃原片名根据故事情节重新确立题目。此种翻译片名的方法也是屡见不鲜的：一些不能突显影片内容、确立全片感情基调、吸引观众的片名，或是以音节过多的人名、地名、以及观众所不熟悉的内容来命名的影片往往采用此种翻译方式。例如：The Lake House译作《触不到的恋人》或《跳跃时空的情书》，讲述的是小屋素未谋面的两任房客通过信件的往来，交谈琐事、希望、失落和一切，却也发现彼此之间竟然有相距两年的时空，逐渐相爱的两人之间的联系，却只是那个伫立在湖边小屋旁的信箱……此种译法要远胜过直译的片名《湖边小物》所带给观众的震撼力。再如：Oliver Twist《雾都孤儿》，Cinderella《仙履奇缘》,Peter Pan《小飞侠》,Dumbo《小飞象》, Pinocchio《木偶奇遇记》, Cinderella Man《铁拳男人》,Gost《人鬼情未了》，Flushed Away《鼠国流浪记》,Hamlet《王子复仇记 》，Cast Away《荒岛余生》等。IV 多种翻译方法的灵活结合不同的语言各有其特点和形式，在词汇、语法、惯用语、表达方法等方面有相同之处，也有相异之处。所以翻译时就必须采用不同的手段，或直译或意译或音译，量体裁衣，灵活处理。不同翻译方法的最终目的都是为了忠实表达原作的思想内容和文体风格，殊途同归，互不排斥，互不矛盾，译者应该把它们结合起来。 1.直译与音义的结合，如：The Chronicles of Narnia《纳尼亚传奇》，The Legend of Zorro《佐罗传奇》。 2.音义与意译的结合，如：Shrek 译成《史莱克怪物》要比《史莱克》要好得多。因为单纯从字面上判断不知道史莱克是什么。而“怪物”一方面显得生动有趣，突出了动画片的风格；另一方面能勾起观众的好奇心。类似的例子有：Tarzan《人猿泰山》，Philadelphia《费城故事》, Forrest Gump《阿甘正传》，Joe Dirt《乔德特历险记》， Titanic《泰坦尼克号》，Garfield《加菲猫》等。 3.直译与意译的结合，如：The Watcher译成《偷窥杀手》，不仅能让观众感受到一种恐怖、紧张的气氛，还能对影片的题材、所讲述的故事有个大概了解，自然也就产生了观看影片的欲望；The Wizard of Oz《绿野仙踪》， Oz意为虚幻的、不可思议的奇异仙境，片名来自清朝李百川的长篇小说《绿野仙踪》，此书以写神仙异迹为主要线索，以此命名十分贴切传神； Waterloo Bridge，众所周知,1817年英国在泰晤士河上出资建造了滑铁卢桥,以此来纪念威灵顿公爵指挥英国军队打败拿破仑而取得的滑铁卢战役的胜利，如果依据英文直译成“滑铁卢桥”,乍一看,观众定会认为这是部与拿破仑打仗有关的战争片或介绍与该桥建筑有关的纪录片，而远远不及《魂断蓝桥》的效果。类似的例子还有：Sleeper《沉睡的人》,The Sea Inside《深海长眠》，Brother Bear《熊的传说》，Downfall《帝国的毁灭》，My Fair Lady《窈窕淑女》，In America《新美国梦》，Toy Story《玩具总动员》，It Happened one Night《一夜风流》,Lost in Translation《迷失东京》， Ordinary People《凡夫俗子》， Thirteen《芳龄十三》,The Village《神秘村》等。 通过上面的例子，我们可以看到，片名翻译不是盲目照原片名的内容和形式，而是根据各自的思想内容和文体风格来量体裁衣，灵活处理。具体而言，就是说电影片名既要忠实于原片内容，又要富于强烈的吸引力和感染力；引人入胜。随着国人生活水平和审美情趣的不断提高，英语电影在中国市场越来越受到消费者的青睐，也涌现了许多耳熟能详的电影片名，如Casablanca（《卡萨布兰卡》）, Ghost（《人鬼情未了》）, Pretty Woman (《风月俏佳人》)。 一、 英语电影片名翻译现状 然而，大多英语电影译名却遭到了很多保守的翻译工作者的批判。他们的指责主要来自两个方面：一是根据传统翻译理论，可以直译的应该尽量直译，但是据统计,2001年进入中国的百余部好莱坞大片中直译的仅占20 % , 如:One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest（《飞越疯人院》），Unforgiven （《未被饶恕》），The Age of Innocence（《纯真年代》），Human Factor（《人性因素》），Natural Born Killers（《天生杀手》），Coquette（《弄情女子》），The Perfect World（《美好世界》），Pearl Harbor （《珍珠港》），America’s Sweethearts（《美国甜心》），Original Sin（《原罪》），Training Day（《训练日》），Monsters. Inc.（《怪物公司》），Spy Game（《间谍游戏》）；另一方面是，60 %的翻译有点鸳鸯蝴蝶派的味道：如：White Sister（《空门遗恨》）, Lady Hamilton（《忠魂娟血离恨天》）, You Can’t Take It with You（《浮生若梦》）, Deeds Goes to Town（《富贵浮云》）, The Story of Louis Pasteur（《万世流芳》）, Lucky Lady（《风云龙虎凤》）, The Equals（《雌雄宝刀》）, The Divine Lady（《薄命花》）, Cavalcade（《乱世春秋》）等，被批评为庸俗和夸张,不是“拳头”就是“枕头”。 现在翻译界逐渐接受了这样一种理论：电影片名不同于一般的书名翻译，它是一种因 实际需要而故意加进原本没有意义的一种传达方法, 有别于文学翻译那种严格依照作者本意, 力求神似的方法。因此, 作为广告翻译的电影片名翻译就可以改动得与原先完全不一样，以适应本土市场。但是即使是这样，英语电影片名也应该有章可循，力求达到“信”、“达”、“雅”的统一，而不应该为了追求单纯的经济利益而放弃一切原则去迎合观众。 二、 常见的翻译方法 1． 直译 在片名翻译中根据源语、目标语的特点，最大限度地保留原片名的内容和形式，这就是直译。当源语与的语在功能上达到重合时，这是最简单而行之有效的翻译方法。这也是我国传统译界认可的最佳译法, 因为此译法在最大限度里保留了原语片名的形式和意义, 有时甚至连语序都照搬原片名，许多片名中英重合程度惊人，几乎可以达到字字对应的翻译,如：America’s Sweethearts (《美国甜心》), Six Days Seven Nights(《六天七夜》), Scent of Women (《女人香》), Water World (《水世界》) , Air Force One (《空军一号》),Brave Heart(《勇敢的心》), True Lies（《真实的谎言》），Roman Holiday（《罗马假日》），Modern Times（《摩登时代》），The First Blood（《第一滴血》）, Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears（《莫斯科不相信眼泪》）, New Man（《新人》），Pearl Harbor（《珍珠港》）, Artificial Intelligence（《人工智能》）, The Princess Diaries（《公主的日记》），Love Story（《爱情故事》），Cider House Rules（《苹果酒屋的规则》）。另外一些片名，尽管由于译入语的特点，在词序、结构上稍微有所改变，但由于总体一致性，仍可看作直译，如：American Beauty(《美国大美人》),A Farewell To Arms（《向武器告别》），A Streetcar Named Desire（《欲望号街车》），Dances with Wolves(《与狼共舞》), The Silence of the Lambs (《沉默的羔羊》),The Grapes of Wrath（《愤怒的葡萄》）, All Quiet on the Western Font（《西线无战事》）The Sound of Music（《音乐之声》）On the Golden Pond（《金色池塘》）A Room with a View（《看得见风景的房间》）。应该注意到的是，名著改变而成的电影名应尽量与原著靠拢，如：The God Father（《教父》），The Old Man and the Sea（《老人与海》）， The Great Gastsby（《了不起的盖茨比》）。一方面避免观众产生陌生感，另一方面可以借名著效应提高电影上座率。 2． 意译 电影翻译不同于一般的书名翻译。它其实是一种广告翻译，也就是一种因为实际需要而故意灌进原来没有的意义的一种传达方法。所以不必严格追求“信、达、雅”的标准,只需要择其善者而从之就可以了。其重点在于在翻译允许的范畴内最大程度的吸引观众。如：, M r. Holland’s Opus。这是一部美国青春校园片，讲述了一位平凡的音乐教师的故事。贺兰先生兢兢业业地教了30 年的书, 一生无名无财，但他的学生都受到了他的巨大影响。片中打了一个很好的比喻， 把他比成交响乐团指挥, 每一个学生都是他的音符, 都是他的作品(opus)。如直译，应为《贺兰先生的作品》。但译成《春风化雨》则更富深意，充分展现了一个教师教书育人的奉献精神。因为“春风化雨”本来就经常被用来比喻良好的教育，很容易让人联想起“润物细无声”。这样成功的例子还很多，如：Nicoand Dani（《西班牙处男》）, The Wedding Planner(《爱上新郎》)，The Others（《小岛惊魂》），Cast Away（《荒岛余生》）, Little Nicky（《魔鬼接班人》），Of Mice and Men（《芸芸众生》），Kate and Leopold （《隔世情缘》），The Mexican (《魔枪》)，Glitter（《明星梦》），Serendipity（《缘分天注定》），In the Bedroom（《不伦之恋》），Rebecca（《蝴蝶梦》），Annatasia（《真假公主》），Cleopatra（《埃及艳后》），Deuce Bigalow（《如鱼得水》）。 3． 音译 传统翻译中，音译的例子很多。如：Jane Eyre《简爱》，Hamlet《哈姆雷特》，Macbeth（《麦克白》），Casablanc（《卡萨布兰卡》）,尤其是历史上著名的人物或者事件，若已经为中国观众所熟识，就更因改采取音译。 4. 音译意译结合 由于东西方语言和文化的差异,采用人名、地名、事物名称作为片名的电影,除了可以根据观众是否熟知为原则分别采取音译或意译外,还可先音译再结合影片内容适当增词,以充分表现原片内容, 或更符合译语习惯。如动画片Shrek , 译成《史莱克怪物》肯定比《史莱克》要好得多。因为单纯从字面上判断不知道史莱克是什么东西。而“怪物”一方面显得生动有趣，突出了动画片的风格；另一方面能勾起观众的好奇心。类似的例子有：Titanic（《泰坦尼克号》），Elizabeth（《伊莉莎白女王》）,Tarzan （《人猿泰山》），Philadelphia（《费城故事》）, Forrest Gump（《阿甘正传》），Joe Dirt（《乔德特历险记》），和Stuart Little（《小老鼠斯图尔特》）。 5. 直译意译结合 直意结合保留原名的一些成分, 又加上了一些内容概括。这种译法通常被传统译界视为翻译的下策, 实在是不得已而为之。可是在英语片名翻译中，由于此种译法往往能最大程度上既忠实于原文，又吸引观众，所以经常被采用。“忠实”被视为首要原则,在“忠实平淡”的译名和“雅俗共赏”的“乱译”之间, 前者是惟一的正确选择。适当贴切的直译意译结合，是非常值得称道的翻译方法。如:Mrs. Doubtfire这部电影讲的是一位离异男人为了能天天见到孩子们就扮成一个胖老太去前妻家做佣人。译成“肥妈先生”，片名中性别的矛盾能很好地突出改片的喜剧风格。Antz 是一部美国动画片,讲的是蚂蚁王国在强敌压境的生死关头如何同心协力,赢得胜利的故事。《虫虫危机》，显然比直译为《蚂蚁》好。而且因为“虫虫”与“重重”（危机）谐音，观众一看就会产生好奇和良好感觉。此外还有很多片名佳译，如：A Walk in the Clouds (《云中漫步》), Waterloo Bridge (《魂断蓝桥》), Madison County Bridge （《廊桥遗梦》）,The Bachelor（《亿万未婚夫》）,Bandits（《完美盗贼》），The Fugitive（《亡命天涯》），Pretty Woman（《风月俏佳人》）， Speed（《生死时速》），The Net（《网络情缘》），First Knight（《剑侠风流》），The Piano（《钢琴别恋》）， The Opposite of Sex《异性不相吸》， Blood and Sand（《碧血黄沙》），The Independence day（《独立日烽火》），The Three Musketeers（《豪情三剑客》），She is So Lovely（《可人儿》），In the Hear of Night（《炎夜》），The Wizard of Oz《绿野仙踪》, Volcano（《地火危城》）， Ghost（《人鬼情未了》），The Legend of the Fall（《燃情岁月》），Best in Show（《宠物狗大赛》），The Thomas Crown Affair（《天罗地网》）等。
In considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Molière or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories.
Oliver TwistSearch all of Oliver Twist: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------FROM: Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles DickensBY: Gilbert Keith ChestertonIn considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Moli鑢e or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories. This first element was present in Dickens, and it is very powerfully present in Oliver Twist. It had not been present with sufficient consistency or continuity in Pickwick to make it remain on the reader's memory at all, for the tale of "Gabriel Grubb" is grotesque rather than horrible, and the two gloomy stories of the "Madman" and the "Queer Client" are so utterly irrelevant to the tale, that even if the reader remember them he probably does not remember that they occur in Pickwick. Critics have complained of Shakespeare and others for putting comic episodes into a tragedy. It required a man with the courage and coarseness of Dickens actually to put tragic episodes into a farce. But they are not caught up into the story at all. In Oliver Twist, however, the thing broke out with an almost brutal inspiration, and those who had fallen in love with Dickens for his generous buffoonery may very likely have been startled at receiving such very different fare at the next helping. When you have bought a man's book because you like his writing about Mr. Wardle's punch-bowl and Mr. Winkle's skates, it may very well be surprising to open it and read about the sickening thuds that beat out the life of Nancy, or that mysterious villain whose face was blasted with disease. As a nightmare, the work is really admirable. Characters which are not very clearly conceived as regards their own psychology are yet, at certain moments, managed so as to shake to its foundations our own psychology. Bill Sikes is not exactly a real man, but for all that he is a real murderer. Nancy is not really impressive as a living woman; but (as the phrase goes) she makes a lovely corpse. Something quite childish and eternal in us, something which is shocked with the mere simplicity of death, quivers when we read of those repeated blows or see Sikes cursing the tell-tale cur who will follow his bloody foot-prints. And this strange, sublime, vulgar melodrama, which is melodrama and yet is painfully real, reaches its hideous height in that fine scene of the death of Sikes, the besieged house, the boy screaming within, the crowd screaming without, the murderer turned almost a maniac and dragging his victim uselessly up and down the room, the escape over the roof, the rope swiftly running taut, and death sudden, startling and symbolic; a man hanged. There is in this and similar scenes something of the quality of Hogarth and many other English moralists of the early eighteenth century. It is not easy to define this Hogarthian quality in words, beyond saying that it is a sort of alphabetical realism, like the cruel candour of children. But it has about it these two special principles which separate it from all that we call realism in our time. First, that with us a moral story means a story about moral people; with them a moral story meant more often a story about immoral people. Second, that with us realism is always associated with some subtle view of morals; with them realism was always associated with some simple view of morals. The end of Bill Sikes exactly in the way that the law would have killed him -- this is a Hogarthian incident; it carries on that tradition of startling and shocking platitude. All this element in the book was a sincere thing in the author, but none the less it came from old soils, from the graveyard and the gallows, and the lane where the ghost walked. Dickens was always attracted to such things, and (as Forster says with inimitable simplicity) "but for his strong sense might have fallen into the follies of spiritualism." As a matter of fact, like most of the men of strong sense in his tradition, Dickens was left with a half belief in spirits which became in practice a belief in bad spirits. The great disadvantage of those who have too much strong sense to believe in supernaturalism is that they keep last the low and little forms of the supernatural, such as omens, curses, spectres, and retributions, but find a high and happy supernaturalism quite incredible. Thus the Puritans denied the sacraments, but went on burning witches. This shadow does rest, to some extent, upon the rational English writers like Dickens; supernaturalism was dying, but its ugliest roots died last. Dickens would have found it easier to believe in a ghost than in a vision of the Virgin with angels. There, for good or evil, however, was the root of the old diablerie in Dickens, and there it is in Oliver Twist. But this was only the first of the new Dickens elements, which must have surprised those Dickensians who eagerly bought his second book. The second of the new Dickens elements is equally indisputable and separate. It swelled afterwards to enormous proportions in Dickens's work; but it really has its rise here. Again, as in the case of the element of diablerie, it would be possible to make technical exceptions in favour of Pickwick. Just as there were quite inappropriate scraps of the gruesome element in Pickwick, so there are quite inappropriate allusions to this other topic in Pickwick. But nobody by merely reading Pickwick would even remember this topic; no one by merely reading Pickwick would know what this topic is; this third great subject of Dickens; this second great subject of the Dickens of Oliver Twist. This subject is social oppression. It is surely fair to say that no one could have gathered from Pickwick how this question boiled in the blood of the author of Pickwick. There are, indeed, passages, particularly in connection with Mr. Pickwick in the debtor's prison, which prove to us, looking back on a whole public career, that Dickens had been from the beginning bitter and inquisitive about the problem of our civilisation. No one could have imagined at the time that this bitterness ran in an unbroken river under all the surges of that superb gaiety and exuberance. With Oliver Twist this sterner side of Dickens was suddenly revealed. For the very first pages of Oliver Twist are stern even when they are funny. They amuse, but they cannot be enjoyed, as can the passages about the follies of Mr. Snodgrass or the humiliations of Mr. Winkle. The difference between the old easy humour and this new harsh humour is a difference not of degree but of kind. Dickens makes game of Mr. Bumble because he wants to kill Mr. Bumble; he made game of Mr. Winkle because he wanted him to live for ever. Dickens has taken the sword in hand; against what is he declaring war? It is just here that the greatness of Dickens comes in; it is just here that the difference lies between the pedant and the poet. Dickens enters the social and political war, and the first stroke he deals is not only significant but even startling. Fully to see this we must appreciate the national situation. It was an age of reform, and even of radical reform; the world was full of radicals and reformers; but only too many of them took the line of attacking everything and anything that was opposed to some particular theory among the many political theories that possessed the end of the eighteenth century. Some had so much perfected the perfect theory of republicanism that they almost lay awake at night because Queen Victoria had a crown on her head. Others were so certain that mankind had hitherto been merely strangled in the bonds of the State that they saw truth only in the destruction of tariffs or of by-laws. The greater part of that generation held that clearness, economy, and a hard common-sense, would soon destroy the errors that had been erected by the superstitions and sentimentalities of the past. In pursuance of this idea many of the new men of the new century, quite confident that they were invigorating the new age, sought to destroy the old entimental clericalism, the old sentimental feudalism, the old-world belief in priests, the old-world belief in patrons, and among other things the old-world belief in beggars. They sought among other things to clear away the old visionary kindliness on the subject of vagrants. Hence those reformers enacted not only a new reform bill but also a new poor law. In creating many other modern things they created the modern workhouse, and when Dickens came out to fight it was the first thing that he broke with his battle-axe. This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell. That which pedants of that time and this time would have called the sentimentalism of Dickens was really simply the detached sanity of Dickens. He cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Constitutional Conservatives; he cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Manchester School. He would have cared quite as little for the fugitive explanations of the Fabian Society or of the modern scientific Socialist. He saw that under many forms there was one fact, the tyranny of man over man; and he struck at it when he saw it, whether it was old or new. When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby. When he imagined himself to be fighting old laws he gave a sort of vague and general approval to new laws. But when he came to the new laws they had a bad time. When Dickens found that after a hundred economic arguments and granting a hundred economic considerations, the fact remained that paupers in modern workhouses were much too afraid of the beadle, just as vassals in ancient castles were much too afraid of the Dedlocks, then he struck suddenly and at once. This is what makes the opening chapters of Oliver Twist so curious and important. The very fact of Dickens's distance from, and independence of, the elaborate financial arguments of his time, makes more definite and dazzling his sudden assertion that he sees the old human tyranny in front of him as plain as the sun at noon-day. Dickens attacks the modern workhouse with a sort of inspired simplicity as a boy in a fairy tale who had wandered about, sword in hand, looking for ogres and who had found an indisputable ogre. All the other people of his time are attacking things because they are bad economics or because they are bad politics, or because they are bad science; he alone is attacking things because they are bad. All the others are Radicals with a large R; he alone is radical with a small one. He encounters evil with that beautiful surprise which, as it is the beginning of all real pleasure, is also the beginning of all righteous indignation. He enters the workhouse just as Oliver Twist enters it, as a little child. This is the real power and pathos of that celebrated passage in the book which has passed into a proverb; but which has not lost its terrible humour even in being hackneyed. I mean, of course, the everlasting quotation about Oliver Twist asking for more. The real poignancy that there is in this idea is a very good study in that strong school of social criticism which Dickens represented. A modern realist describing the dreary workhouse would have made all the children utterly crushed, not daring to speak at all, not expecting anything, not hoping anything, past all possibility of affording even an ironical contrast or a protest of despair. A modern, in short, would have made all the boys in the workhouse pathetic by making them all pessimists. But Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe that he is living in a just world. He comes before the Guardians as the ragged peasants of the French Revolution came before the Kings and Parliaments of Europe. That is to say, he comes, indeed, with gloomy experiences, but he comes with a happy philosophy. He knows that there are wrongs of man to be reviled; but he believes also that there are rights of man to be demanded. It has often been remarked as a singular fact that the French poor, who stand in historic tradition as typical of all the desperate men who have dragged down tyranny, were, as a matter of fact, by no means worse off than the poor of many other European countries before the Revolution. The truth is that the French were tragic because they were better off. The others had known the sorrowful experiences; but they alone had known the splendid expectation and the original claims. It was just here that Dickens was so true a child of them and of that happy theory so bitterly applied. They were the one oppressed people that simply asked for justice; they were the one Parish Boy who innocently asked for more.
买本雾都孤儿的蓝星导读，就是那种双语的小蓝本，虽然写得很浅显，但故事和人物分析挺全面的，就算你以前没读过这部小说，用它就行，省时间最大的问题就是定题，要看你的指导老师严不严了，一定把论点范围缩小再缩小，具体再具体在学校提供给你们的文献库多多下载文献资料，雾都孤儿的的文献很多，能下载到你想吐，但这样不愁没得写 还有问题可以联系我
雾都孤儿 Oliver Twist Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens’, is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century. The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to expose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London. The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic experiences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty. How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don’t think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded. For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose’, he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself. To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people’s honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom offer to help others. On the other hand, they attach importance to money and benefit. In their opinion, money is the only real object while emotions and morality are nihility. If they cannot get profit from showing their ‘kindness’, they draw back when others are faced with trouble and even hit a man when he is down. They are one of the sorts that I really detest. Francis Bacon said in his essay, ‘Goodness, of all virtues and dignities of the mind, is the greatest, being the character of the Deity, and without it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin.’ That is to say a person without goodness is destined to lose everything. Therefore, I, a kind person, want to tell those ‘vermin-to-be’ to learn from the kind Oliver and regain the nature of goodness.
不靠谱，说不定给你个理由随便搪塞了，说达不到发表标准，然后拿着你的论文去卖给其他人。所以一定要自己联系，自己走，不要给二道贩子可乘之机。
杂志社很少有自己征稿的，那么多稿件，全国各地的作者，全发给编辑部，看也看不过来啊，现在有采编单位，和编辑部合作，负责稿件的征集，以及初审，先要看一下是否符合这个期刊要求，然后传达给作者相关信息，比如说，这个刊物在征集几月的，时间上是否可以，期刊要求字符数是控制到多少，图表怎么处理，论文格式哪里不可以，作者详细信息采集、刊物出刊以后怎么邮寄。等等。这些琐碎的事，由中间的采编单位处理。把文章都整理好之后，提交编辑部终审，可以的话，直接就能发表了，不可以，编辑部退回并附上修改意见，其实这中间省去很多不必要的麻烦，作者自己投稿到编辑部，编辑部不可能有那么多人手去每个稿件回复，详细解答的，这样有效的节省了时间，而且也提高了效率，作者自己投稿到编辑部有可能等上一两个月也没有回复，投到采编单位两个工作日之内就能解答，很快捷方便。也是因为目前中国内地所有的学术期刊和刊号几乎完全被官办机构垄断,除学报和一些大学刊物是大学管理外,其他所有刊物几乎都是挂在政府旗下的文联或学术协会名下,也就是说学术期刊整体来说都在体制内。体制内就存在一个问题,就是负责期刊从收稿到排版发行的人最多只有两三个,人手不够限制了他们对外征稿的能力,也没办法为作者开辟收稿渠道。反之随着中国的发展,发论文最大的两个群体：教师和研究生规模的激增,致使发论文的需求量也相应激增,导致论文市场供不应求和信息不对等。在现代社会，科研不仅仅局限于科研机构，许多行业的职称评定也依赖于科研成果。比如，教师职称评审需要相关领域的科研成果，而博士职称评审也需要相关的科研成果，所以对一些专业期刊杂志发表相应的文章肯定是展示科研成果最直接的方式。因此，除了一些科研人员每年都有学术文章要发表外，其他许多行业学者学习发表论文的原因也是多种多样的。因为要发布的文章太多，而发布的页面很少，所以只能选择一些更好的文章来发布。但稿件量太大，审稿也成了一项繁琐的工作。
中介中介就是中介介绍人，为了解决信息不对称这个问题的职业人
我们单位都是这样发的，百度一下夏黎，文化、都收到杂志了 ，网上也都可以查到。