现代礼仪与公共关系 word 网盘 电子书 下载 全格式

展开

展开

展开

展开

展开

在线阅读地址：现代礼仪与公共关系在线阅读

在线听书地址：现代礼仪与公共关系在线收听

在线购买地址：现代礼仪与公共关系在线购买

PDF下载地址：现代礼仪与公共关系PDF下载

展开

展开

展开

查看其它书籍精彩书评

• 风儿吹，纸钱飞，百年裕泰一把大火化成了灰

  作者：Sincere·Sa 发布时间：2010-07-30 21:54:07

  初中读《茶馆》，觉得满篇都是你来我往的对话，没有情景没有波澜；高中读《茶馆》，知道了王掌柜的圆滑、常四爷的刚直；大学第三次接触《茶馆》，是电视剧。

      场景切换了，从茶馆到八道弯，从后院到百花深处，编剧的妙心安排，让茶馆浓缩了四九城的每一个角落：茶馆的厅堂是四九城的“官面儿”，你方唱罢我登场，日本人来了又走，美国人来了又走，国民政府来了、西山的英雄来了，可是茶馆却毁了；茶馆的后院是四九城的放抗和挣扎，北大学生租住公寓，暗地里宣传反抗，宣传独立，宣传民主政治，不洋不土的学者崔先生，代表了被夹在时代的夹缝里的读书人，他们背着儒学长大，等到考取功名的时候，清政府没有了，倒塌了，他们被逼得出国、接受新学，学成了、回国了，可是人家不要他们了，年纪大了，学无所专，只好带着满腹的幽怨守着枯灯残卷，以寻佛问道安慰自己，他们吃着酱肘子，说着大道理，谈着国家的不足，却只能守着自己没有未来的未来；公寓改的仓库，是实业救国的缩影，秦二爷把自己毕生的心血都投入了实业，没有给自己留下一点后路，火柴厂红火了开纱厂，清政府倒了，预想中的红火没有出现，反而是接二连三的难民、伤兵，交捐纳税，你压我榨，火柴厂和纱厂在世界资本大发展的时候，轰然倒塌，仓库被查封，厂房被拆掉，辛辛苦苦一辈子的秦二爷最后只捡到了自己的钢笔头，“它知道啊，我用它签了多少支票，写了多少计划书”。

      王掌柜，就像史官，茶馆这部历史书里记载的风风雨雨都在他眼皮底下划过，60年的老裕泰，60年的史歌，60年的见证，光绪年和民国，老裕泰改良了，翻新了，丢脸了，就像风雨飘摇基石不定的旧中国，戊戌维新、军阀混战、建立民国、内战，老裕泰的生意一天不如一天，老百姓的生活一天不如一天，大米饭变成了白面儿，白面儿变成了杂和面，最后连杂和面都摔到地上，掺上了土。

      王掌柜、常四爷、秦二爷，三个历经时代变迁，备受折磨的老人围坐在60年的老茶馆的老方桌边，回忆着自己的一生，品评着自己的一生，秦二爷要王掌柜告诉后来人“有钱就要吃喝玩乐、胡作非为，千万别干好事”，常四爷凭着一身的本事锄奸惩恶，却老无所依，王掌柜为茶馆忙碌了一生，累了一辈子，却落得家破人亡。

      “四角的边夫，本家赏钱，一百二十吊”，三个老人，围着茶馆，唱着送葬词，撒着纸钱，说是给自己死后准备点钱花，实则用自己的手将这个不让人活命的世道埋葬。满天飞舞的纸钱，映照着抬头可见的“生意兴隆”，映照着老掌柜脸上的皱纹和两鬓白发，映照着破烂不堪的茶馆。

      满地的纸钱埋葬了茶馆，埋葬了王掌柜一辈子的心血，埋葬了他自己，更是埋葬了无可救药的世道。

      风儿吹，纸钱飞，百年老裕泰在掌柜点燃的纸钱里化成了灰。

      大傻杨，数来宝，把一朝历史一个时代，唱得透透彻彻。

  展开

• 等候一锅牛肉汤煮好时，看欧·亨利吧

  作者：燕七 发布时间：2008-05-02 18:36:56

      最近有期《读者》登了篇欧·亨利――这么多年来《读者》居然还没把欧·亨利用完。故事是标准的欧·亨利式，伪装餐馆出纳的有钱公子哥儿在公园勾搭一位淑女，而她却正是对面餐馆的女出纳，借出来透口气的工夫发发梦，佯装一下她想象中的生活。可惜的是《读者》删得支离破碎，记得最清楚的那句不见了－－那姑娘向小伙抱怨说，她厌倦透了上流社会的无聊生活：“香槟酒杯里冰块的叮当声几乎要使我发疯。”喝酒时举起酒杯，偶尔会想起这句话，那口吻总是让我偷偷在心里笑一下。小说里，小伙虽然要假装底层人民，听了这句话仍然忍不住说：我还以为香槟是整瓶搁冰桶里的呢。姑娘从容答道：嗨，你不知道我们这伙人吃饱了没事干就爱标新立异。。。

   

      手头这本《欧·亨利短篇小说选》，是王永年先生的译本，异国的俏皮话、双关语，译成中文还是这么流畅巧妙，不能不感慨老翻译家们功力深厚，读起来非常舒服――这种感受真是买少见少，前一阵子买了几本保罗·奥斯特，《幻影书》确实令人钦佩，《神谕之夜》也还好，可是《纽约三部曲》就看得一片茫然――我也不能确定我，作者，译者，到底谁该负较大责任。

      啊，还是说回欧·亨利吧，有苛刻的评论者说：“在欧·亨利所写的全部人物中，没有一个是真实可信的。”呸，我不觉得比好莱坞电影里边的人物更不真实可信――无论如何，这些故事读来多么过瘾。我隔一阵子就从书架上把它拿下来，等一锅牛肉汤煮好的时候，等面膜干了的时候，当然，多数是上厕所的时候，读它两篇。。。或者忽然半夜想吃水煮鱿鱼了，生火烧水煮好，拖过欧·亨利――书实在是有点厚――扯下一丝鱿鱼，蘸着酱油芥末边吃边看。除了欧亨利，还有谁写这么纯粹的短篇小说？短小而又精巧，有点像现在流行的美剧英剧，人物有清晰的性格设定，对话幽默风趣还符合身份，每一篇都有足够的噱头，完整的情节，出人意料的结局，让人一季一季地追下去。

      我尤其酷爱骗子杰夫和安迪的种种奇妙骗局和意外遭遇。杰夫，“他本人就是一个没有资本的股份无限公司，专门收容他同胞们不安分守己的愚蠢的金钱”，而安迪，他“太富有想象力了，以致不可能诚实。他老是想出许多不正当而又巧妙的敛财办法，那些办法甚至在铁路运费回佣制的章程里都不便列入。”为了杰夫和安迪的故事，我甚至动念再买一套欧亨利全集，但查了查译者不是王先生，也不是李文俊先生，还是算了吧。

      欧·亨利，这人活到37岁才发表了第一篇小说，不到50岁就死了，10年间写了300个短篇和一个中篇。在短篇小说方面，多数人会认为莫伯桑契柯夫成就更大，王永年先生在1985年作的译序里说，欧·亨利“有些作品格调不高，对社会与人生的分析不够深刻，并且由于当时社会上庸俗趣味的影响，为悲惨的故事硬添上一个圆满的结局，从而冲淡了作品的社会意义。”读了大笑。能把小说译得如此幽默传神而审美立场不为所动，我才不信。谁有机会见到王先生，一定要问问他对欧·亨利的真正评价。

      有天送小梆上课，他跟我讲课文上一篇小男孩为朋友输血的故事，然后问我：妈妈，你看过《最后一片叶子》吗？

      我一笑：看过呀。

      他说，那你说小林为什么要用铁丝加固那片树叶呢？

      我大惊：什么小林？什么加固？

      小梆说：咦，你不是说你看过的吗？老王得了绝症。。。。

      老王？！哪儿来的老王？

      回家我翻出《欧·亨利短篇小说选》找到那一页递给小梆：请读原著。

   

  展开

• 帮夫，帮出的是一个女人自己的幸福

  作者：小溪悠悠 发布时间：2012-11-14 15:14:34

        帮夫，帮出的是一个女人自己的幸福，算计，算出的是一个男人的未来。这本好看的婚恋小说告诉我们，从甜蜜的爱情步入婚姻的殿堂，真正的生活也刚刚开始。

      不同于那些虚幻爱情故事，《帮夫记》真实的记录了我们的生活，夫妻的吵嘴，同事的暧昧，闺蜜的不伦之恋……众多的作品里是王子爱上灰姑娘或者白富美跟着屌丝，面对各式的高富帅，现代女孩期待，等待，最后埋怨，为什么我遇见的都是屌丝。其实哪会有一个现成的精品男人等着你，所以打造自己想要的男人才是我们众多女性的首选。

      我们身边不是常常有这样的民二代，智商不算太高情商几乎为零没房没车没有太大本事，还整天理直气壮的。有时有点可爱，有时让人有点气愤，总是好心好意的办事，结果却是一塌糊涂，矛盾总是因他而起，他还茫然不知，也茫然不知如何应对。可是我们就爱上了这样的民二代，这就真实的生活。《帮夫记》的男主角就确实如此，在工作上不服气自己一个堂堂硕士生只是银行管档案的小职员，在家里不服气势利的丈母娘对自己的揶揄挖苦，总想在还积极促成自己婚姻的丈母娘面前扬眉吐气。刚刚有了点小迁升，以为可以在家理直气壮享受参汤、懒睡，却没想一套房子牵出了一串的家庭风波，而且还要面对不同的出轨诱惑。虽然很多男人都知道这样的投怀送抱不保险，只不过是不同的女人处心积虑的想套得对自己有利的东西，却还臆想是自己大男人的魅力吸引着身边的女性。正如书中所说“婚姻是男人的后花园，荒芜的时候杂草丛生，没有看相。郁郁生机，又让人心猿意马。怕色彩不够绚丽，把赤橙红绿各色花底尽收园中，才显得完美。男人的忠诚度从来都让女人质疑。”我们的女主角也等闲之辈，婚姻生活使她变成了相夫高手，从体谅宽容到帮助鼓励，从因势利导到出谋划策，低谷时的不弃，坎坷时的鼓励，磕磕碰碰的一路走来，不仅帮出了丈夫的成功也得到了婚姻的美满。

      其实当我们这些即便不是养尊处优但也是备受呵护的80、90后进入婚姻生活后，突然发现自己多了更多的责任与义务，不单单是妻子或丈夫，还有更多。当从来只用为自己考虑变成了要为更多人考虑，要迁就更多看似不相干的人，我们似乎手足无策，焦头烂额。在传统的中式家庭与父辈相处就成为了一个问题，就像时下热闹的电视剧，婆媳大战后，丈母娘女婿纷纷登场，这个世界不是只有婆婆难伺候，丈母娘也不是好惹的！

      小说塑造最成功的就是那个深入人心的是丈母娘，不是一个完美的人，却是一个真实的人，一个具有大智慧，大胸怀的小市民，她经历了丈夫的背叛与去世，经受着周围的冷眼和碎语，她的良苦用心得不到女婿的理解，也得不到女儿的支持。有事没事她在门房口偷听小俩口说话招人厌，自己精挑细选的女婿又觉得不懂上进，看着旁敲侧击女儿没效果，自己就直接下手又是诱导又是挖苦。女儿不站在自己这边的时候就一把鼻涕一把泪的痛斥不孝，可是女婿有时对不起女儿时她又是打圆场又是劝慰。为了女儿的幸福，她选择退让，不计较女婿的不敬和不屑。她用自身的经历去教育女儿，如何筑建一个完美的家。

       现代的婚姻经不起现实中太多的名利事非碰撞，正如书中所说“男人无所谓忠诚，忠诚是受到的诱惑不够。女人无所谓忠贞，忠贞是因为背叛的筹码太低。呵呵！金钱面前无所谓君子，坚守是因为没有超出底线。” 《帮夫记》让现代女性对婚姻的信任、忠诚、理解、宽容，有了自我的反思。“婚姻是一种责任，不能要求对方完美，但自己一定要尽善尽力。”一个精品的男人一定是自己培养出来的。

  展开

• 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

  展开

• “文圣“孔子编定影响重大的中国第一史书《春秋》

  作者：自然减压冥想 发布时间：2018-09-30 07:54:00

  《春秋》是中国现存的第一部史书，司马迁曾明确表示：“孔子厄而作《春秋》”。早在孔子出生前就有《春秋》流传，并已具备约定俗成的一套传统义例，即所谓“书法”。中国儒家文化的创始人孔子把鲁国史官所记的《春秋》加以删修，编定了这部记载当时历史大事的史书《春秋》，成为我国第一部历史著作。这部史书中记载的时间跨度与构成一个历史阶段的春秋时代大体相当，因而后人就将这一历史阶段称为春秋时期，指的是从公元前770年到公元前476年，基本上是东周的前半期。其纪年依据鲁国，记述范围却遍及当时整个中国，内容包括政治、军事、经济、文化、天文气象、社会生活、天道等诸方面，对凡是可以借鉴和劝诫的都进行记载。孔子《春秋》曰：“皇天无亲，惟德是辅。永言配命，自求多福”。孔子立足社会，不同流于社会。他所著的《春秋》，写到鲁哀公捕获麒麟就停写了，孔子精微地觉察到这是世道衰落的象征。 史书记载，鲁哀公时，西狩大野。叔孙氏捕获一受伤麒麟，认为不吉祥就弃之于野。孔子听后非常悲痛，慨叹祥兽乃为明主而出，却为人所害，传说作《获麟操》并绝笔《春秋》。后来，中国的历史进入了战国时代。

  　　《论语》、《左传》中都记有孔子对春秋时代历史人物、事件的评述，可见这是孔子的弟子们研讨的重要内容之一。春秋末年左丘明为解释孔子《春秋》而作《春秋左氏传》，简称《春秋》。《春秋》经文极为简略，每年记事最多不过二十来条，最少的只有两条；最长的条文不过四十余字，最短的仅一二字。《春秋》虽然简短,却记载了准确的时间、地点、人物，从而赋与史官的口头讲述以信史价值，这已是史学发展上的巨大进步，《春秋》被尊为孔子编撰的圣经，在政治上、学术上处于至高无上的尊位，它在经学和史学上，以至在政治生活方面都产生了重大影响，是开《史记》、《汉书》之先河的重要典籍。《春秋》不仅是历史著作，也是一部非常优秀的文学著作，对后世史学、散文乃至小说、戏剧的发展，都有深远的影响。《春秋》对后世的《史记》等史书的写作风格产生了很大影响，形成文史结合的传统，是中华文明的瑰宝!

  《春秋》作为史家之经典，以一字为褒贬，微言大义，存乎其中。全书文字简略，叙事注重结果，一般不铺叙过程，写法很象今天的标题新闻。这本书卓立千古，具有不可动摇的历史地位，首先是因为它具有高超的表现技巧，即“春秋笔法”。经学家认为它每用一字，必寓褒贬，后因以称曲折而意含褒贬的文字为“春秋笔法”。所谓“春秋笔法”，也叫“春秋书法”或“微言大义”，成为我国古代的一种历史叙述方式和技巧，或者说一种使用语言的艺术，是孔子首创的一种文章写法。 孔子在《春秋》中的“褒贬”有巨大威力：“一字之褒，荣于华衮；一字之贬，严如斧钺。”历史上，左丘明发微探幽，最先对这种笔法作了精当的概括：“《春秋》之称，微而显，志而晦，婉而成章，尽而不污，惩恶而劝善，非贤人谁能修之？”（译文：《春秋》的记述，用词细密而意思显明，记载史实而含蓄深远，婉转而顺理成章，穷尽而无所歪曲，警诫邪恶而褒奖善良。如果不是圣人谁能够编写？）朱熹则说：“圣人作春秋，不过直书其事，善恶自见。” 唐代《史通》一书中赞曰：“其言简而要，其事详而博”。 韩愈曾说：“孔子之作《春秋》也，诸侯用夷礼则夷之，夷而进于中国则中国之。

  展开