亂碼賞文（3） | 寫作：做真實的自己

In literature, as in life, one of the fundamentals is to find, and be, one s true self. One s true self may indeed be unpleasant; but a false self, sooner or later, becomes disgusting—just as a nice plain woman, painted to the eyebrows, can become horrid. In writing, in the long run, pretense does not work. As the police put it, anything you say may be used as evidence against you. If handwriting reveals character, writing reveals it still more. You cannot fool your judges all the time.

Most style is not honest enough. Easy to say, but hard to practice. A writer may take to long words, as young men to beards—to impress. But long words like long beards, are often the badge of charlatans. Or a writer may cultivate the obscure, to seem profound. But even carefully muddied puddles are soon fathomed. Or he may cultivate eccentricity, to seem original. But really original people do not have to think about being original—they can no more help it than they can help breathing.

——F. L. Lucas

亂碼試譯

寫文如做人，一個基本原則就是找到並做真實的自己。做真實的自己不見得令人愉快，但做虛偽的自己早晚會令人厭惡——就像一個醜女人，塗脂抹粉，一直塗到眉毛上去，也會變得很可怕一樣。對於寫作這事，從長遠來看，虛假是行不通的。就像警察所說的那樣，你所說的一切都有可能用作為對你不利的證據。字如其人，文亦如其人。你可以騙人一時，但無法欺人一世。

大多數文體都不夠真誠。（寫作這事，）知易行難。一個作家好用大詞，就像年輕男子好蓄鬍須一樣，無非是為了引人注目。但大詞就像鬍鬚一樣，是江湖騙子的標誌。為顯得高深，一個作家可能會採用晦澀難懂的文字。但無論他如何小心翼翼，無論他把這水弄得多渾濁，人們也能很快知其深淺。還有人為追求新奇，把文章寫得古怪。但能寫出新奇感的人從不刻意新奇——對他們來說，這就和呼吸一樣。

辭彙列表：

the fundamentals (of something): the most important ideas, rules etc that something is based on (LDOCE5)

plain: not beautiful or attractive – often used because you want to avoid saying this directly (LDOCE5)

take to: If you take to someone or something, you like them, especially after knowing them or thinking about them for only a short time. (Cobuild)

a badge of something: something that represents a particular quality or type of person (MADAL)

charlatan: someone who cheats people by claiming to have special knowledge or abilities (MADAL)

profound: showing great knowledge and understanding; deep or far below the surface of something (LDOCE5)

puddle: a small pool of liquid, especially rainwater (LDOCE5)

亂碼賞析

1

寫作最重要的事是什麼？盧卡斯說是真誠。

In literature, as in life, one of the fundamentals is to find, and be, one s true self.

「寫文如做人，一個基本原則就是找到並做真實的自己。」

盧卡斯不拐彎抹角，一上來便說做真實的自己是寫文的「基本原則」。fundamental 由拉丁語 fundāmentum 演變而來，其內涵為foundation, basis. 下次當你想說 one of the most important things時，你可以嘗試說 one of the fundamentals.

One s true self may indeed be unpleasant; but a false self,sooner or later, becomes disgusting...

「做真實的自己不見得令人愉快，但做虛偽的自己早晚會令人厭惡。」

這句話格外有張力。不僅是因為有對比（one』s true self, a false self），不僅是因為盧卡斯用詞犀利（disgusting），更是因為有 indeed 和 sooner or later 的烘托。沒有「誠然」，何來「但是」？假者可欺騙一時，但能否欺騙一世？

... —just as a nice plain woman, painted to the eyebrows, can become horrid.

「——就像一個醜女人，塗脂抹粉，一直塗到眉毛上去，也會變得很可怕一樣。」

plain 是委婉語（euphemism）。「相貌平平」？不，就是「丑」。只是文化人不說穿而已。horrid 來自於拉丁語 horridus，指 rough, shaggy, rude, dreadful. nice 在此處並非形容詞，而是副詞，表示「十分地」。

這句話，精彩在比喻。如果前一句的「寫文如做人」還沒有給你留下深刻印象，這裡的「醜女人塗脂抹粉」一定會讓你對盧卡斯的「遠距聯想」能力讚歎有加。

何謂遠距聯想？

1962年，南加利福尼亞大學名譽教授 Sarnoff A. Mednick (a Professor Emeritus at The University of Southern California) 提出遠距聯想理論（theory of associative creativity），認為創造性思考是將聯想得來的元素重新整合的過程。根據各元素間距離的遠近，聯想可分為近距聯想和遠距聯想。遠距聯想能力越強的人，創造力越高。

比喻的本質就是聯想。不論是「像Y一樣的X」（直喻），還是「Y是X」（隱喻），它們的本質都是將X和Y這兩個看似毫無關聯的事物聯繫在一起。X和Y之間距離越近，比喻越平庸；X和Y之間距離越遠，比喻越新奇。偉大的作家往往善於遠距聯想，創造新奇感覺。

類似的好句子數不勝數，試讀：

一種純粹靠讀書學來的真理，與我們的關係，就像假肢、假牙、蠟鼻子甚或人工植皮。而由獨立思考獲得的真理就如我們天生的四肢：只有它們才屬於我們。 ——亞瑟·叔本華（Arthur Schopenhauer）

Pope Boniface VIII. entered, it is said, into his Papacy like a fox, behaved himself in it like a lion, and died like a dog.——Michel de Montaigne, Book the Second

2

In writing, in the long run, pretense does not work. As the police put it, anything you say may be used as evidence against you. If handwriting reveals character, writing reveals it still more. You cannot fool your judges all the time.

「對於寫作這事，從長遠來看，虛假是行不通的。就像警察所說的那樣，你所說的一切都有可能用作為對你不利的證據。字如其人，文亦如其人。你可以騙人一時，但無法欺人一世。」

為了讓我們做真實的自己，盧卡斯不惜派出「警察」嚇唬我們。其實，每一個讀者都是警察，每一個讀者都火眼金睛。你糊弄不了他們的。寫文章，一定要真誠真誠再真誠。

勸我們真誠的，不止盧卡斯一位。

中國自古以來就有「修辭立其誠」的傳統。

子曰：「君子進德修業。忠信所以進德也。修辭立其誠，所以居業也。知至至之，可與幾也。知終終之，可與存義也。是故居上位而不驕，在下位而不憂，故乾乾因其時而惕，雖危無咎矣。」（《周易·乾·文言》）

「進德修業」，意為增進道德與建立功業；因為忠信，故能進德。至於修辭立其誠——「修辭」反映了從巫史作辭、正辭、用辭到春秋時期政教和外交辭令的發展；「立誠」則主要強調歷史傳承的官守職業精神和敬慎持中的文化心理。「修辭立其誠」是要求修辭者持中正之心，懷敬畏之情，對自己的言辭切實承擔責任，採用最好的方式予以表達，並預期達致成功，由此形成了中國文化中「敬言」、「謹言」、「慎言」的優良傳統。

子曰：「情慾信，辭欲巧。」（《禮記?表記》）

「欲」，要。「信」，確實，真實。情理要真誠確實，言辭要妥善得體。

孟子曰：「居下位而不獲於上，民不可得而治也。獲於上有道；不信於友，弗獲於上矣；信於友有道：事親弗悅，弗信於友矣；悅親有道：反身不誠，不悅於親矣；誠身有道：不明乎善，不誠其身矣。是故誠者，天之道也；思誠者，人之道也。至誠而不動者，未之有也；不誠，未有能動者也。」（《孟子·離婁章句上·第十二節》）

孟子說：「職位低下而得不到上司的信任，是不能治理百姓的。要獲得上司的信任也有一定的道路，如果不能得到朋友的信任，也就不能獲得上司的信任。取信於朋友也有一定的道路，如果侍奉父母而不能博得父母的歡心，也就不能得到朋友的信任。博得父母的歡心也有一定的道路，如果反躬自問而不誠心誠意，也就不能博得父母的歡心。要想誠心誠意也有一定的道路，如果不明白什麼是善，也就不能做到真心誠意。因此，所謂的真心誠意，是天的道路；追求真心誠意，是人類的道路。有了至誠的心意而沒有感動別人，是沒有的。不真心誠意，要感動別人也是不可能。」

3

Most style is not honest enough. Easy to say, but hard to practice.

「大多數文體都不夠真誠。（寫作這事，）知易行難。」

A writer may take to long words, as young men to beards—to impress. But long words like long beards, are often the badge of charlatans.

「一個作家好用大詞，就像年輕男子好蓄鬍須一樣，無非是為了引人注目。但大詞就像鬍鬚一樣，是江湖騙子的標誌。」

說完了寫作的「道」（真誠），盧卡斯講起了寫作的「術」。

此處，盧卡斯把「大詞」比作「鬍子」，告誡我們勿濫用大詞。喻體「鬍子」與前文「醜女人塗脂抹粉」有異曲同工之妙。

美國作家馬克·吐溫也說過類似的話，試讀：

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — it』s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.——Mark Twain

Mark Twain described how a good writer treats sentences: 「At times he may indulge himself with a long one, but he will make sure there are no folds in it, no vaguenesses, no parenthetical interruptions of its view as a whole; when he has done with it, it won』t be a sea-serpent with half of its arches under the water; it will be a torch-light procession.」 (The Economist Style Guide)

從 the lightning bug 到 the lightning，從 a sea-serpent with half of its arches under the water 到 torch-light procession，馬克·吐溫在這兩句話中創造的意象妙不可言。

文豪畢竟是文豪。

用詞如此重要，我們究竟該怎樣用詞？

台灣詩人余光中如是說：

古人之言，或言簡意賅，或深入淺出，或音調響亮，或結構勻稱，或形象鮮明，歷千百年而不衰，反而愈說愈順口（愈寫愈順手），乃成為成語。（《中文不朽——兼論成語與格言》）

余光中先生是中文的捍衛者，但這句話里的道理，既適用於中文，又適用於英文。

大師終究是大師。

Or a writer may cultivate the obscure, to seem profound. But even carefully muddied puddles are soon fathomed.

「為顯得高深，一個作家可能會採用晦澀難懂的文字。但無論他如何小心翼翼，無論他把這水弄得多渾濁，人們也能很快知其深淺。」

玩完直喻後，盧卡斯玩起了隱喻：池子的深度即作者的水平。拋幾個冷字僻詞就可以顯得自己高深莫測？自欺欺人罷了。讀者比你想像得聰明得多。

作家的任務，絕不是賣弄學識，而是向讀者展示自己眼中的世界。正如認知語言學家史蒂芬·平克所言：

The writer can see something that the reader has not yet noticed, and he orients the reader』s gaze so that she can see it for herself. The purpose of writing is presentation, and its motive is disinterested truth. It succeeds when it aligns language with the truth, the proof of success being clarity and simplicity. The truth can be known, and is not the same as the language that reveals it; prose is a window onto the world. (The Sense of Style)

平克肯定會認同盧卡斯所說的，「池子」濁不得（the proof of success being clarity and simplicity）。在平克看來，文章是望向世界的窗（prose is a window onto the world）。

4

Or he may cultivate eccentricity, to seem original. But really original people do not have to think about being original—they can no more help it than they can help breathing.

「還有人為追求新奇，把文章寫得古怪。但能寫出新奇感的人從不刻意新奇——對他們來說，這就和呼吸一樣。」

刻意求怪以顯得與眾不同？恐怕只會適得其反吧。寫作哪有那麼容易。

盧卡斯說得對。寫作這事，天賦太重要。無論你多努力，你這輩子也難以超越張愛玲、海明威、阿西莫夫。

盧卡斯也說得不對。寫作這事，天賦並非唯一。冰山在海里移動是很莊嚴宏偉的，因為它只有八分之一露在水面。

剩下八分之七在哪？在刻意練習。

世人只知海明威因《老人與海》榮獲諾獎，但不知海明威為這個故事構思了近二十年（參見「知識清單」第三點），更不知他為了精益求精，把故事的結局修改了近四十遍。

當海明威把《老人與海》的手稿交給編輯時，他自信地說這是他最好的作品：「I know that it is the best I can write ever for all of my life, I think, and that it destroys good and able work by being placed alongside of it.」

但在1954年發表獲獎演講時，海明威還說道：

Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writers loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day. For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed.

對於一個真正的作家來說，每寫完一本書只是標誌著他要寫出更高水平的書的開始。

張愛玲從小就顯露出天才的一面，12歲就發表了短篇小說《不幸的她》。但直到24歲她才寫出了《紅玫瑰與白玫瑰》，直到31歲才寫出了《半生緣》——她把一個女人最好的年歲全拿去寫文了。

與張愛玲同年出生的阿西莫夫則更加勤快，終其一生著書近五百本，即便勞體傷身（長年累月坐在打字前自然對身體不利），婚姻破裂，也在所不惜。

為什麼阿西莫夫如此痴狂？

阿西莫夫自己說：「我不為別的，只為寫作而活著。我寫作的原因，如同呼吸一樣；如果不這樣做，我就會死去。」

所以盧卡斯說錯了，即便對於神級作家，創造新奇也並非如呼吸那般容易。他們只是把寫作當成了生命。

小結

• 寫文如做人，基本原則是真誠。字如其人，文亦如其人。你可以騙人一時，但無法欺人一世。

• 勿濫用大詞，勿賣弄學識。作家的任務，是向讀者展示自己眼中的世界；文章是望向世界的窗。

• 寫作這事，天賦並非唯一。神級作家之所以神，是因為他們把寫作當成了生命。

知識清單：

1.Frank Laurence Lucas

Frank Laurence Lucas (28 December 1894 – 1 June 1967) was an English classical scholar, literary critic, poet, novelist, playwright, political polemicist, Fellow of Kings College, Cambridge, and intelligence officer at Bletchley Park during World War II.

He is now best remembered for his scathing 1923 review of T. S. Eliots The Waste Land, and for his book Style(1955; revised 1962), an acclaimed guide to recognising and writing good prose.

(Wikipedia)

2.Style: The Art of Writing Well

3.海明威構思《老人與海》近二十年

In 1936, Hemingway wrote an essay for Esquire that contained a paragraph describing an "old man fishing alone in a skiff out of Caba?as" who hooked a big marlin that dragged him eastward for two days. The man killed the fish and then fought off sharks attracted to its blood. When the man was finally picked up, "what was left of the fish, less than half, weighed eight hundred pounds." Two years later, Hemingway started writing The Old Man and the Sea, but then got sidetracked by For Whom the Bell Tolls. By the time he returned to the story, it had been percolating in his brain for at least 16 years.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64363/11-facts-about-hemingways-old-man-and-sea

亂碼一下

微信公眾號後台回復「Style: The Art of Writing Well」獲取本書下載鏈接。

下期預告

Obviously historiography cannot be a science. It can only be an industry, an art, and a philosophy—an industry by ferreting out the facts, an art by establishing a meaningful order in the chaos of materials, a philosophy by seeking perspective and enlightenment. "The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding" —or so we believe and hope. In philosophy we try to see the part in the light of the whole; in the "philosophy of history" we try to see this moment in the light of the past. We know that in both cases this is a counsel of perfection; total perspective is an optical illusion. We do not know the whole of mans history; there were probably many civilizations before the Sumerian or the Egyptian; we have just begun to dig! We must operate with partial knowledge, and be provisionally content with probabilities; in history, as in science and politics, relativity rules, and all formulas should be suspect. "History smiles at all attempts to force its flow into theoretical patterns or logical grooves; it plays havoc with our generalizations, breaks all our rules; history is baroque." Perhaps, within these limits, we can learn enough from history to bear reality patiently, and to respect one anothers delusions.

——Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History

「I had never learned English—until I met LM.」

歡迎關注微信公眾號：亂碼與英文