韩素英翻译

合集下载

华裔女作家韩素音逝世

■ 跌宕起伏的传奇一生■ 英文写就的中国故事韩素音（1917年9月-2012年11月）□晚报记者谢正宜实习生王倩阳报道她是中国第一代庚款留学归来的铁路工程师的女儿、比利时前国防大臣的外甥女、驻英外交官的妻子、铁幕时期穿行于东西方世界的国际友好人士、毛泽东和周恩来传记的作者，她的一生在经历了大悲大喜之后变得绵长而深沉，真正担得起“传奇”二字。

在上世纪七十年代的中国，至少有一亿人听说过韩素音的名字。

作为友好人士、采访作家，关于她的报道和毛泽东、周恩来等领导人的照片一起出现在官方报纸上。

她便是韩素音，这位用英文写作并在西方文坛占有一席之地的英籍华裔女作家，在当地时间11月2日中午于瑞士洛桑家中去世，享年96岁。

中西背景奔跑在两个相反的方向上韩素音，原名周光瑚，1917年9月12日生于河南信阳，祖籍广东五华县水寨镇，周氏仁德公第22世孙。

出身书香门第的韩素英是欧亚混血儿，父亲周映彤，中国第一代庚款留学生，在掌握了西方先进的铁路技术后回国担任铁道部总工，母亲玛格丽特出身比利时贵族家庭。

在韩素音的第一部自传体小说《伤残的树》中便讲述了父母在20世纪初期相遇时的景象，其中包含着东西文化的激烈碰撞和艰难磨合，而这种交融在幼年韩素音的心中充满了苦涩和迷茫的味道，她用文字记载了她和兄妹们所面临的血缘和文化的双重矛盾。

其实，青年时代的韩素音梦想是做一名医生，1931年，未满15岁的韩素音在北京医院做起了打字员，两年后，她考入燕京大学医预科读书。

1935年秋，她获奖学金到比利时布鲁塞尔自由大学继续学业。

自由大学提供给韩素音最大的自我发挥空间，在该校图书馆丰富的藏书中，她渐渐对文学产生兴趣。

如果说学医和从医是韩素音遵从于自己从小的爱好，那么写作则为她以及西方世界开辟了一条看懂自己和看懂中国的道路。

正如韩素音自己所说：“我的一生将永远在两个相反的方向之间跑来跑去：离开爱，奔向爱；离开中国，奔向中国。

”1937年七·七事变爆发，韩素音闻讯后既惊诧又悲愤。

中南大学学科竞赛重点资助项目及研究生推免奖项等级认定

国家级
国家二等奖及以上
19
韩素英青年翻译奖竞赛
国家级
国家优秀奖及以上
20
“21世纪•联想杯”全国英语演讲比赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
21
全国大学生化学实验竞赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
22
全国“周培源大学生力学竞赛”
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
23
全国基础医学创新实验设计大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
24
中国大学生服务外包创新应用大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
7
全国大学生结构设计竞赛
国ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ级
国家二等奖及以上
8
全国大学生机械创新设计大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
9
全国大学生数学建模竞赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
10
全国大学生物流设计大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
11
全国大学生广告艺术大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
12
全国大学生节能减排社会实践与科技竞赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
13
全国大学生工程训练综合能力竞赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
14
全国大学生软件创新大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
15
全国大学生交通科技大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
16
全国大学生物理实验竞赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
17
全国大学生英语竞赛
国家级
国家一等奖及以上
18
“外研社杯”全国大学生英语演讲大赛
国家级
国家二等奖及以上
25

第二十七届韩素英翻译比赛英译汉

“后一切”的一代我从未指望要通过文学理论课来领悟我们这一代人的本质，或者了解美国日新月异的大学格局。

在文学理论课上，就该和其他任何大二学生一样坐在教室后排，穿窄腿牛仔裤，戴厚框眼镜，套着印有俏皮话的T恤衫，再配上超大的复古耳机，坐等下课后点一支土耳其金香烟，边听照办乐队[1]边踱步去吃午饭。

我也这样打发时间：上着有关结构主义，形式主义，性别理论以及后殖民主义的课，实际却是在忙着听我的Ipod，根本无暇思考资本主义压迫下的父权社会与伊登·弗洛姆[2]到底有什么关系。

然而，学到后现代主义的时候，我却与某些东西产生了共鸣，精神为之一振，重新审视那些年纪轻轻却似乎面容倦怠的大学生们，而我也恰恰是他们之中的一员。

教科书里，定义后现代主义难就难在其无法定义，因为它太……“后”了。

它只是消极地否定先前的一切——自然主义，浪漫主义，以及热衷改革的现代主义，而它自己的真实内涵却难以说清。

它认为事物无法得到清楚的解释，甚至认为根本无法解释。

后现代主义还具有“模仿”的特征，它孤立、奇特，对于那些不懂它的保守主义者来说甚至带有威胁性。

尽管后现代主义起始于“战后西方”（该术语于1949年创造出来），眼见着它日渐壮大的人们却也仍未揭示出它对于未来的文化和社会有什么意义。

而后现代主义之所以能激起我的兴趣，是因为比起那些空泛的理论课，它更像一本敞开怀抱的书本，吸引着好奇的年轻人；此外，还有一个原因：后现代主义是如此的“后一切”，甚至难以给出定义，而对其内涵的探究又引发了一个更为宽泛的话题——与生长于后现代社会的大二学生密切相关的政治问题以及流行文化。

我们处于大学生的年纪，见证了太多“后”的事件——后冷战，后工业，后婴儿潮，后911……文学批判家弗雷德里克·詹姆逊还一度在他著名的论文集《晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》里称我们为“后学者”。

我们生长于20世纪末，20世纪发生的战争与革命颠覆了文明，推翻了剥削的社会秩序，使得我们拥有了空前的权益与机会。

第二十八届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛英汉汉英译文完整版

第二十八届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛英译汉、汉译英竞赛原文英译汉竞赛原文：On IrritabilityIrritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor. Your partner asks you how work went and the way they ask makes you feel intensely agitated. Your partner is putting knives and forks on the table before dinner and you mention (not for the first time) that the fork should go on the left hand side, not the right. They then immediately let out a huge sigh and sweep the cutlery onto the floor and tell you that you can xxxx-ing do it yourself if you know better. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded.There is so much irritability around and it exacts a huge daily cost on our collective lives, so we deserve to get a lot more curious about it: what is really going on for the irritable person? Why, really, are they getting so agitated? And instead of blaming them for getting het up about “little things”, we should do them the honour of working out why, in fact, these things may not be so minor after all.The journey begins by recognising the role of fear in irritability in couples. Behind most outbursts are cack-handed attempts to teach the other person something. There are things we’d like to point out, flaws that we can discern, remarks we feel we really must make, but our awareness of how to proceed is panicked and hasty. We give cack-handed, mean speeches, which bear no faith in the legitimacy (even the nobility) of the act of imparting advice. And when our partners are on the receiving end of these irritable “lessons”, they of course swiftly grow defensive and brittle in the face of suggestions which seem more like mean-minded and senseless assaults on their very natures rather than caring, gentle attempts to address troublesome aspects of joint life.The prerequisite of calm in a teacher is a degree of indifference as to the success or failure of the lesson. One naturally wants for things to go well, but if an obdurate pupil flunks trigonometry, it is – at base – their problem. Tempers can stay even because individual students do not have very much power over teachers’ lives. Fortunately, as not caring too much turns out to be a critical aspect of successful pedagogy.Yet this isn’t an option open t o the fearful, irritable lover. They feel ineluctably led to deliver their “lessons” in a cataclysmic, frenzied manner (the door slams very loudly indeed) not because they are insane or vile (though one could easily draw these conclusions) so much as because they are terrified; terrified of spoiling what remains of their years on the planet in the company of someone who it appears cannot in any way understand a pivotal point about conversation, or cutlery, or the right time to order a taxi.One knows intuitively, when teaching a child, that only the utmost care and patience will ever work: one must never shout, one has to use extraordinary tact, one has to make ten compliments for every one negative remark and one must leave oneself plenty of time…All t his wisdom we reliably forget in love’s classroom, sadly because increasing the level of threat seldom hastens development. We do not grow more reasonable, more accepting of responsibility and more accurate about our weaknesses when our pride has been wounded, our integrity is threatened and our self-esteem has been violated.The complaint against the irritable person is that they are getting worked up over “nothing”. But symbols offer a way of seeing how a detail can stand for something much bigger and more serious. The groceries placed on the wrong table are not upsetting at all in themselves. But symbolically they mean your partner doesn’t care about domestic order; they muddle things up; they are messy. Or the question about one’s day is experienced as a symbol of interrogation, a lack of privacy and a humiliation (because one’s days rarely go well enough).The solution is, ideally, to concentrate on what the bigger issue is. Entire philosophies of life stir and collide beneath the surface of apparently petty squabbles. Irritations are the outward indications of stifled debates between competing conceptions of existence. It’s to the bigger themes we need to try to get.In the course of discussions, one might even come face-to-face with that perennially surprising truth about relationships: that the other person is not an extension of oneself that has, mysteriously, gone off message. They are that most surprising of things, a different person, with a psyche all of their own, filled with a perplexing number of subtle, eccentric and unforeseen reasons for thinking as they do.The decoding may take time, perhaps half an hour or more of concentrated exploration for something that had until then seemed as if it would more rightfully deserve an instant.We pay a heavy price for this neglect; every conflict that ends in sour stalemate is a blocked capillary within the heart of love. Emotions will find other ways to flow for now, but with the accumulation of unresolved disputes, pathways will fur and possibilities for trust and generosity narrow.A last point. It may just be sleep or food: when a baby is irritable, we rarely feel the need to preach about self-control and a proper sense of proportion. It’s not simply that we fear the infant’s intellect might n ot quite be up to it, but because we have a much better explanation of what is going on. We know that they’re acting this way –and getting bothered by any little thing – because they are tired, hungry, too hot or having some challenging digestive episode.The fact is, though, that the same physiological causes get to us all our lives. When we are tired, we get upset more easily; when we feel very hungry, it takes less to bother us. But it is immensely difficult to transfer the lesson in generosity (and accuracy) that we gain around to children and apply it to someone with a degree in business administration or a pilot’s license, or to whom we have been married for three-and-a-half years.We should try to see irritability for what it actually is: a confused, inarticulate, often shameful attempt to get us to understand how much someone is suffering and how urgently they need our help. We should – when we can manage it – attempt to help them out.汉译英竞赛原文：屠呦呦秉持的，不是好事者争论的随着诺贝尔奖颁奖典礼的临近，持续2个月的“屠呦呦热”正在渐入高潮。

第十七届“韩素音青年翻译奖”赛(汉译英)中文原文及参考译文和解析

老来乐Delights in Growing Old六十整岁望七十岁如攀高山。

不料七十岁居然过了。

又想八十岁是难于上青天，可望不可即了。

岂知八十岁又过了。

老汉今年八十二矣。

这是照传统算法，务虚不务实。

现在不是提倡尊重传统吗 ?At the age of sixty I longed for a life span of seventy, a goal as difficult as a summit to be reached. Who would expect that I had reached it? Then I dreamed of living to be eighty, a target in sight but as inaccessible as Heaven. Out of my anticipation, I had hit it. As a matter of fact, I am now an old man of eighty-two. Such longevity is a grant bestowed by Nature; though nominal and not real, yet it conforms to our tradition. Is it not advocated to pay respect to nowadays?老年多半能悟道。

孔子说“天下有道”。

老子说“道可道”。

《圣经》说“太初有道”。

佛教说“邪魔外道”。

我老了，不免胡思乱想，胡说八道，自觉悟出一条真理 : 老年是广阔天地，是可以大有作为的。

An old man is said to understand the Way most probably: the Way of good administration as put forth by Confucius, the Way that can be explained as suggested by Laotzu, the Word (Way) in the very beginning as written in the Bible and the Way of pagans as denounced by the Buddhists. As I am growing old, I can't help being given to flights of fancy and having my own Way of creating stories. However I have come to realize the truth: my old age serves as a vast world in which I can still have my talents employed fully and developed completely.七十岁开始可以诸事不做而拿退休金，不愁没有一碗饭吃，自由自在，自得其乐。

韩素英翻译大赛原文

Outing A.I.: Beyond the Turing TestThe idea of measuring A.I. by its ability to “pass” as a human – dramatized in countless sci- fi films – is actually as old as modern A.I. research itself. It is traceable at least to 1950 when the British mathematician Alan Turing published “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” a paper in which he described what we now call the “Turing Test,” and which he referred to as the “imitation game.” There are different versions of the test, all of which are revealing as to why our approach to the culture and ethics of A.I. is what it is, for good and bad. For the most familiar version, a human interrogator asks questions of two hidden contestants, one a human and the other a computer. Turing suggests that if the interrogator usually cannot tell which is which, and if the computer can successfully pass as human, then can we not conclude, for practical purposes, that the computer is “intelligent”?More people “know” Turing’s foundational text than have actually read it. This is unfortunate because the text is marvelous, strange and surprising. Turing introduces his test as a variation on a popular parlor game in which two hidden contestants, a woman (player A) and a man (player B) try to convince a third that he or she is a woman by their written responses to leading questions. To win, one of the players must convincingly be who they really are, whereas the other must try to pass as another gender. Turing describes his own variation as one where “a computer takes the place of player A,” and so a literal reading would suggest that in his version the computer is not just pretending to be a human, but pretending to be a woman. It must pass as a she.Passing as a person comes down to what others see and interpret. Because everyone else is already willing to read others according to conventional cues (of race, sex, gender, species, etc.) the complicity between whoever (or whatever) is passing and those among which he or she or it performs is what allows passing to succeed. Whether or not an A.I. is trying to pass as a human or is merely in drag as a human is another matter. Is the ruse all just a game or, as for some people who are compelled to pass in their daily lives, an essential camouflage? Either way, “passing” may say more about the audience than about the performers.That we would wish to define the very existence of A.I. in relation to its ability to mimic how humans think that humans think will be looked back upon as a weird sort of speciesism. The legacy of that conceit helped to steer some older A.I. research down disappointingly fruitless paths, hoping to recreate human minds from available parts. It just doesn’t work that way. Contemporary A.I. research suggests instead that the threshold by which any particular arrangement of matter can be said to be “intelligent” doesn’t have much to do with how it reflects humanness back at us. As Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig (now director of research at Google) suggest in their essential A.I. textbook, biomorphic imitation is not how we design complex technology. Airplanes don’t fly like birds fly, and we certainly don’t try to trick birds into thinking that airplanes are birds in order to test whether those planes “really” are flying machines. Why do it for A.I. then? Today’s serious A.I. research does not focus on the Turing Test as an objective criterion of success, and yet in our popular culture of A.I., the test’s anthropocentrism holds such durable conceptual importance. Like the animals who talk like teenagers in a Disney movie, other minds are conceivable mostly by way of puerile ventriloquism.Where is the real injury in this? If we want everyday A.I. to be congenial in a humane sort of way, so what? The answer is that we have much to gain from a more sincere and disenchanted relationship to synthetic intelligences, and much to lose by keeping illusions on life support. Some philosophers write about the possible ethical “rights” of A.I. as sentient entities, but that’s not my point here. Rather, the truer perspective is also the better one for us as thinking technical creatures.Musk, Gates and Hawking made headlines by speaking to the dangers that A.I. may pose. Their points are important, but I fear were largely misunderstood by many readers. Relying on efforts to program A.I. not to “harm humans” (inspired by Isaac Asimov’s “three laws” of robotics from 1942) makes sense only when an A.I. knows what humans are and what harming them might mean. There are many ways that an A.I. might harm us that have nothing to do with its malevolence toward us, and chief among these is exactly following our well-meaning instructions to an idiotic and catastrophic extreme. Instead of mechanical failure or a transgression of moral code, the A.I. maypose an existential risk because it is both powerfully intelligent and disinterested in humans. To the extent that we recognize A.I. by its anthropomorphic qualities, or presume its preoccupation with us, we are vulnerable to those eventualities.Whether or not “hard A.I.” ever appears, the harm is also in the loss of all that we prevent ourselves from discovering and understanding when we insist on protecting beliefs we know to be false. In the 1950 essay, Turing offers several rebuttals to his speculative A.I., including a striking comparison with earlier objections to Copernican astronomy. Copernican traumas that abolish the false centrality and absolute specialness of human thought and species-being are priceless accomplishments. They allow for human culture based on how the world actually is more than on how it appears to us from our limited vantage point. Turing referred to these as “theological objections,” but one could argue that the anthropomorphic precondition for A.I. is a “pre-Copernican” attitude as well, however secular it may appear. The advent of robust inhuman A.I. may let us achieve another disenchantment, one that should enable a more reality-based understanding of ourselves, our situation, and a fuller and more complex understanding of what “intelligence” is and is not. From there we can hopefully make our world with a greater confidence that our models are good approximations of what’s out there.人工智能：超越图灵实验以人工智能“冒充”人的能力的来衡量人工智能的这个概念---已经被数不清的科幻电影搬上了荧幕---实际上已经和现代人工智能研究一样久远了。

韩素英2010翻译大赛汉语版

科技帝国的背后——文坛当我还是一个“探索文学”的懵懂少年时，就常常想，要是大街上的每一个人都熟悉普鲁斯特和乔伊斯，劳伦斯或帕斯捷尔纳克和卡夫卡，那该多好啊！后来，我才明白，民众其实是多么排斥高雅文化啊。

林肯年轻还在边疆拓荒时，就阅读了希腊历史学家普卢塔克和莎士比亚的作品，还读过《圣经》。

可他还是林肯啊。

后来，每当我驾车、搭公交和乘火车到美国中西部旅游时，我都会按惯例光顾当地的小镇图书馆，结果发现爱荷华州基奥卡克市或密歇根州本顿港市的读者竟然借阅普鲁斯特、乔伊斯、甚至还有斯维沃或安德烈·别雷等的作品。

还有劳伦斯也是他们最喜爱的作家。

有时，我还会想起，上帝之所以愿意赦免所多玛城，那是因为那里毕竟还能找出十个义人1。

这并非说基奥卡克市就像邪恶的所多玛城，也不是说普鲁斯特书中的黑暗男爵夏吕斯乐而忘返地想定居密歇根州本顿港。

我似乎有一种普通的执拗的愿望，那就是在最不可能出现的地方找到高雅文化的蛛丝马迹。

迄今为止，我写小说也有几十年了；从一开始，我就知道写小说并不是一项可靠的职业。

20世纪30年代，在芝加哥，一位上了年纪的邻居跟我说，他曾给一家低俗杂志写过小说。

“街坊邻居都纳闷为什么我不找份正正当当的工作，而是东游西荡，替人剪灌木，漆栏栅，怎么就不在工厂里好好上班呢。

可我是搞写作的啊。

我把小说卖给户外探险杂志《商船队》和科幻杂志《萨维齐博士》，”他忧郁地说，“他们可不会把写小说当成正当职业。

”大概他觉得我有点书生气，兴许跟他意气相投；也许他试图警告我，不要太标新立异。

但这一切都太晚了。

从一开始，有人就告诫我，说，小说已频临死亡边缘，就好比城寨与弓弩，已是明日黄花。

况且谁都不愿意逆转历史的车轮。

奥斯瓦尔德·施本格勒2，30年代早期德国最受欢迎的作家之一，曾鼓吹说，我们古老的文明已经凋谢，濒临灭亡。

他告诫青年一代要避谈文学，避谈艺术，而应热爱机械化，争当工程师。

要紧跟时代，你就要挑战和藐视那些进化论历史学者。

2011韩素英翻译大赛全文翻译

“美利坚，你的路在何方？”半个世纪前，“垮掉的一代”的代表作家杰克•凯鲁雅克就曾发出这样的疑问，现在这个问题成为困扰世界经济的最大不确定性因素，同时也反应了美国选民最大的担忧，11月2日国会中期选举在即，而美国10%的失业率还是居高不下。

人们要有所准备，前路漫漫，充满坎坷。

The most wrenching recession since the 1930s ended a year ago. But the recovery—none too powerful to begin with—slowed sharply earlier this year. GDP grew by a feeble 1.6% at an annual pace in the second quarter, and seems to have been stuck somewhere similar since. The housing market slumped after temporary tax incentives to buy a home expired. So few private jobs were being created that unemployment looked likelier to rise than fall. Fears grew over the summer that if this deceleration continued, America’s economy would slip back into recession.自上世纪30年代以来最严重的经济衰退在一年前结束。

但是复苏的起步步伐不够强劲，并且势头在今年早些时候突然放缓。

GDP在第二季度的年增长速度只有区区1.6%，并且自那以后就再无起色。

政府对购买过期未还贷的住房给予短期的税收鼓励政策，但是之后房地长市场行情一路下跌。

2022韩素音国际翻译大赛(英译汉)二等奖译文

行禅人生中的“疫”与益1965年，加里·斯奈德、艾伦·金斯伯格和菲利普·韦伦暂别凡尘杂念，行走在塔玛佩斯山上，冥思苦想。

在此番或曰作环山行禅的旅途中，他们既是诗人，又是佛学生。

他们依循佛教传统以顺时针方向经行，哪儿的自然风光让他们眼前一亮，他们就在哪儿择定仪式并逐一施行：以佛教、印度教的咏唱、诵咒、念经、祈愿等形式。

在1992年的一次采访中，斯奈德鼓励后来的经行者们能像他们表现出来的那样富有创新力。

采访最后他还想说点什么，但欲言又止，或许他原本还想说道说道他们仨选停的地点吧。

经行，是指出于特定目的，围绕神物进行庄严的旋回往返的活动。

这一古老的仪式植根于世界上诸多文化。

那么在现代的语境下，它的意思是什么呢？斯奈德解释道：“要诀是你得用心，得行动，一边走、一边停，一心一意。

它不过是人类驻足欣赏风光——同时也是审视自身——的一种方式。

”二十世纪九十年代末，我在加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校研究生院师从斯奈德学习诗歌。

他教会我，人类察觉并能阐明自己在哪、周围是什么，有多么的重要。

这也是生物地域主义所倡导的观点。

二十世纪九十年代，英文教授、摄影师大卫·罗伯特森效仿斯奈德，推行环山绕行。

他会带着学生前往塔山作短途旅行，以纪念斯奈德、金斯伯格与韦伦。

1998年3月里寒冷的一天，我彼时的男友、现时的丈夫和我一同参与他组织的长达14英里的上山、下山旋回往返徒步，途中我们会停下来诵念相同的佛教、印度教咒语、经文，在1965年三人朝圣的十个地点祈愿。

罗伯特森此举意在让戴维斯分校里学习荒野文学课程的学生离开教室而深入风土。

该门课程以斯奈德的诗歌为一大特色，因此让学生去一趟塔山看上去是一个不错的选择。

雾气里弥漫着加州湾月桂的浓烈气味。

整整一天的时间里，我们在雾气中翻越一座又一座青翠的山坡、穿越一片又一片的加州栎、花旗松、北美红杉。

终于，我随大部队穿过了最后一片丛林。

这也太难熬了，即便我身体强壮、酷爱徒步。

22届韩素英翻译大赛原文, 中译英英译中。

英译汉：Hidden Within Technology‟s Empire, a Republic of LettersWhen I was a boy “discovering literature”, I used to think how wonderful it would be if every other person on the street were familiar with Proust and Joyce or T. E. Lawrence or Pasternak and Kafka. Later I learned how refractory to high culture the democratic masses were. Lincoln as a young frontiersman read Plutarch, Shakespeare and the Bible. But then he was Lincoln.Later when I was traveling in the Midwest by car, bus and train, I regularly visited small-town libraries and found that readers in Keokuk, Iowa, or Benton Harbor, Mich., were checking out Proust and Joyce and even Svevo and Andrei Biely. D. H. Lawrence was also a favorite. And sometimes I remembered that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 of the righteous. Not that Keokuk was anything like wicked Sodom, or that Proust‟s Charlus would have been tempted to settle in Benton Harbor, Mich. I seem to have had a persistent democratic desire to find evidences of high culture in the most unlikely places.For many decades now I have been a fiction writer, and from the first I was aware that mine was a questionable occupation. In the 1930‟s an elderly neighbor in Chicago told me that he wrote fiction for the pulps. “The people on the block wonder why I don‟t go to a job, and I‟m seen puttering around, trimming the bushes or painting a fence instead of working in a factory. But I‟m a writer. I sell to Argosy and Doc Savage,” he said with a certain gloom. “They wouldn‟t call that a trade.” Probably he noticed that I was a bookish boy, likely to sympathize with him, and perhaps he was trying to warn me to avoid being unlike others. But it was too late for that.From the first, too, I had been warned that the novel was at the point of death, that like the walled city or the crossbow, it was a thing of the past. And no one likes to be at odds with history. Oswald Spengler, one of the most widely read authors of the early 30‟s, taught that our tired old civilization was very nearly finished. His advice to the young was to avoid literature and the arts and to embrace mechanization and become engineers.In refusing to be obsolete, you challenged and defied the evolutionist historians. I had great respect for Spengler in my youth, but even then I couldn‟t accept his conclusions, and (with respect and admiration) I mentally told him to get lost.Sixty years later, in a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal, I come upon the old Spenglerian argument in a contemporary form. Terry Teachout, unlike Spengler, does not dump paralyzing mountains of historical theory upon us, but there are signs that he has weighed, sifted and pondered the evidence.He speaks of our “atomized culture,” and his is a responsible, up-to-date and carefully considered opinion. He speaks of “art forms as technologies.” He tells us that movies will soon be “downloadable”—that is, transferable from one computer to the memory of another device—and predicts that films will soon be marketed like books. He predicts that the near-magical powers of technology are bringing us to the threshold of a new age and concludes, “Once this happens, my guess is that the independent movie will replace the novel as the principal vehicle for serious storytelling in the 21st century.”In support of this argument, Mr. Teachout cites the ominous drop in the volume of book sales and the great increase in movie attendance: “For Americans under the age of 30, film has replaced thenovel as the dominant mode of artistic expression_r_r.” To this Mr. Teachout adds that popular novelists like Tom Clancy and Stephen King “top out at around a million copies per book,” and notes, “The final episode of NBC‟s …Cheers,‟ by contrast, was seen by 42 million people.”On majoritarian grounds, the movi es win. “The power of novels to shape the national conversation has declined,” says Mr. Teachout. But I am not at all certain that in their day “Moby-Dick” or “The Scarlet Letter” had any considerable influence on “the national conversation.” In themid-19th century it was “Uncle Tom‟s Cabin” that impressed the great public. “Moby-Dick” was a small-public novel.The literary masterpieces of the 20th century were for the most part the work of novelists who had no large public in mind. The novels of Proust and Joyce were written in a cultural twilight and were not intended to be read under the blaze and dazzle of popularity.Mr. Teachout‟s article in The Journal follows the path generally taken by observers whose aim is to discover a trend. “According to o ne recent study 55 percent of Americans spend less than 30 minutes reading anything at all. . . . It may even be that movies have superseded novels not because Americans have grown dumber but because the novel is an obsolete artistic technology.”“We are not accustomed to thinking of art forms as technologies,” he says, “but that is what they are, which means they have been rendered moribund by new technical developments.”Together with this emphasis on technics that attracts the scientific-minded young, there are other preferences discernible: It is better to do as a majority of your contemporaries are doing, better tobe one of millions viewing a film than one of mere thousands reading a book. Moreover, the reader reads in solitude, whereas the viewer belongs to a great majority; he has powers of numerosity as well as the powers of mechanization. Add to this the importance of avoiding technological obsolescence and the attraction of feeling that technics will decide questions for us more dependably than the thinking of an individual, no matter how distinctive he may be.John Cheever told me long ago that it was his readers who kept him going, people from every part of the country who had written to him. When he was at work, he was aware of these readers and correspondents in the woods beyond the lawn. “If I couldn‟t picture them, I‟d be sunk,” he said. And the novelist Wright Morris, urging me to get an electric typewriter, said that he seldom turned his machine off. “When I‟m not writing, I listen to the electricity,” he said. “It keeps me company. We have conversations.”I wonder how Mr. Teachout might square such idiosyncrasies with his “art forms as technologies.” Perhaps he would argue that these two writers had somehow isolated themselves from“b road-based cultural influence.” Mr. Teachout has at least one laudable purpose: He thinks that he sees a way to bring together the Great Public of the movies with the Small Public of the highbrows. He is, however, interested in millions: millions of dollars, millions of readers, millions of viewers.The one thing “everybody” does is go to the movies, Mr. Teachout says. How right he is.Back in the 20‟s children between the ages of 8 and 12 lined up on Saturdays to buy their nickel tickets to see the crisis of last Saturday resolved. The heroine was untied in a matter of seconds just before the locomotive would have crushed her. Then came a new episode; and after that thenewsreel and “Our Gang.” Finally there was a western with Tom Mix, or a Janet Gaynor picture about a young bride and her husband blissful in the attic, or Gloria Swanson and Theda Bara or Wallace Beery or Adolphe Menjou or Marie Dressler. And of course there was Charlie Chaplin in “The Gold Rush,” and from “The Gold Rush” it was only one step to the stories of Jack London.There was no rivalry then between the viewer and the reader. Nobody supervised our reading. We were on our own. We civilized ourselves. We found or made a mental and imaginative life. Because we could read, we learned also to write. It did not confuse me to see “Treasure Island” in the movies and then read the book. There was no competition for our attention.One of the more attractive oddities of the United States is that our minorities are so numerous, so huge. A minority of millions is not at all unusual. But there are in fact millions of literate Americans in a state of separation from others of their kind. They are, if you like, the readers of Cheever, a crowd of them too large to be hidden in the woods. Departments of literature across the country have not succeeded in alienating them from books, works old and new. My friend Keith Botsford and I felt strongly that if the woods were filled with readers gone astray, among those readers there were probably writers as well.To learn in detail of their existence you have only to publish a magazine like The Republic of Letters. Given encouragement, unknown writers, formerly without hope, materialize. One early reader wrote that our paper, “with its contents so fresh, p erson-to-person,” was “real,non-synthetic, undistracting.” Noting that there were no ads, she asked, “Is it possible, can it last?” and called it “an antidote to the shrinking of the human being in every one of us.” And toward the end of her letter our co rrespondent added, “It behooves the elder generation to come up with reminders of who we used to be and need to be.”This is what Keith Botsford and I had hoped that our “tabloid for literates” would be. And for two years it has been just that. We are a pair of utopian codgers who feel we have a duty to literature. I hope we are not like those humane do-gooders who, when the horse was vanishing, still donated troughs in City Hall Square for thirsty nags.We have no way of guessing how many independent, self-initiated connoisseurs and lovers of literature have survived in remote corners of the country. The little evidence we have suggests that they are glad to find us, they are grateful. They want more than they are getting. Ingenious technology has failed to give them what they so badly need.蜗居在巷陌的寻常幸福 (韩素音翻译大赛汉译英原文)隐逸的生活似乎在传统意识中一直被认为是幸福的至高境界。

2022大连外国语大学英语语言文学考研真题考研经验考研参考书

大连外国语大学英语语言文学考研真题经验参考书目录第一章考前知识浏览1.1大连外国语大学招生简章......................1.2大连外国语大学专业目录........................1.3大连外国语大学英语语言文学专业历年报录比....... 1.4大连外国语大学英语语言文学初试科目解析......第二章英语语言文学专业就业前景解读2.1大连外国语大学专业综合介绍.................2.2大连外国语大学专业就业解析.................2.3大连外国语大学各方向对比分析.......第三章大连外国语大学英语语言文学专业内部信息传递3.1报考数据分析..............3.2复试信息分析..............3.3导师信息了解........第四章大连外国语大学英语语言文学初试专业课考研知识点4.1参考书目分析..........4.2真题分析................4.3重点知识点汇总分析（大纲）....第五章大连外国语大学英语语言文学初试复习计划分享5.1政治英语复习技巧5.2专业课复习全程详细攻略5.3时间管理策略及习题使用第六章大连外国语大学英语语言文学复试6.1复试公共部分的注意事项6.2复试专业课部分的小Tips【学校简介】大连外国语大学（Dalian University of Foreign Languages），坐落于中国辽宁省大连市，为辽宁省省属高校，是一所以外语为主，文、管、经、工、法、艺术等学科相互支撑、协调发展的多科型外国语大学。

入选辽宁省一流大学重点建设高校。

大连外国语大学前身为大连日语专科学校，始建于1964年，是在周恩来总理等党和国家领导人的关怀下，为培养国家亟需的日语翻译人才而创建；1970年学校更名为辽宁外语专科学校，1978年升格为大连外国语学院，1986年获得硕士学位授予权，2013年更名为大连外国语大学，2013年获批服务国家特殊需求博士人才培养项目。

翻译家介绍精美ppt--韩素音

清平乐· 六盘山
High is the sky and clear the clouds, the eye follows the wild goose winging southward 天高云淡，望断南飞雁。 If we do not reach the great wall, we are not men. Already we count on our fingers a match of 10,000 lis. 不到长城非好汉，屈指行程二万。 On the crest of LiuPan our banners waft, in the west wind. 六盘山上高峰，红旗漫卷西风。 Today we hold in our hands the long rope to bind the dragon, when shall we bind fast the grey dragon. 今日长缨在手，何时缚住苍龙？
社会活动
1989资助举办韩素音翻译大赛先后出版40多部著作，有自传和小说
所获荣誉
《瑰宝》轰动欧美文坛，改编成电影生死恋获得三项奥斯卡奖 1994“理解与友谊国际文学奖” 1996“中国人民友好使者” “了解中国历史和现实的主要入门”
用积蓄设立了5项奖金
曾为毛泽东周恩来立传

沁园春 —— 长沙
Alone, standing in autumn’s chill As the Xiang River Flow north past Orange Island, I see the red-stained forests trooping. On the lucid blue water a hundred barges sail, Eagles fly above, fish glide in the deeps, Under the unmoving sky, all living things strive for freedom. I ponder and ask the boundless earth Who masters the destiny? In past years, I walked here with many companions, Friends of crowded years and moths of endeavor, All of us students, all of us young, In high assurance, strong and fearless, Pointing the fingers at the things, Praising and condemning in our writings, The highest in the land we counted no more than dust But, do you remember? How, reaching midstream, we struck the water And the waves dashing against our speeding boats.

第22届韩素音翻译大赛英译汉参考译文

隐藏在科技王国后的文学世界当我还是一个“探索文学”的男孩，我曾想如果大街上每个人都熟知普鲁斯特、乔伊斯、T·E·劳伦斯、帕斯捷尔纳克和卡夫卡，那该多好。

稍后我才明白平民大众对高雅文化有多么抵触。

作为一个年轻的拓荒者，林肯读过普鲁塔克、莎士比亚和《圣经》，但是那时他是林肯。

后来，在中西部驾车、乘巴士或火车游历的时候，我经常去参观一些小城镇的图书馆。

在爱阿华州基奥卡克县和密歇根州本顿港的图书馆里，我发现读者们都借阅普鲁斯特和乔伊斯的著作，甚至是斯威沃和安德烈·别雷的作品，D·H·劳伦斯也是他们的最爱之一。

有时我会联想到上帝愿意放弃毁灭罪恶深重的索多玛城，只为了城里有十个义人。

并不是说基奥卡克县和邪恶的索多玛城有任何相似之处，也不是说普鲁斯特笔下的夏吕斯男爵被引诱到密歇根本顿港定居。

而是我似乎有种持久的民主的渴望——在最不可能的地方寻找高雅文化存在的证据。

我做小说作家已经有十几年了，而从一开始我就意识到这是个不太可取的职业。

在二十世纪三十年代，一个芝加哥的旧邻居告诉我他写小说给通俗大众阅读。

“邻居们都好奇为什么我不去找一份职业。

他们看我总是到处闲逛，修剪树丛或者漆刷篱笆，而不是在工厂里工作。

但我是一个作家，我的文章是卖给《商船队》小说期刊和《勇士骑兵》杂志的。

”他十分愁闷地说，“他们不会认为那是一种职业。

”他向我诉苦也许因为注意到我是个书呆子气的孩子，比较可能会同情他；又或者他是在告诫我不要特立独行。

但那时候已经为时晚矣。

也是在一开始的时候，我就被警告小说已经接近了衰落阶段，就像城壁城市或者十字弓那样都是过时的事物。

没有人喜欢和历史有分歧。

奥尔斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒是三十年代初最受广泛阅读的作家之一。

他教育世人：我们疲倦老旧的文明已经非常接近终结，年轻人们应该避开文学和艺术，去拥抱机械化并成为工程师。

为了避免被淘汰，你挑战并蔑视那些进化论历史家们。

忠实通顺传神——从二十二届韩素英青年翻译大赛看文学翻译标准

忠实通顺传神——从"二十二届韩素英青年翻译大赛"看文学翻译标准[摘要] 中国的翻译家从不同的角度提出了文学翻译标准，如严复的“信达雅”，傅雷的“神似”，钱钟书的“化境”，郑海凌的“和谐”标准，他们各有其优点和不足之处。

本文通过对二十二届的韩素英青年翻译大赛的参赛译文评析和参考译文进行分析得出其所遵循的标准——“忠实通顺传神”的标准。

[关键词] 文学翻译标准忠实通顺传神一、中国文学翻译标准（1）信达雅中国的文学翻译尽管只有一百多年的历史，但是不乏翻译家们对文学翻译标准的真知灼见。

其中影响最大的是严复的”信达雅”三字标准。

1896年严复在他的《天演论。

译例言》中阐述了这一标准的要旨，他提出“译事三难，信，达，雅。

求其信，已大难矣！顾信矣不达，虽译犹不译也，则达尚焉”：信即译文意义不倍原文，为了能达，译者应“将全文神理，融会于心”至于雅严复主张“用汉以前字法句法”尽管翻译界对严复的这一标准尤其是他的“雅”有许多的争议，但是其对中国翻译的影响却是不可磨灭的。

在严复的影响下许多的翻译家提出了自己的标准：鲁迅提出的“宁信而不顺”的标准。

鲁迅曾写道“凡是翻译必须兼顾两个方面。

一则力求其易解，一则保持原作的风格。

”郑振铎提出了“不失愿意，译文流畅”，林语堂的：忠实标准，通顺标准和美的标准，刘重德的“信达切”的翻译原则。

这些理论在不同的侧面继承和诠释了信达雅，他们都强调信，及忠于原文意义，达即译文通顺，只是对于原文的风格提法不一样，他们都立足于从原文文本的语言和内容，包括内容，表达和风格方面。

这些理论较全面而且具有很强的操作性。

但是这一理论没有足够重视文学翻译的特点：具有审美性和形象性。

茅盾认为“文学翻译是用另一种语言，把原作的艺术意境表达出来，是读者在读译文的时候能够像读原作是一样得到启发，感动和美的享受”（茅盾，1954）（2）神韵说文学翻译史一门艺术，具有艺术性，历久性，模糊性和多元性。

第二十五届韩素英翻译大赛原文

第二十五届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛原文英译汉竞赛原文：GlobalizationA fundamental shift is occurring in the world economy. We are moving rapidly away from a world in which national economies were relatively self-contained entities, isolated from each other by barriers to cross-border trade and investment; by distance, time zones, and language; and by national differences in government regulation, culture, and business systems. And we are moving toward a world in which barriers to cross-border trade and investment are tumbling; perceived distance is shrinking due to advances in transportation and telecommunications technology; material culture is starting to look similar the world over; and national economies are merging into an interdependent global economic system. The process by which this is occurring is commonly referred to as globalization.Correspondent: Globalization has been one of the most important factors to affect business over the last twenty years. How is it different from what existed before? Companies used to export to other parts of the world from a base in their home country. Many of the connections between exporting and importing countries had a historical basis. Today, to be competitive, companies are looking for bigger markets and want to export to every country. They want to move into the global market. To do this many companies have set up local bases in different countries. Two chief executives will talk about how their companies dealt with going global. PercyBarnevik, one of the world’s most admired business leaders when he was Chairman of the international engineering group ABB and Dick Brown of telecommunications provider Cable & Wireless.Cable & Wireless already operates in many countries and is well-placed to take advantage of the increasingly global market for telecommunications. For Dick Brown globalization involves the economies of countries being connected to each other and companies doing business in many countries and therefore having multinational accounts.Dick Brown: The world is globalizing and the telecommunications industry is becoming more and more global, and so we feel we’re well-positioned in that market place. You see currency markets are more global tied, economies are globally connected, more so nowadays with expanded trade, more and more multinational accounts are doing business in many, many more countries. We’re a company at Cable & Wireless now, well-positioned to carry the traffic and to provide the services to more and more companies that now need to get to five countries or twelvec ountries, we’re often there.Correspondent: When Percy Barnevik became head of the international engineering group ABB, his task was to make globalization work. He decided to divide the business into over a thousand smaller companies. In this way he believed the company could be both global and local. In answering the question “How do you make globalization work?”, Percy Barnevik describes the “global glue” that keeps themany different people in ABB together. He then looks at the need to manage the three contradictions of company: it is decentralized but centrally controlled, it is big and small at the same time and it is both global and local.Percy Barnevik: We have now for ten years after our big merger created a “global glue” where people are tied together, where they don’t internally compete, but support each other, and you have global leaders with global responsibility and your local managers working with their profit centers, and if you have the right, so to say, agenda for these people and the right structure, you can use a scale of economy and your advantages of bigness but being small. We used to say you have three contradictions: decentralized and still centrally controlled, big and small, global and local, and, of course, to try to make these contradictions work together effectively, then I think you have a big organizational competitive edge.Correspondent: Globalizations can bring advantage to a business, but how does a company go global? Dick Brown mentions three ways companies can achieve “globalness”. Firstly, companies can work together in alliances. Secondly, they can acquire or buy other companies, and thirdly they can grow organically by expanding from their existing base.Dick Brown: Well, as you go global, and a handful or more of companies are going to really push out, in my view, to be truly global companies, and some of them, maybe all of them, will also work to be local. They’ll be local in chosen markets and global in their ability to carry their customers’ needs from continent A to c ontinent B.We want to be one of the companies that’s both global and local. Alliances are one way to be global, it’s not the only way to be global; you can acquire your way to “globalness”, you can organically grow your way to “globalness”, you can have alliances which help you get global quicker, so you take your pick.Percy Barnevik: You have to start from the top with local people who understand language, culture and so on, and I think in this global world where the East is coming up now, that’s a winni ng recipe.Correspondent: ABB already found the winning recipe. Its theory of globalization has become the company’s working practice. So how do you make theory work in practice? Percy Barnevik believes that successful globalization involves getting people to work together, overcoming national, cultural barriers and making the organization customer-driven.Percy Barnevik: You see the easy thing is to have the theory, but then to make the systems work, to make people really work together, to trust each other —Americans, Europeans, Asians, to get over these national cultural barriers and create a common glue, ABB, and then make them customer-driven. If you can achieve that, and create that culture deep down then I think you have an important competitive edge.Correspondent: What Dick Brown and Percy Barnevik have shown is that there are different routes to globalization and that companies have to work hard to succeed in going global. Actually one of the disadvantages of the Global Strategy is thatintegrated competitive moves can lead to the sacrificing of revenues, profits, or competitive positions in individual countries — especially when the subsidiary in one country is told to attack a global competitor in order to convey a signal or divert that competitor’s resources from another nation. The challenges managers of transnational corporations face are to identify and exploit cross-border synergies and to balance local demands with the global vision for the corporation. Building an effective transnational organization requires a corporate culture that values global dissimilarities across cultures and markets.汉译英竞赛原文：传统百货会否成为“消失的行业”数据显示，2011年中国电子商务市场整体交易规模达到7万亿元，同比增长46.4％。

评第十三届韩素音翻译奖英译汉参考译文

评第十三届“韩素音青年翻译奖”英译汉参考译文朱志瑜(香港理工大学中文及双语系)近年中国翻译研究发展很快，但翻译批评始终落后。

理论界早就注意到了这一点，但到目前为止，对翻译批评却还是说得多做得少。

其中原因是多方面的。

要批评就要将原文、译文从头至尾或者至少将重要章节对照一遍，费时费力；批评写出来，可能牵涉到译者和译文出版者的利益（如译者声誉、译文销量等），学报是否支持发表，译文出版者是否欢迎──几年前听说过译文出版者打电话给学报编辑阻止评论发表的事情──这些都是在撰写批评之前需要慎重考虑的，否则费力不讨好，说得严重点，可能影响到评者的人际关系以至声誉。

这本不是健康学术的表现，但在中国这个大的学术环境之下，批评始终难以开展确实是个事实。

翻译批评的落后不但是中国翻译学科不成熟的反映，而且还会阻碍学科的发展。

本文仅就第十三届“韩素音青年翻译奖”英译汉“参考译文”（以下简称“译文”）和评者在“译文评析”（简称“评析”）中对参赛译文的评述提出一些看法，也算是一种翻译批评，希望对青年翻译家、学者能有所帮助。

两篇文章都载于《中国翻译》2001年第一期。

今年十月在广州开会的时候，我也顺便征求了广外部分参与奖项评议的同事的意见，回来又做了些修改，写成了这篇文章。

我首先要指出的是，“译文”经过认真的研究、讨论，是了一篇相当优秀的译文；“评析”也指出了一些粗心的译者常犯的错误和应该注意的问题。

“译文”和“评析”虽然有值得讨论的地方，但瑕不掩瑜，这恰恰说明了“译无止境”这个道理。

我这里只是抱着精益求精、共同提高的态度，对评委的“评析”和“译文”提出一些意见。

还有一点要指出的是，没有不犯错误的翻译家；尤其是比赛参考译文，一旦刊出，几万只眼睛挑毛病，实在不容易讨好；但是指出别人的翻译错误却是很容易的一件事情。

原文是一篇散文，属于文学类型。

根据功能主义的原则，原文为“表情类”（expressive）。

“评析”提出的“字斟句酌、形义并重”的原则，是正确的翻译策略，即译文不仅要表达原文的内容，而且要反映原文为了表达这个内容所使用的修辞、句法等手段。

第24届韩素英翻译大赛译文

重思建筑暂时性我们往往认为建筑是永恒的,是对纪念碑地位的渴求。

那种建筑有它的地位, 不同种类的建筑也同样如此。

对于21世纪的头十年大部分时间来说, 建筑是关于大楼的声明。

建筑无论是一个有争议的纪念,还是一个豪华得不可思议的公寓大楼，其存在的原因就是创造一个永久的印象。

建筑一直是永恒的代名词，但事实上它应该是这样的吗？在过去的几年里，相反的观点可能是真的。

建筑正处于完全的至低点，主要依据稀少而遥不可及。

能引起新闻的建筑是快速而飞逝的的: 弹出式商店，食品车，市场，表演空间。

虽然许多风格的表现形式已经失去了吸引力（如，一个玩具反斗城弹出店），目前有一个不可否认的机会：这是对不断变迁文明的恰当反应。

和许多流行趋势一样----共同消费（又名，“共享”），社区花园，易货贸易-“临时”是如此的复古以至于变得激进了。

在11月,我有幸和利物浦大学的一名研究便携式临时移动建筑的大师-----Robert Brandenburg 见面，他主持了Moonie . Moonie是南加利福尼亚建筑大学的一个专门小组. 作者的一个搁架上放满了关于建筑这个话题的书籍,包括“灵活:架构,响应变化”、“便携式架构:设计和技术”和“房屋的议案:“创世纪”Brandenburg痴迷于此。

也许所有的建筑不应追求永恒的构思，是建筑的一个巨大的转变。

没有负担，建筑师，设计师，建筑商和开发商可以更快地利用当今的技术。

建筑可以重复使用，回收和可持续。

以这种方式转变，它能更好地解决看似不可解决的问题,还成功地创造一种地方感。

在他的报告中，Brandenburg提供了便携式的临时建筑如何应用于人类活动的各个方面的例子，包括卫生保健（从弗洛伦斯·南丁格尔的重新设计的医院,到在甘乃迪政府期间,作为移动医疗诊所的气流拖车），住房（从蒙古包帐篷建筑师坂茂的震后纸屋），文化和商业（布景和伟大的展览建筑，塞纳河边古老的Burinists，移动食品，提供一切的从故事记录到美味的cryème brutes的艺术和音乐场馆。

第27届韩素音翻译大赛译文参考(英译中)

The Posteverything Generation“后”一切的一代I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasé college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.我从来没有指望通过上文学理论课来了解我们这一代人的特征，或美国大学不断变化的景象。