问写的是什么，不问写得好不好
“知道自己在干什么”。你最近总喜欢用这句听起来有点拽的话，品评人事。还别说，我几十岁的人了，真被这句话击中了。的确，太多时候，我们是在为自己并没有搞清楚的东西大动干戈，还急于知道干得怎么样；实际上，退回去把待处理的对象本身界定明白，问题往往已解决了大半。但这句话貌似简单而易于为人所忽视，其实做起来很难的。
在写作领域，前人亦有类似的洞见——请人看稿或者自己回头看稿时，不要问，“你认为这篇文章写得怎么样？”而要问，“你认为这篇文章写了什么？”别问“how”，问“what”。不管什么体裁的文章，如果说不上来写了什么，一定要返工的。
你可能觉得奇怪，写了什么不是明摆的？还真不见得。就这篇文章来说，你受到触动并认为值得分享给读者的东西是什么呢？具体来说，Boulez的阐释到底出了什么情况，你转变看法的原因是什么？我读完感觉是朦胧的。拿出挖矿的劲头重读， 才在文过一小半时挖到这一句，“This recording was a slow, sullen tramp followed by a sleepy drizzle of notes.”遣词造句真好呀！同头韵、暗喻随手拈来，音色形象丰满，一下子营造出那种氛围。可惜，就是没点明Boulez怎么了。好像是慢了，但怎么个慢法不确定，还有没有其他原因导致了阴郁、昏昏欲睡感呢，也不确定。至于你的转变，正文里可谓虚晃一枪，“……my final product is what I believe the music is to be. And Boulez probably was doing the same.”自己怎么相信就怎么阐释？这种貌似置自己于不败之地的句子，是不能服人的。加深困惑的是，到了结尾总结的位置又引出新概念“radical”，且不说兜回去导致全文逻辑乱了，“激进”又是什么意思呢，和过慢的速度所指相同还是不同？
为什么会自己不清楚自己在写什么？怎么解决？针对这篇文章，我想指出，在心理认知层面，我们的情绪、感觉和引起它们的事实之间并不是天然界限清晰的。有强烈的感受，但不清楚其缘由，或自以为清楚其实不清楚，这些情况是经常会发生的。不太有经验的写作者以为有东西写了，其实只沉浸在事物给自己的情感体验和心路历程中，却滑过了事物本身。这篇文章表现得很典型，一开场用掉了全文小半篇幅写你的好奇、惊讶、迷惑、怀疑、不满，写得精彩极了，但读者像吃了个空心汤圆，不知道在写什么。终于写到了缘由，也就是Boulez阐释的音乐，“Then it was supposed to be terse, and tense, and active. This recording was a slow, sullen tramp followed by a sleepy drizzle of notes. ”阴郁、萎靡之感依然抢镜慢之实。找到原因，解决方向就明确了：深究情绪、感觉之下的事实，它才是值得深究的那个东西。还需要指出的是，那个引发情绪、感觉的东西，有时似乎比较好界定，比如引起你这样的反应的缘由似乎就是超慢速；有时并不好界定；有时貌似好界定，其实还可以深挖的，比如Boulez的阐释仅仅是慢吗？
跟心理、认知形成对照的是，语言上要注意形容词和名词之别。前者把问题抽象化、感受化，使之成为体验的对象，而后者把问题具体化、范畴化，使之成为分析、思考的对象。还是以刚才的句子为例，短短两句有六个形容词，两个暗喻。如果转换成名词或者名词化的事实来讨论，是很不一样的。记住：思考用名词。
后记：这篇文章明确了写什么之后，数易其稿，在美国本土某写作比赛中获了个奖，算了一下得奖率是0.58%。太为你高兴了，加油呀！语言、结构，我都没什么可说的了。但如果想就这个话题写出真正有价值的东西，能与古典乐评家对上话，那么，努力方向依然是“what”——我虽然不懂古典音乐，还是感觉得到你对Boulez和贝五的了解并不多。你要知道自己在干什么，还要知道，自己对那个“什么”的认知并不是一劳永逸的，而是开放的，总可以拓展的。
原稿：
On “The Ultimate Beethoven Symphony Collection”
I allowed the subheading “The Fifth” to sit right at the bottom of my screen. Could it be Barenboim with the East-Western Divan Orchestra? Or could it be Karajan or Harnoncourt with the Berliner Philharmoniker?
I scrolled down. And there, staring right at me, was Boulez.
My eyes shot wide open. I sort of just froze there for a second. Then, my stunned gaze turned into an interrogative stare. It was as if asking Boulez, “what are you doing here?”
Meanwhile, his recording began playing in my head. The iconic opening was supposed to be fate knocking at the door. Then it was supposed to be terse, and tense, and active. This recording was a slow, sullen tramp followed by a sleepy drizzle of notes[MY1] .
Unsatisfied and confused, I closed the tab.
Later that day, I practiced the piano. As I was drilling a left-hand passage of a Chopin nocturne, it suddenly occurred to me: I’m practicing according to my interpretation; my final product is what I believe the music is to be. [MY3]
And Boulez probably was doing the same. I went back to the article and forced myself to listen to his entire first movement. Then I did it again.
It all started making sense now: the opening was deep and composed, the string passages were unruffled with a speck of angst; all of this built up to an exuberantly powerful and expressive tutti.[MY4]
I did judge Boulez a bit too quickly. Boulez truly was a “radical on the podium,” and his works indeed “may never be [my] reference recording” of the Fifth. Nonetheless, a radical[MY6] and not a madman, he had careful thought on what he was doing, and what a splendid job it was.
修改稿：
On “The Ultimate Beethoven Symphony Collection”
Boulez? The “best” recording of Beethoven’s Fifth?
Seth Colter Walls is right, this “diabolically slow” and “turgid” sounding rendition never was my reference recording. At less than three-quarters of the speed indicated on the score, Boulez seemed to be committing sacrilege. [MY9] But out of curiosity, I forced myself to listen through the first movement, three times.
Finally getting accustomed the tempo, I started making some sense of it: the opening was deep, and the string passages were unruffled; exuberantly powerful and expressive, Boulez’s experiment did carry a “Mahlerian gravitas.” Not bad.
Then why did I view this recording so negatively at first? It’s the embedded ideal of the convention.[MY10] When I began to play piano as a small boy, I was taught the accepted interpretations passed down from the great masters. For example, the tempo of Beethoven’s Fifth couldn't be far from 108. I have to admit that those conventions put me in the right direction and help me avoid circuitous routes. However, in this case, the convention becomes a barrier, making me instinctively shun away from Boulez’s unprecedented approach.
This article reminds me that there are often other possibilities, in addition to the conventional approach. In fact, it’s usually the experimentation of other possibilities that pushes classical music to new height. Didn’t Beethoven himself a deviant from the convention?
批注：
这短短的两句用到了6个形容词，2个比喻，体现了你驾驭修辞的能力。然而，我的建议是：在阐明问题的位置上，要用名词来概括。
形容词以及比喻把问题抽象化、感受化，使之成为体验的对象；而名词把问题具体化、实化，使之成为分析、思考的对象。
以上五段描写，精彩！我能清晰地看到画面，我被悬念激起了好奇心。词句读起来有令人舒服的节奏感——能让我注意到“节奏感”，意味着语言本身已没我这个改作文的什么事了。 然而，开头五段恐怕要全删，重写。
通读全文能看出要谈的话题是，你为什么对Boulez的贝五由不解转向理解。而在切入正题前用掉了接近全文一半的字数，是很成问题的。
你别笑，我读到这句时想到保罗走在通向大马士革的路上， 空中灵光一闪，他就懂了耶稣，信了耶稣——那一段很出名，建议找《使徒行传@新约》看看。
我们凡人无上帝加持，靠“突然想到”就改了见识，在没有其他条件限制下声称我相信该怎样就怎样，说得再果断，也没有说服力。
这个一晃而过之处，恰是你应该深挖、探索的。实际上，它就是你这篇文章的目的所在。
你和原作者达成一致理解了，为什么不提他呢？
一种可能是缺乏技巧，不知怎样引入他人的意见。这需要练习。一种可能是小小的虚荣心，担心引用他人会损失自己文章的原创性。重点说一下后者。首先，世界上没有两片相同的树叶；只要你忠于自己的感受，就不用担心原创性。其次，好的写作恰需要向他人致敬。这里不便展开，可以了解一下对话、互文性等现代文本理论。最后，不习惯引用和自己同样见解的人，容易滑入抄袭的误区。
以上三段是正文，字数比开头少，给人直觉就有问题。而读完果然发现问题没有说清楚。参考批注2.但结构不错，用个人经验说事的意识对路。
收尾阶段不应该引出新概念。正文里丝毫未涉及的“Radical”在结尾出现两次，令人困惑。
“Careful”,”splendid”，是那种具有好坏评价功能而实际上是泛泛的、抽象的形容词。
不是不能用，但这好比用“好棒、厉害”来夸人，你当学生肯定没少听，想想，就那个感觉。
结尾要用准确、具体的关键词，呼应正文。
一个词、一个短语，带问号。写作不能说没套路，这样简洁有力的开头法就是可移用的。关键是，提炼的关键词和短语要准确。
从原文“slow, sullen tramp followed by a sleepy drizzle of notes”，到这一句，好像薄雾一下子散了，清清爽爽。
写主题句。这是一开始接触写作就会教的东西，但经常会被忘记。
Convention这个词想到是不容易的。写作高级阶段，功夫在语言之外。
理想的结尾，因为总结了正文。
