Unit 6: Longer Fiction or Drama II
AP English Literature and Composition Topic 6 9:35 English narration · English + 中文 subtitles burned in
Chapters
Transcript
Unit 6 is the second longer-fiction-or-drama unit, and it adds the two most sophisticated tools in the course: narrator reliability and the symbol.
第六单元 是第二个长篇小说或戏剧单元， 它补上了整门课程中 最精细的两件工具： 叙述者的可靠性，与象征。
It opens with a claim that changes how you read a multi-perspective novel.
它开篇的一个说法 会改变你阅读多视角小说的方式。
Different character, narrator or speaker perspectives often reveal different information and develop different interpretations of the same events.
不同人物、叙述者或说话者的视角， 常常揭示不同的信息， 并对同一些事件 发展出不同的阐释。
So in a long work with several perspectives, the discrepancies between them are not a problem to reconcile.
因此在一部有多个视角的长篇作品里， 它们之间的不一致 不是需要去调和的问题。
They are the text's method.
它们就是这个文本的方法。
Start with the function of contrasting characters.
先看对照人物的功能。
Foil characters serve to illuminate, through contrast, the traits, attributes or values of another character.
陪衬人物的作用 是通过对照 照亮另一个人物的 特征、属性或价值。
And note what a foil is not.
并要注意陪衬人物不是什么。
A foil is not an antagonist.
陪衬人物不是对立者。
A foil may be an ally, a sibling, a friend — what makes them a foil is that they are similar enough for the difference to be visible.
陪衬可以是盟友、兄弟姐妹、朋友， 使他们成为陪衬的， 是他们足够相似， 以至于差别可见。
Two people who have nothing in common tell you nothing about each other.
两个毫无共同之处的人 彼此说明不了任何事。
So the useful question is always: what does this character have that the protagonist lacks, and what does the text do with that gap?
所以有用的问题永远是： 这个人物拥有什么 是主人公所缺乏的， 而文本又用这个落差做了什么？
Choices, actions, and speech reveal complexity.
选择、行动与言语揭示复杂性。
Inconsistencies between the private thoughts of characters and their actual behaviour reveal tensions.
人物的内心想法 与实际行为之间的不一致 揭示了张力。
And a character's competing, conflicting or inconsistent choices contribute to complexity.
而一个人物相互竞争、冲突 或不一致的选择 构成了复杂性。
Contrasts often represent contradictions or inconsistencies, and those introduce nuance, ambiguity, or contradictory interpretations — which is exactly what a sophisticated reading is made of.
对照常常代表矛盾或不一致， 而这些会带来细微差别、含混，甚至互相矛盾的解读—— 而这正是一个成熟的解读所由构成的东西。
This is where AP Literature parts company with simpler reading.
这正是 AP 文学 与更简单的阅读分道扬镳的地方。
Inconsistency is not a flaw in a character; it is the evidence that the character has an interior.
不一致不是人物的缺陷， 它是这个人物拥有内心世界的证据。
A character who always acts on what they think is a position, not a person.
一个永远按自己所想去做的人物 是一个立场，不是一个人。
So when you find a gap between what someone believes and what they do, you have not found a mistake by the author.
所以当你发现 某人所信与所为之间的落差时， 你找到的不是作者的失误。
You have found the place the author put the character's inner life.
你找到的是 作者安放人物内心生活的地方。
That is the function of a sequence of events: order is meaning.
这就是事件序列的功能：顺序本身就是意义。
Some narrative structures interrupt the chronology of a plot — flashback, foreshadowing, and in medias res — and those interrupting structures affect the reader's experience of the narrative: what is known when, and therefore what is felt when.
有些叙事结构 打断情节的时间顺序， 倒叙、伏笔，以及从中间开始， 而这些打断性的结构 影响读者对叙事的体验： 什么时候知道什么， 因而什么时候感受到什么。
The analytical move is always the same.
分析的动作永远是同一个。
Ask what the reader knows at that moment.
问：读者在那一刻知道什么。
Foreshadowing gives the reader knowledge the characters lack, which converts suspense into dread — the reader is no longer wondering what will happen, but watching it approach.
伏笔让读者掌握 人物所不知道的信息， 这把悬念转变为不祥的预感， 读者不再是在想会发生什么， 而是在看着它逼近。
A flashback withholds until a later point, so the earlier scenes are read twice: once in ignorance, and once in retrospect.
倒叙则把信息扣到后面， 于是先前的场景被读了两遍： 一遍在无知之中， 一遍在回望之中。
Now the unit's most sophisticated tool, and the CED gives it as a chain.
现在是本单元最精细的工具， 而课程大纲把它给成了一条链。
Readers can infer narrators' biases by noting which details they choose to include and which they omit.
读者可以通过注意 叙述者选择包含哪些细节、 又略去哪些， 来推断他们的偏向。
Readers who detect bias in a narrator may find that narrator less reliable.
察觉到叙述者有偏向的读者， 可能会认为这个叙述者不够可靠。
And the reliability of a narrator may influence a reader's understanding of a character's motives.
而叙述者的可靠性 可能影响读者 对某个人物动机的理解。
Reproducing that chain is what makes an answer analytical rather than impressionistic.
复现这条链 正是让答案成为分析 而不是印象的东西。
You do not assert that a narrator is unreliable — that is a feeling.
你不要断言一个叙述者不可靠， 那是一种感觉。
You show the pattern of inclusion and omission, you name the bias it implies, and then you say what that bias prevents you from concluding.
你要展示包含与略去的模式， 说出它所隐含的偏向， 然后说出这个偏向 使你无法得出什么结论。
Three steps, and the third is the one that earns the mark, because it turns an observation about the narrator into a limit on the reading.
三步， 而第三步才是得分的那一步， 因为它把关于叙述者的一个观察， 变成了对这次阅读的一个限制。
Now the function of a symbol.
现在说象征的功能。
A symbol is an object that represents a meaning, so it is said to be symbolic of that meaning.
象征就是代表某种意义的对象，所以我们说它象征着那个意义。
When a material object comes to represent an idea or concept, it becomes a symbol.
当一个物质对象 开始代表某个观念或概念时， 它就成为象征。
When a character comes to represent an idea, that character becomes symbolic.
当一个人物开始代表某个观念时， 这个人物就具有象征性。
And certain symbols are so common and recurrent that readers bring associations to them before reading.
而某些象征常见到 读者在阅读之前 就已经带着联想。
That last point is a warning, not a convenience.
最后这一点是警告，不是便利。
A conventional symbol arrives with meanings attached, and the text may be using them, refusing them, or inverting them.
约定俗成的象征 带着既有的意义到来， 而文本可能在使用它们、 拒绝它们，或颠倒它们。
Check what the text does before importing the convention — a storm that arrives when everything finally goes right is not using the association, it is playing against it, and saying so is worth more than naming the symbol.
在把约定搬进来之前， 先看文本做了什么， 一场在一切终于顺利时到来的暴风雨 不是在使用那个联想， 而是在与它对着来， 而说出这一点 比说出象征的名字更值钱。
And the same caution covers contrasts: the CED explicitly permits a text to support more than one reading, so an essay that acknowledges a competing interpretation and shows why its own is better is doing exactly what the sophistication point rewards.
同样的谨慎也适用于对照： 课程大纲明确允许 一个文本支持不止一种读法， 所以一篇承认了竞争性阐释、 并说明自己的读法为何更好的文章， 正是在做精深度那一分所奖励的事。
Details, diction and syntax reveal perspective, and all three are observable things on the page — you can point at each one.
细节、用词和句法揭示视角，这三样都是纸面上可以观察的东西——每一样你都能指出来。
Start with the narrator's tone toward events or characters, which influences readers' interpretations before they have decided anything.
先看叙述者对事件或人物的语调， 它在读者做出任何判断之前，就已经在影响他们的解读。
Then syntactical arrangement, which can emphasise details or ideas: the end of a sentence is the loud position, and a writer who puts a fact there has made it the point.
再看句法安排，它能突出某些细节或观念： 句子的末尾是响亮的位置，把某个事实放在那里的作者，就是把它当成了重点。
Then the largest one.
然后是最大的一项。
Information included and not included conveys the perspective of whoever is reporting it, and the narrator's own relationship to the events may influence the details and the amount of detail.
写进去和没写进去的信息，都传达出报道者本人的视角， 而叙述者与事件本身的关系，可能影响细节的取舍和细节的多少。
So measure the proportion: what does the text linger on, and what does it get past in a single clause?
所以要衡量比例：文本在什么地方停留，又在什么地方用一个分句就带过？
Now the writing half of Unit 6.
现在进入第六单元的写作部分。
A thesis statement expresses an interpretation of a literary text and requires defence through textual evidence.
论点句表达的是对一部文学作品的一种解读， 并且需要用文本证据来辩护。
It may preview the development or line of reasoning of that interpretation, but it is not required to list the reasons — so do not spend words building a roadmap the rubric never asked for.
它可以预告这一解读的展开方式或论证脉络， 但并不要求把理由一一列出—— 所以不要花笔墨去搭一个评分标准从没要求的路线图。
The word doing the work is interpretation.
关键的词是"解读"。
A thesis that states what happens in the text is not a thesis; it is a summary, and a summary cannot be defended because nobody would disagree with it.
只说明文本里发生了什么的句子不是论点句，那是复述； 而复述无法辩护，因为没有人会不同意它。
Compare two.
比较两句。
"The narrator is unreliable because he lies" — that is a summary.
"这个叙述者不可靠，因为他撒谎"——这是复述。
Now the stronger one.
再看更强的一句。
"The asymmetry of detail implies a bias toward self-exculpation, so his account of the others cannot be taken at face value."
"细节上的不对称暗示了一种为自己开脱的偏向，所以他对其他人的说法不能照单全收。
A reader could disagree with that, which is exactly why it can be defended.
" 读者可能不同意这句话，而这正是它可以被辩护的原因。
A line of reasoning is the logical sequence of claims that together defend the overarching thesis, and it is communicated through commentary.
论证脉络是共同为总论点辩护的一串有逻辑顺序的分论点， 而它是通过阐释来传达的。
Picture the claims hanging from the thesis, with a quotation under each one — and commentary is the weld.
把这些分论点想成从论点句垂下来的一串，每一环下面挂着一处引文—— 阐释就是焊点。
It is the sentence explaining the logical relationship between that evidence and that claim.
它是说明"这处证据与这个分论点之间是什么逻辑关系"的那句话。
Leave it out and you have a quotation and an assertion sitting side by side, with the reader asked to do the joining.
少了它，你只是把一处引文和一个断言并排放着， 把连接的工作留给读者。
The claims have to defend the thesis, not merely follow the plot.
这些分论点必须为论点句辩护，而不只是跟着情节走。
The rubric uses four words about evidence, and each one rules something out.
评分标准用四个词来说证据，每一个都排除了某种做法。
Evidence is used strategically: to illustrate, clarify, exemplify, associate or amplify — it was chosen to do a job, not because it was the first quotable line you met.
证据要"有策略地"使用：用来举例、澄清、示范、关联或放大—— 它是为了完成某项任务被选中的， 而不是因为它是你遇到的第一句可引用的话。
It is effective when the commentary explains its logical relationship to the claim, because quoting is not explaining.
只有当阐释说明了它与分论点之间的逻辑关系时，它才"有效"， 因为引用不等于解释。
It is sufficient when its quantity and quality provide apt support, so one striking word cannot carry a paragraph and eight quotations cannot replace a reason.
当它的数量和质量都能提供恰当支持时，它才"充分"， 所以一个惊人的词撑不起一个段落，八处引文也代替不了一个理由。
And developing an interpretation is developed recursively: an interpretation can emerge, and change, as you read and write, so if your reading changes while you draft, revise the thesis to match it.
而形成解读是一个反复推敲地展开的过程： 解读可以在你阅读和写作的过程中出现，也可以改变， 所以如果你在起草时想法变了，就把论点句改成新的想法。
Notice what all four share. Every one is about the join between the quotation and the claim.
注意这四点的共同之处：每一点讲的都是引文与分论点之间的那个连接。
Finally, control over the elements of composition.
最后是对写作要素的掌控。
Coherence occurs at different levels and it is worth checking all three separately.
连贯发生在不同的层级上，三个层级都值得分开检查。
Within a sentence, the clauses have to point the same way.
在一个句子内部，各个分句必须指向同一个方向。
Between sentences, each one has to follow from the one before it.
在句子之间，每一句都必须承接上一句。
And across the whole essay, the claims have to build in an order that goes somewhere.
而在整篇文章的范围内，各个分论点必须按一个走向明确的顺序推进。
Writers convey ideas through the strategic selection and placement of phrases and clauses, through words that enhance the clear communication of an interpretation, and through punctuation, which conveys relationships between the parts of a sentence.
作者通过对短语和分句的有策略的选择与安放来传达观点， 通过那些让解读表达得更清楚的词， 也通过标点——标点传达的是句子各部分之间的关系。
And remember that the ORDER is a choice you are making, not the order in which the ideas happened to arrive.
还要记住：这个顺序本身就是你做出的选择， 而不是这些想法碰巧到来的先后。
Five things to carry out.
带走五件事。
First, discrepancies between perspectives are the method, not a problem to reconcile.
第一，视角之间的不一致是方法， 不是需要调和的问题。
Second, a foil is similar enough for the difference to show — ask what they have that the protagonist lacks.
第二，陪衬人物足够相似， 差别才看得见， 要问他们拥有什么 是主人公所缺乏的。
Third, inconsistency is evidence of an interior.
第三，不一致是内心世界的证据。
Fourth, for any structural interruption, ask what the reader knows at that moment.
第四，遇到任何结构上的打断， 都要问读者在那一刻知道什么。
Fifth, reliability is a chain: inclusion and omission, then bias, then what you cannot conclude.
第五，可靠性是一条链： 包含与略去，然后是偏向， 然后是你因此无法得出什么结论。