亂碼賞文（1）| 我們都會死去

來自專欄 亂碼賞文

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

——Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

生詞列表

exceed: to be greater than a number or amount (MEDAL)

stupefying: making you unable to think clearly, for example because you are very bored; making you feel extremely surprised or shocked (MEDAL)

privilege: An especially rare or fortunate opportunity; the good fortune (to do something). (Wiktionary)

whine: to complain in a sad annoying voice about something (LDOCE5)

stir: if you do not stir from a place, you do not leave it or move away from it (MEDAL)

亂碼賞析

短短几句話，道金斯便翻轉了我們對死亡的看法。

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.

好文章的開頭總能刺激讀者的神經。「我們都會死去」， 一上來，道金斯便讓讀者心頭一顫。他沒有用 will，更沒有說 We will all die someday 這種陳詞濫調。We are going to die, ... 五個詞，短促有力，重音落在句尾的 die，彷彿在說，死亡是我們想逃卻逃不掉的宿命。

失落後是驚奇：「我們是幸運的那群」。... and that makes us the lucky ones. 小詞接小詞，一輕一重，一抑一揚，節奏明快。讀罷整句，lucky 一詞便烙在腦海：它呼應了前面的 die。make 則揭示了因果：因為死亡，所以幸運。

為什麼死亡反倒幸運？

Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.

「大多數人從來就不會死亡，因為他們從來就不會誕生」。道金斯單刀直入，用一個 because 串起了一對排比句，用兩個 never 加強了效果。... are never going to be born 是 ... are never going to die 的解釋；而 be born 恰好是 die 的對立面。驚奇後還有驚奇。

The potential people who could have been here in my place butwho will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.

如果前兩句還不足打動你，讀罷這句，你一定會對生命和概率多一分敬畏。如果想展現反差，虛擬語氣（who could have been here in my place）和「實際上」（in fact）或許是天生一對。言外之意是「他們本有機會看到光亮」。整句話不能再凄涼。

the light of day, the sand grains of Arabia, 讀來朗朗上口，品來詩意濃濃。「一縷陽光」雖好，從未活過的人看不到。我是何其幸運！那些本可取代我的人的數量，超過了「阿拉伯的滾滾黃沙」。「光」和「沙」都屬於進化早期辭彙。相比「生命」和「無數」這種抽象辭彙，它們更具象，更能擊中讀者內心。

Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton.

排比後還有排比，押韻後還有押韻。比濟慈和牛頓更偉大的生命？不，他們只是「還未誕生的幽靈」。

We know this because the set of possible people allowed by ourDNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people.

道金斯是無神論者。他不信上帝，又怎麼會信幽靈？他信的，是組合和概率。

在 who could have been here in my place, see the light of day, unborn ghosts 後，道金斯沒有再創造新的意象，而是用了 possible people, actual people 這對平庸的表達。他詞窮了嗎？不，他只是想突出「基因」罷了。

優秀的作家知道如何聚焦。道金斯之所以用 people 這一抽象表達，是因為他不想讓你過分關注它。這句話的焦點，在 DNA。

這句話的動詞也相當有分量。exceeds 讀來不能更有力；so massively exceeds 則解釋了前一句的 certainly.

In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

我們如此平庸，卻得以逃脫死亡的齜牙咧嘴，來到了這裡。回頭看，又有多少人能穿過這生命之縫？這幾率，用 impossible, incredible, 不足形容。此處，道金斯用的 stupefying 可謂神來之筆。這幾率，把我們嚇傻了（stupid），讓我們恍惚（stupor），讓我們茫然。

We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

活著就是奇蹟。要知道，大多數人永遠都被困在死亡狀態（... have never stirred），他們永遠都無法獲得生命的彩券（won the lottery of birth）。沒錯，死亡依然是我們無法避免的宿命（inevitable return），但我和你，我們這群幸運兒（We privileged few），又有什麼底氣去哭啼去抱怨（how dare we whine at ...）？

知識清單

1.理查德·道金斯

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author.

Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term, meme.

Dawkins is an atheist, and is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.

2.《解析彩虹》

Unweaving the Rainbow (subtitled "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder") is a 1998 book by Richard Dawkins, discussing the relationship between science and the arts from the perspective of a scientist.

亂碼一下

微信公眾號後台回復「Unweaving the Rainbow」獲取本書下載鏈接。

下期預告

AMID the spicy anecdotes, superficial insights, sycophancy, score-settling and casual loutishness displayed in a new memoir of Donald Trump』s election campaign, 「Let Trump be Trump」, by Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, the two essential characteristics of Trumpland shine through. One is a permanent state of confusion, and sometimes chaos, attending a campaign that initially did no opinion polling, had no detailed policies, set its communications strategy by whatever crazy thing Mr Trump had just made up, was mainly staffed by people who 「wouldn』t know the difference between a caucus and a cactus」, and whose top logistical priority was co-ordinating the tycoon』s post-rally return to his plane with the arrival of a warm Big Mac. It fell to Mr Lewandowski, as campaign manager, to perform that task, which he considers 「as important as any other aspect of [Mr Trump』s] march to the presidency」. He had it lucky. The campaign』s press secretary, Hope Hicks, who is now the White House communications director, was charged with steaming Mr Trump』s trousers, while he was wearing them.

——The Economist December 9th 2017, Lexington: The Limits of the Law

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

歡迎公眾微信公眾號：亂碼與英文