文藝與道德Art and Morality

王鼎鈞 蔡力堅(jiān)

人與人的行為交叉互動(dòng)，行為從人性出發(fā)1，包括道德不道德，也包括表面道德其實(shí)不道德，或表面不道德其實(shí)道德。文學(xué)作品既然表現(xiàn)人生，作家就要考慮到人的復(fù)雜，不能以道德予以簡化。

以短篇小說而論，文評(píng)家說它寫的是“一個(gè)人，遇見一個(gè)問題，他想了一個(gè)辦法來解決，得到結(jié)果”。進(jìn)一步推演，它是“一個(gè)性格突出的人，遇見一個(gè)非常的問題，他想了一個(gè)獨(dú)特的方法來解決，得到意料之外的結(jié)果”。從文學(xué)理論家的界說可以看出道德的局限，道德常常傾向于不作為2，而且往往難以解決“不道德”的問題3，看來“不甚道德”的人比較能干一些，軍隊(duì)作戰(zhàn)的時(shí)候，往往是平時(shí)“調(diào)皮搗蛋”的分子有能力完成任務(wù)。一個(gè)單位里如果個(gè)個(gè)君子，難免單調(diào)沉悶，一旦進(jìn)來一個(gè)“通權(quán)達(dá)變不拘細(xì)行”的新同事，馬上古井生波，軼聞?wù)乒赎懤m(xù)產(chǎn)生，人人眉宇5間多了些朝氣。

道德缺少戲劇性，戲劇性是文學(xué)作品的一個(gè)成分6，它常由壞人產(chǎn)生，所以戲劇中不能全是好人。從前地方戲的口訣“戲不夠神仙救”，時(shí)代戲的口訣“戲不夠壞人救”;從前說“無女人不成戲”，現(xiàn)在說“無壞人不成戲”。7兩句話的意思其實(shí)差不多，前代編導(dǎo)歧視女性，常把女人塑成負(fù)面角色，利用她推動(dòng)情節(jié)。

我們常說“百善”“萬惡”。善行大致類似，罪惡的行為則千奇百怪，匪夷所思。你想捐錢給紅十字會(huì)嗎？那很容易，技術(shù)上沒什么挑戰(zhàn)性，如果是向官員行賄就不同，你得夠聰明機(jī)巧，有幾分發(fā)明天才。捐款的經(jīng)過平鋪直敘，行賄的經(jīng)過卻可能很有趣或者很曲折，你愿意聽一個(gè)行賄的故事還是聽捐獻(xiàn)的故事？

給歹角編戲難度高，編導(dǎo)先得自己“夠壞”。好萊塢電影常常成為壞人作奸犯科的教材：香港一名大盜，開著挖土機(jī)挖掉銀行門側(cè)的自動(dòng)取款機(jī)，那玩意兒的重量是七百五十公斤，他是看電影、學(xué)作案。紐約一名強(qiáng)盜坐在輪椅上，腿上蓋著毯子，由一名女子推進(jìn)銀行，那男子突然掀開毯子，拔出手槍，這一對雌雄盜也承認(rèn)他們作案的手法由電影學(xué)來。

中國的京戲不外“忠孝節(jié)義”，那是大處著眼，但戲劇是由許多細(xì)節(jié)組成，京戲?qū)θ诵牡募樵p險(xiǎn)惡做了“有情的揭露”，入木三分但不失忠厚，壞人竭盡聰明機(jī)巧，最后卻成全了好人，這是京戲的風(fēng)格。究竟是哪一部分叫看戲的人津津樂道呢？是壞人做了些什么，不是好人最后得到了什么。曹操欺負(fù)漢獻(xiàn)帝，能使一個(gè)莊稼漢跳上戲臺(tái)把曹操殺死，郭子儀勤王能有這樣的效果嗎？

作家常以“不道德”或“非道德”為創(chuàng)新的手段。例如，“夫婦互相體諒”是道德典范，也是故事陳套，推陳出新的方法之一是反其道而行。有一個(gè)人在家中舉行宴會(huì)，慶祝結(jié)婚二十周年，至親好友來做長夜之飲，突然發(fā)現(xiàn)男主人不見了，大家到處尋找，在后院的石凳上找到他，只見他丟掉領(lǐng)帶，敞露前胸，手里提著空空的酒瓶發(fā)呆。朋友問他怎么了，他說：“結(jié)婚后三個(gè)月我就發(fā)現(xiàn)無法跟她共同生活，她又堅(jiān)決不肯離婚，我想殺了她。律師告訴我，你如果那樣做了，法院會(huì)判你二十年徒刑，二十年太長了，我只好忍下來。你看，今天二十年了，如果我當(dāng)初殺死她，今天我也自由了！我好后悔啊！”它顯然不道德，然而很精彩，作家很難抵抗這種誘惑。

戲劇不允許好人做單調(diào)的表演12，如果引入壞人，那歹角可能奪走觀眾的注意力。戲劇情節(jié)向高潮發(fā)展，可以把不道德推向極端，相形之下，道德的揮灑空間較小。例如那一部叫作《色·戒》的影片，獻(xiàn)身抗戰(zhàn)的美女愛上他們要暗殺的大漢奸，泄漏了機(jī)密，以致參與行動(dòng)的愛國青年全體喪生。故事顯然違背道德家的要求，但是戲“好看”，道德家能提出更好的設(shè)計(jì)嗎？? ? ? ? ? □

Human interaction reflects human nature. It includes both moral and immoral acts. It also includes acts that seem moral but are in fact immoral， and those that seem immoral but are in fact moral. To depict human life truthfully， literary writers should try to capture this complexity without relying on an over-simplified moral yardstick.

Take short stories. Critics suggest that these stories explain how an individual encounters a problem and how he copes with and solves it. Or better yet， they should be about how a very special individual encounters a very special problem and how he comes up with a unique solution that leads to an unexpected result. The formula advanced by critics seems to point to a limit to morality’s reach. Often moral agency isn’t proactive. It could be hard to rely on it to overcome what’s immoral. Besides， those who seem morally dubious are often better at achieving results. For example， when the armed forces are engaged in combat operations， those usually mischievous members tend to be more effective at getting the job done. An organization staffed only with morally rigid individuals would be mired in boredom. The arrival of a new colleague unbound by convention and more prone to push the envelope4 would bring a breath of fresh air， generating stories that attract the attention of many and injecting life into a stifling workplace environment.

Morality is short on drama， a key ingredient of literature. Drama often relies on the role of a villain， and its absence would be keenly felt in a story populated only by good guys. In the olden days， the standard recipe for an enhanced dramatic effect called for enlisting the help of either supernatural beings or a female character， whereas modern plays are spiced up by the presence of a villain. The role of a female character was essentially the same as that of a bad guy， because back then women were discriminated against and relegated to an anti-hero role needed for adding plot twists.

We often use the numerical term “hundreds” when talking about good deeds， but use “tens of thousands” to highlight the vast multitudes of evils. This peculiar language feature reflects a relative similarity between good deeds and an abundant variety of evils. Making a donation to the Red Cross isn’t a technically challenging feat， whereas an attempt to bribe an official entails guile and ingenuity. It’s pretty dull to see how a donation is made， but it can be enthralling to follow the twists and turns in a bribery scheme. Which story， then， do you like to hear？

It’s a tall order to create a compelling black hat8. For starters， screenwriters and directors would have to be “devious enough” themselves. Indeed， Hollywood movies often become textbooks for criminals. A robber in Hong Kong drove an excavator to remove an ATM—which weighed 750 kilograms—from the side entrance to a bank. He took his cue9 from a movie. A criminal in New York sat in a wheelchair， his legs covered with a blanket， and was pushed into a bank by a lady. Once inside， the man removed the blanket to reveal his gun. Later， they also acknowledged that their heist was inspired by crime movies.

Beijing opera stories are presented within the framework of traditional Chinese values of loyalty， filial piety， moral integrity and ethical living. They do， however， contain many subplots about treachery and deception. Criticism is usually measured， though at times incisive. Good always prevails over evil. Black hats display consummate duplicity only to benefit a good cause. That’s the usual storyline of Beijing opera. Which part of a play is more captivating？ A villain’s intrigue or a hero’s reward？ Once when a scene was being played out where Cao Cao， a devious warlord10， humiliated the beloved11 emperor of the Han dynasty， a country bumpkin charged onto the stage and killed the warlord. Can a story of moral triumph match such enthralling power？

Writers often experiment with what’s considered immoral or not moral when they try to be innovative. For example， a time-honored ethical rule calls for mutual understanding between husband and wife. Many trite stories are based on this rule. One way to buck convention is to run counter to it. Thus， a new story goes as follows. A man hosted a banquet at home celebrating his 20th wedding anniversary， and invited his relatives and friends. But the host went missing amidst all the wining and dining. His guests looked for him everywhere and finally found him on a stone bench in his backyard， dazed and disheveled， his tie gone， his chest bared， an empty wine bottle in his hand. His friends asked him what was wrong. He said， “Three months after I got married， I realized there was no way I could get along with her， but she refused to end our marriage. I wanted to kill her， but my lawyer said I’d be put behind bars for twenty years if I did that. Twenty years would be too long， I thought. I had no choice but to put up with the pain of this loveless marriage. Now twenty years is gone. If I had killed her back then， I would have been freed today. I regret I didn’t do it.” This is obviously an immoral tale. But it’s captivating. The temptation to write a story like this is too strong to resist.

To add drama to a story， we often have to fall back on bad guys. But they may well steal the show. A movement toward a story’s climax may propel immorality to a new level. By contrast， morality’s reach is more limited. In a movie called “Lust， Caution”， a beautiful girl devoted to the pursuit of liberation fell in love with a traitor whom her resistance group had planned to assassinate. Overcome by emotion， she divulged the secret， resulting in the arrest and execution of all young patriots involved in the scheme. This story violates the teachings of moralists—big time. But it’s riveting. Can moralists propose a better storyline？

1如果按照中文組合方式來翻譯，這句話可能被譯成：Actions between persons are interactions， and actions start from human nature. 但問題在于，如果如此照顧了字面意思，照顧了原文結(jié)構(gòu)，譯文就既不“信”，也不“達(dá)”，更不“雅”。對于“人與人的行為交叉互動(dòng)”這一描述，在英文里用human interaction兩個(gè)詞即可涵蓋，從意義上來說已經(jīng)毫無遺漏之處，而如果仿照中文單詞及其主謂組合方式，譯文就會(huì)極度累贅，令人無法忍受。另外，“行為從人性出發(fā)”也不宜按字面意思處理，稱actions start from human nature沒有意義。? 2原文里的“不作為”本來是一個(gè)法律用語，是指行為人負(fù)有實(shí)施某種行為的特定義務(wù)卻在能夠履行的情況下不予履行。這一用法在英文里的對應(yīng)詞一般為omission。但在本文語境里，情況完全不是這樣，翻譯時(shí)如果只關(guān)注字面意思，硬把omission塞在此處，很可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生令人啼笑皆非的效果。

3“解決……問題”是中文里極為常用的一種結(jié)構(gòu)，可用于各種不同的語境，不少譯者一見到“解決……問題”就不假思索地將其譯成solve the problem of…。雖然在某些語境中這樣譯或許未嘗不可，但在多數(shù)情況下，這樣譯會(huì)顯得多余或離奇，一般情況下我們只需說明問題所涉情況本身，而不必設(shè)法保留“問題”兩字。? 4 push the envelope意為approach or extend the limits of what is possible，相當(dāng)于“通權(quán)達(dá)變不拘細(xì)行”。? 5對于諸如“人人”“眉宇”等詞語，沒有必要硬譯，“人人”即表示一種工作環(huán)境，用workplace environment來表示未嘗不可。當(dāng)然，翻譯沒有固定模式，只要能在確保“達(dá)意”的基礎(chǔ)上反映內(nèi)在含義，任何一種處理方式都是可以的，前提是不偏離文章主題和思路，確保前后銜接，確保原文的所有信息要素均得到再現(xiàn)。? 6原文里“道德缺少戲劇性”和“戲劇性是文學(xué)作品的一個(gè)成分”為兩個(gè)獨(dú)立的分句，如果在譯文里保留這一結(jié)構(gòu)，容易導(dǎo)致累贅，不如合并處理。我們的關(guān)注點(diǎn)永遠(yuǎn)在于全面確切傳遞內(nèi)在含義，而不應(yīng)拘泥于原文的形式框架，因此對接下去兩個(gè)分句的處理也是一樣，譯文結(jié)構(gòu)完全依照譯文表達(dá)的需要，所以參考譯文里relies on、absence、keenly felt等在單詞層面的含義在原文里是否具備無關(guān)緊要。

7作者靠中文詞語的押韻達(dá)到特定效果，但這種組合只適用于中文，因?yàn)閺膬?nèi)容上來看，兩句話有重復(fù)，都包含了“壞人”的要素。中文兩句話內(nèi)容重復(fù)不要緊，因?yàn)檠喉嵉奶厥庑Ч泻土酥貜?fù)的累贅性。另外，中文對重復(fù)容忍度很高，而英文對重復(fù)的容忍度很低，對邏輯合理性的要求卻很高。即使我們想盡辦法在英文里編出兩個(gè)同樣押韻的對仗句子，只要內(nèi)容有重復(fù)，仍然是不可取的，在英文里押韻的效果無法抵消重復(fù)的累贅。? 8 black hat即“歹角”。

9 to take one’s cue的意思是to model one’s actions based on the example or influence of someone or something else，在此表示仿效（電影里的）手法。? 10曹操在中文里人人皆知，自然不需要另加說明，但如果要在譯文里保留曹操這個(gè)名字，我們就不得不作補(bǔ)充說明，故添加了a devious warlord作為同位語。? 11與注10所述情況一樣，僅僅說emperor of the Han dynasty似乎不夠。為了烘托刺殺行為的無恥，添加了修飾詞beloved。

12“戲劇不允許好人做單調(diào)的表演”，換句話說就是，利用壞人增加戲劇性。