the,merely,very,good

篇一：The Merely Very Good课后习题

The Merely Very Good

1. When the author was invited to lecture at a writers’ conference, why did he want to turn down the invitation at first? What finally made him accept the invitation?

1）There were several reasons to reject this invitation. On the one hand, the author lived far from the place where the conference would be held that he had to get up very early and sacrifice his weekend to drive a long distance only in order to give a lecture, and would not be well-offered; on the other hand, he was no longer interested in talking about the subject on the relations between poetry and physics and the author could hardly find anything interesting and worthy to be focused at such a conference.

2）But finally two other reasons made him accept this invitation. One was for his girlfriend who was so eager to poetry to give her some encouragement or enlightenment; the other was because the author knew Spender was another tutor at the conference and he was so fascinated with his obsession with Auden who remained irresistibly charming for him.

2. What was he asked to talk on? Why?

He was asked to talk on the connection between writing poetry and doing physics. Because he both wrote and did physics.

3. How did he get to the conference? How long did it take him? Was there a large audience?

1）He would rent a car and drive it across the entire state of New Jersey to get there.

2）It almost took him as long as five hours.

3）No. There was only an extremely small amount of audience.

4. How did Spender conduct the workshop? What does this show?

1）He just began to read poems written by the workshop members without any opening statement. During the reading process he didn’t give any clue about what he thought of these poems. Sometimes he would interrupt his reading and seek out the author and ask some ordinary questions casually.

2）This shows that he was already tired of such workshops and only earned his life by this way. So whatever he was thinking of hand little to do with such workshops.

5. What annoyed the author at Spender’s workshop? What did he do?

1）The author put in a long day to attend spender’s poetry workshop but could hear nothing about his own thought and not any creative views.

2）He raised his hand to ask spender some acute questions.

6. What do you know about Oppenheimer from this article?

(a) After he graduated from Harvard, he went to Germany to get his Ph. D. in Gottingen.

(b) His views on Oppenheimer were not sympathetic. He admitted his talent but in such an embarrassing and trouble-leading way.

(c) Yes, they were. They were both young and ambitious, and both majored in quantum theories. But obviously Dirac made greater achievements in the field of quantum mechanics as younger

than Oppenheimer was and he seemed to be more focused with precision and creation. He had a profound effect on Oppenheimer so that he seemed to be “great”.

(d) There discussion was more like an Oppenheimer monologue, which was abruptly interrupted by Dirac.

No, he didn’t. Because he thought in physics people were given an understanding of something that nobody knew before, whereas poetry may bring people totally different experience from physics so that it is difficulty for one to do both of them at the same time.

(e) One of the charges brought against him was that his wife was the former wife of a person who had been a member of the Communist Party and who had been killed in 1937 fighting for the Spanish Republican Army.

(f) Because he wanted to show his collection of some beautiful paintings.

He inherited this small collection from his father.

The collection didn’t expand because he himself added nothing to it. This implies that he didn’t really like it, his taste in collection of painting was only for show.

7. Who was Dirac? Why didn’t Dirac have any school or following? How did he teach? Why?

1）Dirac was one of the inventors of Quantum mechanics and continued to make great contributions in many areas of modern theoretical physics as a giant in this field.

2）Because he thought the really good ideas in physics could only be had by one person.

3）He taught his classes at Cambridge University by, literally, reading in his precise, clipped way from his great text on the subject.

4）Because he thought he had given the subject a great deal of thought and there was no better way to present it.

8. Describe the scene of the author’s meeting with Dirac at Princeton. What is implied in the description?

1）Dirac arrived at their weekly physics seminar unexpectedly, wearing a blue suit, and a pair of thigh-length muddy rubber boots which left indelible impression for me.

2）He loved to chop a path in the woods and was still working on the same thing always which showed them that he was such a focused man.

9. What did the anecdote about the toll and toll booths tell about Dirac?

He was good at observing and thinking from the practical and efficient perspective.

10. What sort of a person was Stephen Spender?

Spender was a famous poet and critic. He seemed not so focused because he was Jewish, homosexual, a British establishment figure and a poet at the same time. He was always regarded as a sort of avatar of Auden and always lived under his shadow which he was so tired of.

11. When the author asked Spender what he thought was the most beautiful line in the English language, what was Spender’s response? Why was there total silence in the room

after Spender gave the answer?

1）He got up from his chair and in a firm hand wrote a line of Auden’s on the blackboard. He looked at it with a complicated expression, recited it slowly and then sat back down.

2）Because he gave Auden’s poet as the most beautiful line rather than his own and his expression combined sadness, wonder, regret, envy, which made listeners have nothing to say.

12. Why did the author think Dirac was greater than Oppenheimer in physics? Do you agree? Why (not)?

1）Because the author thought Dirac made greater contributions in physics than Oppenheimer and was already successful when Oppenheimer was still searching. The author thought Dirac was more original and profound because he was more focused.

2）I agree with the author, because I also think if a person puts all his efforts and energy into one thing with all heart, that means, if he is focused enough, he will make achievements or progress that at least satisfies himself.

13. Why did the author quote Isidor Rabi’s remark? What did the author want to emphasize? Do you agree with the author? Why (not)?

1）Because this remark impressed the author so much and what Isidor Rabi said was just what the author thought and quite agreed.

2）The author wanted to emphasize that if a person wanted to be “great” rather than only “merely good”, he should be focused enough.

3）I quite agree with the author, because I also believe enough focus is the key to success for one person.

篇二：The Merely Very Good 读后感 - 副本

The Merely Very Good

Jeremy Bernstein

When the reader encounters the title of the article” The Merely Very Good ”at the first time, he or she would not expect that Robert

Oppenheimer,”father of the atomic bomb” in the United States, and

Stephen Spender, English poet and critic, could be the merely very good. But another two men, Dirac and Auden were reputed as great

masters ,who were the same as their honorary titles in reality. What is the chief difference between them? Does Bemstein have a right to relegate Oppenheimer and Spender to the category of merely very good ?

Jeremy Berstein has been a professor of physics for many years and is a writer in his own right. He knows both physics and writing well including various writers and their workers or achievements. He is in a position to come to such a conclusion, whether the readers agree with him or not.

Berstein refered to some especial experiences about Robert

Oppenheimer and Stepher Spender,Dirac and Auden respectively in abid to make a clear distinction between merely very goood and great

considerably. When it comes to Robert Oppenheimer , the staement of his life inevitably was mixed with some honorable events, for example, he was graduated from Harvard in 1925, he was awarded a fellowship to study in Europe and took his degree in Germany in 1927 at the age of twenty-three. But the most important description is that his tutor, a Germany theoretical physicist Max Born, published his recollections of Oppenheimer, which were not sympathetic. He wrote “Oppenheimer , was a man of great talents and I was conscious of his superiority in a way which was embarrassing and let to trouble. In my ordinary seminar on quantum mechnics, he used to interrupt the speaker , whoever it was, not excluding myself, and to step to the blackboard , taking the chalk and declaring: This can be down much betterin the following manner. ” Latter ,he encountered a physicist, Diracwho was twenty-five that year, two years older than him. He rarely spoken, but when he did, it was alwaysb with extraordinary precision and with devastating effect. That must have had a profound effect on Oppenheimer. While Oppenheimer was interrupting Born’s seminars , announcing that he could do

calculations in quantum theory,Dirac , inly two years older than him, had invented the subject. This comparision between them satirized

Oppenheimer’ extremely arrogance and suggested that he should be engrossed in phiscis with calm mentality and conscientious attitude. Because he also spent a lot of time in wrting and creating poems. How

could he have much time to study physics concentrately. Compared to poem , physics could virtually give people something that nobody knew before practically. He said:”The really good idea in physics are had by only one person. ” The outstanding achievements if Dirac in physics, as a matter of fact, remaind those who intend to or have begun reaserching a industry to devote himself or herself to it wholly. Only in this way, can you make your drems come true aooner or later, or acquire amazing complishments. On the other hand,Isidor Rabi’s comment in

Oppenheimeris:”I never ran into anyone who was brighter than he was. But to be more original and profound I think you have to be more focused”

Stephen S pender,a distinguished English poet and famous critic, was relegated to the category of merely very good as well. He seemed “unfocused”, for several roles he played had distracted his heed to

creating peam. Someone confused that how he got time to write poem as played different roles, such as partly Jewish, partly homosexual, partly a British establishment figure at the same time. Besides, it was a fact that he had been earning his living since his retirement from university in London a decade earlier by doing lectures and classes for groups like that the passage mentioned. It is why he didn’t give any opening statements as he came into the room, just reading some poems of students which listed sky, sea, sex, earth ,red, green, blue and so forth that are too common and vulgar and superficial. He didn’t give any criticism and valuable review. Though he was pretty tired of these kinds of lectures and classes, he still insisted in accept invitations from different places for the purpose of having some economic income to support the future life safely and steadily. He even couldn’t get rid of being an embodiment for Auden, living the whole under their shadow. We can imagine that the status is a misery and obstacle for him to continue innovating his own unique style of poem., which also reflects his creative capability had been lost. For some time, he was leading a rich social life which consumed his much time to interacting with different social people. Little time was rested to get into creation and calm consideration. Spender are so familiar with Auden’ poems that he lost his original and personal poem style. He was tired of imitation in the whole of life even if Auden had been dead before him. He could recite the most beautiful line in his mind without hesitancy. But we have noticed that he was so depressed, bemoan, regret and perhaps envy that he wrote the beautiful line trembingly . In fact, his complex sensation and performance have made his a status of merely very good prominent. He was unsatisfied and unhappy with himself, which means he commit his imperfection and fetal defects.

There is one more thing worthy to give a notice--- the skills if author in knitting seemingly scattered anecdotes of various characters into a

coherent whole. The organization is very coherent and elaborate and the mind is logical and experienced writing techniques. At the begining of the passages, the author showed his expression of unwillingness to give the speech at a writers’ conference. The author skillfully transitioned from his event to Oppenheimer because the topic of the writing conference is about poetry. In the story, Oppenheimer was good at doing calculations with quantum theory and often interrupted tutor. Another most important person, matched to him, Dirac was involved into the passage. Dirac appeared as one of the inventors of quantum mechanics and he had a profound impact on Opphenmeimer. Besides, he decided to attend the conference because of the other tutor, Spender, whose obsession with Auden was remarkable to him. These four main characters appeared one after another. The transition is attributed to author’s literary depth and skillful organization. The author applies the skill of montage, taking good advantage of flashback going from the present to the past and then back to present, just like that in films. Jeremy Berstein aimed to highlight the two major statements by mainly contrasting two pairs of distinguished specialists who ever successfully obtained great achievements in certain facet. Though maybe a lot of people disagree with him, Jeremy dared to review these big shots and express his unsatisfaction with Oppenheimer and Spender Stephen ,to some extent ,and relegate them to category of merely good. Meanwhile, he expressed his admiration about Dirac and Auden.

However, in my mind, Jeremy may be one of people who were

entitle to criticize these important persons because he has been not only a professor of physics for many years but been known as a nice poet.

Therefore, he has known a lot about physics and poetry. In some degree, I agree with author. In this passage, I perceive clearly that Oppenheimer was inferior to Dirac, Spendor was inferior to Auden. Anyone who wants to engage in a certain industry and is eager to discover some historical truth, he or she is supposed to be engrossed in studying, researching,

testifying, concluding and so forth earnestly. If they poured the whole life and passion into one matter, they will harvest unexpected results in the end. I can’t help thinking of Jean-Henri Casimir Fabre who is the most famous entomologist in France. He ever wrote a book called The Records about Insects. The book describes insects’ true life in detail. I remember that he was so obsessed to observing and researching insects that he forgot to have meals and take a rest. His life was linked with insects

closely. He thought that human beings should learn from insect, inspiring us to fight with sufferings and difficulties. He not only taught us scientific knowledge but also showed us his enthusiasm and respect for life and nature. LuXun and Bajin spoke highly of him and his works. We have

learned a lot from him, such as perseverance, optimism,

conscientiousness, science and so on.

“focused” is the common spirit of all professors in the world. They set an example for us .We should throw away our fickleness. Don’t waste any time on useless things. It is enough for us to finish our tasks perfectly. In a conclusion, author connected four great professors via excellent skill and rich knowledge. We should arm us with endless knowledge, and try to be focused on our career.

The Merely Very Good

学院：外国语学院 班级：12级商务英语 姓名：武瑞红 学号：122031103

篇三：The organization of merely very good

The organization of merely very good

In this essay,Berntein used the technique of montage to knit the seemingly scattered anecdotes of various characters into a coherent whole. He took good advantage of flashback to and fro from the present to the past and back to the present,just like that in films.Those anecdotes are carefully chosen and related which successfully illustrate the message that the author wants to put across.

In the introduction part,the author was invited to give a lecture concerning about the connection between poetry and physics.When he was hesitating whether he should attend such a conference or not,he involuntarily thought about the other person who has a lot to do with the two.Along with author's introduction of Openheimer'sachievement,Dirac appeared. Although Openheimer was good at doing calculations with quantum theory,Dirac already one of the inventors of quantum mechanics. Besides,Dirac had a profound effect on Openheimer when they became friends.

Finally,two excellent reasons won and made Berntein to go to the conference.Thus,in the transitional paragraph,the writer represented to the readers the two pairs of contrast:Dirac and Openheimer and Auten and Spender.Bernteinbecame fascinated by Spender's obsession with Auden.Then he took Spender,who was also another line to tell stories about Spender and Auden and relates Openheimer and Dirac again.

Spender's journal entry on his visit to the Institute for Advanced study described the anecdote of Openheimer and van Gogh as well as Openheimer's appearance. Apart from Spender's journal,the author had commented about the judgement of Openheimer's so-called disloyalty.Later at the institute Dirac visited the seminar presided by Openheimer,which also included with writer.Dirac once remarked that"the really good ideas in physics are had by only one person".Author cited it to state his viewpoints that Great poetry and great physics cannot be imitated.

Paragraph ten brings the story back to the year 1981 so as to carry on the story.Another anecdote concerning toll was told by author to illustrate the "extremely precision"as a feature in Dirac's language.In paragraph seventeen and eighteen,writer tried to find the line mentioned by Spender's poetry at the meeting.In order to satisfy his girlfriend's inclination to Spender's poetry workshop,Berntein accompanied her to attend it. However,what writer saw was Spender's unfocused because he always regarded as a sort of avatar of Auden and always lived under his shadow which he was so tired of.Spender gave no clue about what he thought of poems written by the workshop members.One has to be focused,to be original and profound.As the author says,Auden and Dirac focused like laser

beams. It according to the author,is the cause of the difference of being great and being merely very good.

Many years later,the author could not remember the sentence mentioned by Spender at the meeting though all his memory nearly came back to him.So he tried hard and finally found it in Spender's entry.By the words cited,the author told us that geat poetry and physics are driven ahead by unanticipated genius.The merely very good cannot contribute to the development of either poetry or physics.

The last two paragraphs present the concluding remark by restating the key message to the readers.The difference of being great and being merely very good is that the one is genius and can't be imitated,also one should be focused.

篇四：The+review+of+merely+very__+good

The Review of "the Merely Very Good"

Since I have finished this context, I still have a little confusion about the structure and the deep meaning of the author. The merely very good and great is easy to identify, but the author tells me it is not easy to separate them. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb; Stephen Spender, English poet and critic; Paul A.M. Dirac, the professor, who's pioneer work in the quantum mechanics of the atom won him the Nobel Prize; W. H. Auden, the English poet. In author's eyes, Oppenheimer and Spender are just merely very good, Dirac and Auden are great. According to the understanding of the article and the analysis of the teacher, Dirac to Oppenheimer is what Auden to Spender. Dirac's physis and Auden's poetry can not be imitated, like Dirac's saying that "the really good ideas in physics are had by only one person".

There are several anecdotes described by the author, in totally, the article mainly based on the conference held someplace far form author's home. When he hesitate if he should attend such a conference centered on poetry, then he suddenly recalled one anecdote in which Oppenheimer play a key role. Of course, the anecdote also related to Dirac. Dirac first met Oppenheimer in Gottingen and then made a good relationship . Dirac visited the seminar presided by Oppenheimer, the author and Spender were both

tutors and Spender were both tutors of the conference on poetry. From the complex connection of each other, I also realized the great ability of the author. Now, I want to talk about something of Dirac and Oppenheimer. They are both young physicists who are working on quantum mechanics. When Oppenheimer showing his talent in doing calculation better in the quantum theory, Dirac had already invented the theory, and became famous. In Dirac's opinion, of course, the author also agree with that people couldn't do both poetry and physics, because the nature of the two things was diametrically different, the physicists tried to make people understand something nobody knew before, but poets were dealing with subjects people were familiar with. I also think so. In China, the students in senior high school should choose one subject from liberal arts and science. No one could do both of them very well. The living time is limited, the memory is unlimited, you knew everything a little is useless, because it contribute nothing to the country. Like Oppenheimer, he could both do poetry and physics. However, he didn't focus his attention on a specific field, his teacher Max Born once wrote that "he was a man of great talent and I was conscious of his superiority in a way which was embarrassing and led to trouble. In my ordinary seminar on quantum mechanics, he used to interrupt the speaker, whoever it was, not including myself, and to step to the blackboard,

taking the chalk and declaring: This can be done much better in the following manner." Years later, when Oppenheimer was in his ordinary seminar, he still had this habit like that. In addition, Isidor Rabi made a comment on Oppenheimer:"I never ran into anyone who has brighter than he was. But to be more original and profound I think you have to be more focused". In some degree, Spender was similar to Oppenheimer, he seemed unfocused like Oppenheimer, as an English poet and critic, he said nothing during the author's lecture and left as soon as it was over, along with the minuscule audience that the author had troubled five hours by car to address. From the text, we know that Spender was pretty tired of being an avatar for his now dead friend--Auden. From these words, we may know that actually Spender did not pay enough attention to the field of poetry, but was leading a rich social life and cared about something which was not related to poetry. Therefore, how can he compared with Auden, who are the great English poet. Spender and Oppenheimer were the same in nature that in reality they did not specialize in one field but had a strong attention on in or any others, without any objection, we can say that Oppenheimer and Spender were merely very good. They didn't pay any addition to one field, even they are smart, the world would not remember them after hundreds or thousands years. Maybe one person who knows more and has wide

knowledge is regarded as generalist, people in his time may to evaluate him with high degree, and think highly of him. Nevertheless, he just popular on his living time. He didn't leave anything valuably, the reason only because he was a generalist, he only knew the theory, not crate the theory. It is difficult for me to discuss about Dirac and Auden. To begin with, Dirac and Auden belonged to the same kind person, Dirac was quite smart and talented, but he was not assertive like Oppenheimer. In the article, the author said that"he rarely spoke, but when he did, it was always with extraordinary precision and often with devastating effect," when Dirac was on T.D. Lee's car from New York to Princeton through the Lincoln Tunnel, he could calcu(转 载 于:wWW.smHAida.cOM 海达范文网:the,merely,very,good)late the money of the tollbooths in advance. What's more, he would spend a good deal of time in the woods near the institute with an ax, chopping a path in the general direction of Trenton. He was almost the same great as Einstein. As for Auden, he is great ,too. It would not be very difficult to imitate the late Auden. For in his late poetry there is a rather crotchety persona into whose carpet slippers some ambitious young man with a technique as accomplished could slip. But it would be very difficult to imitate the early Auden, by being profoundly eccentric, both Auden and Dirac, probably not by accident, insulated themselves. They focused like laser beams. For above, we can

concluded that Dirac and Auden are truly great. At the end, what the author want to say is that great and great physics can not be imitated. As Dirac put it,"the really great ideas in physics are had by only noe person." then great poetry and physics are pushed ahead by unanticipated genius. The merely very good cannot contribute to the development of either poetry or physics. To be original and profound, one has to be focused. As the author says, Auden and Dirac focused like laser beams. This, according to the author, is the cause of the difference of being great and being merely very good. In a word, it is right to say to be highly focused or not is the cause separating the great ones from the merely very good.

To sum up, poor Stephen Spender, poor Robert Oppenheimer, each limited,if not relegated, to the category of the merely very good, and each inevitably saddened by his knowledge of what was truly superior.as Spender says,W.H. Auden's poetry can not be imitated, any more than Paul Dirac's physics can be. That is what great poetry and great physics have in common:both are swept along by the tide of unanticipated genius as it rushed past the merely very good. For us, we should focus on one thing totally and finished it seriously. If we use our mind on several things and hope to achieve a perfect result. I can say it's a dream.

篇五：好习惯very good

人的一生。不论怎样度过，多多少少，大大小小，都应该有一些属于自己的行为方式或好习惯。作为一名九年级的学生，既然已经养成了好的习惯，那是不是就能从中享受到好习惯带来的

益处呢？

收获一种习惯，播下一种习惯，你将收获一种性格，播下一种性格，你将收获一种命运。”一种好的习惯会使我们的命运处处充满奇迹。

享受好习惯带来的乐趣。

早晨起来梳妆，梳洗一番后，随手将梳妆台收拾的整整齐齐，看见镜子里整洁的梳妆台衬托出的花容月貌，你是否会会心一笑？中午走在学校的幽径上，闻着栀子花的幽香，你头弯腰捡起脚下的果皮，跑向远处的垃圾箱你是否会感觉到此刻的天更蓝，花更香，小路更美？自习课上，老师布置了作业就走了，同学们像叽叽喳喳的麻雀，而你独自专心致志的钻研几何题目，你是否会感到一种发自内心的自豪？晚上伏疾书桌，做完功课后，无论多晚，也要顺便将自己的书包整理，看看洋溢着幽香的瓶花与干净的书桌相依相偎，你是否会感到一种惬意？这便是好习惯到来的乐趣。

俄罗斯教育家乌申斯基曾说过一段话：“好习惯是人在神经系统中存放的资本，这个资本会不断增长，一个人毕生都可以享受它的利息。”一种好的习惯如一位良师，时时刻刻陪伴着你，并给你带来无穷的利益；它也会如一本好书一样，无时不刻让你从中感受到无穷的著名的心理学家威廉.詹姆士的一段话：“播下一个行动，你将

乐趣；它如一位情真意切的好友，与你终身为伴，并及时的带给你许多意想不到的惊喜！

朋友，昨日的习惯，已经造就了今日的我们;今日的习惯决定明天的我们。让我们从现在做起，养成一种好习惯，在生活中尽情享受好习惯带来的乐趣。

好习惯very good！（真好！）

九(2)班 沈昕琪 二等奖

习惯是提醒人们的警钟，习惯是给人良好的生活方式的良药

——题记

习惯，是指一个人已经做熟悉的某些事，它是一把

双刃剑，好的习惯给人带来快乐，坏的习惯给人带来伤害，不容分说，一个好习惯是所有人都梦寐以求的。

好习惯 good

作为学生的我们，在学习上养成一个好的习惯是必然的。如：在上课前，我们能认真预习；在课堂上，我们能专心听讲，不搞任何小动作；在课后，我们能及时复习。这样说来，学生学的轻松，老师教的有信心，岂不是一举两得的美事吗？好习惯，是我们的良师益友，能给我们正确的做法。（good！good！good！）

好习惯

better

作为子女的我们，在生活上养成一个好习惯是肯定的。如：父母在批评我们时，不要与父母发生口角之争，自己不能像恶狠狠的老虎，要做只温顺的小绵羊，真诚的听从父母的教诲；父母忙于家务，作为子女的我们又怎样眼睁睁的看着，而不去帮一帮那含辛茹苦将我们抚育长大的父母呢？父母弯着腰，干着活，你走到他们的面前，轻轻的扶起那似乎已经变弯的腰，从手中拿过工具，自己卖力的干活，看见他们的嘴角向上扬起45度，那边是最美的弧度。好习惯是一个百宝盒，让我们与父母和睦相处。（good！good！）

好习惯（best）

作为公民的我们，养成一个好习惯是不可推辞的。我们是新世纪即将展翅的雄鹰，我们要飞向未来。我们的未来就是祖国的希望，我们的好习惯就是祖国变得国富民强的的根本。只有我们拥有一个好习惯，祖国的未来才更有胜算。好习惯是一剂强心剂，增强祖国的生命力！

有了好习惯，我们才会更自信，跟强大。

有了好习惯，我们的人生才有意义。

有了好习惯，我们的未来才会更加绚丽，更加灿烂。

有了好习惯，我们才能更好的实现自己的愿望。

养成文明的好习惯

九(2)班 申英梅 二等奖

在人生这片大海中，好的习惯就是一叶叶扁舟，而

批判你是否是一个文明的人，则依赖来于你养成的一

个个好习惯。

据媒体报道，“五一”长假，在天安门至端门的通

道上，大多数游客休息完了起身就走，对自己铺在地上的报纸、纸片、塑料袋等却不随手带走。而在天安门广场，一天所扔的垃圾竟有19吨之多。还有不少游客在树荫下“释放”自己双脚，一大排“赤脚大仙”坐在故宫墙根荫凉处，使不少游人经过此地掩鼻低头疾走。这些游客的不文明行为，不仅说明旅游景点配套设备须相应考虑，也说明文明问题和环境问题当引起全社会的广泛关注。其实，上述不文明行为平时也经常出现，只不过“五一”黄金周表现得更为集中和明显。因此，我们每个人都从我做起，从身边的小事做起，不乱扔废弃物，不践踏草坪，自觉养成保护环境的良好习惯。只有这样，建设文明社会才大有希望。

纵观古今，历史长河中，我最钦佩的一个人就是伟大的外交家——周恩来先生。不是因为他有多么大的功绩，而是因为他所拥有的一个个好习惯。在抗战的那段艰苦的岁月里，中国有多贫穷啊！总理的?a href="http://www.zw2.cn/zhuanti/guanyuluzuowen/" target="_blank" class="keylink">路暇谷蛔郝瞬苟。伤辉诤酰衔按┳挪缓茫簧系荡巍惫倘皇且换厥拢纱┳鸥删桓且患匾氖隆Ｒ虼耍还芏嗫啵?/p>

那洗的发白的衣衫上总是不会看见一丁点污渍，他的头发也总是梳的平平整整，正是因为他拥有这些一点一滴的好习惯，他才能在外交史上受人尊重。

文明是人类礼仪的标尺，是美好心灵的展现，养成文明习惯是每一个现代人的必修课，拥有文明也就拥有了美好的一切。所以同学们，就让文明存在于我们的一言一行中吧，行动起来，让我们成为文明之主，让文明美德伴我们一起成长。

体裁作文