E. J. Epstein: An A from Nabokov

以下是《纽约书评》(The New York Review of Books)上的一篇文章,记录了有关纳博科夫的一件轶事。新闻工作者E·J·爱泼斯坦1954年在康奈尔读书,选修了纳博科夫的课。有一次纳要求学生描绘安娜卡列尼娜和V首次相遇的火车站,爱泼斯坦课前没读书,凭电影胡说一气,碰巧印证了纳关于小说激发头脑影像的理论,得了A,还受雇每周向老师汇报本周新电影,后因不知俄国作品除了俄国性之外有何共同点而失宠……

An A from Nabokov

April 4, 2013

Edward Jay Epstein

I wandered into Lit 311 at the beginning of my sophomore year at Cornell in September 1954. It was not that I had any interest in European literature, or any literature. I was just shopping for a class that met on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings so that I wouldn’t have any Saturday classes, and “literature” also filled one of the requirements for graduation. It was officially called “European Literature of the Nineteenth Century,” but unofficially called “Dirty Lit” by the Cornell Daily Sun, since it dealt with adultery in Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary.

The professor was Vladimir Nabokov, an émigré from tsarist Russia. About six feet tall and balding, he stood, with what I took to be an aristocratic bearing, on the stage of the two-hundred-fifty-seat lecture hall in Goldwin Smith. Facing him on the stage was his white-haired wife Vera, whom he identified only as “my course assistant.” He made it clear from the first lecture that he had little interest in fraternizing with students, who would be known not by their name but by their seat number. Mine was 121. He said his only rule was that we could not leave his lecture, even to use the bathroom, without a doctor’s note.

He then described his requisites for reading the assigned books. He said we did not need to know anything about their historical context, and that we should under no circumstance identify with any of the characters in them, since novels are works of pure invention. The authors, he continued, had one and only one purpose: to enchant the reader. So all we needed to appreciate them, aside from a pocket dictionary and a good memory, was our own spines. He assured us that the authors he had selected—Leo Tolstoy, Nikolai Gogol, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Jane Austen, Franz Kafka, Gustave Flaubert, and Robert Louis Stevenson—would produce tingling we could detect in our spines.

So began the course. Unfortunately, distracted by the gorges, lakes, movie houses, corridor dates, and other more local enchantments of Ithaca, I did not get around to reading any of Anna Karenina before Nabokov sprang a pop quiz. It consisted of an essay question: “Describe the train station in which Anna first met Vronsky.”

Initially, I was stymied by this question because, having not yet read the book, I did not know how Tolstoy had portrayed the station. But I did recall the station shown in the 1948 movie starring Vivien Leigh. Having something of an eidetic memory, I was able to visualize a vulnerable-looking Leigh in her black dress wandering through the station, and, to fill the exam book, I described in great detail everything shown in the movie, from a bearded vendor hawking tea in a potbellied copper samovar to two white doves practically nesting overhead. Only after the exam did I learn that many of the details I described from the movie were not in the book. Evidently, the director Julien Duvivier had had ideas of his own. Consequently, when Nabokov asked “seat 121” to report to his office after class, I fully expected to be failed, or even thrown out of Dirty Lit.

What I had not taken into account was Nabokov’s theory that great novelists create pictures in the minds of their readers that go far beyond what they describe in the words in their books. In any case, since I was presumably the only one taking the exam to confirm his theory by describing what was not in the book, and since he apparently had no idea of Duvivier’s film, he not only gave me the numerical equivalent of an A, but offered me a one-day-a-week job as an “auxiliary course assistant.” I was to be paid $10 a week. Oddly enough, it also involved movies. Every Wednesday, the movies changed at the four theaters in downtown Ithaca, called by Nabokov “the near near,” “the near far,” “the far near,” and “the far far.” My task, which used up most of my weekly payment, was to see all four new movies on Wednesday and Thursday, and then brief him on them on Friday morning. He said that since he had time to see only one movie, this briefing would help him decide which one of them, if any, to see. It was a perfect job for me: I got paid for seeing movies.

All went well for the next couple of months. I had caught up with the reading, and greatly enjoyed my Friday morning chats with Nabokov in his office on the second floor of Goldwin Smith. Even though they rarely lasted more than five minutes, it made me the envy of other students in Dirty Lit. Vera was usually sitting across the desk from him, making me feel as though I had interrupted their extended study date. My undoing came just after he had lectured on Gogol’s Dead Souls.

The day before I had seen The Queen of Spades, a 1949 British film based on Alexander Pushkin’s 1833 short story. It concerned a Russian officer who, in his desperation to win at cards, murdered an elderly Russian countess while trying to learn her secret method of picking cards in the game of faro. He seemed uninterested in having me recount the plot, which he must have known well, but his head shot up when I said in conclusion that it reminded me of Dead Souls. Vera also turned around and stared directly at me. Peering intently at me, he asked, “Why do you think that?”

I instantly realized I had made a remark that apparently connected with a view he had, or was developing, concerning these two Russian writers. At that point, I should have left the office, making some excuse about needing to give the question more thought. Instead, I said pathetically, “They are both Russian.”

His face dropped, and Vera turned back to face him. While my gig continued for several more weeks, it was never the same.

 

Copyright © 1963-2013 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

小人物的大爱世界——读任晓雯《阳台上》

王飞同学悟性颇高。读完 @任晓雯 的小说集《阳台上》后,草草写下了以下感受。虽然比较初略,但对作品的感受还是比较到位的:抓住了《阳台上》引人入胜之处。与同好者分享:

小人物的大爱世界——读任晓雯《阳台上》

(王飞)

阳台上有很多书打动你不是因为它有着华丽的外表和页面设计,也不是因为内容多么地惊心动魄,扣人心弦,更不是因为你从中能得到多么丰富的人生大哲理,而仅仅可能只是因为简单的文字,朴实的人物,似真而又掺以虚构的情节,读着这样的书,你会发现好像你是在读自己身边熟悉的人的故事,有时候,也许是你自己曾经的故事。青年作家任晓雯的《阳台上》就是这样的一部作品,水墨画般淡雅的封皮,简洁明了的标题,没有浮夸的语言,没有刻意雕饰的情节,但就是那么能抓住你,好像一杯白酒,看似清淡如水,一饮而尽却会有一种被灼伤的感觉,令人印象深刻。

这部小说集的开篇是《阳台上》,一个关于拆迁的故事。主人公张英雄的父亲因为一次拆迁的赔偿问题被活活气死,为了给父亲报仇,张英雄盯上了拆迁项目的负责人陆志强,想要伺机报复,但在这个报复计划酝酿的过程中,张英雄偷窥到了陆志强的白痴女儿陆姗姗,他的报复也随之发生了改变。小说的开始,弥漫着一股令人感到窒息的沉闷气氛,“空气中有股烂纸头的味道。一只死老鼠,被车轮碾成一摊浅灰的皮,粘在路中央”。正如这过街被碾碎的老鼠,主人公张英雄就是一个容易被社会忽视的小人物,他学历不高,性格懦弱,没有工作,在人群中绝对是属于不起眼的那一型。作者有意把他叫做“英雄”,一方面是表现他父母对他的期望,另一方面,也是一种暗讽,张英雄不是英雄,而只是一介生活在社会底层的草根。

拆迁不是一个陌生的话题,但对于大部分人来说,那些与体制抗争的最牛钉子户其实只不过是他们茶余饭后的聊资而已,谈不上有多么了解这些拆迁户的世界。而《阳台上》选择了关注这样的一个群体,但作者并不是为了在纸上传达愤怒和惨烈,而是认为“文学关注具体的人,它对体制的不苟同,对社会问题的介入,也应该站在人的立场”。正是基于这样的一种认识,我们在《阳台上》虽然看到了愤怒,看到了悲伤,看到了底层小人物的无奈与心酸,但却发现这些都不是文章想要表达的重点。当故事开篇张英雄怀揣着折叠刀,鬼祟地跟踪陆姗姗的时候,我们在猜想也许接下来是一场血腥的报复。然而,随着张英雄对陆志强和陆姗姗的偷窥,这个小人物发现了其实他眼里所谓的报复对象,也只不过是一位可怜的父亲和他可怜的女儿而已。因为智力缺陷,陆姗姗经常受到别人的鄙视,甚至她的未婚夫也只是为了她父亲所能提供的财产才愿意娶她为妻,但就是这样一个活在自己世界中的女孩,却慢慢消融了张英雄内心的仇恨和愤怒。当故事结尾,我们都以为张英雄要对陆姗姗下手的时候,他只是紧紧地抱住了这个姑娘,然后将她放走,当陆姗姗“消失在一片金色之中”时,故事也画上了句号,但余留给我们的震撼,却久久不能消散。同样渴望爱,缺乏爱的两个小人物,在彼此的身上感受到了爱的能量,它可以消除偏见,战胜仇恨,就像作者说的,“仇恨从来就不是解药——无论在现实中,还是文学中”。

在今天这个物欲横流的社会,爱好像已经成为了稀缺品,网络鼓吹着“高富帅”、“白富美”,而现实生活中,物质和感情的较量也时时在上演。《冬天里》就是一个关于家庭、爱情、亲情和物质的故事。和张英雄一样,主人公张大民同样是一个普普通通的小人物,和妻子钱秀娟结婚多年,在家庭出现经济困难前,一家人也曾有过快乐幸福的日子。但在经济的压力面前,夫妻俩却越出现了无法弥补的沟壑,妻子为了追求更多的财富,选择了另外一种生活,最后在家庭和物质的选择题中,她选择了后者。而那个深爱着妻子和家庭的男人,找了各种发泄的途径,却还是无法逃脱对自己妻子的爱,只能在冰冷的冬天面对感情逝去的现实。有人常说,夫妻可以同甘,但不能共苦,这种说法其实太过极端,但未必不够真实。《冬天里》将视角转向了一对平民夫妻,但却同时表现出了人在面对物质和诱惑时的脆弱和可悲,但在叹息这些小人物的可悲之余,你又会发现其实感情一直都在,就算是受到现实的打压和摧残,我们还是能感受到那一丝丝令人痛心的爱在苦苦挣扎。张大民最后没有背叛妻子,却误将那个年轻的女孩当成了自己的妻子,也许妻子的背叛给他带来了极大的痛苦,也许他曾经想过报复,但最后那一刻对爱情和家庭的坚守,让我们看到了爱的希望,也引发了我们对现实的思考。

青年作家任晓雯

和《冬天里》的张大民一样,《枪声如雨》让我们认识了另外一个小人物—王飞超。初读这篇小说,会勾起我们读纳博科夫的《洛丽塔》的回忆,但主人公王飞超不是亨伯特,而那年轻的女网友也不是洛丽塔。有的人在面对痛苦的过去时,选择逃避,伪装坚强,而有些人,希望别人能够倾听他们的内心,帮助他们走出过去。王飞超就是一个被困在一段恐怖的回忆中走不出来的中年男子,和他有着同样经历的妻子则选择逃避,用伪装的坚强来拒绝过去,甚至抵触倾听丈夫的内心。和妻子之间的缺乏沟通,让王飞超开始寻求肉体刺激的解决途径,他约会女网友,却等来了为了报复前男友而放纵自己的年轻女孩。两颗寂寞的心仿佛找到了沟通的枢纽,没有肉体的交易,有的只是彼此的倾诉和聆听。在现代的社会,我们经常会被寂寞所束缚,科技是更发达了,一个电话,一封email,我们马上就能联系到彼此,但奇怪的是,我们的假面具越来越紧,好像脱不下来了,太多的警惕和顾虑,让我们暗自将彼此越推越远,有时甚至是最亲密的朋友,也害怕将自己的伤口掀开给他们看,因为我们越来越怕受伤。而故事中,毫不知根知底的两个陌生人,在受到最亲密的人的伤害后,竟然愿意把自己最真实的,甚至是丑陋的内心世界展示给彼此,因为他们同样缺乏爱,缺乏关注。我们很多人也一样,在追逐名和利的世界里,我们常常会觉得很累,而有时候,你发现你的世界是寂寞的,因为没有人愿意停下他的脚步,来问你为什么很累。沟通和爱是我们不能缺少的,无论是在文学世界里,还是在你我的生活之中。

小人物的爱也有很多种,而亲情大概是最持久的一种。从张英雄的为父报仇,到张大民对妻子的坚守,再到《飞毯》中的薛文锋为了家人铤而走险,命丧黄泉的悲哀,小人物的爱让我们动容,而又心酸。任晓雯笔下的小人物,虽然是虚构,但却让你觉得真实。他们没有良好的出身,没有优秀的教育背景,他们能做的,只是父辈传下来的劳力活,但他们对家庭的承诺,对亲人的关爱,却是那么实实在在,触动人心。我们很多时候,都会谴责那些违法之徒,因为他们危害了社会,像《飞毯》里的毛头薛文锋,但从未想过,是什么让他们变成了这样的社会害虫角色。薛文锋的悲剧,不是他一个人的过错,他的初衷是为了自己的家人能够过上好日子,但体制的不完善,剥夺了他的生存之道,才迫使他走上了不可回头的路。故事的结尾,薛文锋智力低下的妹妹薛文瑛仿佛是预知到了哥哥的死亡,她相信童话世界中那有魔力的飞毯,认为是因为没有飞毯,所以哥哥没法回家,所以她的自杀,可能是想坐着飞毯去找她的哥哥。在这些小人物的眼里,飞毯代表了可以往上飞的梦想,但飞毯在现实中不可能存在,所以他们的愿望,也变成了卑微的、不可能实现的童话幻想,当童话的面罩被现实狠狠掀开的时刻,小人物们的梦想,也会像彩色泡泡般破灭。

《乐鹏程二三事》以文革为时代背景,凸显了传统体制和理念对人性的压抑和残害。主人公乐鹏程的父母,在望子成龙观念的驱使下,对儿子乐鹏程采取打骂结合的教育方式,对于儿子在青春期出现的身体特征,也看做是淫秽下流的勾当,甚至于在夫妇俩被一次车祸夺去生命的前一刻,他们还在讨论如何加强对儿子的管教问题。而乐鹏程、吴英和吴小妮为代表的年轻一代,同样也逃脱不了旧的体制观念的束缚和残害。身体的欲求在传统观念中被当做是肮脏下流的,甚至于乐鹏程在体育课上的生理反应也沦落为同学们的笑柄。而文革期间吴英从害羞女生转为泼辣的造反派,甚至以自己的权力逼迫乐鹏程与之发生性关系,她的思想已经被体制观念所扭曲,变得残忍而又可悲。而长相出众的吴小妮,乐鹏程的暗恋对象,却因为追求者众多,在文革期间被冠以淫妇的名号,不得不选择上吊自杀。在那样一个疯狂的年代,人们似乎已经变成传统思想观念的傀儡,人性和欲望都被压抑甚至是摧残,而作家通过一个贾宝玉一般的男性角色的成长经历,表现出了那样的一种的残害和压迫,让我们看到了扭曲人性的可悲。

任晓雯的小说仿佛有那么一股魔力,虽然有些故事看起来是那么荒诞,但总是能让你一口气读完,然后发现自己胸口发闷,好像有什么东西悄悄钻了进去,有些温热,但又觉得刺痛。《我是鱼》是这部小说集中让我最印象深刻的一篇,荒诞的情节,但又夹杂着真实的叙述场景,在里面,一个名叫艾娃的女孩在父亲出海逝世后,母亲的保护将她与大海隔绝,但一次偶然,她接触到了大海,发现了自己与常人的不同,她喜欢在水底下的生活,觉得自己是条鱼,而大海才是她的真正归宿。但她的独特却给她的生活带来了不幸,她被亲人当成谋取利益的工具,被科学家当成研究的怪物,甚至被卖给海洋馆,被强迫扮成美人鱼供游客观赏取乐。我们读到的是,是冰冷的买卖,是无情的强迫,是讥讽的嘲笑,而艾娃对大海的渴望,是对自由的向往,只有在那片蔚蓝的世界里,她才能躲开人类无情的剥夺和利用,找到真实的自己。当她在海洋馆被虐待时,同样有着悲惨身世的小人物阿莫将她救出,面容丑陋的阿莫,却是唯一真心喜欢着艾娃的人,读到他拖着跛脚,奋力将艾娃救出的那一幕,我仿佛看到了钟楼上的伽西莫多和他心爱的爱丝美拉达在奔跑,向着自由的,没有歧视的国度奔跑。艾娃最后选择了投入搁浅的鲸鱼的大口,仿佛那才是世界上最美好的地方,因为那没有丑陋的人性,只有金色的海面和温暖的阳光。在现代都市的压抑下,我们会渴望自由,渴望逃脱掉那些肮脏的人性黑暗面,但往往我们找不到属于我们的海洋,因为我们放不下那些外在的牵绊,我们甚至有时也在扮演那些我们所憎恶的角色,成为去讥笑艾娃的围观群众,却不知,我们自己心里,也藏着一个小艾娃。

死亡是这部小说集一个很重要的主题,《阳间》里的死亡,似乎在暗示着因果报应的道德谴责。作者以第一人称叙述,让读者参与到她的故事之中,讲诉了一次的意外,给两家人带来的报应性的惩罚。取题“阳间”,可开篇却在铺垫主人公“我”是如何地惧怕鬼。这样的反差让小说更增诡异的色彩。其实作者笔下的那些游荡在阳间的鬼,象征的是人们内心的负罪感带来的恐惧。两个中年男人为了逃避车祸的责任,将被撞女孩丢弃到了河里,之后,他们的孩子、妻子都相继惨遭不测,最后结局发现,讲诉这个故事的“我”,其中一个男人的女儿,也已经是一个鬼魂,她在讲的,其实就是她自己的故事。评论家苏小和认为,这篇“小说的结构,有一种后现代的均衡感,而在想象力的维度上,却又沿袭了中国传统小说的荒诞。”这样的一个结合,虽说言诉的是因果循环的道德观,倒也是这个故事叙述的特色之一。

任晓雯笔下的小人物,不仅仅是在展示他们的困苦潦倒,更多的,是想带领我们走进他们的内心世界,去了解更深层次的东西。在《我爱莎莎》中,她描写了一个智障儿童的自我世界。在真实的世界中,他得不到家人真正的爱,还会受到幼儿园其他小朋友的欺凌,然而他在自己的幻想世界里,有一个叫莎莎的女孩的陪伴,从莎莎那,他感受到了爱,感受到了保护,甚至于,在莎莎的教唆下,他用铁皮骑士杀死了欺负他的小女孩张小艾。一个残忍的幼儿园故事,却在最孩童般的想象中进行,纯洁的孩童世界和血腥的杀戮交缠,给人一种无以名状的感伤。读到这个故事,我就会想起《阳台上》的陆姗姗,《飞毯》里的薛文瑛,他们的世界,其实很单纯,一块大饼,一本童话书,一个能够听他说话的伙伴,就如同他们的至宝,他们的要求很简单,但外界的歧视眼光,让他们不安,他们在寻找爱,寻找一种认同感,有时,甚至要通过死亡来获得这样的一种认同,实在令人悲哀。

任晓雯笔下的小人物,在她构建的世界里表现着他们的卑微和困苦,向我们展示着他们的无奈与心酸,他们的故事是对社会阴暗和人性丑陋的谴责,但我们读到的不是仇恨,而是对爱的渴望和坚持。作家不是将现实硬搬到纸上,而是在引导我们进入书中人物的内心,去听听他们的真实,看看他们的存在。泡上一杯茶,依靠在溢满阳光的窗台边,一口气读完这本书,你会发现,那股无以名状的感觉,也已经悄悄占据你的心房。