請幫我把以下的翻譯成英文

我要自己翻譯的,

不要拿網路上的翻譯網,

那種翻譯都很爛

以下:

●大意:

The Giver 是在描述一個理想國的故事,在理想國中,無論任何事都有著一定的規定,例如:4-6歲的外套都必須是釦子在背後的 7遂可以拿到釦子在前面的外套,8歲可以拿到釦子在前面並且有口袋的外套,9歲時可以得到腳踏車,10歲時必須把頭髮剪掉,11歲的女生得到內衣男生得到較長的長褲,12歲開始有了自己的工作。

物品是用配給的,結婚對象是政府幫你決定的,小孩是由孕母生的,一個家庭的小孩只能有一男一女,你的名字是照著一張名單分配的,而且所有的人是看不到顏色的。

Jonas在12歲時程為了新的Giver,由現任Giver教導他,但他在訓練過程中漸漸發現了這個社區其實是非常殘酷的,在最後他逃離了這個社區,但作者並沒有詳細說明他到底是生是死,留給讀著一個想像的空間。

●心得:

這本書想要傳達的應該就是要我們珍惜現有的吧!不要一味的去追求所謂的完美,那種完美是不存在的,看似完美卻其實存在著更多的缺陷。

其實感觸很多,我沒辦法想像當一個小孩必須在短時間內就接受這麼多原本不知道的事情,那會是多麼的難受!從小被教導著不能說謊,但卻發現原來爸媽一直都在說著謊,帶著一張微笑的面具說謊,沒辦法接受是正常的吧!

1 Answer

Rating
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The story of The Giver writes about an ideal nation. There're countless norms, regulating down to the thinnest res. Here're a few examples: children of 4 to 6 years old shall have their jackets fastened behind, while jackets that can be accessed from the front were for they who were over 7 years old. On their 8th birthday, they get another new jacket with pockets and buttons on the front. They get bicycles at nine, and have their hair cut at 10. Girls aged 11 get bras while the boys get longer jeans. They started to work at 12.

    There're no franchises but admeasurements instead in their lives. They get babies from gravidas who do not belong to their family, made up by couples randomly decided by the government. Each family has exactly 1 boy and 1 girl, named after a list alphabetically. What's more, they as well as their parents are all born with achromatopsia (born color-blinded).

    Jonas was chosen to be a new Giver and was therefore trained and tailered by the old one. During the tracks however, he found the cruel fact of this "idealistic" community.

    He fleed out of this hamlet at last and that was the mere fact the author told us. In my opinion, that deliberate abbreviation had actually left me a glipse of imaginative light.

    Some words of my humble opinion:

    May the value of this text be to persuade us to caress what we have "now" and not to be so disconted about un-perfectness. The only thing which was perfect was idealistic and also of non-existance at the same time, just as if one had ever archieved the so-told "climax", it will eventually be flawed.

    I can't imagine a children being obliged to know things he/she don't know beforehand, for how dreary it will be! And how difficult will it be if one grownup taught not to perjure, only to find his/her own parents commiting it themselves.

    Source(s): 手書
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.