一篇自己的旧文。翻出来重读。写东西真要心境和灵感。现在看了，自己还读出了自己当时写的时候的那种百折不挠的心情。此时此刻却写不出来了了。 此文写的是两本十六，七岁开读，从而改变了自己的书。欧美文学才是自己的路数。我们的路上都有遗憾有美中不足，而欧美文学总是在这意难平中找出希望，找出欢喜。 俄国文学，比如“静静的顿河”，比如“战争与和平",太过悲凉，真是在不动声色中带着深深的无奈走向终点。 东方文学近代当代的好作品不多，通俗文学不少，但自己喜欢的通俗文学作者其实都在欧美留学过，非常西化了。我们的老祖宗们倒是文采风流，惊才艳学，但太过男权，里面的女主角单薄悲情。丽娘，孟姜女，王宝钏，秦香莲，杜十娘，随手抓一把，一个赛一个的蠢，能把我气死。 我们此生既然托身为女，自然不看太让自己憋屈的书，而且年纪小的时候，尤其不容易区分精华和糟粕。自己在十几岁的时候，幸运或不幸地完全被西方文学洗脑。十六，七岁时，把"Jane Eyre", "Gone with the wind"反复看了几遍， 奉为经典。今天看来，这两部作品还是可圈可点。 与其说她们是爱情小说，还不如说是世情小说。看看Jane Eyre的选择，在真心真情面前，没有忘记自己的底线，选择自尊自爱，国内的小蜜小翁们都要无地自容了。作者笔力何等老辣，没有平等的经济地位，社会地位，其他的不过空中楼阁。作者最后把 Mr. Rochester庄园一把火烧掉，把他弄瞎弄穷，再让Jane Eyre继承一笔遗产，再回头去找Mr. Rochester。现世报啊，Mr. Rochester，谁让你这样一个饱经世事的中年男人去招惹不到20岁的年轻姑娘呢。说你是真情吧，自己有钱有势的时候，对Jane Eyre倒像宠物猫。说你是假意吧，被吸引还真不是假装出来的。不过这些是十几岁没有读出来的，那时候读出来了Jane Eyre的自尊自强自立。 ”Gone with the wind”塑造的是一个任性却百折不挠的美人。也许美,有时候能战胜一切，能让人原谅她的任性和谎言。我想，在人生不同阶段有不同的困难，如果有了Scarlet 这种百折不挠，勇往直前的活力和劲头，务实自信，driven, materialistic, sentimental and utterly ruthless， 那有什么困难是不能化解的呢？ 自己在十六，七岁时倒是读出来了此书讲的从来不是男情女爱。此书说的是："The land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for, because it's the only thing that lasts" 。这个“land”可以是个metaphor，不同的阶段会是不同的东西。现在阶段的理解是，这里的"land" 自己不仅能照顾好自己，更是守护家人朋友的能力。 有时候还是觉得软弱的自己走在迷宫里，很缺乏智慧驾驭生活。重读自己以前写的旧文，就觉得前方必定是有更多有趣的游戏和探索等待着自己。
Russians had been so strong in all areas of arts and literature
until after WW2. Now, they are heavily influenced by the western pop culture. I haven't seen anything truly outstanding and master level coming out for decades.
True. A funny example is the Irish novel "Gadfly".
It's written in English, and became extremely popular in Soviet Union then in China. In fact, the most Chinese knew this novel from another Russian communist novel. So it's translated from English to Russian, and then from Russian to Chinese?:))
Yes, I suppose you can view this book mostly as a love story. That's what I did at age 13 - but that's why I was left disappointed back then¹.
Or you can view this as an story of formation of a strong and independent female protagonist, a nineteenth-century feminist, light-years ahead of its time. And that's what left my now-closer-to-thirty-than-twenty self very satisfied and, quite frankly, rather impressed.²
² "I do not think, sir, you have any right to command me, merely because you are older than I, or because you have seen more of the world than I have; your claim to superiority depends on the use you have made of your time and experience."
Sing it, Jane. You tell him, you strong and awesome woman, you!
When I read it for the first time as a young and opinionated teen, I thought Jane Eyre was a boring and meek protagonist, too clingy to her 'outdated' morals, too afraid to do what I thought was a brave thing to do - say 'yes' to the apparent happiness that poor tragic Mr. Rochester was offering. (Oh naive young me, putting way too much stock in Rochester's woes after his (view spoiler), sleeping with everyone in Europe and rejecting them probably because they were not English enough for him!) Wow, was there ever a way to misunderstand a book more than I did this one? Sometimes life experience does matter indeed.
Jane Eyre has a good idea of her self-worth. And she has a good idea about her own morals. And, unlike many in her situation, she sticks to her morals and her idea of what is wrong or right regardless of what outcome is in it for her.Here is the prime example:
"Gentlemen in his station are not accustomed to marry their governesses."
The emphasis in this well-intentioned advice by Mrs. Fairfax is on the word MARRY. Ah, silly old lady, one may think, cautioning the young woman in such a prudish way. Ah, silly young woman, taking the advice of the old lady and acting prudishly. Ah, silly young woman, eventually rejecting the sincere love and offer of happiness for a seemingly prudish reason - not wanting to be a mistress. So old-fashioned and weak and caged-up, screamed my thirteen-year-old self.
But here's the thing. It's not just for the moral lesson for the readers that Bronte has Jane firmly say 'no'. It's not for the sake of mere societal appearance. It's for the sake of Jane, and Jane alone. MARRYING governesses was uncommon. Having them as mistresses - probably not as rare. In her society, protecting her virtue and reputation was not only the matter of religious views or stigma - it was the question of her future, as she had nobody to stand up for her if her reputation was ruined. And it was a question of her integrity - the quality that she maintains through thick and thin, refusing to fall head over heels for love, refusing to let love justify all the mistakes and wrong choices, refusing to let love blind her to everything else that was important for her sense of self-worth.
By refusing Rochester, Jane stays so true to herself without ever betraying herself. Jane refuses to take the steps that would destroy her integrity in her own eyes, and for that she has my strongest and most sincere respect and admiration. What Rochester did is unthinkable to her - not because of how others view it but because of her morals and convictions - and she shows unbelievable courage in sticking up for what she believes in, even if it is to her own material and soul-wrecking detriment. She will not give herself fully to something - or someone - that would destroy her integrity, tarnish her own self. And I love her for this unwavering determination to stay true to herself!
"Reader, I married him" may be one of the most famous phrases from this book (actually, the most famous, come to think of it) - but it is her refusal to marry him in the first place that allows her to keep her integrity and remain true to self, and continue developing into the amazing person she becomes. Jane has too much self-worth to have Rochester until he redeems himself in her eyes, until he repents. That's the point, not the marriage part.
Despite self-proclaimed meekness, Jane Eyre is far from weak or scared. She has been forced to make her own way in life without the luxury of relying on a rich male relative - father, brother, husband. And she did this in the world where being attached to a man was the best choice for a woman (just remember Jane Austen's heroines a few decades earlier reaching happiness only after finding a suitable gentleman!). She is a rebel - setting out to have her own career in a male-dominated world, refusing to let a man rule her life (that applies to both Rochester and St. John here), and making statements that may have not had the most sympathetic audience back in her day:
"Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, to absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex."
And here's what else I enjoyed about this book - its attempts to subvert the tropes, the same tropes that we still heavily rely on in literature. Bronte gets rid of the 'faultless' heroine - instead of being perfect (or having an imaginary flaw, like many literary heroines are prone to nowadays) Jane has a real one (for her time, at least) - her occasional temper. And she is not beautiful - not fake flaws, either but a consensus by many impartial observers that she is not a beauty. And to take it a step further - Mr. Rochester, our romantic lead, is quite frankly, rather ugly. This is not a beautiful couple (and Hollywood managed to "fix" that in all the movie adaptations, by the way - a slap in Bronte's face, I guess?). Jane is not in love with a pretty façade of Rochester - since he has none (a thing that contemporary writers should learn, by the way - writing love that stems from something else that simple attraction to physical beauty).
And finally, the atmosphere of this story. Oh, the wonderfully gothic atmosphere written so well, with intense moods palpable in every paragraph. So colorful, so vivid, so immersing - every room, every moor, every tree. Every description of landscape or interior actually serves a purpose to establish the mood of the scene, and it is very well-done. ................................. All that said, I'm giving a condescending pat on the shoulder to my teenage self from the 'wisdom' of another fifteen years. Sorry, teen Nataliya, you little annoying know-it-all - you just needed to grow up to appreciate this story. 4.5 stars and high recommendation.
写于2015年
一篇自己的旧文。翻出来重读。写东西真要心境和灵感。现在看了，自己还读出了自己当时写的时候的那种百折不挠的心情。此时此刻却写不出来了了。 此文写的是两本十六，七岁开读，从而改变了自己的书。欧美文学才是自己的路数。我们的路上都有遗憾有美中不足，而欧美文学总是在这意难平中找出希望，找出欢喜。 俄国文学，比如“静静的顿河”，比如“战争与和平",太过悲凉，真是在不动声色中带着深深的无奈走向终点。 东方文学近代当代的好作品不多，通俗文学不少，但自己喜欢的通俗文学作者其实都在欧美留学过，非常西化了。我们的老祖宗们倒是文采风流，惊才艳学，但太过男权，里面的女主角单薄悲情。丽娘，孟姜女，王宝钏，秦香莲，杜十娘，随手抓一把，一个赛一个的蠢，能把我气死。 我们此生既然托身为女，自然不看太让自己憋屈的书，而且年纪小的时候，尤其不容易区分精华和糟粕。自己在十几岁的时候，幸运或不幸地完全被西方文学洗脑。十六，七岁时，把"Jane Eyre", "Gone with the wind"反复看了几遍， 奉为经典。今天看来，这两部作品还是可圈可点。 与其说她们是爱情小说，还不如说是世情小说。看看Jane Eyre的选择，在真心真情面前，没有忘记自己的底线，选择自尊自爱，国内的小蜜小翁们都要无地自容了。作者笔力何等老辣，没有平等的经济地位，社会地位，其他的不过空中楼阁。作者最后把 Mr. Rochester庄园一把火烧掉，把他弄瞎弄穷，再让Jane Eyre继承一笔遗产，再回头去找Mr. Rochester。现世报啊，Mr. Rochester，谁让你这样一个饱经世事的中年男人去招惹不到20岁的年轻姑娘呢。说你是真情吧，自己有钱有势的时候，对Jane Eyre倒像宠物猫。说你是假意吧，被吸引还真不是假装出来的。不过这些是十几岁没有读出来的，那时候读出来了Jane Eyre的自尊自强自立。 ”Gone with the wind”塑造的是一个任性却百折不挠的美人。也许美,有时候能战胜一切，能让人原谅她的任性和谎言。我想，在人生不同阶段有不同的困难，如果有了Scarlet 这种百折不挠，勇往直前的活力和劲头，务实自信，driven, materialistic, sentimental and utterly ruthless， 那有什么困难是不能化解的呢？ 自己在十六，七岁时倒是读出来了此书讲的从来不是男情女爱。此书说的是："The land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for, because it's the only thing that lasts" 。这个“land”可以是个metaphor，不同的阶段会是不同的东西。现在阶段的理解是，这里的"land" 自己不仅能照顾好自己，更是守护家人朋友的能力。 有时候还是觉得软弱的自己走在迷宫里，很缺乏智慧驾驭生活。重读自己以前写的旧文，就觉得前方必定是有更多有趣的游戏和探索等待着自己。更多我的博客文章>>> 说说Crazy Rich Asian电影的几个细节 妇女一生的100次 vs. 400次 常见但不知名的几种海鸟 Tennessee Waltz, 50年代的乡村歌曲 最近几个月喜欢的曲子
A型血吧～～～
郝思嘉的百折不挠和她那句：明天又是新的一天。。。是我在谷底时的信念：总是相信明天会更好；这也是我一路走来的精神拐杖。
直到后来，我学会了与生活妥协。。。接受了自己和身边的一切，倒也活得更有滋味了。
现在的阶段是柔软和妥协，我也是
给你单独写写最近两年对生命对人情的看法。。。
也是通过各种纠结之后的一点点体会，知道你会懂的，所以才敢与你分享。
而男性则是负心汉型的，比如杜十娘中的李甲....
于丹的百家讲坛里有提到，另外多年前在文学城里也有篇文章，我忘了题目了，大意是讲东西方女性的地位，罗马战争打了一百年，是为了一个叫海伦的女人（我历史知识不够，没有去考证）....西方男人为了爱情决斗，女人是他们的尊严
而东方社会呢？男的打不赢的战争，总是把女人送出去和亲，皇宫里那些富养的格格们都是大好江山交换的筹码……
具体内容我忘了，但觉得挺有道理的。
那部成龙和金喜善演的《神话》就是公主被迫斩断与恋人的情缘，被送出去嫁给个在家吃丹药的老不朽去拯救整个民族国家......当时看了那部电影的人包括我都没感觉有什么不妥，写这一段时忽然想起来，是啊……
年代也比飘早, 而且飘的故事发生在new world, 所以思嘉比Jane Eyre 多一点选择, 还可以帮第二任丈夫去经商, 还杀过人, 挺彪悍的 :))
现在再附上电影视频或是图片会更好些。
哈～
如果是简爱跟飘相比，更喜欢飘，更有看头，不仅仅是爱情故事。
要说爱情小说，我更喜欢荆棘鸟和呼啸山庄。。
就是太长，太多情节了。。
觉得那位神父就是一猥琐男。。。可以放弃一切往上爬。
四年大学，看小说点二到三根蜡烛到凌晨一点二点是常事。
想不起呼啸山庄讲啥....
and wrote a post then deleted it. Thought maybe it strayed away from her topic.
我不行了，最多10行就眼睛打架瞌睡了。
年轻时，特别喜欢鲁迅的话，悲剧是把美好的东西毁灭了给人看。。
爱情故事不悲剧不动人啊。
人就是要纠结，没有两全么。。
你姐我都是在大学前就读完了。
所以，连续剧啥的，不敢沾上。。。
离婚律师，从第8集开始，一口气，三，四个晚上，追完。
又去追1-8 集
高老头，葛朗台，巴尔扎克的那些小说，太好看了。。
嗯，巴黎圣母院，悲惨世界。。。
我估计，虽然都谈得欢，没几位真正读过原著。估计，也就看过被反复搬上银幕的电影而已。都真敢张口。呵呵！
另：简爱与飘，在英国文学史上的地位，不可同日而语。后者归通俗类吧。呵呵！
小学，中学只做老师按排的，是当时的学霸。
一进大学，心野了，开启读各类小说，诗集，
然后就是开启学渣的历程了。
好在顺当毕业，也算未太馇
试过几次读茶花女，安娜，呼啸山庄，都读不下去，不知道当初怎么会放不下手。。
现在就读历史了，历史人物的传记也行。
了解一些美国那段的历史，再看书，会有不同的感受。。
年轻时就是死活看不进去。现在老了也懒得再看了。
不过，在那之前也读过中译本。。飘也是早读了中译本，不过英文是来美国后再读的。
until after WW2. Now, they are heavily influenced by the western pop culture. I haven't seen anything truly outstanding and master level coming out for decades.
读了两页，麻鸭，简直没法读下去了。。。翻译的水平挺让人头疼不说，前言里那些革命语言简直让人无语。
也不能都赖在西方的影响上，他们自己的问题也有，就像中国一样。。。。
当年我有多么饥渴，才把这种翻译水平的书读得如醉如痴啊。。。
现在读了很多英文原版书之后，更加见不得那些快餐翻译版了，简直就是糟蹋人家的原著嘛。
对，我同意“飘”是通俗，但我跟这本书有缘，对十几岁的我来说，有精神引导的作用。 本科时代是我很灰暗的时期，这本书给我投进亮光。现在还记得读这本书时候的点滴。
也读过呼啸山庄，对那时候的我来说，有些阴冷。安娜卡列宁娜，呼啸山庄等等都是文学史上的巨著，可见人跟书之间需要化学反应的。
20岁出头读的“荆棘鸟”， 澳洲女作家的作品。 还记得那时候从学校的租书店租了几天，废寝忘食的读完。 对我来说，稍微少一些最深处的共鸣。不好意思，用得很酸，但一时找不到更好的表达方式。
“荆棘鸟”在我的理解中是， 讲一个在情感的惊涛巨浪下， 情感只能随波逐流的故事。
挺喜欢这歌的：
再说，翻译古典原著很容易变成吃力不讨好的劳动，因为有时要加入自己的理解。。
做自我检讨。。。
老夫子就是不发话，不怒而威。。。哼哼。。。她就是这么调皮。
我们大家赶紧地胡说八道，让老夫子很难受很难受，然后她就会抄起笔来一泻千里。。。她需要被激怒了才有灵感和激情。
放风时间没了，下线了 ：）
这个岁数读书读不进了...
英文名著我大学时确读过不少，都是练习英文用的，那些英文原著没白读，因为我的GRE verbal部分考得相当好。人到中年想在重温一下，结果看那飘，书厚厚的像砖头，一页没读就丢一旁了。感慨年轻时真好，为了实现目标能克服任何困难，所有枯燥无趣的东西都很有趣，现在岁数大了，人反倒是变得很懒了。我现在都特别理解为什么雇主喜欢雇佣年轻人。
那是过去的事了。。现在能读那些书的人，如果不是年轻人，大概是作为重温吧。。
看我这招风劲儿，小身子板不行，自己都忘了，自己掌下嘴
。呵呵！
一起回一下大家：谢谢各位姐妹高看啊。
1）我昨天问那个家长女朋友的话，是听到什么风声了吗？ 他说，没有，我开玩笑。 我说群里人不少，这样的玩笑以后不要开了。万一漂洋过海啊什么的（这个我没说）。
2）我跟魔女和破天晚饭时候提到这个事儿。破天耸耸肩膀无所谓的样子。魔女很不高兴，认为这样的玩笑很不好。她把自己带入了，说这要是有人这么跟她妈说她，估计她就会有麻烦了。
3）咱二姐和二姐夫的事儿，我真不是黑他们。别说他们了，魔女的中介，专门干这个的，给她打印出来一个申请学校的单子，一共没几所，好几个错误。比如Los Angels之类的。
坦白地说，我就读过红楼梦和西游记。。三国和水浒，尝试过多次，都看不下去。。
这么认真回我随意的几句话，情何以堪，情何以堪。。。。多数时候，我就是瞎扯，你别放心上啊。。。
我现在去管孩子上学。。。晚些时候再聊。
我那天也觉得你其实可以问问那个人有什么蛛丝马迹之类的。。这些事，孩子们通常比家长早知道。。
不过我不知道你们熟悉不熟悉，人家会不会跟你说实话。。而且，即使是告诉你了，你会咋处理呀？找孩子们问？装不知道？
破天听我这么说，又不乐意了，说，你为什么肯定？
合着我信任他也不对。他一夏天跟我在一起（我也休假），并没有短信长信上网什么的举动。
有木有都很正常。那些玩笑是不是真有其事也只能问问才知道，甚至问了也还不知道。。。
只要你信任他，他也知道你对他的信任，就足够了。
It's written in English, and became extremely popular in Soviet Union then in China. In fact, the most Chinese knew this novel from another Russian communist novel. So it's translated from English to Russian, and then from Russian to Chinese?:))
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170119-the-irish-novel-that-seduced-the-ussr
是这个逻辑吗？
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/101058004
作者：Nataliya
Yes, I suppose you can view this book mostly as a love story. That's what I did at age 13 - but that's why I was left disappointed back then¹.
Or you can view this as an story of formation of a strong and independent female protagonist, a nineteenth-century feminist, light-years ahead of its time. And that's what left my now-closer-to-thirty-than-twenty self very satisfied and, quite frankly, rather impressed.²
When I read it for the first time as a young and opinionated teen, I thought Jane Eyre was a boring and meek protagonist, too clingy to her 'outdated' morals, too afraid to do what I thought was a brave thing to do - say 'yes' to the apparent happiness that poor tragic Mr. Rochester was offering. (Oh naive young me, putting way too much stock in Rochester's woes after his (view spoiler), sleeping with everyone in Europe and rejecting them probably because they were not English enough for him!) Wow, was there ever a way to misunderstand a book more than I did this one? Sometimes life experience does matter indeed.
Jane Eyre has a good idea of her self-worth. And she has a good idea about her own morals. And, unlike many in her situation, she sticks to her morals and her idea of what is wrong or right regardless of what outcome is in it for her.Here is the prime example:
The emphasis in this well-intentioned advice by Mrs. Fairfax is on the word MARRY. Ah, silly old lady, one may think, cautioning the young woman in such a prudish way. Ah, silly young woman, taking the advice of the old lady and acting prudishly. Ah, silly young woman, eventually rejecting the sincere love and offer of happiness for a seemingly prudish reason - not wanting to be a mistress. So old-fashioned and weak and caged-up, screamed my thirteen-year-old self.
But here's the thing. It's not just for the moral lesson for the readers that Bronte has Jane firmly say 'no'. It's not for the sake of mere societal appearance. It's for the sake of Jane, and Jane alone. MARRYING governesses was uncommon. Having them as mistresses - probably not as rare. In her society, protecting her virtue and reputation was not only the matter of religious views or stigma - it was the question of her future, as she had nobody to stand up for her if her reputation was ruined. And it was a question of her integrity - the quality that she maintains through thick and thin, refusing to fall head over heels for love, refusing to let love justify all the mistakes and wrong choices, refusing to let love blind her to everything else that was important for her sense of self-worth.
By refusing Rochester, Jane stays so true to herself without ever betraying herself. Jane refuses to take the steps that would destroy her integrity in her own eyes, and for that she has my strongest and most sincere respect and admiration. What Rochester did is unthinkable to her - not because of how others view it but because of her morals and convictions - and she shows unbelievable courage in sticking up for what she believes in, even if it is to her own material and soul-wrecking detriment. She will not give herself fully to something - or someone - that would destroy her integrity, tarnish her own self. And I love her for this unwavering determination to stay true to herself!
Despite self-proclaimed meekness, Jane Eyre is far from weak or scared. She has been forced to make her own way in life without the luxury of relying on a rich male relative - father, brother, husband. And she did this in the world where being attached to a man was the best choice for a woman (just remember Jane Austen's heroines a few decades earlier reaching happiness only after finding a suitable gentleman!). She is a rebel - setting out to have her own career in a male-dominated world, refusing to let a man rule her life (that applies to both Rochester and St. John here), and making statements that may have not had the most sympathetic audience back in her day:
And here's what else I enjoyed about this book - its attempts to subvert the tropes, the same tropes that we still heavily rely on in literature. Bronte gets rid of the 'faultless' heroine - instead of being perfect (or having an imaginary flaw, like many literary heroines are prone to nowadays) Jane has a real one (for her time, at least) - her occasional temper. And she is not beautiful - not fake flaws, either but a consensus by many impartial observers that she is not a beauty. And to take it a step further - Mr. Rochester, our romantic lead, is quite frankly, rather ugly. This is not a beautiful couple (and Hollywood managed to "fix" that in all the movie adaptations, by the way - a slap in Bronte's face, I guess?). Jane is not in love with a pretty façade of Rochester - since he has none (a thing that contemporary writers should learn, by the way - writing love that stems from something else that simple attraction to physical beauty).
And finally, the atmosphere of this story. Oh, the wonderfully gothic atmosphere written so well, with intense moods palpable in every paragraph. So colorful, so vivid, so immersing - every room, every moor, every tree. Every description of landscape or interior actually serves a purpose to establish the mood of the scene, and it is very well-done.
.................................
All that said, I'm giving a condescending pat on the shoulder to my teenage self from the 'wisdom' of another fifteen years. Sorry, teen Nataliya, you little annoying know-it-all - you just needed to grow up to appreciate this story. 4.5 stars and high recommendation.
其它的影响，还有作品超时代的写作手法，内容上的社会批评等等。
无数文人大家都有对《Jane Eyre》的书评。我就不现丑了。真心觉着，连书都没读过的同学，千万张口前多犹豫一会儿。呵呵
还是她遵循自己的内心原则。对比后来的牧师，她深切地意识到什么是“爱”, 更明白罗切斯特先生的那种情，爱，才是自己想要的。。。。。。
这也是作者夏洛特勃朗特的呼声：不要只满足于社会给女性的定位。这观点，当时是很颠覆的。所以，作品刚问世的时候，有很有影响力的书评，一下就集中在Jane的彻头彻尾的追求独立，尊严与幸福的内心祈求。认为是一部反基督，反权威，长了太多反骨的作品而给差评
惊个跟头，都是轻描淡写的描述。
“１９５３年，李俍民根据英文原著，参考两种俄文译本，将《牛虻》译成中文并由中国青年出版社出版。”
所以啊我根本不敢说小子，
“ refusing to let love justify all the mistakes and all the wrong choices” -这一句深入我心
也没有选举权。举的那个海伦的例子，会不会是物化女性，并不一定是尊重女性呢？
东方的聊斋更可恶。女妖女鬼们不仅自荐枕席，还贴银子，一看更让人气绝