雾都孤儿读后感要英文翻译
In considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigour in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Molière or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist. Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humour and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity. Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called The Blood Drinker's Burial. I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing The Blood Drinker's Burial as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories. This first element was present in Dickens, and it is very powerfully present in Oliver Twist. It had not been present with sufficient consistency or continuity in Pickwick to make it remain on the reader's memory at all, for the tale of Gabriel Grubb is grotesque rather than horrible, and the two gloomy stories of the Madman and the Queer Client are so utterly irrelevant to the tale, that even if the reader remember them he probably does not remember that they occur in Pickwick. Critics have complained of Shakespeare and others for putting comic episodes into a tragedy. It required a man with the courage and coarseness of Dickens actually to put tragic episodes into a farce. But they are not caught up into the story at all. In Oliver Twist, however, the thing broke out with an almost brutal inspiration, and those who had fallen in love with Dickens for his generous buffoonery may very likely have been startled at receiving such very different fare at the next helping. When you have bought a man's book because you like his writing about Mr. Wardle's punch-bowl and Mr. Winkle's skates, it may very well be surprising to open it and read about the sickening thuds that beat out the life of Nancy, or that mysterious villain whose face was blasted with disease. As a nightmare, the work is really admirable. Characters which are not very clearly conceived as regards their own psychology are yet, at certain moments, managed so as to shake to its foundations our own psychology. Bill Sikes is not exactly a real man, but for all that he is a real murderer. Nancy is not really impressive as a living woman; but (as the phrase goes) she makes a lovely corpse. Something quite childish and eternal in us, something which is shocked with the mere simplicity of death, quivers when we read of those repeated blows or see Sikes cursing the tell-tale cur who will follow his bloody foot-prints. And this strange, sublime, vulgar melodrama, which is melodrama and yet is painfully real, reaches its hideous height in that fine scene of the death of Sikes, the besieged house, the boy screaming within, the crowd screaming without, the murderer turned almost a maniac and dragging his victim uselessly up and down the room, the escape over the roof, the rope swiftly running taut, and death sudden, startling and symbolic; a man hanged. There is in this and similar scenes something of the quality of Hogarth and many other English moralists of the early eighteenth century. It is not easy to define this Hogarthian quality in words, beyond saying that it is a sort of alphabetical realism, like the cruel candour of children. But it has about it these two special principles which separate it from all that we call realism in our time. First, that with us a moral story means a story about moral people; with them a moral story meant more often a story about immoral people. Second, that with us realism is always associated with some subtle view of morals; with them realism was always associated with some simple view of morals. The end of Bill Sikes exactly in the way that the law would have killed him -- this is a Hogarthian incident; it carries on that tradition of startling and shocking platitude. All this element in the book was a sincere thing in the author, but none the less it came from old soils, from the graveyard and the gallows, and the lane where the ghost walked. Dickens was always attracted to such things, and (as Forster says with inimitable simplicity) but for his strong sense might have fallen into the follies of spiritualism. As a matter of fact, like most of the men of strong sense in his tradition, Dickens was left with a half belief in spirits which became in practice a belief in bad spirits. The great disadvantage of those who have too much strong sense to believe in supernaturalism is that they keep last the low and little forms of the supernatural, such as omens, curses, spectres, and retributions, but find a high and happy supernaturalism quite incredible. Thus the Puritans denied the sacraments, but went on burning witches. This shadow does rest, to some extent, upon the rational English writers like Dickens; supernaturalism was dying, but its ugliest roots died last. Dickens would have found it easier to believe in a ghost than in a vision of the Virgin with angels. There, for good or evil, however, was the root of the old diablerie in Dickens, and there it is in Oliver Twist. But this was only the first of the new Dickens elements, which must have surprised those Dickensians who eagerly bought his second book. The second of the new Dickens elements is equally indisputable and separate. It swelled afterwards to enormous proportions in Dickens's work; but it really has its rise here. Again, as in the case of the element of diablerie, it would be possible to make technical exceptions in favour of Pickwick. Just as there were quite inappropriate scraps of the gruesome element in Pickwick, so there are quite inappropriate allusions to this other topic in Pickwick. But nobody by merely reading Pickwick would even remember this topic; no one by merely reading Pickwick would know what this topic is; this third great subject of Dickens; this second great subject of the Dickens of Oliver Twist. This subject is social oppression. It is surely fair to say that no one could have gathered from Pickwick how this question boiled in the blood of the author of Pickwick. There are, indeed, passages, particularly in connection with Mr. Pickwick in the debtor's prison, which prove to us, looking back on a whole public career, that Dickens had been from the beginning bitter and inquisitive about the problem of our civilisation. No one could have imagined at the time that this bitterness ran in an unbroken river under all the surges of that superb gaiety and exuberance. With Oliver Twist this sterner side of Dickens was suddenly revealed. For the very first pages of Oliver Twist are stern even when they are funny. They amuse, but they cannot be enjoyed, as can the passages about the follies of Mr. Snodgrass or the humiliations of Mr. Winkle. The difference between the old easy humour and this new harsh humour is a difference not of degree but of kind. Dickens makes game of Mr. Bumble because he wants to kill Mr. Bumble; he made game of Mr. Winkle because he wanted him to live for ever. Dickens has taken the sword in hand; against what is he declaring war? It is just here that the greatness of Dickens comes in; it is just here that the difference lies between the pedant and the poet. Dickens enters the social and political war, and the first stroke he deals is not only significant but even startling. Fully to see this we must appreciate the national situation. It was an age of reform, and even of radical reform; the world was full of radicals and reformers; but only too many of them took the line of attacking everything and anything that was opposed to some particular theory among the many political theories that possessed the end of the eighteenth century. Some had so much perfected the perfect theory of republicanism that they almost lay awake at night because Queen Victoria had a crown on her head. Others were so certain that mankind had hitherto been merely strangled in the bonds of the State that they saw truth only in the destruction of tariffs or of by-laws. The greater part of that generation held that clearness, economy, and a hard common-sense, would soon destroy the errors that had been erected by the superstitions and sentimentalities of the past. In pursuance of this idea many of the new men of the new century, quite confident that they were invigorating the new age, sought to destroy the old entimental clericalism, the old sentimental feudalism, the old-world belief in priests, the old-world belief in patrons, and among other things the old-world belief in beggars. They sought among other things to clear away the old visionary kindliness on the subject of vagrants. Hence those reformers enacted not only a new reform bill but also a new poor law. In creating many other modern things they created the modern workhouse, and when Dickens came out to fight it was the first thing that he broke with his battle-axe. This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell. That which pedants of that time and this time would have called the sentimentalism of Dickens was really simply the detached sanity of Dickens. He cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Constitutional Conservatives; he cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Manchester School. He would have cared quite as little for the fugitive explanations of the Fabian Society or of the modern scientific Socialist. He saw that under many forms there was one fact, the tyranny of man over man; and he struck at it when he saw it, whether it was old or new. When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby. When he imagined himself to be fighting old laws he gave a sort of vague and general approval to new laws. But when he came to the new laws they had a bad time. When Dickens found that after a hundred economic arguments and granting a hundred economic considerations, the fact remained that paupers in modern workhouses were much too afraid of the beadle, just as vassals in ancient castles were much too afraid of the Dedlocks, then he struck suddenly and at once. This is what makes the opening chapters of Oliver Twist so curious and important. The very fact of Dickens's distance from, and independence of, the elaborate financial arguments of his time, makes more definite and dazzling his sudden assertion that he sees the old human tyranny in front of him as plain as the sun at noon-day. Dickens attacks the modern workhouse with a sort of inspired simplicity as a boy in a fairy tale who had wandered about, sword in hand, looking for ogres and who had found an indisputable ogre. All the other people of his time are attacking things because they are bad economics or because they are bad politics, or because they are bad science; he alone is attacking things because they are bad. All the others are Radicals with a large R; he alone is radical with a small one. He encounters evil with that beautiful surprise which, as it is the beginning of all real pleasure, is also the beginning of all righteous indignation. He enters the workhouse just as Oliver Twist enters it, as a little child. This is the real power and pathos of that celebrated passage in the book which has passed into a proverb; but which has not lost its terrible humour even in being hackneyed. I mean, of course, the everlasting quotation about Oliver Twist asking for more. The real poignancy that there is in this idea is a very good study in that strong school of social criticism which Dickens represented. A modern realist describing the dreary workhouse would have made all the children utterly crushed, not daring to speak at all, not expecting anything, not hoping anything, past all possibility of affording even an ironical contrast or a protest of despair. A modern, in short, would have made all the boys in the workhouse pathetic by making them all pessimists. But Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe that he is living in a just world. He comes before the Guardians as the ragged peasants of the French Revolution came before the Kings and Parliaments of Europe. That is to say, he comes, indeed, with gloomy experiences, but he comes with a happy philosophy. He knows that there are wrongs of man to be reviled; but he believes also that there are rights of man to be demanded. It has often been remarked as a singular fact that the French poor, who stand in historic tradition as typical of all the desperate men who have dragged down tyranny, were, as a matter of fact, by no means worse off than the poor of many other European countries before the Revolution. The truth is that the French were tragic because they were better off. The others had known the sorrowful experiences; but they alone had known the splendid expectation and the original claims. It was just here that Dickens was so true a child of them and of that happy theory so bitterly applied. They were the one oppressed people that simply asked for justice; they were the one Parish Boy who innocently asked for more. （你可以抄其中几段）
雾都孤儿英文读后感
大约在700字左右……Here I am sitting on a couch alone, thinking about what I have just finished reading with tears of sadness filling my eyes and fire of indignation filling my heart, which revived my exhausted soul that has already been covered by the cruelty and the selfishness of the secular world for a long time. It is truly what I felt after reading Oliver Twist, written by the prominent British author Charles Dickens. The resonance between me and the book makes me feel not only the kindness and the wickedness of all the characters in the novel, but what this aloof society lacks, and what I lack deep inside. These supreme resources I’m talking about right now are somewhat different from minerals, oil that we usually mention. They’re abstract like feelings, and some kinds of spiritual stimulation that all of us desire anxiously from one another —— love and care. Those charitable figures whom Dickens created in the novel are really what we need in life. They showed love and care to others, just as the gentle rain from the sky fell upon the earth, which was carved into my heart deeply. Mr. Brownlow is one such person. The other day he had one of his elaborate watches stolen by two skilled teenage thieves, Artful Dodger and Charley Bates, and thought naturally it was Oliver, who was an orphan and forced to live with a gang of thieves, that had done it because he was the only one near by after the theft had taken place. Being wrathful, he caught Oliver, and sent him to the police station where the ill-tempered, unfair magistrates worked. Fortunately for him, Oliver was proved innocent by one onlooker afterwards. With sympathy, Mr. Brownlow took the injured, poor Oliver to his own home. There Oliver lived freely and gleefully for some months as if he were Mr. Brownlow’s own son. One day, however, Mr. Brownlow asked Oliver to return some books to the bookseller and to send some money for the new books that he had already collected. The thief Oliver once stayed with kidnapped him. After that he disappeared in Mr. Brownlow’s life. Searching for a while, Mr. Brownlow had to believe the fact that he had run away with his money. But dramatically, they came across each other again a few years later. Without hesitation, Mr. Brownlow took Oliver home for the second time not caring if he had done something evil. Perhaps most of us would feel confused about Mr. Brownlow’s reaction. But as a matter of fact, this is just the lesson we should learn from him. Jesus said in the Bible. Forgive not seven times, but seventy-times seven.” Why is that? Because forgiveness is our ability to remove negative thoughts and neutralize them so our energy may be spent on doing what we came here for. We cannot move forward in our future if past issues cloud our thinking. Stop put Mr. Brownlow into the list of your models. Always give people a second chance no matter what they might have done. That’s also a substantial part of loving and caring others. Charles Dickens said:“Love makes the world go around.” These immortal words have inspired and will keep on inspiring us to chant the melody of love and to say the prayer of care forevermore. Let us, therefore, enjoy life and treat other people lovingly. These principles are the roots and foundations of beliefs supporting this article and our mission together. 中文翻我在这里独自坐在沙发上，有我刚刚结束与悲伤填补我的眼睛，愤怒的火填补我的心，这是恢复我的疲惫的灵魂已被残忍和自私覆盖眼泪阅读思维世俗的世界很长一段时间。
它确实是我阅读后感到雾都孤儿，由著名的英国作家查尔斯狄更斯写的。
本人与这本书让我觉得不只是善良和所有小说中的人物，但这个邪恶超然社会缺乏，缺少什么我内心深处的共鸣。
这些我在谈论现在的最高矿产资源有所不同，我们通常提到石油。
他们喜欢感受抽象的，某些类型的精神刺激，是我们彼此都渴望 - 爱和关怀焦急。
那些人狄更斯在小说中创建的慈善数字是我们在生活中真正需要什么。
他们表现出对他人的爱和关怀，就像从地上，这是刻在我心里深深地下跌天空细雨。
布朗洛先生就是这样一个人。
有一天，他阐述了他的一个由两个十几岁的小偷熟练，Artful Dodger的和查理贝茨，被盗手表和思想自然是奥利弗，谁是孤儿，被迫住在盗贼团伙，该做了，因为他是唯一一个由盗窃后，已发生近了。
被愤怒，他抓住奥利弗，并派他去警察局的坏脾气，不公平的裁判工作。
他幸运的是，奥利弗被证明无辜后一个旁观者。
同情，布朗洛先生受伤了，可怜的奥利弗自己的家。
有自由，愉快地生活奥利弗了几个月就好像他是布朗洛先生自己的儿子。
有一天，然而，布朗洛先生问奥利弗回来一些书的书商和发送的，他已经收集到一些钱新书。
小偷奥利弗下榻的一次绑架他。
之后，他消失在布朗洛先生的生命。
搜索了一会儿，布朗洛先生不得不相信，他与他的钱去运行的事实。
但戏剧性的是，他们碰到对方又是几年后。
没有犹豫，布朗洛先生参加了第二次不回家照顾时间奥利弗如果他做了邪恶。
也许我们大多数人会感到困惑布朗洛先生的反应。
但作为一个事实上，这只是教训我们应该向他学习。
耶稣说，在圣经。
“原谅不是到七次，但72个七次。
”为什么会这样呢
因为宽容是我们有能力消除消极的想法和消灭他们，我们的能源可能在做什么，我们来到这里度过。
我们不能在我们未来的移动过去提出的问题，如果我们的思想云。
停止放进自己的模型名单布朗洛先生。
总是给人第二次机会，无论做什么，他们可能有。
这也是一个热爱和关心他人的很大一部分。
查尔斯狄更斯说：“爱使世界转动。
”这些不朽的话语鼓舞和启发使我们将于诵爱的旋律，并表示永远的祈祷的护理。
让我们，所以，享受生活，亲切对待别人。
这些原则是根和信念的基础支持这篇文章，我们的使命在一起。
雾都孤儿读后感，要英文的，而且有中文翻译。
雾都孤儿读后感500字（一） 这次的作文是写外国名著的读后感，我刚好看了雾都孤儿，对于里面的事情，我真的很感动： 我前几天看了一本书，叫《雾都孤儿》，《雾都孤儿》这本书试一个大作家创作的，这个作家名叫狄更斯，《雾都孤儿》是他的第二部长篇小说，又名《奥利弗·退斯特》这本书的作者在书中写到：本书的一个目的，就是追求无情的真实，这本书我反复的读了很多遍，才真正理解他。
这本书讲述了一个动人的故事，书中的主人公叫奥利弗特维斯特。
他出生在于济贫院，刚出生不久，他妈妈就去世了，他过着艰苦的生活，他知道什么是正义，什么是邪恶，他被当作一个物品似的，被人抛来抛去的，送来送去，但是他并没有想自杀，而是坚强的，勇敢的活了下来，有一次，他误入了强盗公司，小偷们想把他训练成一个小偷，但他不愿意作小偷，就逃了出来，这集的他才10岁，他宁愿逃出，也不愿意做一名小偷，他是一个多么正义的孩子呀，面对生死关头，他最终还是选择了正义，他的正义和勇敢，恐怕我们谁也比不上他，他一个人经历着这么多的折磨，这么多的这么巨大的痛苦，但他还是坚持的追求美好的生活，他的生活那么苦，那么我们这些生活在蜜罐里的人抐
我们总是不满足，总是在抱怨，可是他没有来抱怨，我们有父母在，有健健康康的父母，但是我还一天跟我的爸妈吵架，有些失去双亲的人，就连跟自己的爸妈说一句话的机会还没有，我想我应该好好反省下自己… 看了这本书，我深深的体会到：我真的很幸福。
雾都孤儿读后感500字（二） 这个寒假我读了几本故事书，印象最深刻的就是英国作家狄更斯的第一部伟大小说《雾都孤儿》。
故事讲述的是一个名叫奥力弗。
退斯特的弃婴在孤儿院里被悲惨地教育了9年，然后又被送到棺材老板那儿当学徒。
由于难以忍受的饥饿和暴力以及侮辱，他逃亡伦敦。
又不幸误入贼窝，期间被一位善良的的老绅士班布尔先生收留。
但又被那一伙贼绑回贼窝。
最后善良的女扒手南希为了营救奥利弗，不顾贼头的监视和威胁，向班布尔报信，说奥利弗就是他寻找已久的外孙儿。
南希被贼窝头目杀害，警察随即围剿了贼窝。
奥利弗终于得以与亲人团聚。
读《雾都孤儿》这本书时，有几次被故事情节深深的感动，这不仅是因为奥立弗的悲惨遭遇牵动了我的心，更是因为他拥有善良的本性，拥有一颗感恩的心。
他虽然在黑暗的社会里饱尝了人世间的艰苦，但是这些并没有给自己美好的心灵蒙上半点尘埃。
这本小说热情讴歌人们的正直、善良，揭露了当时英国社会的一些阴暗和丑陋的一面。
整本小说充满了爱的力量。
与奥立弗相比，我的生活是多么的幸福，有爸爸妈妈的呵护与疼爱，衣食无忧。
有慈爱的老师和亲密的伙伴。
但有时还不满足，遇到困难就退缩。
读了奥立弗的故事，使我懂得了要珍惜今天的美好生活，刻苦努力地学习，长大以后回报社会。
雾都孤儿读后感500字（三） 初次接触到《雾都孤儿》这本书，是在这个寒假，书中主人公多舛的命运及那些居心叵测的人、那个丑恶的社会，在我脑海中挥之不去。
《雾都孤儿》讲述的是主人公奥利弗·特威斯特一个孤儿悲惨的身世及遭遇。
()他一出生，母亲就撒手人寰，在孤儿院长大，经历学徒生涯，艰苦逃难，误入贼窝，历尽无数辛酸，不向恶势力低头，最后在善良的绅士布朗洛先生的帮助下，查明身世并获得了幸福。
读完《雾都孤儿》这本书，我深深地被主人公奥利弗的精神所感动、所钦佩。
其中最令我感动的是奥利弗在贼窟的那段经历。
可怜的奥利弗本来就已经承受着没有亲人的痛苦，瘦小的他却有着一颗坚强的心。
他被迫被训练偷窃，却坚持不偷窃他人的财物。
他不肯向恶势力低头，在那个黑暗的年代，一个仅10岁的孩童，拥有正义、勇敢、坚毅
他宁愿在街头流落，受尽旁人的冷眼去乞讨，也不愿去失窃他人的劳动果实。
虽然生活在困苦的环境中，但内心充满对未来的憧憬，对美好生活的向往。
我不得不为奥利弗坚强不屈的精神肃然起敬。
与奥利弗那时的生活的困苦相比，现在的我过的是丰衣足食，衣来伸手，饭来张口的生活，我没有理由不珍惜所拥有的一切。
我们更应该从小树立远大的目标，好好学习，将来回报社会。
如今，奥利弗的动荡、困苦的年代已不复存在。
可我们知道，世界上还依然有很多的孩子在经受着战乱的伤害，饱受着饥荒的痛苦，怎能漠视这一切
我们应该尽已所能的去帮助那些生活悲苦的人们。
雾都孤儿英文读后感 200字
世界上有很多罪恶 ——读《雾都孤儿》有感 读了《雾都孤儿》，我才发现世界上有那么多可恨的人。
一个在救济院里出生的孩子，一出生就成了孤儿，过着痛苦的生活，然后又被卖到棺材铺里，惨不忍睹的生活让他逃跑了，没想到他却误入贼窟，接着一些好心的正义人士将他解救出来，最后，好人有好报，恶人有恶报，主人公奥利弗最终找到了自己的亲人，而贼窟也被端掉了。
看了这本书，我思绪万千，人间并不是我想像的那么简单，这个世界里不仅有幸福和富贵，还有许多无助的孤儿想主人公奥利弗 退斯特一样，都有着悲惨的遭遇，真希望坏人在看到这本书后能重新做人，改过自新。
和我们的生活一比，就会发现我们是多么的幸福，在平时，我们总拿自己和比自己家还要富裕的人比，却从不看看，和这些小朋友们比起来，我们要比他们幸福一百倍，一千倍，甚至一万倍，我们在温暖的大家庭里欢快地做着游戏，过着丰衣足食的生活，而那些家来穷得一贫如洗的孩子们，则是缺衣少食，夏天好过，一到冬天，那将是一个怎样的情景。
在一个穷苦的地区，一群孩子穿着破旧的衣服聚在一起互相取暖，这种情景对于我们来说并不多见，甚至见都没见过，但是，你不知道，在世界上几乎没有一个地区是没有孤儿的。
在我们眼里，零花钱也许并不算什么，可是，对他们来说，则是奢侈品；在我们眼里，拥有一大堆玩具不算什么，而对他们来说，则是遥不可及的愿望。
我们应该多多帮助这些孩子，将他们灰色的童年重新变成金黄色的，让他们和我们一样快快乐乐地成长。
让我们的身边少一些可怜的人吧，伸出你的援助之手，使大家和你一样幸福。
《雾都孤儿》经典语句，要英文，带翻译
Bookreport—Thedirtyworld,thepureheartOlivertwistThispaperisafamousnovelsintheworld,writedbyCharlesdickens(1812-1870)fromEnglishinthemiddleofthe19thcentury.Hewasbornedinapoorfamily,butlatermoreandmorefamous,andhadlotsofwealth.OliverwhoItsprotagonistisaorphan,inaworkhousehisearlylifewaswentthrough.Later,olivergothisfirstjobthatsenttothelocalcoffinshopasanapprentice.butoliverlefttheretoLandonsecretlybecauseoftheoppresstionoftheowner’wife.intheLandon,hemetathiefwhotookOlivertheirhome,andcheatedtobetheif.fortunatelyhewastookMrBrown'shouseandliveinthere,buthewasgrandsonwhowaslookingfor,torescueoliverfromthere,finalaughtbackhomeofthieves.Nancy,akindgirl,RegardlessedofthethreatandsurveillancetooldMrBrownthatoliverishisglykilledbyleaderofthieves.followingthatthepolicereachedthere,capturedthesethieves.Eventuallyolivergottogetherwithfamily.Oliver’schildismisrableandbumpy.buthehadneverchangedhimselfinsuchanenvironment.hestillwaskind,filledwithhappinessforhislife.,Hestruggledwithuglypeople
雾都孤儿英文读后感60词
To Regain the Nature of Goodness -- Review of ‘Oliver Twist’ 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. 这个是短的Oliver Twist is the world's masterpiece, it tells the story of the 19th century occurred in a moving story of the masters of the book Oliver Twist is an orphan, he was born in the workhouse, was born near his mother died. Later, he was deemed to have been sent an item sent, had been tortured, until the last of the Brownlow met a kind old gentleman, this gentleman to take him, then had a good life. After reading this book, I can not calm the mood for a long time. Poor Oliver has lost loved ones in pain, the suffering by so many. Really do not know him under the thin body, with what kind of meaning has 回答者： PASHERS陶晋 - 经理 四级 2009-8-18 14:50雾都孤儿英文版读后感(英文) To Regain the Nature of Goodness —— Review of ‘Oliver Twist' 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
