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。
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
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.
诺奖科学家故事课百度网盘资源
幼教资源实时更新链接：
玛丽（居里夫人）1867年出生于波兰的华沙，高中毕业后，曾患了一年的精神疾病。由于是女性的原因，她不能在俄罗斯或波兰的任何大学继续进修，所以她做了几年的家庭教师。最终，在她姐姐的经济支持下移居巴黎，并在索邦（巴黎大学的旧名）学习数学和物理学。
波兰裔法国女物理学家、化学家居里夫人，因发现放射性物质和发现并提炼出镭和钋荣获1903年诺贝尔物理学奖和1911年的化学奖。 美国物理学家巴丁因发明世界上第一支晶体管和提出超导微观理论分获1956和1972年诺贝尔物理学奖。 美国化学家鲍林因为将量子力学应用于化学领域并阐明了化学键的本质、并致力于核武器的国际控制并发起反对核实验运动而荣获1954年的化学奖和1962年的和平奖。 英国生物化学家桑格由于发现胰岛素分子结构和确定核酸的碱基排列顺序及结构而分获1958和1980年的诺贝尔化学奖。 获诺贝尔奖的夫妇 获1903年诺贝尔物理学奖的法国科学家皮埃尔居里和玛丽居里夫妇。 获1935年诺贝尔化学奖的法国科学家约里奥居里夫妇。 获1947年诺贝尔生理学和医学奖的科里夫妇。 获诺贝尔奖的父子 共同荣获1915年诺贝尔物理学奖的布拉格父子。 分别荣获1906年和1937年诺贝尔物理学奖的汤姆逊父子。 分别荣获1929年和1970年诺贝尔生理学和医学奖的奥伊勒父子。 分别荣获1922年和1975年诺贝尔物理学奖的玻尔父子。 分别荣获1924年和1981年诺贝尔物理学奖的西格巴恩父子。 获诺贝尔奖的华裔科学家 荣获1957年诺贝尔物理学奖的杨振宁、李政道。 荣获1976年诺贝尔物理学奖的丁肇中。 荣获1986年诺贝尔化学奖的李远哲。 荣获1997年诺贝尔物理学奖的朱棣文。 荣获1998年诺贝尔物理学奖的崔琦。 诺贝尔科学奖女性获得者 玛丽·居里：1903年、1911年分别获诺贝尔物理学奖、化学奖。 伊伦·约里奥·居里：1935年获诺贝尔化学奖。 柯里：1947年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 梅耶：1963年获诺贝尔物理学奖。 霍奇金：1964年获诺贝尔化学奖。 雅洛：1977年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 麦克林托克：1983年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 莱维·蒙塔尔奇尼：1986年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 埃利昂：1988年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 努斯莱因·芙尔哈德：1995年获诺贝尔生理学/医学奖。 姗姗来迟的诺贝尔奖 杨振宁、李政道是幸运儿。令人羡慕的不仅是他们获得了诺贝尔奖，更令人羡慕的是他们的工作在惊人短的时间内赢得了诺贝尔奖委员会的认可，从论文发表到获奖只有一年时间。 一年之内就获得诺贝尔奖，这简直是奇迹。可惜的是，绝大多数诺贝尔奖得主没有他们这么幸运。 如盖尔曼获得诺贝尔奖时，国际物理学界相继发表文章认为，这是等了6年多的事情。所以，1969年，诺贝尔奖委员会公布结果时，物理学家们没有表现出格外热情欢呼的姿态，因为6年来大家一直认为“今年的诺贝尔奖应该授予盖尔曼”。 等待五六年还算是比较短的。伦琴，1895年就发现了X射线，1901年才得奖；贝克勒耳，1896年发现天然放射性，1903年才得奖；1902年，卢瑟福发现一系列放射性元素，1908年才得奖；阿尔瓦雷斯，1960年发现基本粒子的共振现象，1968年才得奖；薛定锷，1926年建立了量子力学，1933年才得奖…… 等待十年八年的也比比皆是。如能托斯，1912年发现热力学第三定理，8年之后获得诺贝尔化学奖；玻尔，1913年提出了原子结构的量子轨道理论，直到1922年才被授予诺贝尔物理学奖；劳伦斯，1931年制造了第一台回旋加速器，1939年才获奖；西博格，1941年证明钚的存在，1951年才得奖…… 等待十几年、二十几年乃至三十年的也不稀罕。如研究黄热病的南非科学家马克斯等待20余年，于1951年获得诺贝尔奖。对于物理学奖得主泡利来说，诺贝尔奖也是迟到的喜讯。从他发表获奖论文到获奖，间隔了不平常的21年；科赫从发现结核病菌到获奖等了23年；发现宇宙射线的赫斯，等待25年才获奖；贝斯久等29年，于1967年获得了物理学奖。相比之下，佛里斯更惨，等待了半个多世纪：1919年就发现了蜜蜂跳圆圈舞，1925年发现跳摇尾舞，直到1973年才获得诺贝尔奖；早在1931年，“热力学第四定理”的发现者拉路斯就发表了论文，但是直到40年代才被人接受。37年后即1968年，诺贝尔奖委员会才授予他化学奖；1911年劳斯就公布了肿瘤是由病毒引起的伟大发现，但是一直没有引起诺贝尔奖委员会的关注。导致劳斯直到85岁才获奖。 兰德斯坦，23岁获得博士学位，33岁发现了人类的ABO血型，那是1901年。直到1930年，即29年后，诺贝尔奖委员会才将生理学或医学奖授予兰德斯坦，此时他已经62岁。波恩早在28年前就发表了获奖论文(关于波函数的统计分析)。当他获奖时激动地说了这样一段发人深省的话：“压倒多数的物理学家都承认我的波函数统计分析，但是也有不承认的，诸如像普郎克、爱因斯坦、薛定锷等著名科学家，因此，我的这项研究成果足足等待了28年才获得诺贝尔奖。”为了回避科学家之间的争论，诺贝尔奖委员会采取了延迟授奖的办法。1946年化学奖得主萨姆纳、1953年化学奖得主赫尔曼、1970年物理学奖得主阿尔芬等等都为此经历了超长的等待期。 影响我们生活的诺贝尔奖 -1913年荷兰实验物理学家昂内斯，他在1908年首次发现低温条件下的某些金属有超导现象，并由此开拓了低温物理学和超导物理学这些新的物理分支，从而获得当年的物理学奖。 -1921年1910年，索迪最先提出了同位素概念，次年他又提出了同位素假说，即同一种化学元素有两种或两种以上的变种存在可能是元素存在的普遍现象。索迪还在实验中独立发现过一些元素的40多种同位素。这样，他就获得了1921年的诺贝尔化学奖。 -1923年糖尿病也是严重威胁人类健康的顽症。1922年，苏格兰生理学家麦克劳德和加拿大医药学家班廷，同时发表了用胰岛素治疗糖尿病的论文。这一消息立即在西方医学界引起巨大轰动。在此之前，他们两人都已经过一系列中间实验，用他们所提取的胰岛素在控制糖尿病的病情方面取得成功。这样，他们两人也就共同分享了1923年的诺贝尔医学奖。 -1930年印度实验物理学家拉曼发现可见光的类似于康普顿效应的“拉曼效应”。他因此获得1930年的物理学奖，也因此成为第一个获得这一奖项的亚洲人。 -1934年美国核化学家尤里是以核化学成果获奖的另一位著名的核化学家。1931年，尤里首先发现一氢的同位素重氢。重氢就是氘，而氘的氧化物也就是重水。重氢的发现对于核裂变反应和氢核聚变反应都具有重要意义。对于铀核裂变而言，重水可做铀核裂变的减速剂。对于氢核聚变而言，氘又是可用作热核反应的重要能源。正是由于重氢的发现具有重大的技术意义，尤里也就获得了1934年的诺贝尔化学奖。 -1935年1932年，卢琴福的学生和助手查德威克在实验中发现了穿透力很强的中性粒子，中子的发现，一方面打开了人类认识原子核内部结构的大门，另一方面又为人类进一步进行人工核反应研究提供了更有效的实验手段。查德威克也就因此获得1935年的物理学奖。 -1938年意大利实验物理学家费米在罗马大学改用中子进行人工核反应。当他用中子对当时已知的92种元素逐一进行轰击实验时，不但发现了许多元素的同位素，而且发现了著名的慢中子效应，即经过石蜡减速之后的慢中子更能引起人工核反应。正是由于这一重大实验发现，费米获得1938年的诺贝尔物理学奖，为后来核能技术的开发奠定了初步的技术基础。 -1939年美国的劳伦斯，在1932年设计并研制出了世界上第一台回旋加速器。这种加速器既可用于核物理实验，也可用于早期的粒子物理实验，他因此单独获得了1939年的诺贝尔物理学奖。 -1939年1935年，多马克发表了有关药物的实验报告之后，立即引起了一系列磺胺类药物的发明。这样，磺胺类药物就成为人类征服链球菌感染的各类疾病的有效药物。1939年，由美、法、英等国医学家提名，多马克被授予诺贝尔生理学和医学奖。当多马克回信表示愿意受奖时，希特勒的盖世太保却逮捕了他。这样使得多马克直到第二次世界大战结束之后，才前往斯德哥尔摩正式领奖。 -1945年在磺胺类药物发明之前，青霉素早已在1928年由英国细菌学家弗莱明发现。1938年，牛津大学的病理学家弗洛里和病理化学家钱恩等人合作进行青霉素的开发研究，终于在1940年研制成功最初的青霉素制品。在经过一系列的动物中间实验之后，证明青霉素对葡萄球菌、链球菌等细菌感染的疾病确实具有特殊疗效。1941年，青霉素投入临床使用获得成功，1943年实现工业化生产。 1945年，诺贝尔基金会把当年的医学奖授给了发现青霉素的三位元勋：弗莱明、弗洛里和钱恩。他们三人作为生命卫士所建树的伟大功勋，将永远是一座立于全人类心中的巍峨丰碑。 -1952年除了青霉素三元勋之外，另一位被人们永远怀念的抗菌素元勋是发现链霉素的美国微生物学家瓦克斯曼。1939年，瓦克斯曼从土壤中发现了一种链丝菌。经过实验研究，他发现链丝菌对于结核杆菌具有强有力的抑制和杀伤作用。结核杆菌是引起肺结核等疾病的病菌，而当时已投入临床使用的青霉素对结核杆菌不起作用。这样，链霉素的发现与发明，便成了治疗结核的有效抗菌素，瓦克斯曼也因此获得1952年的诺贝尔生理学和医学奖。 -1954年1948年，美国医学家恩德斯与他的两名助手韦勒和罗宾斯合作，成功地发明了在试管内培养小儿麻痹症病毒的简易方法。正是以恩德斯等人的方法为基础，美国病毒学家索尔克和萨宾先后培养出了预防小儿麻痹症的“索尔克疫苗”和“萨宾疫苗”。自此之后，人类才算走出了小儿麻痹症的阴影。为了表彰恩德斯、韦勒和罗宾斯所作的开拓性贡献，1954年度的诺贝尔医学奖授给了他们三人。【2007诺贝尔奖】基因打靶终中“靶心” 《财经》记者 李虎军《财经》网络版 [2007-10-09]一项在老鼠身上进行的“基因打靶”技术，极大地影响了人类对于疾病的认识，已被广泛应用在几乎所有生物医学领域马里奥·卡佩奇马丁·埃文斯奥利弗·史密斯一项在老鼠身上进行的“基因打靶”技术，极大地影响了人类对于疾病的认识，已被广泛应用在几乎所有生物医学领域2007年诺贝尔奖系列报道之一生理学或医学奖：基因打靶终中“靶心”【网络版专稿/《财经》杂志记者 李虎军】北京时间10月8日下午5点30分，2007年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖揭晓：70岁的美国犹他大学马里奥·卡佩奇（Mario Capecchi）、82岁的美国北卡罗来纳州大学教会山分校奥立佛·史密斯(Oliver Smithies)与66岁的英国卡迪夫大学马丁·埃文斯(Martin Evans)，凭借基因打靶（gene targeting）技术共同分享了这一奖项。据悉，三位科学家将分享1000万瑞典克朗(约合154万美元)的奖金。为他们赢得这项自然科学领域的崇高奖赏的，实际上是一种被称为“小鼠中的基因打靶”的技术。这项技术目前已经被广泛应用在几乎所有生物医学领域——从基础研究到新疗法，使得人类对于心脏病、癌症和糖尿病等多种疾病有了更加深入的了解。“这是一个突破性的技术，它使我们对基因功能的认识至少提前了十年”，美国国立卫生研究院邓初夏博士告诉《财经》记者。在他看来，早在上世纪90年代，这一技术就已经在诺贝尔生理学奖或医学奖的“大名单”中。实际上，这在业内也已经成为共识，即基因打靶技术获奖只是时间问题。早在1986年，邓初夏赴犹他大学留学，即师从卡佩奇教授。当时，卡佩奇刚在美国《细胞》杂志发表了基因打靶技术的论文，并在学术界引起了轰动。这一技术的萌芽形成于上世纪80年代初，卡佩奇设想将老鼠身上一个结构已知而功能未知的基因敲除，然后从整体观察实验动物，推测相应基因的功能。虽然这个想法在原则上并没有太大障碍，但实际操作起来却困难重重：从几万个基因中敲除特定的基因，难度绝对堪比大海捞针。邓初夏回忆说，在这种情况下，当时很多人都不相信这种设想能够实现，美国国立卫生研究院也拒绝了卡佩奇的项目申请。无奈之下，卡佩奇只好拆东墙补西墙，从自己的其它研究项目中挤出经费来开展研究。而几乎在同一时期，美国北卡罗来纳州大学教会山分校的奥立佛·史密斯也为基因打靶做出了重大贡献。他的技术路线与卡佩奇有所不同——卡佩奇采用的方式是人为地让某个基因缺失，失去功能。这就像有一天没人扫地了，大家才会想到清洁工老王的存在。而史密斯则致力修饰已经发生突变的基因，使其恢复原来的功能。英国卡迪夫大学的马丁·埃文斯发明的胚胎干细胞技术，则为基因打靶技术的具体实现奠定了重要基础。因为科学家利用这种技术，可以将胚胎干细胞培育为小鼠，从而最终得到“基因敲除”的小鼠。自1989年基因打靶技术在老鼠身上获得实际成功至今，已经有一万多个小鼠基因被敲除，预计科学家们将很快实现所有小鼠基因的敲除，从而确定单个基因在健康和疾病中的角色。目前，基因打靶技术已经形成了500多个不同的人类疾病小鼠模型，涉及心血管疾病和神经退化疾病、糖尿病和癌症等。随着这一技术的广泛应用，2001年，三位科学家共同获得了拉斯克（Albert Lasker）基础医学奖。由于近半数的拉斯克基础医学奖得主后来获得了诺贝尔奖，该奖项也一直被看作诺贝尔生理学或医学奖的“风向标”。在三位获奖者中，来自美国犹他大学的卡佩奇经历最具传奇色彩。由于在4岁的时候，母亲就被作为政治犯关进集中营，出生在意大利的卡佩奇不得不在街头或者孤儿院中整整流浪了四年之久。直到第二次世界大战结束，母亲才在街头找到他，然后远赴美国投奔其叔父。幸运的是，他此后获得了良好的教育机会，并在哈佛大学获得博士学位，其导师也是一位科学大师——DNA双螺旋发现者之一、诺贝尔奖得主詹姆斯·沃森（James Waston）。或许是小时侯的历经磨难，使得卡佩奇养成了非常节约的习惯。邓初夏还记得，有一次实验室搬家，学生们认为是“破烂儿”的一些东西，他也没舍得扔。和很多优秀的科学家一样，卡佩奇对研究工作有着非常严格的要求。邓初夏回忆说，当时是六个学生上他的课程，结果有四人不及格，只有他和另外一位学生过关。攻读博士的六年里，邓初夏的主要任务是提高“基因打靶”的命中率。但前四年里，他面临的几乎都是失败，仅电穿透实验就进行了200多次。据说，基因打靶的论文发表以后，卡佩奇便声名鹊起，处境比以前好了许多，母校哈佛大学也邀请他回去做正教授。但他考虑两个月后，还是向学生们宣布，决定留在犹他大学，因为犹他的研究条件也不错。但如果你觉得这只是一个古板的科学家，那就大错特错了。和很多意大利人一样，卡佩奇一生酷爱体育运动，尤其是足球。一直到了60多岁时，他还流连在绿茵场上，并且自愿给女儿学校的足球队做教练。让邓初夏记忆深刻的是，在其攻读博士期间，这位导师每天中午都要跑上8英里。刚刚过去的10月6日，恰好是卡佩奇七十岁的生日。几个月以前，就有学生和同事筹划着祝寿，但他不同意，理由是那样会让人觉得他要退休了，而他至少要干到79岁。如今，他或许等到了“最好的生日礼物”。当然，这个“礼物”不仅仅是属于他个人的，更多地属于他们三人以及众多科学家共同参与的这个神奇领域。■
居里夫人 Marie Curie（1867-1934）法国籍波兰科学家，研究放射性现象，发现镭和钋两种放射性元素，一生两度获诺贝尔奖。居里夫人 Marie Curie（1867-1934）法国籍波兰科学家，研究放射性现象，发现镭和钋两种放射性元素，一生两度获诺贝尔奖。作为杰出科学家，居里夫人有一般科学家所没有的社会影响。尤其因为是成功女性的先驱，她的典范激励了很多人。很多人在儿童时代就听到她的故事 但得到的多是一个简化和不完整的印象。世人对居里夫人的认识。很大程度上受其次女在1937年出版的传记《居里夫人》（Madame Curie）所影响。这本书美化了居里夫人的生活，把她一生所遇到的曲折都平淡地处理了。美国传记女作家苏珊·昆（Susan Quinn）花了七年时间，收集包括居里家庭成员和朋友的没有公开的日记和传记资料。於去年出版了一本新书：《玛丽亚· 居里：她的一生》（Maria Curie: A Life）,为她艰苦、辛酸和奋斗的生命历程描绘了一幅更详细和深入的图像。居里夫人：两次荣获诺贝尔奖的伟大科学家在世界科学史上，玛丽·居里是一个永远不朽的名字。这位伟大的女科学家，以自己的勤奋和天赋，在物理学和化学领域，都作出了杰出的贡献，并因此而成为唯一一位在两个不同学科领域、两次获得诺贝尔奖的著名科学家。中国网10月10日讯 挪威诺贝尔委员会10月10日在挪威首都奥斯陆宣布，将2007年诺贝尔和平奖授予芬兰前总统马尔蒂-阿赫蒂萨里。诺贝尔委员会说，授予阿赫蒂萨里诺贝尔和平奖“以表彰其30多年来致力于解决全球国际冲突做出的重要贡献。”不管是作为一名芬兰高级公务员和总统或者是在联合国等国际机构任职，阿赫蒂萨里一直在为和平事业而努力。在过去20年里，阿赫蒂萨里一 直在积极参与解决全球暴力冲突。1989年至90年，他在促使纳米比亚的独立发挥了重要作用。在2005年，阿赫蒂萨里和其组织“危机管理倡议 ”(CMI)对于解决印尼复杂的亚齐问题发挥了重要作用。在1999年和2005年至07年，他在非常困难的条件下试图找到解决科索沃危机的方法。 2008年，通过“危机管理倡议”和与其它机构的合作，阿赫蒂萨里试图为伊拉克问题寻找一个和平的解决方案。此外，他还对解决北爱尔兰 、中亚、非洲之角的冲突作出了贡献。尽管事件各方对避免战争和冲突负有主要责任，挪威诺贝尔委员会曾数次将诺贝尔和平奖颁发给国际政治的斡旋者。今天，阿赫蒂萨里是一位杰出的斡旋者。通过不懈的努力和取得成果，他向人们展示出了外交斡旋在解决国际冲突中所能发挥的作用。挪威诺贝尔委员会希望，阿赫蒂萨里的努力和成就可以鼓舞其他人。马尔蒂-阿赫蒂萨里1937年6月23日生于芬兰维堡，社民党人。他1965年进入芬兰外交部工作，曾先后出任过芬兰驻坦桑尼亚 、 赞比亚 、 索马里和莫桑比克的大使。1977年进入了联合国 ，担任联合国纳米比亚问题特别代表、芬兰外交部国务秘书、 前南斯拉夫问题特别代表和联合国负责行政管理事务的副秘书长。1994年3月任芬兰总统 ，2000年3月1日去职。在卸去总统职务后，担任联合国负责处理非洲之角人道主义问题的特使等职务。2005年11月11日被任命为联合国科索沃问题谈判特使。挪威诺贝尔委员会在颁奖文告中赞扬了她为“可持续发展、民主和和平所作的贡献。”肯尼亚助理环境部长马塔伊在得知获奖消息后对挪威电视台说：“非常感谢你们，我感到很吃惊。我感到很激动，我并没有想到会获奖。出生于1940年的马塔伊于1977年发起了“绿色带运动”，这一项目致力于提倡生物多样性，并同时创造工作机会、使妇女在社会上获得更多地位。这一项目已栽下了3千万棵树。树木的养护机构目前还雇佣了数千人，其中有不少是妇女。她说：“我们对这些植物的生态系统负有特别的责任。如果我们不能保护它们，那么我们也无法生存。”这位著名的生物学者于1971年成为内罗毕大学的首位生物学女教授，后来成为生物学院的院长。这位著名的生物学学者1978年获得了德国学术交流奖学金，是获得这一奖学金的首位东非国家的女性。她后来获得了生物学博士学位。马塔伊于2002年12月作为绿党成员在肯尼亚的首次自由选举中当选议员。2003年1月，她出任助理环境部长，负责自然资源保护工作。她最近因为对国家的贡献而获得了“手握燃烧着的矛的老者”的头衔。马丁．路德．金（1929-1968），美国黑人牧师，诺贝尔和平奖获得者，他领导了美国五六十年代的民权运动。在二十世纪六十年代，美国人逐渐认识到，南北战争所致力解放黑奴运动，并没有产生使美国黑人成为完全平等公民的预效果。十九世纪后期，美国黑人的公民权利受到州和地方歧视黑人的法规和惯例层层约束和限制。在日常生活中，美国黑人常常被隔离开来，不能与白人同在一个学校上学，乘坐同一公共交通工具，同在一个地方居住。黑人不能充分参与美国社会生活，甚至在一百年后仍然和奴隶一样被剥夺各种权利，他们生活水准的提高与国家的发展并非完全相称。因此美国黑人的平等问题成为一个严重的社会问题。黑人志愿团体和教会以及其它各阶层关心此事的美国人团体，同心合力掀起了一场争取民权的运动。他们敦促国会通过强有力的法律，清除美国社会种族隔离和种族歧视的最后残余。一九六三年八月二十八日在华盛顿林肯纪念堂举行的「为工作的自由进军」是民权运动的重要里程碑。那天最激励人心的，是马丁．路德．金恩牧师代表南方基督教领导会议所作的讲演。 一位新闻记者指出，金氏的演讲「充满林肯和甘地精神的象征和圣经的韵律」。他既义正严辞又有节制；公开宣扬－这是其基本哲学的一部分－－非暴力的改革途径；并且侃侃陈词，雄辩有力。在六十年代和七十年代，美国国会、总统和法院将金氏在讲演中提到的各种法律障碍解除了曼德拉纳尔逊·罗利赫拉赫拉·曼德拉( Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela ）1918年7月18日出生于南非特兰斯凯一个大酋长家庭，先后获南非大学文学士和威特沃特斯兰德大学律师资格，当过律师。曼德拉自幼性格刚强，崇敬民族英雄。他是家中长子而被指定为酋长继承人。但他表示：“决不愿以酋长身份统治一个受压迫的部族”，而要“以一个战士的名义投身于民族解放事业”。他毅然走上了追求民族解放的道路。1944年他参加南非非洲人国民大会（简称非国大）。1948年当选为非国大青年联盟全国书记，1950年任非国大青年联盟全国主席。1952年先后任非国大执委、德兰士瓦省主席、全国副主席。同年年底，他成功地组织并领导了“蔑视不公正法令运动”，赢得了全体黑人的尊敬。为此，南非当局曾两次发出不准他参加公众集会的禁令。1961年6月曼德拉创建非国大军事组织“民族之矛”，任总司令。1962年8月，曼德拉被捕入狱，当时他年仅43岁，南非政府以政治煽动和非法越境罪判处他5年监禁。1964年6月，他又被指控犯有以阴谋颠覆罪而改判为无期徒刑，从此开始了漫长的铁窗生涯，在狱中长达27个春秋，他备受迫害和折磨，但始终坚贞不屈。1990年2月11日，南非当局在国内外舆论压力下，被迫宣布无条件释放曼德拉。同年3月，他被非国大全国执委任命为副主席、代行主席职务，1991年7月当选为主席。1994年4月，非国大在南非首次不分种族的大选中获胜。同年5月，曼德拉成为南非第一位黑人总统。1997年12月，曼德拉辞去非国大主席一职，并表示不再参加1999年6月的总统竞选。1999年6月正式去职。主要著作有：《走向自由之路不会平坦》、《斗争就是生活》、《争取世界自由宣言》、自传《自由路漫漫》。1991年联合国教科文组织授予曼德拉“乌弗埃－博瓦尼争取和平奖”。1993年10月，诺贝尔和平委员会授予他诺贝尔和平奖，以表彰他为废除南非种族歧视政策所作出的贡献。同年他还与当时的南非总统德克勒克一起被授予美国费城自由勋章。1998年9月曼德拉访美，获美国“国会金奖”，成为第一个获得美国这一最高奖项的非洲人。2000年8月被南部非洲发展共同体授予“卡马”勋章，以表彰他在领导南非人民争取自由的长期斗争中，在实现新旧南非的和平过渡阶段，以及担任南共体主席期间做出的杰出贡献。1992年曼德拉与温妮分居，1996年3月19日，法院判定曼德拉与温妮离婚。现任妻子格拉萨·马谢尔(Graca Machel)是莫桑比克前总统萨莫拉的遗孀，1998年7月18日与曼德拉结婚。1992年10月首次访华，5日被北京大学授予名誉法学博士学位。1999年5月，曼德拉总统应邀访华，他是首位访华的南非国家元首。你说的是特里萨嬷嬷(Mother Teresa)吧！大学英语教材（复旦版）第三册有一个单元就讲了她的故事。她还获得了1979年的诺贝尔和平奖。这是转贴的关于她的生平简介：特里萨嬷嬷(Mother Teresa)原名艾格妮丝·巩霞·博杰舒，1910年8月27日出生在前南斯拉夫的斯科普里一个阿尔巴尼亚农民家庭。她的父亲是个杂货商，家境并不富足，但父慈母爱，手足亲睦，她在温馨的家庭生活中生长起来。善良博爱的天性使她对慈善事业着迷。1928年来到印度，并投身于慈善事业。从40年代起，她在印度开展救助孤儿、穷人和老人的慈善工作，并在印度和其他国家创办众多的学校、医院、收容所和孤儿院等。1952年，特里萨在一座印度庙的旁边建起了“垂死贫民收容所”，以让那些可怜的人在弥留之际能享受一下人间的温暖。至80年代末，大约有3万名身患不治之症又无家可归的穷人在收容所里度过了他们最后的日子。当记者问到挽救这些患有不治之症的人是否值得时，她甚至根本不能理解这个问题的意思，因为这与她的人生观格格不入。此后，特里萨开始考虑收治麻风病人一事。1964年教皇保罗六世在印度访问期间接见了特里萨，并将自己的一辆高级轿车送给她。特里萨后来将这部车卖掉，用拍卖所得为麻风病人建了一幢楼房，并培训了一些护理人员，使这里成了加尔各彼得堡唯一的麻风病中心。1979年的诺贝尔和平奖授予了印度修女特里萨，以表彰她“为克服贫穷所做的工作”。在授奖仪式上，特里萨嬷嬷说：“我以穷人的名义接受这笔奖金。”在晚祷后，她对记者说：“贪婪——对权力的贪婪，对金钱的贪婪，对名誉的贪婪，这时当今世界实现和平的最大障碍。”获奖后，特里萨嬷嬷卖掉了奖章，连同19万美元的奖金，全部捐赠给贫民和麻风病患者，没有给自己留下一美分。 1992年，联合国教科文组织将和平教育奖授予特里萨嬷嬷，以表彰她将其一生献给解除贫困，促进和平和为正义而斗争的事业。她创建和领导的慈善机构在120个国家设立了569个服务中心，3500名修女在其中供职。1997年9月5日，享誉全球的慈善家、诺贝尔和平奖获得者特里萨嬷嬷因心脏病发作在印度加尔各答逝世，终年 87岁。印度政府于9月13日为特里萨嬷嬷举行了盛大国葬。特里萨嬷嬷的灵柩盖着印度国旗，放在运送过“圣雄”甘地和印度国父尼赫鲁遗体的炮车上，缓缓驶向举行葬礼弥撒的加尔各答体育馆。逾百万不同宗教信仰的群众沿途跟随护送，向灵车抛掷鲜花并高举她的照片。特里萨嬷嬷将毕生献给为穷苦人谋福利的事业，深受全世界人民的爱戴，被誉为“善良与光明的化身”。特里萨嬷嬷逝世的消息传开后，整个加尔各答沉浸在悲痛之中，成千上万的印度人含着泪水与特里萨嬷嬷作最后的告别。如今，她的名字已经飞越千山万水，传遍整个世界。她以献身慈善事业的至诚，直面困苦的精神，赢得亿万人民的爱戴和尊敬，被人们尊为“善良与光明的化身”。
居里夫人Marie Curie (1867-1934）法国籍波兰科学家，研究放射性现象，发现镭和铀两种放射性元素，一生两度获诺贝尔奖及诺贝尔奖金。