2. 学历类
  3. You don't know what you've got till it's

You don't know what you've got till it's

题库2022-08-02  17
问题 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.
选项 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.
答案 B
解析 第三段③句先指出公众对诺贝尔文学奖的看法“犹如一道圣光”，④句随后做出点评“事实上，该奖项不过是某一特定读者群的决定，这些读者各有其优缺点”。可见，作者意欲指出该奖项的评委能力有限，其价值（含金量）被公众高估,B.正确。[解题技巧]A.由①②句“要是换做来自一个更大、更多元化的国家的评委，决定可能更好”主观臆断出“当前评委（因背景不够多元而）目光狭隘”，而但却忽视文意中的不确定性“未必如此”。C.将④句“特定读者（指代评委这类有专业资质的读者）”曲解为“业余人士”，进而得出“奖项决定受到业余人士的干扰”。D.由③句单个词汇bless、descends捏造，原文并未谈及诺奖对获奖者的好处／回报是否减少。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/xueli/2698010.html
本试题收录于： 英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)