You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.It can be inferred from Para.5 thatA.literary creation requires more talent than science.B.nowadays literature is seeing a decline and fall.C.old literary works do not always lack novelty.D.there are no criteria for ranking literary works.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.
It can be inferred from Para.5 that
It can be inferred from Para.5 that
A.literary creation requires more talent than science.
B.nowadays literature is seeing a decline and fall.
C.old literary works do not always lack novelty.
D.there are no criteria for ranking literary works.
B.nowadays literature is seeing a decline and fall.
C.old literary works do not always lack novelty.
D.there are no criteria for ranking literary works.
参考解析
解析:第五段③句首先指出“文学并不是前进式的,并不是新文学就能取代旧文学”(discoveries将文学作品类比为科学研究中的“发现”),冒号后随即以“荷马作品时至今日仍具开创性(仍难以被取代)”为例加以说明。可见作者认为旧文学不一定就缺乏新意,C.正确。[解题技巧]A.由①句“文学作品多为个人创作”主观臆断出“文学比科学更需要天赋”,原文仅比较科学和文学“是否需要团队合作”,并未比较“所需天赋多少”。B.直接将③句“文学非前进式的.一浪推一浪的”曲解为“文学不在前进、在倒退”。D.将④句观点“没有(衡量文学作品的)客观标准”绝对化为“没有标准”。
相关考题:
See what you’ve done ! Don’t you have a ______ of right or wrong ? A.feelingB.senseC.thoughtD.knowledge
–If you were in my position, what would you do?–() A、Hi! It’s you problem.B、I weren’t you.C、If I were you, I would give up.D、I don’t know.
–What do you think I should do?–(). A、I don’t know.B、That’s not my business.C、You must talk with him.D、You’d better talk with him.
— What’s the matter with you? — () A、No, I don’t know.B、I feel rather unwell.C、Sure. What is it?D、That’s it.
If you are admitted to a key university, _________ as a prize?I’m looking for a cell phone.A.What you expect your father will offer youB.Do you expect what your father will offer youC.What do you expect will your father offer youD.What do you expect your father will offer you
Will you tell me something about your sister Kitty? ( ) A.Well,I know.B.Sure, what do you want to know?C.Exactly.D.That’s her secret.
— _______________? — That’s a good idea.A、When can you write the invitationsB、What do you think of the invitationsC、Why don’t you write the invitations nowD、Why not you write the invitations now
– I got the first prize! --____________A、I got a prize too.B、Well done!C、When did you get it?D、Come on!
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.Which of the following is true of the Nobel Prize in Literature according to Para.3?A.Its judges are narrow-minded.B.lts value is overstated by the public.C.Its decision is interfered by amateurs.D.Its rewards for the winners are falling.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.The author mentioned science prizes to support the view thatA.scientific reputation should depend on expert opinion.B.science prizes should not ignore the work of teams.C.literary writers should be judged by fellow writers.D.literary merit should not rely on specialist judgment.
You don't know what you've got till it's gone,Joni Mitchell rold us.So now that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature will be postponed-it seems worth asking what,exactly,the prize gives us.For decades,the choices of the Swedish Academy have failed to provoke much interest from American publishers and readers.This i.s not just because American readers are resistant to fiction in translation,as publishers often complain.On the contrary,over the last two decades,many foreign writers have made a major impact on American literature.But then,the failure of the Swedish Academy to reflect the actual judgment of literary history is nothing new.If you drew a Venn diagram showing the winners of the Nobel Prize in one circle and the most influential and widely read 20th-century writers in the other,their area of overlap would be surprisingly small.Does this mean that a different group of critics and professors in a bigger,more diverse country woulcl have done a better job at picking the winners?Very possibly.In the mind of the general public,the Nobel basically descends from the sky to bless the winner.But it is nothing more or less than the decision of a particular group of readers,with their own strengths and weaknesses.And the problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature goes deeper.No matter who is in the room where it happens,the Nobel Prize is based on the idea that merit can best be determined by a small group of specialists.This may make sense for the prizes in the sciences,since those fields are less than penetrable to anyone but fellow practitioners.Even in the sciences,however,there is a growing sense that the tradition of awarding the prize to just one or two people distoris the way modern science is actually practiced today:Most important discoveries are the work of teams,not of individual geniuses brooding in isolation.Literature is at least produced by individual authors;but in this case,the Nobel's reliance on seemingly expert judgment runs into a different problem.For literature is not addressed to an audience of experts;it is open to the judgment of every reader.Nor is literature proZressive,with new discoveries replacing old ones:Homer is just as groundbreaking today as he was 2,500 years ago.This makes it impossible to rank literary works according to an objective standard of superiority.Good criticism helps people to find the books that will speak to them,but it doesn't attempt to simply name"the most outstanding work,"in the way the Nobel Prize does.A book earns the status of a classic,not because it is approved by a committee or put on a syllabus,but simply because a lot of people like it for a long time.Literary reputation can only emerge on the free market,not through central planning.It's implied that the Swedish Academy fails toA.see the value of non-English novels.B.arouse the passion of worldwide readers.C.recognize many historically great writers.D.expand the influence of American literature.
Which was NOT originally one of the Nobel Prizes?A The medicine prize. B The literature prize. C The peace prize. D The economics prize.
I need to go to the library today. Do you know what time it closes?()ANo, thanks.BI'm very busy now.CAt aboutDI don't need to go there.
Could you pass me the salt and pepper?()ASorry, I didn't know what you mean.BOk, here you are.CNo, I won't.DI don't know.
My son won the first prize in the writing contest!()A、Congratulations!B、Are you sure of that?C、What a pity!D、It's terrible.
Could you pass me the salt and pepper?()A、Sorry, I didn't know what you mean.B、Ok, here you are.C、No, I won't.D、I don't know.
单选题Matt: Hello, Helen! Helen: Matt, hi. Matt: Haven’t seen you for ages. What’ve you been up to? Helen:I’ve been to Toronto. Matt:Toronto? What brought you there? Helen:I got married—married a Canadian! Matt: You didn’t! _____ How about a drink?AHow can you do that? BWell, congratulations!CI know you didn’t marry him.DI’ll miss you a lot.
单选题Could you pass me the salt and pepper?()ASorry, I didn't know what you mean.BOk, here you are.CNo, I won't.DI don't know.
单选题Ivan: I brought you the new Groove People CD. Dale: What good is a CD if I haven’t got a CD player? Ivan: I can bring you a CD player. Dale: What good is a CD player if I don’t even have electricity? Ivan: ________. Dale: What good is calling the Electric Company if I haven’t got a house?AWhy do you have so many questions?BWhat are you going to buy tomorrow?CWhy don’t you call the Electric Company?DWhere did you buy the new CD?
单选题W: Do, you want to go for a walk? M: No, I’ve got far too much work to do. W: Oh please, It’s a lovely day. M: I know, ______?Ayou like to go with me, don’t youBbut let’s go later, OKCbut I’m busy now, isn’t itDbut it’s hard to say, isn’t it
单选题I don’t know exactly, what he did, but _____ he got a knighthood for it.Ain any rateBat that rateCat this rateDat any rate
填空题What kind of hotel can you stay in free of charge if you win a second prize?A ____.