正版曲一线2021新版五年中考三年模拟九年级上册 英语 外研版 初中初三9年级上册同步练习 5年中考3年模拟五三九上英语 全解全练辅正版 txt 电子书 免费 下载地址

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

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：正版曲一线2021新版五年中考三年模拟九年级上册 英语 外研版 初中初三9年级上册同步练习 5年中考3年模拟五三九上英语 全解全练辅正版在线阅读

在线听书地址：正版曲一线2021新版五年中考三年模拟九年级上册 英语 外研版 初中初三9年级上册同步练习 5年中考3年模拟五三九上英语 全解全练辅正版在线收听

在线购买地址：正版曲一线2021新版五年中考三年模拟九年级上册 英语 外研版 初中初三9年级上册同步练习 5年中考3年模拟五三九上英语 全解全练辅正版在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者： Pinocchio 发布时间：2023-03-21 13:34:38

  他道故事便至此，无余酒。中天明月，已落山丘。

• 作者： colintyd 发布时间：2021-02-18 16:57:19

  一星扣给评析和附带的故事，部分原文受用终身。

• 作者： Etna 发布时间：2020-02-20 23:21:35

  台湾译本，主要是为了插画

• 作者： 海王星的精灵 发布时间：2023-09-29 19:45:30

  给小孩子看学英文单词挺好的。

• 作者： 黄风吹 发布时间：2021-01-07 10:23:07

  就是培训时的内容，挺好。陈顺森老师就是一种如来佛祖的镇定与温暖

• 作者： 文孟先生 发布时间：2022-10-02 00:22:31

  经典作品。

• 一步步成为社会机器的我们，时间夺走了我们的感受。

  作者：卡布奇诺花蜜 发布时间：2019-06-15 12:24:30

  黑暗中闪烁着你的光

  我不知道，你来自何方

  看起来你那么近又那么远

  我不知道，你叫什么

  随便你是什么

  这是一本讲述倾听、时间的书，虽以儿童文学为标签，但仍然不能忽视它的魅力，一种带有预言性的，讲述了我们现代社会中逐渐迷失时光与生命的话语，重述我们已不会倾听，也不知当下为何的事实。

  作者：米切尔·恩德

  出版社：二十一世纪出版社

  副标题：时间窃贼和一个小女孩的不可思议的故事

  译者：李士勋

  出版年：2006／12

  页数：231

  定价：21.80元

  装帧：平装

  丛书：幻想文学大师书系

  ISBN：9787539134529

  一眨眼，时间就过去了，想象过去，发声了什么？它是模糊的。想想自己走过的路，时间都去了哪里？书的一开始，主人公毛毛住在古代与现代的模糊边界，一个废弃的古罗马圆形剧场里。模糊是我们的常态，快速发展，我们更不可能对时间有准确、精确的认知了。一想到这点，就充满了悲哀。

  主人公毛毛，有一个特点，就是倾听，我认为这是当下的力量。曾几何时，我们也有这样的能力，一边对着别人说话，一边反思自己，对方就是一面镜子，让我们重新以自己的方式显示出自己对这个世界的重要性。你以为听别人说话很容易？那就错了，我们大部分人真的很少会去听对方说话，非常专心，充满同情，用又大又深的眼睛看着对方，记住这不是空洞，使对方觉得心中仿佛忽然涌起出许多自己从来没有过的想法，隐藏在心底深处的想法。

  

  想想自己吧，当别人一说话的时候，我们就调动了自己的机智，聪明，才能，想着反驳对方、赞同对方，我们会很多交流方式，但唯一学不会倾听。

  我真的有在倾听吗？

  当别人在说的时候，大脑已快速转动，想插嘴，打断，而不是安静的等待对方说完，让对方自己说，这种力量，我还远远不够，我有话语的渴望，而忘记了当下，忘记了对方是人，忘记了我们可以交流，忘记了对方作为生命体有着充实而有机的力量。

  毛毛的特点，倾听，非常吸引我。

  随着故事的展开，故事的核心力量，激励事件也显现。为代表偷窃时间的灰先生的出现，使故事发生了转折，他们抽着用时间花做成的烟赖以为生，他们忽悠人们，“你在卡擦卡擦的剪刀声、空谈和肥皂泡沫中浪费了自己的生命，如果有一天突然死了，那就好像从来没有过您这个人一样。如果有时间过一种真正的生活，正如您所希望的那样，您会变成另一个人，您现在需要的一切就是时间，我说的对吗？”

  人们一个个被说服。这样的言辞，是不是很熟悉，我也经常听到这样的言论，改变自己，改变命运，节约时间，未来属于节约时间的人，让你的生活更佳丰富多彩。听着熟悉的言论，30年前米切尔恩德就已有这样的认知，我们的快节奏生活，已到来，我们的生活已不再。

  为了让生命过的更有价值，人会节省时间，但为什么有的人因此越来越冷漠，有的人因此越来越温柔？就如之前所说，这本书预见了，我们现代社会中逐渐迷失的时光与生命，我们也不会倾听，更不知道当下为何。

  

  我们对时间的了解，真的非常非常幼稚。为了节省时间去做一些事情，加快节奏，从而失去了生命中最美好的事物。因为我们上班下班忙碌不停，无暇顾及自己的人生间隙，以至于发现不了周围的美，将自己的未来寄托于未来，而失去了当下的时光。

  在这里，我要仔细的说明一点。

  并不是快节奏不好，并不是节省时间不好，而是，时间用在了什么地方？

  这个问题，也是我觉得毛毛故事中，让我比较困惑的地方。故事中的人们，他们节省时间是用来工作，将无休止的工作填满，这些工作大多如我们现代社会中呈现的那样，是泡沫，是谎言，是重复，是无聊。但是，很多人是把时间投入到自己的兴趣中去，我觉得他们是充实快乐的，并不无聊。

  这一个小思考，让我明白了，毛毛这本书，是说工业革命，科技时代，人们对于时间、对生活、对工作的思考。未来和过去，都不在我们手中，人出生后，时间都分配好的。时间的本事是自己心里的节奏，因为有了自己的节奏，才显现出时间的重要性。

  周围的人抱怨自己没有时间做喜欢的事，抱怨自己一天睁眼，一闭眼就睡觉了，抱怨自己没有时间写东西欣赏事物，没有了敏锐的感知力生活的美成为了灰色。大家忙得要死，都在奋斗创造一些东西，是什么？我不知道，有人说这是物欲，有人说这是虚无。但我认为这是空虚。

  德国的戏剧、文学都带着一丝哲学的味道，这点真的让人惊讶，每次看他们的作品里好像从来没有停止过思考。这是我看的第二本米切尔恩德的作品，忘记，错过，一步步成为社会机器的我们，时间夺走了我们的感受，夺走了我们自己的感受。

  人群有敏锐的存在，他们纷纷感觉到不舒服，有的人寻求信仰的帮助，信仰对他们来说是一种解脱，是一种逃避，信仰没有办法帮到他们，让他们对自己的来路、去路和脚下的路一清二楚，也无法唤醒自己的激情。有的人寻求辞职远走高飞，不一会他们又会回来，回归到现实生活，融入社会，因为他们害怕，他们不知所措，他们没有内心安全感。

  摆脱社会规则的束缚，是极其困难的，需要强大的内心，需要物质支持，需要不为所动的行为准则，更需要一些些与众不同的想象力。

  在最后，引用书中关于“无聊”的描述，我非常喜欢这段话，深刻且有趣，引人深思。

  “得了这种病，起初还看不出什么。但有一天，他会忽然犯懒，什么都不想干，对一切都失去兴趣，心中变成一片荒漠。这种厌世情绪不但不消失，而且长期存在，慢慢地与日俱增。日复一日，周复一周，越来越严重。他会感到自己的情绪变得越来越忧郁，内心也越来越空虚，对自己、对世界都越来越不满意。然后，连这种感觉也渐渐地消失，变得麻木不仁，什么都感觉不到了。他会变得完全心灰意懒，对什么都不在乎，整个世界从此变得陌生了，觉得任何事情都与自己无关。他不再愤怒，也不再有热情，不再感到快乐，也不再感到悲哀，不再会笑，也不再会哭。那时候，他的心将变得冰冷，不再爱人，也不再爱任何事物。如果一个人病到了那种地步，那他的病也就完全不可救药了。那就再也无法挽回了。那时候，他会来去匆匆，脸上老是冷冰冰的，毫无表情，就会变得像灰先生们一模一样。是的，到了那时候，他就会变成灰先生当中的一员。这种病就叫做：百无聊赖。”

• 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