Maya动画制作高手之道 模型卷 txt epub kindle 下载 电子书 2024

展开

展开

展开

展开

展开

在线阅读地址：Maya动画制作高手之道 模型卷在线阅读

在线听书地址：Maya动画制作高手之道 模型卷在线收听

在线购买地址：Maya动画制作高手之道 模型卷在线购买

PDF下载地址：Maya动画制作高手之道 模型卷PDF下载

展开

展开

展开

查看其它书籍精彩书评

• 那手中的梧桐花何必放下

  作者：懒画眉 发布时间：2008-10-26 23:55:52

  《秋灯琐忆》里的秋芙和沈三白的芸娘真不一样，尽管林语堂称她们为古中国最可爱的两个女子。芸娘很端庄，重礼仪，属于相敬如宾的那一种妻子，而秋芙却有一种倾斜的美，你看她的出场，“绾堕马髻，衣红绡之衣”，堕马髻就是一种偏垂在头发一侧的发髻，那薄红的单衫倾斜的发髻，怎么都觉得有种撩人的风情。

     芸娘生得也有一番缠绵之态，但是沈复也很白描的写到她“两齿微露，似非佳相”，就是像兔子似的露着两颗大板牙，那的确是不太美呀。蒋坦偏爱虚写，从来没有直接描绘过秋芙的容貌，秋芙嫁来之前，他们曾有五次偶遇，但都只是惊鸿一瞥，写出来的句子是“戴貂茸，立蜜梅花下。俄闻银钩一声，无复鸿影。” 过门之后，“余为秋美制梅花画衣，香雪满身，望之如绿萼仙人，翩然尘世。每当春暮，翠袖凭栏，鬓边蝴蝶，犹栩栩然不知东风之既去也。” 那个立在蜜梅花树下的人儿，翠袖凭栏的人儿，怎么会不美呢？

     秋芙的行为也真是如诗如画，天然有风致的。“秋芙以金盆捣戎葵叶汁，杂于云母之粉，用纸拖染，其色蔚绿，虽澄心之制，无以过之。曾为余录《西湖百咏》，惜为郭季虎携去。”这是在diy自制绿色的笺纸，真是细腻又香艳。“桃花为风雨所摧，零落池上，秋芙拾花瓣砌字，作《谒金门》词云：“春过半，花命也如春短。一夜落红吹渐漫，风狂春不管。”“春”字未成，而东风骤来，飘散满地，秋芙怅然。”用落花来砌字，比黛玉葬花，来得哀而不伤，春风乱拂，花瓣四散，想象一个单衫杏子红的美人站在其间，实在浪漫得要命，难怪把她的官人迷得七荤八素。“瞰食既饱，分饲池鱼。秋芙起拊栏楯，误堕翠簪，水花数圈，杳不能迹，惟簪上所插素馨，漂浮波上而已。”甚至连这样平常的句子，簪子掉到水里的场景，被他写得也那么的有风情，好像一幅簪花仕女图似的。

      秋芙和芸娘一样有才，可以和丈夫谈诗唱和，这些红袖添香的佳话，也就差不多相似了。但她可贵在居然有孩子气。“秋芙好棋，而不甚精，每夕必强余手谈，或至达旦。……下数十子，棋局惭输，秋芙纵膝上猧儿搅乱棋势。余笑云：“子以玉奴自况欤？”秋芙嘿然。而银烛荧荧，已照见桃花上颊矣。”原来杨贵妃从前就做过这样的事情，把小狗放在棋盘上把棋盘搞得大乱。看过《长生殿》之后才知道，杨贵妃实在可爱，把唐明皇当作了寻常的丈夫，像人世间普通得不能再普通的妻子一样的争风吃醋，撒泼耍赖，一哭二闹三上吊，爱得真有烟火气。看来这个秋芙也并不是画上死板的佳人儿，她也有撒娇耍赖的时候，和芸娘比，她没那么正经，要小女人很多。

      秋芙种的芭蕉，叶大成阴，秋来雨风滴沥，蒋坦在枕上听见那雨打芭蕉，心都碎了。一日，他在芭蕉叶上题诗， “是谁多事种芭蕉，早也潇潇，晚也潇潇。”第二天，看见叶上秋芙已续书数行：“是君心绪太无聊，种了芭蕉，又怨芭蕉。”你看，这为人妻的一点儿不怕丈夫埋怨，还敢说他无聊，在精神上，这个女人也绝不是附庸，有的时候，比她的相公还要略高一筹。

      《秋灯琐忆》不像《浮生六记》直写丧妻之痛。蒋坦他实在是身在其中说不出，他在写这部笔记的时候还是没有走出来，所以看似不着一字，但句句都像浸在水里的海绵，湿嗒嗒泪盈盈，应了聂鲁达的那一句你从所有的事物中浮现，充满了我的灵魂。

     很怕看到结尾，怕看到芸娘病逝那样的实写。但是真实的结尾，寥寥几句话，却比那一字一句白描死亡来得还要让人身心俱碎。蒋坦依然回避了秋芙的病逝，只写到她因为衣不解带的伺候夫君的病苦，拖垮了自己原本多病脆弱的身体。文末蒋坦只写到了他当时对老了之后生活的幻想，“数年而后，当与秋芙结庐华坞河渚间，夕梵晨钟，忏除慧业。”对于来世，他觉得应该是“花开之日，当并见弥陀，听无生之法。即或再堕人天，亦愿世世永为夫妇。”说到这生生世世为夫妇，最后一句他写道：“明日为如来潘涅槃日，当持此誓，证明佛前。”

     持此誓，证佛前。还是看不透呀，仍然是篱落呼灯，世间小儿女的痴情一片。我因为同样的看不透，所以大喜大悲，看到这里，已经哭到不行。

     

     秋芙曾说，“人生百年，梦寐居半，愁病居半，襁褓垂老之日又居半，所仅存者，十之一二耳，况我辈蒲柳之质，犹未必百年者乎！”是啊，就这样的睡过去了，病过去了，老去了，被痛苦吞食了，有多少欢喜美好可以据为己有呢？可也就是这些散落在黑暗漫长的路途上的星星点点的时光，美好的人和事，才让我们能够咬着牙忍受，生活那无法逃避无法改变的丰富、残忍或者平淡吧。

    手中的梧桐花，何必放下，放下就寂灭了。我们爱这人世间的繁花似锦，也要有勇气承担这满眼的草木凋零。

  展开

• 转载一篇国外学者的书评的书评

  作者：benshuier 发布时间：2011-04-23 23:15:28

  原文网址

  http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/review-of-timothy-brooks-collaboration/

  我没得到作者授权就私自拿来了...如果要引用的话请多加注意

  Review of Timothy Brook’s Collaboration

  Filed under: Books China-Japan English War— K. M. Lawson @ 7:33 pm Print

  In the most recent issue of The Journal of Asian Studies there is a review of Timothy Brook‘s new work Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China written by Susan Glosser. I was very disappointed with this review which, except for a few conciliatory lines in the beginning of the review, was very critical of Brook’s work. While I agree with Glosser on one or two points, I found her to be far too harsh, sometimes irrelevant (she complains that he does not offer a glossary with the Chinese names of all the organizations mentioned, but they can be found under the index entry for every organization) and in several instances clearly wrong in her assessment of the book, which I believe is a truly excellent contribution to the scholarship on Chinese collaboration during the occupation.

  Timothy Brook’s work is a careful look at the issues surrounding Chinese wartime collaboration through a close examination of a number of case studies from the Yangtze delta. With the exception of some work I have read in Japanese and some coming out of Taiwan, this is the most detailed source based research I have seen of this kind to date.

  Here I just want to contest three points in Glosser’s critique of Brook’s work that I think particularly unfair. She argues that 1) Brook doesn’t discuss the “problem of generalizing from one city to another.” 2) She complains about Brook’s allegedly unproblematized use of the word “pacification” (such as in referring to Japan’s “pacification teams.”) 3) Glosser spends almost a third of the review critiquing Brook’s “desire to avoid moral judgments” and his allegedly “neutral stance” on issue of Chinese collaboration.

  On the first count, Glosser is certainly correct in worrying about the generalization involved, but I think Brook is also well aware of the dangers and admirably avoids them in many places more adventurous scholars would not. He has already focused his study on only one area of occupied China, the Yangtze delta, and laments, in some detail, the paucity of available sources. He goes into considerable length to describe his sources and the various problems which accompany them in his opening chapter, even showing specific examples of the kinds of contradictions present and strategies he used. He works with Japanese sources (writings of the pacification team members), Chinese sources (such as memoirs), and Western sources (witnesses in Nanjing, for example) depending on their availability.

  I am more than satisfied by his explanation that, “I chose seven cities and counties across the Yangtze Delta for intensive study. This selection was not based on whether the sites were typical or unique (some would prove to be one, some the other, and some both), but only on whether the documentation was sufficiently dense to allow for a more than superficial portrait of what local people did in the face of military occupation…After the case studies were written, I chose to include in the book five that were sufficiently distinct in terms of the themes that the sources allowed me to explore…”1 and did not find any of his major claims to be based solely on individual findings in any one city or place. On the contrary, I imagine the accusation of generalization would be particularly offensive to Brook since he has urged the reader to try to overcome some of the stereotypes and classic images we have of the wartime collaborators and allow for the many different forms and levels of cooperation with the occupying forces, their varying motivations, costs, and ultimately levels of moral responsibility.

  Glosser for some reason takes issue with the fact that Brook uses the term “pacification teams” which is a direct translation of the Japanese term. She seems so concerned that we maintain a sufficiently condemnatory tone in our work on Japan’s activities in occupied China that this direct translation doesn’t seem to be sufficiently insidious. I find no issue with the fact that he calls these teams by the best English translation available (“pacification” is originally 宣撫, which in one of its two related definitions in Japanese specifically means to pacify a people in an occupied territory), especially since he does not, by this, ever try to hide the fact that the Japanese were guilty of horrible atrocities.

  She says that he uses the word “pacification” for “his own description of events (p. 134)” but I can’t find any use of that word on the page, for any purpose. Instead, page 134 makes use of another term which we are all familiar with, when he discusses Japanese “counterinsurgency operations” in Nanjing. It is on the same page where he notes Japanese military promises to offer “care for disarmed Chinese soldiers” even as they carried out a policy of executing captured soldiers in Nanjing and, at the bottom of that page tells of the summary execution of fifty policemen which had just been promised permission to operate after negotiations with Nanjing’s International Committee.

  Finally, Glosser seems to think that Brook has a “neutral stance” with respect to collaboration and wants to “avoid moral judgments.” I’m afraid this kind of comment shows that she has completely misread Brook’s careful argument. Perhaps she missed Brook’s simple request in his introduction that, “All I ask of the reader is to suspend judgment as to who is guilty for having worked with the Japanese until after we have seen them at work.”2 Brook wants to point out that the costs and consequences of collaboration, its form, and the motivations are all very much tied up in the contingencies of specific situations. Also, he reminds us that, “Ambiguity of intention is only half the problem. There is also the ambiguity of unknowable consequences.”3 He is “neutral” to collaboration in one important respect: the word “collaboration” is already a morally loaded word, and I think he would argue that without some special care, this can get in the way of any interesting and productive look at the interactions between Chinese and Japanese during the war.

  I think Glosser fundamentally misunderstands Brook when she protests his claim that “history does not fashion moral subjects, nor produce moral knowledge.” I completely agree with her when she says that, “All histories [are] embedded in an ethical view of the world.”4 However, I’m not sure how Brook is to be understood as denying this. Brook admits how his own “ethical view of the world” has affected his description of some of the historical figures he describes in the book. On the very same page as his comment about moral knowledge, he has this to say, “Without question, many of [the choices of collaborators] were venal in inspiration and destructive in impact, and the historian is not disqualified from documenting that venality or tracking the damage these choices led to and declaring them to be damaging. I have found it impossible to suspend my personal distaste for some of the characters who appear in this book, and it would be facetious to suggest that the reader should, particularly when the consequences of collaboration were as stark as they were in a place like Nanjing.” I think what Brook, who it might be noted collected and edited the important Documents on the Rape of Nanking (1999), wants to argue for is a more careful consideration of some of the “inconvenient facts” that produce a more complex picture – a complexity that we must face if we are to have any chance at understanding the kinds of choices faced by individuals every day in extreme times. It is because of some of these ambiguities that we cannot “deduce the causes that prompted people to act from the moral claims we impose, nor evaluate their actions solely in relation to consequences the actors could not anticipate.”5 This is as true for collaborators with the Japanese occupation regime as it is with anyone who collaborated with Chinese Communist regime in its most violent hour, and as it is for the daily choices of policemen, soldiers and government officials of an occupied Iraq today. An analytic calculus of atrocity and the clarity of hindsight does not help us in the least in understanding the people thrust into extreme positions during times such as war, occupation, imperial domination, or under highly repressive governments — or for that matter the choices they faced.

  1. Timothy Brook Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26-27.

  2. ibid. 13.

  3. ibid. 241.

  4. Susan Glossar review of Brook’s book in Journal of Asian Studies vol. 65 no. 1, 149

  展开

• 《业余无线电通信》童效勇

  作者：淡紫色蜡笔 发布时间：2024-05-10 17:50:25

  读完啦！很深入浅出的一本好书，没基础也能学到不少东西

  以前在工地就玩过对讲机，还用过线上的。出于偶然（玩保持通话）了解到业余无线电，正好图书馆有，就随手借来了。

  看的过程很好玩！材料清单读起来特别特别特别像科幻+灾难囤货小说，联系到北京鸽子笼LOFT看房视频，末日独居氛围一下就上来了～

  有关实操的部分遗憾不能通过实践来辅助理解，不过种草了LCWO，网站练习应该也够玩好久好久～

  等抄码熟练了，可以买些材料自己搭电路试试，希望下次修改书评的主要目的是加上我的呼号୧((〃•̀ꇴ•〃))૭⁺✧

  展开

• 游隼

  作者：莘莘 发布时间：2017-02-20 01:02:19

  今年是《游隼》第一版出版50周年（1967-2017），听说中文版出版在即，我希望这个简单的介绍可以帮助会喜欢这本书的人知道这本书的存在。

  游隼是速度最快的陆地动物，每小时100公里速度对于它而言只是散步。游隼抓捕猎物的方式是靠高速撞击把猎物撞死或者撞晕，简单粗暴又冷静优雅，而这个过程中它的俯冲速度可以达到300公里每小时。纪录片记录下来的最快的速度纪录是389公里每小时。爱登堡爵爷2016年的重磅纪录片《猎捕》的第六集，《时机就是一切》，其中的一个主角就是游隼。毕竟，又有什么比一种靠200迈的高速制造“车祸”来觅食的动物更能说明时机的重要性呢？但，游隼也并非战无不胜，在BBC另外一部纪录片中，它在成千上万只椋鸟的群体运动面前甘拜下风。毕竟，集体的力量大。

  

  BBB纪录片《猎捕》配套图书的游隼插图。

  纪录片中的隼是自然演化打造的顶级猎手，而《游隼》却带来了不一样的感觉。

  没有影像，只靠文字，作者描绘出种种细节却不比那些史诗级的镜头逊色多少。游隼及其注重个人卫生，每天早晨都要沐浴梳毛，澡堂的选择格外讲究，溪水深浅要合适，最好还要铺满棕色小石子；捕食的时候冷静优雅，每只隼吃饭的习惯不尽然相同，有的必须先拔毛；野鸭林鸽松鸡和鹬，哪种是隼最中意的美味……这些细腻生动的刻画所需的大量耐心观察可以想象。而在五十年前，作者没有高科技的装备，甚至不会开车，只能靠骑自行车寻访隼出没的原野、海边，靠着近乎偏执的“排除法”来找寻隼的踪影：

  “游隼棕色的羽毛可以让它们轻易与秋日枯木融为一体，你能做的只有记住每一棵树，每一根树枝的形状，那样多出来的那部分就是隼。”

  

  作者使用的地图，上面标记了观隼地点。

  

  作者用过望远镜。

  

  望远镜和手稿。

  

  手稿。

  

  作者观隼的日志。

  虽然天空中孤独飞行的隼毫无疑问是本书的主角，但无时无刻不在的，还有天空下观鸟者执着的影子。作者和隼之间的这种联系，即便只是前者的一厢情愿，是《游隼》比纪录片中那些史诗级的镜头更能打动人心的地方。

  有时候，贝克像是在跟你抱怨一个他最心爱的球员，说他今天状态明明很好，那样高难度的动作都轻松完成，但最后一刻却失手了，一定是漫不经心没认真表现。

  但更多是，作者笔下的隼已经成为了他生命一部分。贝克患有严重的关节炎，后来不幸罹患癌症，他看着在人类活动的影响下（主因是DDT）游隼数目一天比一天少，同时自己的身体一天比一天差，他觉得自己和他最心爱的物种悲惨的命运连成一体，逐渐走向消亡。从《游隼》的字里行间都可以感受到其中的压抑和痛苦。

  所幸的是，在禁用DDT之后，游隼数目大幅回升，如今IUCN的等级已经是“LC/无忧”，而遗憾的是，贝克先生没有能看到这一天。

  我觉得自己很幸运跟《游隼》有这样的缘分，我暂居在作者出生生活的小城市；我工作的大学的图书馆收藏了贝克先生的手稿；每天坐火车上下班，眺望窗外的原野，50年前，贝克先生就在这片天空下找寻游隼的踪影。如果让我选，可能我希望观鸟的人健康快乐，这个物种生存无虞，即使这样不切实际又俗气的圆满会让这世上少了一本佳作，又有什么所谓呢？

  除了图一，图片均拍摄自埃塞克斯大学图书馆，转载请注明原出处。

  展开

• 300多封书信里的二战史，重塑对于战争进程和冷战起源的认知

  作者：春风过驴耳 发布时间：2023-07-12 22:25:36

  800多页，80万字，费时16天，我啃完了这本历史大部头！（超大声!!!）

  我喜欢读历史，尤其偏爱二战史。看过的相关书籍不胜枚举，理想国、汗青堂、甲骨文……几乎是出一本读一本，但论有趣程度都不及这本。

  这本书提供的研究视角非常有意思！从1941年6月到1945年4月，斯大林、罗斯福、丘吉尔“三巨头”之间基于同盟国关系频繁往来信件，共计682封，其中既包含严肃的政策性文件，也包含私密的闲聊对谈。

  本书便是以这些往来信件中蕞重要的300多封为原始素材，从“三巨头”的人物性格和心理活动入手，研究二战期间同盟国之间的政治军事外交关系。

  ▷斯大林为何不相信德国会进攻苏联？

  ▷是谁开创了三国领导人之间书信往来的外交模式？

  ▷英美原定于1942年在西欧开辟第二战场，为何延迟至1944年？

  ▷德黑兰会议期间，罗斯福为何要下榻苏联驻伊朗使馆，而丘吉尔却没有？

  ▷罗斯福是否试图通过冷落、否决丘吉尔，以达成跟斯大林的合作？

  ……

  以上这些问题都能在往来信件中窥见端倪、找到答案。

  这本书不仅提供了三位领导人之间关键信件的原始材料，还提供了基于时代背景的评论和阐释，重塑了我对战争进程和冷战起源的认知。

  对于任何想要弄清楚斯大林、丘吉尔和罗斯福在1941年至1945年间相互影响的人来说，这是一本必读的书。

  

  

  

  展开