[2011.06.02] 第一次世界大战：那些说不的人

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-5 22:10

这一篇好难，希望大家指点

引用 hddmail126 2011-6-6 00:22

the battlefields and cemeteries of northern France and Flanders
of northern France and Flanders修饰battlefields和cemeteries

After nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan, Britain has lost fewer than 370 of its service people; on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in July 1916, 57,500 British soldiers were killed or wounded.
将近10年不到370人死亡和1天伤亡57500人形成鲜明对比

humbler, conscientious objectors 低位更低下、有良知的反对者
conscription征兵制


It was a conflict that seems to us to have been fought for no great principle and whose bitter fruit was the even more destructive 1939-45 war.
那场战争，在我们看来并非为大原则而战，而且结果酿成了更具破坏力的1939~45年的战争

The author is too honest not to recognise this.
such as it was表让步，意思是尽管不怎么重要

引用 wharton323 2011-6-6 00:47

It was a conflict that seems to us to have been fought for no great principle
原译：一切起源于一个冲突，对于这个冲突我们似乎并没有为伟大的信念而战，

评：想得太复杂了。
（在我们现在看来），它不是为了什么伟大信念而战的一场冲突。

引用 wharton323 2011-6-6 00:51

For these reasons among others
原译：由于这些原因的存在
评：among others没有译出。

引用 wharton323 2011-6-6 00:52

an American popular historian
原译：受欢迎的历史学家

评：不是a popular American historian

引用 wharton323 2011-6-6 00:56

It starts well enough with an account of the extraordinary relationship between Charlotte Despard, a fiery upper-class radical who organised protests against the fighting, and her brother, Sir John French, Britain’s most senior commander in the opening stages of the war.
原译：夏洛特•德斯帕（Charlotte Despard）是一位热情的上流社会激进分子，他积极地组织着反战运动；约翰•弗里奇（John French）在一战初期时是英国的最高指挥官。
评：红色部分1没有译出来，2译错。

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-6 16:28

回复 hddmail126 的帖子

谢谢您的点评，已经修改好了~
呃，今天分用完了，改天会加分的，再次表示感谢~  

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-6 16:30

回复 wharton323 的帖子

感谢您的点评~

引用 hddmail126 2011-6-6 16:37

wharton323的意思是：popular historian通俗史学家

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-6 17:00

回复 hddmail126 的帖子

哦~~ 我明白了，谢谢~

引用 超级译员 2011-6-6 17:39

本帖最后由 超级译员 于 2011-6-6 17:41 编辑

原文有一段为何没译？：
But there is a difficulty. To suggest, as the book’s British subtitle does, that Britain was “divided” over whether to fight is an exaggeration. There were principled critics of the war when hostilities broke out and more were recruited as the death toll mounted and people became aware of the horrors in France. But even George Lansbury, a pacifist journalist and future Labour Party leader, who had argued that it was madness for Europe’s workers to be killing each other on behalf of the ruling classes, confessed to feeling carried along by the “sense of danger and service”. As the carnage continued and nearly every community and family in Britain experienced loss, the dominant emotion on the home front was less fury at the human waste or the callous incompetence of the generals, but more a gritty stoicism and quiet pride in the bravery of the young men who fought.

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-6 18:28

回复 超级译员 的帖子

补好了，实在是抱歉，谢谢您~~

引用 nikko016 2011-6-6 20:15

说两个小错吧 看的出来大家水平接近都比我强 可有些地方不如我
  a fiery upper-class radical  咋成热情了？ fiery有贬义 暴躁的上层激进分子 即一个英国五毛或五便士

her much older lover 比她大得多的情人吧？

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-6 22:22

回复 nikko016 的帖子

这篇对我来说看来确实太难了。。
改好了，谢谢您~

引用 yannanchen 2011-6-7 11:12

Popular Historian: Fighting Words?
I was just reminded of the first review my book The First Tycoon received, from Kirkus Reviews. It's a very nice review, but it refers to me as a "popular historian." What exactly does that mean? Is it good or bad? More to the point, what does it say about my work?


To Kirkus, the label of "popular historian" obviously is no slight. On one other occasion, when Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War appeared, I was called the same thing, but I don't think it was meant to be complimentary.


So what is a popular historian? The most superficial answer would be a historian who is not employed by an academic institution. But that doesn't seem very satisfying. The place of one's employment doesn't necessarily tell us anything about one's writing. Indeed, there is a term often used to describe serious nonfiction writers who operate outside of the academy: independent scholars.


Ah! But I just used a telling term, revealing how I define "popular historian": it's that word "serious." Someone once said (I think it was Montaigne) that the highest purpose of nonfiction writing was to both inform and entertain. But the serious writer and scholar goes one step further, in trying to create knowledge—to enlarge our understanding of the past (in the case of the historian).


The popular historian is one who is not concerned with the creation of knowledge. Entertaining a general audience is the primary goal; informing that audience is usually a necessary part of that task, but the information is often familiar to many readers. There is no reason to disrespect such work: A good popular historian can be useful to a serious historian, by fluidly incorporating multiple sources into a coherent narrative. A popular historian may even adhere to the standards of historical writing, in terms of noting sources, providing a bibliography, etc.


The serious or professional historian, on the other hand, asks new questions and looks for new sources. Fresh thinking, fresh discoveries, fresh analysis—these are the most important part of a serious scholar's work.


There are some academic historians, unfortunately, who disparage the popular historian's work. I suspect that part of the reason is that, to a few academics, the entertainment value—the pleasure of the narrative—can appear unseemly. Perhaps there's a little jealousy? After all, narrative writing is an art, and it isn't taught in history graduate programs. But perhaps more important is professional pride. It is not easy to be a professional scholar, and the endeavor deserves respect. And let's be honest: along with the "popular historians" who are unjustly dismissed, there are plenty who produce junk, plain and simple.


So where do I stand? First, I am not an academic. Second, I embrace entertainment; I want my books to be pleasurable narratives, with full and complex characters, smart pacing, and even suspense. But I don't think there's anything unserious about that. The greatest literary writers, from Tolstoy to Orwell, have brought all those values to their books.


But I also cherish the scholarly values as well. I want to create new knowledge, and provide the full scholarly apparatus to allow verification of my research. I am trying to walk a very fine line: to entertain a popular audience and inform an academic audience.


That's my goal. Do I reach it? I hope so. Some readers find my writing exciting, and some find it a bit slow. And some historians find my books to be rewarding, though I'm sure others have a hard time taking the genre of biography very seriously. Overall, I have absolutely no reason to complain about how my work has been received by either audience.


For the record, I don't see myself as a popular historian. I try to write serious books with popular appeal. And there it is.
Posted by T.J. Stiles at 9:05 PM  
Labels: biography, Commodore Vanderbilt, Cornelius Vanderbilt, history, Jesse James, T.J. Stiles, writing

引用 lonelyDanilel 2011-6-7 16:52

回复 yannanchen 的帖子

读完了，受教很多，大概明白了popular historian的意思，谢谢老师~~

引用 yannanchen 2011-6-7 19:28

Above all, 1914-18 has come to symbolise the futility of war. It was a conflict that seems to us to have been fought for no great principle and whose bitter fruit was the even more destructive 1939-45 war.
这里的above all 不是总结前文， 而是引起后文。 所以， 不是总而言之， 而是尤其要提到的是。 战争徒劳无益， 一次大战不是为什么伟大的原则（或理念）而战。 二次大战是一次大战的恶果。

引用 yannanchen 2011-6-7 19:29

For these reasons among others
因为这些理由， 还有别的原因。

引用 yannanchen 2011-6-7 19:32

His book is about those who passionately opposed the war, often at great personal cost.
他的书是关于强烈反对战争的人，尤其是冒着付出巨大个人代价的人。

何来尤其？

查看全部评论(40)