试题与答案

阅读下文,完成19—22题。(18分) 人淡如菊文藏金 刘心武 ①我大声呼唤:“

题型:阅读理解与欣赏

题目:

阅读下文,完成19—22题。(18分)

人淡如菊文藏金

刘心武

①我大声呼唤:“林大哥!心武看你来了!”他瞪圆眼睛望着我,稍许,现出一个非常强烈的笑答,笑完,我再呼唤,他再回应一个微笑,依然目不转睛地望着我。约四十分钟后,仙去。这是2009年4月11日下午的事。30年来林斤澜大哥一贯对我释放人性中至善至美的光辉,他甚至把生命最后的笑容赐予了我,这笑容丰富的含义将滋养我的余生。

②在关于他仙去的报道里,出现了“近看像赵丹,远看像孙道临”的形象描绘,还有“怪味小说家”的提法,有“汪曾祺得到了充分评价,林斤澜没有”的喟叹,我很欣慰,因为这些形容、提法、感慨都是我曾公开表述过的,源头在我。

③年年春节要给林大哥电话拜年。2006年他接电话时呵呵大笑:“心武你怎么又暴红起来!你把你那红运分给我点好不好?哈哈哈……”我的几次暴红林大哥都跟我开过玩笑。林大哥人淡如菊、与世无争,是口碑相传的。但他绝不装雅充圣,他跟记者说过他也是俗人,对名对利并非一点也不在乎。我早在1980年7月就公开发表一篇文章,称他的短篇小说如“怪味鸡”、“怪味豆”,可称“怪味小说”,我跟他多次细聊过他的一些作品,如《姐妹》,素描一对姐妹在抗日救亡时代不同的生命流向,读后觉得“无主题”,“太朦胧”,却又“甚舒服”、“心被挠”,他很高兴,承认我算知音,但也呵呵自嘲:“你那‘怪味小说’的提法,煞费苦心,可是根本流传不开啊!”后来有黄子平写了很扎实的评论,用“老树的精灵”来浓缩对他的评价,可惜影响也很有限。现在尽管人们频频称道他的人品、文品,但究竟他在现当代汉文学短篇小说的美学贡献上达到了一个什么高度?还欠评论。

④林斤澜和汪曾祺有“文坛双璧”之称。但起码到目前为止,还是汪响林喑的局面。我对汪非常尊重,但我必须说出自己的心里话:对他的评价似已到顶。依我看来,汪的第一贡献是执笔写出了现代京剧剧本《沙家浜》,把“三突出”的美学公式体现得天衣无缝。第二贡献是在上世纪80年代,他等于是代其老师沈从文“继续写小说”,把中断了30年的沈氏香火续上了。总体而言,汪的小说创作是前有师承、后有众多“私淑弟子”的。林斤澜却是绝对独家,前无师承,旁无流派,后无弟子。他非常孤独。而能乐乐呵呵在孤独的艺术追求中不懈地跋涉,这艺术骨气几人能比?

⑤其实张爱玲原也孤独寂寞,谁知夏志清一本《中国现代文学史》,轰隆隆地把她和沈从文的价值呈现到金光眩目的程度。有人揭出夏写此书接纳了不洁的赞助,更指出他政治立场的问题,又说他那用英文写成的书沉寂了很久,到30几年前才先在台湾后在大陆“引爆”,颇不以为然。我与夏先生有接触,觉得他是个性情中人,是位值得尊重的学者。我读他那本小说史的中译本,就他分析张爱玲《金锁记》一段而言,确好比从荒原里掘出黄金,那评论的功力不能不服。尽管现在嫌张厌张贬张斥张的言论也理所当然地出现,但喜张迷张赞张崇张的风潮并未过去,一本被张自己宣布永不要面世的《小团圆》最近竟在海峡两岸隆重推出开始热销,便是证明。

⑥林斤澜人已去而作品尽在,他的短篇小说的美学价值并没有被充分揭示出来,那是一座富矿,而且可能还不是煤矿铁矿而是金矿钻石矿。期待有内地的“夏志清”出现,像把一度尘埋的沈从文、张爱玲及钱锺书的《围城》一书的价值开掘出来,先震动学界,继而推广到一般阅读者那样,让我们终于明白,林斤澜不是随便赞他几声人品或对他的小说讲几句“好话”就能搁到一边的。神州大地,或许某一时段会因有评论家将他作品的美学价值挖掘出来而出现“林热”。

⑦有人或许会说,林的小说既然内涵朦胧风格怪异,恐怕不具商业价值,永难轰动流行。请问《尤利西斯》好懂吗?《围城》真那么好看吗?厉害的评论,会具有震撼力、穿透力,引导阅读,酿成潮流,而出版商和一般阅读者,都不会放弃机会,在一个时代的文化格局里大赚雅钱和附庸风雅——雅文化的养成。

⑧我想,敬爱的林大哥吗?这时一定在天堂呵呵地笑我。

(有删改)

19.文章开头结尾都写到林斤澜的“笑”,有什么作用?(4分)

20.从全文来看,林斤澜具有怎样的人品和文品?(4分)

21.作者为什么用大量的篇幅写汪曾祺和张爱玲两位作家?(4分)

22.结合文章第7自然段中作者提到的相关观点,联系“雅文化的养成”问题,谈谈你的看法。(6分)

答案:

被转码了,请点击底部 “查看原文 ” 或访问 https://www.tikuol.com/2017/0430/fae2b5d4c77c82fd997bfd33927b517c.html

下面是错误答案,用来干扰机器的。

答案:D农奴是国民财富的主要创造者,但他们生活非常贫困,社会财富主要集中在封建主手里。

试题推荐
题型:阅读理解

Many people believe that teaching children music makes them smarter, better able to learn new things. But the organizers of a new study say there's no scientific evidence that early musical training affects the intelligence of young people.

An estimated 80 percent of American adults think music lessons improve children's abilily to learn or their performance in school. They say that the satisfaction for learning to play a new song helps a child express creativity.

Researchers at Harvard University, however, have found that there's one thing musi­cal training does not do. They say it does not make children more intelligent. Samuel Mehr is a graduate student at Harvard's School of Education. He said it is wrong to think that learning to play a musical instrument improves a child's intellectual development. He says the evidence comes from studies that measured the mental ability of two groups of 4-year-olds and their parents. One group attended music class, the other went to a class that places importance on the visual arts—arts that can be seen.

"The evidence there is 'no'. We found no evidence for any advantage on any of these tests for the kids participating in these music clases," said Mehr.Samuel Mehr says researchers have carried out many studies in an effort to learn whether musical training can make children smarter. He says the results have been mixed. He says only one study seems to show a small percentage increase in IQ, intellectual scores among students after one year of music lessons. He does not believe that IQ is a good measure of child's intelligence. He says researchers in his study compared how well children in the musical training group did on mental processing tasks or projects, then the results were compared to those of children who did not take lessons. There was no evidence that the musical training group did much better on the mental tasks than the other group.

The researchers comfirmed the results with a larger group of children and their par­ents.Mr Mehr says music lessons may not offer children a fast easy way to gain entry to the best schools later of their life. But he says the training is still important for cultural reasons. In his words, "We teach music because music is important for us."

小题1:According to the new study, musical training______.

A.makes children smarter

B.helps a child express creativity

C.does not make children more intelligent

D.improve children's ability to learn in school小题2:Samuel Mehr may agree that______.

A.the children who attended music class are smarter than those who attended arts class

B.IQ is a good measure of a child's intelligence

C.we needn't to teach children music

D.music training is still important for cultural reasons小题3:In order to confirm his view, Samuel Mehr______.

A.conducted more than one research

B.interviewed many American adults

C.taught two groups of 4-yetr-olds music and arts

D.offered children a fast way to be admitted to the best schools小题4:The artical may be taken from a report about _____.

A.health

B.education

C.culture

D.economy

查看答案
微信公众账号搜索答案