书评也应跟上改革开放的步伐

发布时间：2018-11-12 17:48

【摘要】：这里摘编的一束来信,都是对改进本刊质量提出宝贵意见的,情真意切,发人深省。今年本刊要紧紧围绕经济建设和改革开放这个中心来提高质量,并专门开辟“经济广角”专栏,主要意图已见于去年第6期卷首语和栏目设计方案。但从本期内容来看,关于服务于经济建设的应用类图书的评介,仍然是所见者寡。滞后原因固然与出书状况不无关系,但主要还是我们的书评组织工作行动迟缓。企盼出版界、书评界多多提供信息和文稿,协助我们备起直追,迎头赶上。书评界人才辈出,潜力无穷。仅从表刊的六年实践和全国书评学会举办的书评骨干培训班中已见端倪。迟迟没有形成一支书评队伍,原因也在于我们的组织工作滞后。今后我们除了继续珍视已经建立联系的老作者的深厚友谊,还将争取更多的专家、学者动笔撰写书评。欣赏大手笔写小文章,是本刊与众多读者的共同心愿。本刊提倡短文,一是希望在有限的篇幅内让更多的作者得到发言的机会,二是觉得短文往往能够抓到要害处。形式上甲乙丙丁,面面俱到,却往往淹没了新思想、新见解和主要价值所在,使人看不清所评著作的个性;短文虽然难以畅所欲言,但是倘能赞其一点,不及其余,或许宛若画龙点睛,颇为传神。与其言不及义,不如言不尽意,这是我们的初衷。当然,长与短,毕竟是形式问题,归根结底还要服从于内容,我们既不追求削足适履式的短,也不排斥生动活泼、有血有肉的长。倘若文章不是大颂扬式的、干瘪无味的套话连篇,而是深入浅出地评论著作的与众不同之处,并能提供必要的知识和信息,甚至能以商讨的态度提出不同见解,比较具体地指出疏漏瑕疵,议论风生,流光溢采,使读者深信不是敷衍成篇的捧场之作而能欣然卒读,即使多占些篇幅,又何乐而不为? 凡事大概都是知易行难。但愿良好的愿望不被理解为苛求,只盼招来更多的热心人共同求索。
[Abstract]:Here is a collection of letters, are to improve the quality of this magazine put forward valuable advice, sincere, thought-provoking. This year's journal will focus on economic construction and reform and opening up to improve the quality of the center, and specifically open up a "wide economic angle" column, the main intention of last year's sixth volume and column design plan. But judging from the content of this issue, the review of applied books serving economic construction is still few. The reason of lag is related to the status of book publication, but the main reason is that our book review organization is slow to move. Looking forward to publishing, book review to provide more information and manuscripts to help us prepare to catch up. There are many talented people in the field of book review, and the potential is endless. Only from the six years of practice and the National Book Review Institute of the backbone of book review training courses have emerged. The reason for the delay in forming a book review team is that our organizational work lags behind. In addition to continuing to cherish the deep friendship of the established authors, we will seek more experts and scholars to write book reviews. Appreciate the writing of small articles, is the common wish of our journal and many readers. Our journal advocates short essays. One is to let more authors have the opportunity to speak in a limited space, the other is to think that short essays are often harmful. In form, A, B, D, all around, but often flooded with new ideas, new ideas and the main value, so that people can not see the personality of the works; Although the passage is difficult to speak freely, if you can praise it, it may not be as good as the rest. This is our original intention rather than intransitive. Of course, long and short, after all, is a matter of form, in the final analysis, but also from the content, we do not pursue the short fit, and do not reject lively, flesh and blood long. If the article is not a eulogizing, withered and tasteless platitudes, but rather comments on the distinctiveness of a work in a profound way, provides the necessary knowledge and information, and even offers a dissenting opinion in a deliberative manner, It is more specific to point out the defects of omission, to discuss the wind, and to make the readers believe that they can read it happily instead of making a perfunctory contribution to it. Even if they take up more space, why not do it?. Everything is probably easier known than done. I hope that good intentions are not understood as demanding, but to attract more warmhearted people to seek them together.

【相似文献】