求英文 读后感 1000字 英国 美国 文学这个bai微妙的艺术的森林 在感情的组成部分的意义 大牛市 第三du个武士的演说 当我看见它。 奏 乔治·阿姆zhi斯特朗·卡斯特将军`什么意思dao额…………………………………………看不懂~怎么写感想呢？给我分好吗？版我缺分，我要在文库里面下一权个文件呃~
谁有格列佛游记的英文读后感（大概800字左右的！）有写800字的英文作文吗？中文的倒是有。自己翻译或者找人翻译成英文的吧。 【读后感】 《格列佛游记》是美国文学史上的一部伟大的讽刺小说，据说伏尔泰、拜伦、高尔基和鲁迅也很推崇斯威夫特的作品。我深深地崇拜着鲁迅，他用枯黄却瘦劲的手指着青年前进的方向，于是我便朝着那个方向，看上了《格列佛游记》--爱屋及乌。但是看过之后，大呼"上当"也于事无补，唯一值得安慰的是可以问问别人对斯威夫特怎么看，来显示自己是"文学青年"，更实际地是写一篇不伦不类的读后感交上去凑数。 每当回想起当年看这本名著的时候，历史的沧桑感便涌上了心头，那些日子真是没有成就感受，很失败。一天仅仅十几页，举"目"维艰，冷不防冒上一句"往事不堪回首"，发自于肺腑啊！ 打个比方，读《围城》是一种愉悦的享受，就像是用地道战地雷战打鬼子，越打越过瘾，正打在关头上，钱钟书先生将大笔一搁，鬼子投降了；读《骆驼祥子》也挺爽，应该属于三大战役的那种，共军三下五除二地把蒋介石赶到了台湾，我也三下五除二地干掉了老金；但读《格列佛游记》就大不一样了，是一种受罪，就像血战台儿庄一样，拉锯战，特艰苦卓绝，不但要跟斯威特作斗争，还要与瞌睡虫作斗争，不过"不破楼兰终不还"的我还是取得了"格列佛大捷"，但损失惨重，至今想起来还余悸不已。 因此，此后，看到鲁迅拿着烟斗一副正气凛然的样子，总会口不自禁地唱道："都是你的错，是你骗了我，还让我不知不觉满足被骗的虚荣"…… 但是，尽管受了骗，并未影响鲁迅在我心的地位，我依然固执地认为：斯威夫特是不能与鲁迅同日而语的。 鲁迅，我国伟大的无产阶级文学家、思想家、革命家；斯威夫特何许人也？英国十八世纪罪恶腐朽的资产阶级中的一员。他们的阶级属性有着本质区别（如果赶上"文革"就好了，分清敌我很重要啊）。其二，鲁迅是国产的，斯威夫特是洋货（这好像是废话）。至于第三点，我认为是最最重要的，鲁迅的文章虽艰深生涩但我依稀可辨，斯威夫特的译本虽然都是大白话，但我就是不知所言，所言何干。 经过一番换位思考，我作出如下推测：大不列颠的可爱青年们也必然不知道鲁迅在说些什么，要表达些什么，以及"可能吧--那简直就是一定的"那种鲁迅特色的矛盾句式。 他们正如我一样。 究其原因，彼此在不同的国度，承着不同的文化62616964757a686964616fe59b9ee7ad9431333335326130，对于过去，对于历史，自己的从小就了解，别人的很少去触及。而没有一定的知识垫底，去读这种在特定时期特定环境下的指桑骂槐的作品，看不懂是不足为奇的。 我不知道十八世纪美国的辉格、托利两党缠绵悱恻、暧昧的关系，当然也就无从体会斯威夫特笔下的争论吃鸡蛋应先敲哪头、 鞋跟之高低等"原则"问题的"高跟党"与"低跟党"的妙处。 我错怪斯威夫特了，我要有一颗宽容的心。而后来的斯威夫特也渐渐变得可以理解了，给我的感觉是他很正义。 他讽刺地道出了当时英国的特点："贪婪、党争、伪善、无信、残暴、愤怒、疯狂、怨恨、嫉妒、淫欲、阴险和野心。"他挖苦地描述了人兽颠倒的怪诞现象：马成了理性的载体，而人则化作脏臭、屎尿横飞、贪婪刁难的下等动物耶胡（yahoo,不是"雅虎"）。他大谈人的天性，就是心甘情愿被金钱所奴役，不是奢侈浪费就是贪得无厌。看完《格列佛游记》之后，我们不能不审视自己，我们身上有没有这些顽疾劣根的影子。 有一句话，我认为评论得很经典：以夸张渲染时代的生气，藉荒唐痛斥时代的弊端；在厌恨和悲观背后，应是一种苦涩的忧世情怀。 没有想到在那些朴实得如同流水账的大白话游记中竟蕴含着这么深邃的内涵。 我知道，《格列佛游记》还需要再读上一遍，抑或是更多遍。这应该是以后的事了。
外国文学英文读后感32313133353236313431303231363533e4b893e5b19e31333238666262外国文学名著简爱英文读后感 Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens’, is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century. The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to expose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London. The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic experiences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty. How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don’t think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded. For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose’, he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself. To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people’s honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom offer to help others. On the other hand, they attach importance to money and benefit. In their opinion, money is the only real object while emotions and morality are nihility. If they cannot get profit from showing their ‘kindness’, they draw back when others are faced with trouble and even hit a man when he is down. They are one of the sorts that I really detest. Francis Bacon said in his essay, ‘Goodness, of all virtues and dignities of the mind, is the greatest, being the character of the Deity, and without it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin.’ That is to say a person without goodness is destined to lose everything. Therefore, I, a kind person, want to tell those ‘vermin-to-be’ to learn from the kind Oliver and regain the nature of goodness.