Great Keyboard Sonatas, Series I azw3 电子书 免费 下载地址

Series I of excellent G. Ricordi edition edited by Longo includes K.478-K.515.

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：Great Keyboard Sonatas, Series I在线阅读

在线听书地址：Great Keyboard Sonatas, Series I在线收听

在线购买地址：Great Keyboard Sonatas, Series I在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

Series I of excellent G. Ricordi edition edited by Longo includes K.478-K.515.

• 作者： 中秋 发布时间：2022-01-28 00:50:37

  君子慎独，尽人事，听天命。

• 作者： 张兮兮 发布时间：2021-06-24 11:18:34

  写得一般般吧，并没有太多新意，作为科普还行

• 作者： Linnunrata 发布时间：2012-12-07 20:36:05

  看的时候我很浮躁

• 作者： 莫茉 发布时间：2020-10-24 10:27:46

  有一些战争不知道怎么打的，书里的插画标注了打战行军的顺序。慢慢有点搞懂了。

• 作者： 小野 发布时间：2023-01-11 10:27:04

  太碎了

• 作者： T7T 发布时间：2023-09-14 15:13:55

  很棒，破除了对行为疗法的一些偏见。

  内容详实，作者很诚恳，翻译也很顺畅

• 樱花蛊

  作者：柳二白 发布时间：2015-05-11 13:09:16

  菊乃死去，死在樱花树下。

  游佐说樱花树下埋藏着尸体。

  樱花在这个故事中，是一个重要的意象。菊乃是樱花，凉子是樱花，“赏花人”游佐穿行在樱花里肆意妄为，他被菊乃和凉子迷惑。故事着重介绍了两种樱花，一个是开得鲜艳、娇滴滴的垂枝樱；另一个是开得妩媚又有些悲哀的染井吉野。二十冒头的凉子是垂枝樱吧，诱人、娇艳，正在青春年华；菊乃是染井吉野？开得淡淡的，近乎虚幻，经过世事的沧桑，一切都看得清淡。

  菊乃和凉子的样貌，通过游佐的眼、客人的谈话表述出来，在读者心目中留下了深刻印象，那个轮廓是清晰美丽的。但游佐，作者一直没有正面描写他的外表，他一直模糊。我们看到他眼里的“她们”，却没有看到她们眼里的“他”，这是作者故意的欲言又止吗？

  游佐贯穿整个故事，是核心人物，但却对陪伴在菊乃和凉子以外的游佐知之甚少。他有一个长年患病的妻子，还有一双儿女，他的家庭若有若无，这或许是家庭在他心目的地位。用道德的眼光看，游佐要被谴责的。抛弃家庭，对妻子缺少爱恋；爱了母亲，又爱要女儿。在作者的笔下，游佐似乎还有一些无可奈何，就是这些无可奈何让读者对他产生了一点爱怜。

  但终究游佐是不可原谅的，菊乃的死是对他最大的审判。书中一直没有交待菊乃是自杀还是不小心坠落致死，但读者可能更愿意相信菊乃是自杀。她无法面对女儿怀孕、造成这怀孕的却是她的心爱恋人这样残酷的事实。

  贯穿故事始终的是樱花，从开幕赏樱花，到结束时菊乃躺在樱花树下。樱花也被赋予了迷幻的色彩，它见证着这个故事的荒唐，又让一切了结在它的怀抱下。渡边笔下的樱花是极美的，他从没有大段大段的描写过樱花，只用寥寥数笔，就把樱花的美的意象浮现在读者眼前。樱花是见过的，作者的描绘让见过樱花的人都恍然大悟，真的原来是这样！

  游佐与菊乃、与凉子的情爱也似这樱花，短暂、绚烂。仿佛之前的能量积蓄，都为了这集中绽放。游佐不能舍弃家庭，菊乃还有婚姻在身，凉子虽然并无负累，但是去爱母亲的有家庭的恋人，却是为世俗也不能接受。他们都知道不可为，却飞蛾扑火般彼此吸引，就如樱花，明明知道一切的努力都是为了短暂的开放，却还是肆无忌惮地开起来。绽放过后，是残败，不忍孰视。一如游佐与菊乃母女的情爱。

  渡边的文字纯美简炼，他的语言似是随意而来，却句句精道，这似是无意的文字作者也一定花了大力气。游佐和凉子去能登，刚好下了雪。渡边说游佐睡前的日本海“像是狂暴的男子”，睡醒后却似“一个睡美人”，落了雪的海面“像光滑平整的油的表面，慢悠悠地吸进雪”这几十个字，海的状况就像在眼前。作者一定是仔细观察过的，因为他说像光滑的平整的油的表面在慢悠悠地吸进雪，他这样一写，真像有一年下雪看见过的海的样子。这样精恰的比喻，只有观察与体会才能写得出。

  放下书许久，一直很难离抽离出作者营造的氛围。樱花，赏花的男子与女子，一场情欲与爱恋，最终和樱花一样，盛开过后必是残败，这是逃也逃不出的结局。

• 转载一篇国外学者的书评的书评

  作者：benshuier 发布时间：2011-04-23 23:15:28

  原文网址

  http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/review-of-timothy-brooks-collaboration/

  我没得到作者授权就私自拿来了...如果要引用的话请多加注意

  Review of Timothy Brook’s Collaboration

  Filed under: Books China-Japan English War— K. M. Lawson @ 7:33 pm Print

  In the most recent issue of The Journal of Asian Studies there is a review of Timothy Brook‘s new work Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China written by Susan Glosser. I was very disappointed with this review which, except for a few conciliatory lines in the beginning of the review, was very critical of Brook’s work. While I agree with Glosser on one or two points, I found her to be far too harsh, sometimes irrelevant (she complains that he does not offer a glossary with the Chinese names of all the organizations mentioned, but they can be found under the index entry for every organization) and in several instances clearly wrong in her assessment of the book, which I believe is a truly excellent contribution to the scholarship on Chinese collaboration during the occupation.

  Timothy Brook’s work is a careful look at the issues surrounding Chinese wartime collaboration through a close examination of a number of case studies from the Yangtze delta. With the exception of some work I have read in Japanese and some coming out of Taiwan, this is the most detailed source based research I have seen of this kind to date.

  Here I just want to contest three points in Glosser’s critique of Brook’s work that I think particularly unfair. She argues that 1) Brook doesn’t discuss the “problem of generalizing from one city to another.” 2) She complains about Brook’s allegedly unproblematized use of the word “pacification” (such as in referring to Japan’s “pacification teams.”) 3) Glosser spends almost a third of the review critiquing Brook’s “desire to avoid moral judgments” and his allegedly “neutral stance” on issue of Chinese collaboration.

  On the first count, Glosser is certainly correct in worrying about the generalization involved, but I think Brook is also well aware of the dangers and admirably avoids them in many places more adventurous scholars would not. He has already focused his study on only one area of occupied China, the Yangtze delta, and laments, in some detail, the paucity of available sources. He goes into considerable length to describe his sources and the various problems which accompany them in his opening chapter, even showing specific examples of the kinds of contradictions present and strategies he used. He works with Japanese sources (writings of the pacification team members), Chinese sources (such as memoirs), and Western sources (witnesses in Nanjing, for example) depending on their availability.

  I am more than satisfied by his explanation that, “I chose seven cities and counties across the Yangtze Delta for intensive study. This selection was not based on whether the sites were typical or unique (some would prove to be one, some the other, and some both), but only on whether the documentation was sufficiently dense to allow for a more than superficial portrait of what local people did in the face of military occupation…After the case studies were written, I chose to include in the book five that were sufficiently distinct in terms of the themes that the sources allowed me to explore…”1 and did not find any of his major claims to be based solely on individual findings in any one city or place. On the contrary, I imagine the accusation of generalization would be particularly offensive to Brook since he has urged the reader to try to overcome some of the stereotypes and classic images we have of the wartime collaborators and allow for the many different forms and levels of cooperation with the occupying forces, their varying motivations, costs, and ultimately levels of moral responsibility.

  Glosser for some reason takes issue with the fact that Brook uses the term “pacification teams” which is a direct translation of the Japanese term. She seems so concerned that we maintain a sufficiently condemnatory tone in our work on Japan’s activities in occupied China that this direct translation doesn’t seem to be sufficiently insidious. I find no issue with the fact that he calls these teams by the best English translation available (“pacification” is originally 宣撫, which in one of its two related definitions in Japanese specifically means to pacify a people in an occupied territory), especially since he does not, by this, ever try to hide the fact that the Japanese were guilty of horrible atrocities.

  She says that he uses the word “pacification” for “his own description of events (p. 134)” but I can’t find any use of that word on the page, for any purpose. Instead, page 134 makes use of another term which we are all familiar with, when he discusses Japanese “counterinsurgency operations” in Nanjing. It is on the same page where he notes Japanese military promises to offer “care for disarmed Chinese soldiers” even as they carried out a policy of executing captured soldiers in Nanjing and, at the bottom of that page tells of the summary execution of fifty policemen which had just been promised permission to operate after negotiations with Nanjing’s International Committee.

  Finally, Glosser seems to think that Brook has a “neutral stance” with respect to collaboration and wants to “avoid moral judgments.” I’m afraid this kind of comment shows that she has completely misread Brook’s careful argument. Perhaps she missed Brook’s simple request in his introduction that, “All I ask of the reader is to suspend judgment as to who is guilty for having worked with the Japanese until after we have seen them at work.”2 Brook wants to point out that the costs and consequences of collaboration, its form, and the motivations are all very much tied up in the contingencies of specific situations. Also, he reminds us that, “Ambiguity of intention is only half the problem. There is also the ambiguity of unknowable consequences.”3 He is “neutral” to collaboration in one important respect: the word “collaboration” is already a morally loaded word, and I think he would argue that without some special care, this can get in the way of any interesting and productive look at the interactions between Chinese and Japanese during the war.

  I think Glosser fundamentally misunderstands Brook when she protests his claim that “history does not fashion moral subjects, nor produce moral knowledge.” I completely agree with her when she says that, “All histories [are] embedded in an ethical view of the world.”4 However, I’m not sure how Brook is to be understood as denying this. Brook admits how his own “ethical view of the world” has affected his description of some of the historical figures he describes in the book. On the very same page as his comment about moral knowledge, he has this to say, “Without question, many of [the choices of collaborators] were venal in inspiration and destructive in impact, and the historian is not disqualified from documenting that venality or tracking the damage these choices led to and declaring them to be damaging. I have found it impossible to suspend my personal distaste for some of the characters who appear in this book, and it would be facetious to suggest that the reader should, particularly when the consequences of collaboration were as stark as they were in a place like Nanjing.” I think what Brook, who it might be noted collected and edited the important Documents on the Rape of Nanking (1999), wants to argue for is a more careful consideration of some of the “inconvenient facts” that produce a more complex picture – a complexity that we must face if we are to have any chance at understanding the kinds of choices faced by individuals every day in extreme times. It is because of some of these ambiguities that we cannot “deduce the causes that prompted people to act from the moral claims we impose, nor evaluate their actions solely in relation to consequences the actors could not anticipate.”5 This is as true for collaborators with the Japanese occupation regime as it is with anyone who collaborated with Chinese Communist regime in its most violent hour, and as it is for the daily choices of policemen, soldiers and government officials of an occupied Iraq today. An analytic calculus of atrocity and the clarity of hindsight does not help us in the least in understanding the people thrust into extreme positions during times such as war, occupation, imperial domination, or under highly repressive governments — or for that matter the choices they faced.

  1. Timothy Brook Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26-27.

  2. ibid. 13.

  3. ibid. 241.

  4. Susan Glossar review of Brook’s book in Journal of Asian Studies vol. 65 no. 1, 149