GRE作文范文 Issue-7

“When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit.All historians are storytellers.”

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

There would seem to be two different perspectives presented in the above statement.The first two sentences are concerned with exploring history and would seem to discuss looking at history that has already been written.People who concern themselves with the study of history are not storytellers, but rather story interpreters. The last sentence refers to the people that write about history, the historians themselves.Certainly, to a certain extent, historians must be storytellers because they have a story to tell.But the term “storyteller” seems to imply a greater amount of creativity than what is involved in actually explaining what has happened in history.For the purposes of this essay, I will focus on the perspective of the historian, as it would appear to be the underlying core idea.

From the perspective of the historian, most historians do not have the benefit of having lived through the period of history that they are writing about.By researching through thousands of old letters, legal documents, family heirlooms and the like, historians must look at fragments of history and somehow put these pieces together to reconstruct what actually happened.In this sense, they must be storytellers because inevitably, their personal insights become part of what others will see when they read the historian’s writings.As an example, there are many differing opinions as to whether Thomas Jefferson actually fathered children with one of his slaves.Some historians have written that it is a virtual certainty, while others argue that it was his brother, rather than Thomas himself, that fathered the children.They both cannot be right.Although they are all historians, they are also storytellers giving their opinion on what version of events actually transpired.

Historians that are documenting events as they happen today have much less of an opportunity to fall into the “storyteller” category as they are present as witnesses to these events as they are happening.Television, newspaper and other media coverage is widespread and almost unrelenting.Television captures visuals and audios that are spread rapidly around the world and theoretically can last forever.There is much less room for putting one’s own “spin” on an event, especially regarding the exact details of what happened.But even with today’s events, there is room for opinion on the part of the historian.For example, historians are already arguing what evidence the United States government had regarding potential terrorism prior to the incredible tragedy of September 11, 2001.Looking back now, it seems obvious that the government should have known that something on a large scale was going to happen.With the benefit of hindsight, there were several failures in the government’s counter-terrorism efforts.Historians will now argue over the exact version of what happened, as they become storytellers to try to explain 9/11 to future generations.

Another example showcasing the idea that all historians are storytellers is that of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.Variations on who was responsible and what actually happened have been the focus of hundreds, if not thousands, of books and historical accounts.Many historians argue vehemently that his or her account of history is the “true” version.Given the same evidence, historians decide which evidence is credible and which is not to arrive at their own conclusions.Clearly storytelling is a big part of how history is written.

Particularly when it concerns ancient history, all historians must be storytellers to a certain degree.“Connecting the dots” of surviving evidence from the time period or event being examined requires a certain amount of personal intuition and supposition.Historians that write about events from the more recent periods will probably be less inclined to be “storytellers” as the sheer mass of evidence that is presented will likely lead to better documentation of historic events as they happen.

(684 words)

參考譯文

當我們關(guān)注歷史研究時，我們便成為故事講述者。由于我們永遠也不可能直接知道過去。而只能通過對證據(jù)的解釋來構(gòu)建歷史，因此，探究歷史更多地成為一項創(chuàng)造性的事業(yè)，而不是一種客觀的求索。所有歷史學(xué)家都是故事講述者。

上述陳述中似乎存在兩個不同的視角。開頭兩個句子所涉及到的是探究歷史，所探討的似乎是審視業(yè)已被著述的那種歷史。專注于歷史研究的人不是故事講述者，而是故事解釋者。毫無疑問，在某種程度上，史學(xué)家必須是故事講述者，因為他們有故事要講。但“故事講述者”這一術(shù)語似乎暗示著一種更大程度上的創(chuàng)造性，要超過實際解釋歷史上所發(fā)生過的一切這一過程中所涉及的程度。為了本文的目的，我將集中在史學(xué)家這一視角，因為這似乎是論題中所包含的核心主題。

從史學(xué)家這一視角看，大多數(shù)史學(xué)家均無幸親身經(jīng)歷他們所著述的那段歷史。通過研究數(shù)以千計的古老書信，法律文件，家族的傳世之寶等物件，史學(xué)家必須分析一個個殘缺不全的歷史片斷，以某種方式將這些碎片拼湊起來，重新構(gòu)建實際所發(fā)生的一切。從這層意義上講，他們不得不成為故事講述者，因為他們的個人見解不可避免地成為其他人研讀史學(xué)家著作時所見到的一部分。例如，圍繞著托馬斯·杰佛遜實際上是否與他的一個女奴生有幾個孩子、這一問題，史學(xué)們眾說紛紜。有些史學(xué)家著述道，這幾乎是一個鐵定的事實。但其他一些史學(xué)家則反駁說，是他的兄弟，而不是杰佛遜本人，才是這些孩子的父親。雙方不可能都對。他們都是史學(xué)家，他們也是一些故事講述者，給出他們自己的觀點，以期說明究竟哪個版本才是實際發(fā)生的事件。

例證“所有史學(xué)家都是故事講述者”這一觀點的另一個實例是約翰·弗·肯尼迪的謀殺事件。誰對這起事件負責?實際上發(fā)生了什么?有關(guān)這類問題的各種說法構(gòu)成了成千上萬部史學(xué)著作的焦點。許多史學(xué)家都言之鑿鑿地宣稱，他(她)對那段歷史的敘述才是“確鑿無疑”的版本。即使在被給予相同證據(jù)的情況下，史學(xué)家也會去判斷哪些證據(jù)是可信的，哪些不足為信，并最終得出自己的結(jié)論。顯而易見，講述故事在歷史著述中占有相當大的一部分。

尤其是在涉及到古代歷史時，所有史學(xué)家在一定程度上都是故事講述者。從被審視的歷史時期或事件殘存的證據(jù)中將“蛛絲馬跡”串連起來，這需要一定程度上的個人直覺和假設(shè)。對較為近期的歷史事件進行著述的史學(xué)家可能不太愿意成為“故事講述者”，因為所能獲得的大量證據(jù)可能導(dǎo)致對所發(fā)生的事件的過程更為詳盡的記載。