[時事英文] 從 Most Dangerous Place 文章，看經濟學人寫作邏輯
最近大家好像都在討論這一篇文章, 我們來聽一下前總統府英文演講撰稿人Andrew Yang的觀點吧:
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Economist 經濟學人這禮拜發表了一篇聳動的文章：The Most Dangerous Place on Earth: https://econ.st/3tbpZWT
雖然有些人覺得 Economist 寫的東西很無聊 (我以前在美國外交研究所，每個同學都這麼覺得)，但他們的寫作邏輯嚴謹度是非常高的。
他們怎麼寫？
★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Most Dangerous Place on Earth: America and China must work harder to avoid war over the future of Taiwan
📌 文章架構：
1. Premise 前提：台海平衡建立在一個「矛盾」上
2. What if...：如果發生戰爭，會有多恐怖
3. Premise is weak：前提的平衡，比我們想像還要脆弱...
4. Reason 原因：武力侵台，對中國來說越來越可行了
5. Counter argument：但習近平真的想要冒這個風險嗎？沒人知道
6. Recommendation：所以台美要努力讓中國覺得武力不是一個選項
邏輯：
- 建立前提
- 然後探討不同發展方向會有什麼後果
- 我們有什麼理由/證據告訴我們會往哪個方向發展？
- 最後：在這種不確定下，我們該怎麼做？
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 標題的組合是聳動的一句 "most dangerous place on earth" 加上 call to action - 一定要努力避免戰爭。
這個是不錯的標題組合，大家不妨沿用：抓住注意力，然後給結論。
不過老實說，副標有點弱。因為 "work harder to avoid war" 是所有專家都講了幾十年的。標題太重要了，應該要有點新的東西，或是寫的很具體。而且拜託，如果有人叫你 "work harder"，你會不會覺得：「廢話」？
就算我們簡單看內文，也可以生出更具體的副標：
- Has war become a viable option for Beijing?
- The strategic ambiguity over Taiwan is breaking down
- Time to remove war as an option
★★★★★★★★★★★★
好，文章開始：
The test of a first-rate intelligence, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. For decades just such an exercise of high-calibre ambiguity has kept the peace between America and China over Taiwan...
Today, however, this strategic ambiguity is breaking down. The United States is coming to fear that it may no longer be able to deter China from seizing Taiwan by force.
📌 這個告訴讀者 (他們教育水準普遍非常高，但可能不大熟悉台灣)，台海的平衡一直是一個矛盾的平衡，而這個平衡也許無法繼續維持了。這樣寫提高戲劇張力，吸引讀者。
他們這個開頭，其實也是伏筆，晚點會繞回來。
*引用 Fitzgerald 的話本身慢逗趣的，展現了他們的文學素養 lol。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
下一句告訴大家，台海戰爭對世界的後果有多恐怖：
War would be a catastrophe, and not only because of the bloodshed in Taiwan and the risk of escalation between two nuclear powers. One reason is economic. The island lies at the heart of the semiconductor industry. TSMC, the world’s most valuable chipmaker, etches 84% of the most advanced chips.
但他們反而把他們認為「最重要」的部分，放在後面：
The bigger reason is that Taiwan is an arena for the rivalry between China and America. Although the United States is not treaty-bound to defend Taiwan, a Chinese assault would be a test of America’s military might and its diplomatic and political resolve. If the Seventh Fleet failed to turn up, China would overnight become the dominant power in Asia. America’s allies around the world would know that they could not count on it. Pax Americana would collapse.
📌 最後一句最關鍵：如果美國不阻止中國，其他盟友會知道：美國可能不會來救我們。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
然後，他們就回到開頭的伏筆了：
To understand how to avoid conflict in the Taiwan Strait, start with the contradictions that have kept the peace during the past few decades. The government in Beijing insists it has a duty to bring about unification—even, as a last resort, by means of invasion. The Taiwanese, who used to agree that their island was part of China (albeit a non-Communist one), have taken to electing governments that stress its separateness, while stopping short of declaring independence. And America has protected Taiwan from Chinese aggression, even though it recognises the government in Beijing. These opposing ideas are bundled into what Fitzgerald’s diplomatic inheritors blithely call the “status quo”. In fact, it is a roiling, seething source of neurosis and doubt.
他們一一列出台美中三方的立場，然後指出：把這個叫做 "Status Quo" 根本就很荒唐啊！這個真的很 roiling, seething, neurotic (要強調的這麼誇張嗎...)。
📌 我發現 The Economist 很喜歡把最重要的結論放在最後面。其他刊物/作者可能會把重點放在最前面："What Fitzgerald's diplomatic inheritors blithely call the "status quo" is in fact a roiling, seething source of neurosis..." 然後再列出三方的立場。
這可能也跟 The Economist 自認的讀者群有關：我認識會看他們東西的人，都是在家或是辦公室，真的坐下來好好看的，所以把重點放在後面還 ok，因為很多讀者會好好看到最後。但你如果寫給「瞄過去」的讀者，就請把重點放在段落最前面。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
🔎 需要更多的分析嗎? 想看完整文章的同學請按個讚和留言「從 Most Dangerous Place 文章，看經濟學人寫作邏輯」。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Presentality系列文章:
📌 看貝佐斯致亞馬遜股東的最後一封信，學一些英文寫作小撇步
https://bit.ly/3xCN1cC
📌 英文演講實用的結構與技巧
https://bit.ly/2PHu3Ax
📌 在演講中的四種敘述角度
https://bit.ly/39tNUtv
📌 詩人Amanda Gorman的英文演講技巧
https://bit.ly/39sI3on
