Ursula K. Le Guin: Giants of sci-fi and fantasy

The below is an article posted in USA Today. I’m just a bit curious about why The Left Hand of Darkness is not included inLe Guin’s best work.

A roundup of Ursula K. Le Guin’s best work.

 by Robbie Olson (March 27, 2013)

Ursula K. Le Guin is one of those rare sci-fi and fantasy authors whose fiction is widely viewed as literature, while still maintaining the magic and adventure sought by genre fans. Her fantastic and futuristic settings are the backdrop for her take on topics from psychology to sociology; Le Guin first gained widespread recognition with her 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness, considered by many to be the first major work of feminist science fiction.

Le Guin’s work has also seen its share of film adaptations, though Le Guin herself has been disappointed by many of them. When the miniseries Legend of Earthsea came out, Le Guin responded in her article A Whitewashed Earthsea: How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books:

“In the miniseries, Danny Glover is the only man of color among the main characters (although there are a few others among the spear-carriers). A far cry from the Earthsea I envisioned. When I looked over the script, I realized the producers had no understanding of what the books are about and no interest in finding out. All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic McMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence.”

Race has always been an integral part of Le Guin’s stories. Writes Le Guin, “Fantasy heroes of the European tradition were conventionally white–just about universally so in 1968–and darkness of skin was often associated with evil. By simply subverting an expectation, a novelist can undermine a prejudice.”

So far in her career, Le Guin’s novels have reeled in a total of five Hugo awards, six Nebulas, the Gandalf–and SFWA Grand Master awards, and 19 Locus awards–more than any other author. Here are some of her best:

A Wizard of Earthsea: Earthsea is a world of islands, a vast archipelago surrounded by an uncharted ocean. Magic in Earthsea involves speaking the True Speech the language of dragons. Knowing something’s true name, in the True Speech, gives you power over whatever–or whoever–it is. A boy called Sparrowhawk (whose true name is Ged) learns bits of the True Speech from his aunt, a witch from the small, northern island of Gont. Craving more knowledge, he leaves for the island of Roke to attend the school of magic there, not knowing was destined to unleash an evil shadow upon the world, save villages from dragons, become one of Earthsea’s most powerful mages and travel to the Dry Lands of the dead to save life itself. Le Guin puts it best, saying Earthsea is “about two young people finding out what their power, their freedom, and their responsibilities are.”

The Dispossessed: Thousands of years ago, the planet Hain colonized the galaxy, spreading humanity to hundreds of worlds, including Earth. But the Hainish empire collapsed, and the colonies forgot their origins. This is the universe of the Hainish Cycle, of which The Left Hand of Darkness is a part, and it is in this science fiction series that Le Guin gives her sociological and anthropological explorations full reign. The earliest novel in the ‘Hainish’ chronology, The Dispossessed, examines the stagnation of an anarchist utopia, how language can influence culture, and the physics and philosophy of time.

Lavinia: Lavinia is a character from Roman mythology, invented by Virgil, with no life outside his poetry–and in Le Guin’s novel, she knows it. Set in a time when Roma was nothing more than a backwaters village, the princess of the Latins learns through prophecies and portents that she is destined to marry a foreign warrior, that she will be the cause of a brutal war and that her husband must soon die. That man is Aeneas, hero of Virgil’s Aeneid. In Virgil’s epic poem, Lavinia is almost an afterthought, the prize at the end of a long quest; she is mentioned in only a few lines and never speaks. Le Guin’s novel gives her full life, self-conscious and aware of her existence in the imaginings of Virgil.

The Lathe Of Heaven: Thirty-one years in the future, in 2002 (since the book was written in 1971), the United States is impoverished, while Israel and Egypt are locked in a devastating war with Iran. In an intensely overpopulated Portland, Oregon, a man named George Orr constantly abuses drugs to prevent him from dreaming. Orr is plagued with “effective” dreams, which have the ability to completely restructure reality. When he dreams of a world without racism, he awakes to find everyone’s skin a uniform grey; he dreams a solution to overpopulation, and wakes to the aftereffects of a massive plague. At the prompting (and sometimes, hypnosis) of his psychiatrist William Haber, Orr sets out to dream a better world–but each attempt he makes to conjure utopia has its own disastrous side effects.

Gifts: This YA trilogy imagines a world where people possess wondrous and terrible gifts. But, unlike a typical tale of magic and excitement, Le Guin’s heroes struggle to cope with their power. A young girl named Gry, who has the gift of communicating with animals, refuses to aid hunters by luring wild animals to their deaths, and Orrec takes to wearing a blindfold, lest his power of unmaking accidentally destroys everything around him. Together, they abandon their backwater villages for the wider world, meeting Memer, a girl who falls in love with her people’s ancient writings, banned by her country’s brutal occupiers; and Gavir, a slave with the ability to see the future, who suffers greatly on his quest to find a better life. The first book, Gift, won the PEN 2005 Children’s Literature book, and Powers, the third book, was awarded the 2009 Nebula award for best book.

杂记5条

1. 纳博科夫说,“我不相信‘历史’可以脱离‘历史学家’而存在……”——意味深长啊!你能够完全参透吗?

2. 昨天才看了青年作家任晓雯(是个大美女!但是如果说她是个“美女作家”总觉得不妥,似乎是对她的才华的不尊重。)的短篇小说“阳台上”。其中几个小人物很有特点。我一下子想到多年前读过的美国作家安德森的《小镇畸人》(Winesburg, Ohio)。其中的那些可怜又可恨的小人物很值得回味。

3. 在我心中,商务印书馆的地位很神圣。一直认为她出的书籍皆为精品。我自己也曾为她翻译过辞典和书籍。他们严谨的工作作风给我深刻印象。可是这两天在读的一本书令我很受伤——真怀疑译者用了翻译软件,好多话不像人话。事实再次提醒自己,任何时候,迷信盲从都是不对的~~~

4. 虽然总想回避,但是仍会无奈地接受现实。现实是要看的书有一大堆,要看的书却都还没有看……

5. 教学相长——有的时候,我教导学生的话放在自己身上,也适用……

【转】消逝的表演:纳博科夫和历史剧

消逝的表演:纳博科夫和历史剧

译者:Somewhere 原文作者:Alisa Sniderman

【转自译言】

17104239_50513在小说《庶出的标志》(1947)的引言中,弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫如下写道: 

我不“真诚”,我不“挑衅”,我不“嘲讽”。我既不是“道德说教者”,也不是讽喻者。政治、经济、原子弹、原始而又抽象的艺术形式、整个东方世界、苏联俄国“解体”的迹象、人类的未来等等,令我极其无动于衷。

纳博科夫绝不陌生二十世纪的政治惨行。1919年,他和刚成立的家庭登上一艘恰好名为“希望”的航船,驶出塞瓦斯托波尔,从此逃离出正处在大革命中的俄国。1937年,他躲开了希特勒领导下的德国,逃往法国。1940年,就在巴黎沦陷纳粹的几周前,他带着犹太妻子和儿子,登上巴黎最后一班驶往纽约的法国邮轮。因此,他坚持他的艺术独立于政治和社会,是事实,还是虚构?在《弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫不为人知的过去》一书中,Andrea Pitzer认为,这样的声明只不过是纳博科夫公开外表的一部分——“温文尔雅、有魅力的见多识广的人,不会遭到历史的抹煞或轻蔑。”Pitzer呈现在我们面前的纳博科夫要比他公开引导全世界相信的那样更倾向过去,他记录下的事件“已经完全遗落在公众的记忆范围之外,默默无闻。”Pitzer尤为感兴趣的是寻查出纳博科夫怎样运用他的艺术来安插集中营的指代。为了证明她的观点,她按时间顺序记录下的历史事件,在纳博科夫的生命历程中一一呈现,表明纳博科夫的作品如何“折射”出这些事件。虽然结果是一项值得钦佩的史料研究作品,然而,不走运的是,纳博科夫的艺术仅仅成了捕捉历史的仪器——这种英雄主义行径只会引出一个疑问:如果你想做的只是记录下事件,那么又何必大费周章地写小说呢?Pitzer认为,纳博科夫发明出一种新的与众不同的方式记录下非人的行径和充斥暴力的历史,将他的过去隐埋在他的艺术中,等待着读者的发掘。

如果Pitzer是对的,为什么纳博科夫如何晦涩?Pitzer引用了纳博科夫著名的结论,即艺术是艰涩的,应该挑战读者。但是,如果纳博科夫有意在小说中隐藏历史信息,作为对他的读者的一项挑战;那么,他要么因为告诉他们不要寻找历史方面的内容而是一个悲观主义者,要么他非常喜欢逆反心理。在《庶出的标志》中,纳博科夫劝阻读者不要将此书视为一部政局动荡的小说。他写道:“《庶出的标志》里的故事并不是发生在可怕的警戒状态下的生与死的故事。”但是,Pitzer援引纳博科夫前言中的语句来论证,作者直接将《庶出的标志》里的世界与他生活的极权主义国家联系起来。他称这些国家为“专政与酷刑的世界、法西斯主义世界、布尔什维主义者的世界、庸俗思想者的世界和脚踩长靴的猢狲的世界。”放在原文语境中,纳博科夫的原话是这么说的:“我们所有人都了解的愚蠢而又卑鄙的统治,毫无疑问,可能会直接在镜中留下赫赫而又明确的映像:专政与酷刑的世界,并在我的生命进程中,始终触动着我。”在纳博科夫看来,过分阅读这些映像,就会让这些愚蠢卑鄙的统治操控艺术的领域,这个唯一能宣布真正独立的天堂。

弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫给那种痴迷于在小说中寻找政治、社会提示的读者起了一个专门的用语——“冷峻的读者”。这种“冷峻的读者”在阅读《庶出的标志》这部人们广泛认为纳博科夫最具政治意味的作品时,便“为了人类的利益”而落进了圈套。讲授果戈理的短篇故事《外套》时,纳博科夫会评论道:“冷峻的读者”想当然地认为果戈理的主要意图是“诋毁恐怖的俄国官僚体制。”这样的阅读也不完全错误。只是,在纳博科夫看来,他和果戈理的艺术所围绕的“远不止于此。”薇拉·纳博科夫曾提到,“纳氏的每一本书都是对专政、任何形式专政的重拳出击。”在《文学讲稿》中纳博科夫提醒着我们,“艺术作品始终创造着新的世界,”“跟我们所了解的世界没有任何明显的联系,”他不是鼓吹作家为了炫耀的目的而运用他们风格化的才具。对纳博科夫而言,再没有比艺术拒绝成为服务社会的工具而更沉重地打击专政了。

如今,我们可能不会赞同纳博科夫有关文学的看法以及他对写作和评价文学作品的方式。(他无所顾忌地对一长串人们视为伟大的作者名单嗤之以鼻。)事实上,我们可以随心所欲地阅读纳博科夫,即使有违他的美学精神。正如《微暗的火》中金波特所言:“不论好坏,只是评论家才有话语权。”而Pitzer的书,除了评论之外,显然是出于爱好而付出的努力,是纳博科夫的狂热读者进行的个人探索。正如Pitzer在书的引言中坦承,她十分反感纳博科夫对他的角色使用的刻薄言辞,希望能够“从纳博科夫那里发现他对自己的创造的爱的感觉。”因此Pitzer翻找档案,然后发现了一个她能和平共处的纳博科夫。出于鼎盛状态的Pitzer通过一丝不苟的研究,展现出重建纳博科夫生活和写作的历史年代的潜力。阅读到纳博科夫面临不利情形时十分引人入胜,这位Pitzer恰如其分地将他称作“历史上的侯蒂尼”(译注),先是运用“隐身术”抽身离开俄国,后来以同样的方法离开欧洲大陆。正是碰上了许许多多的巧合和他人的善意之举才令纳博科夫安全抵达美国。虽然Pitzer不时提到的“遗忘的历史”或许听上去有点夸张,不过,公平点说,今天的读者可能并不熟悉纳博科夫生活时代的全部历史事件。比如,当纳博科夫在《说吧,回忆》中提到索洛夫基劳改营,或者Lubyanka dungeon时,Pitzer的解释就能为读者提供一些有用的背景知识。因此,这项研究证明了纳博科夫的确将历史线索隐埋在他的小说里?是。也不是。与单纯地记录史实的做法相反,纳博科夫通过自己艺术的棱镜,有意将历史转型。阅读他的作品,严肃而又专一地寻找历史线索,正好越过了这种艺术的魔法。

纳博科夫并不总是掩埋历史。他也会非常直白,饱含心酸,正如描述普宁回忆初恋情人Mira Belochkin:

他必须得遗忘——因为他是没法活着回想起那位优雅、脆弱而又温柔的年轻女人,她的眼睛,她的笑靥,还有背景中的花园和白雪;回想起她被带上了一辆牛车,拉到灭绝集中营,然后心脏受到苯酚注射而死。他曾听到,在岁月的尘埃下,在他的双唇下,那颗受到注射的温柔的心,悸动的声音。

历史的确潜伏在纳博科夫小说的边厢,但是他却从没给过历史中心的舞台。比如,纳博科夫短篇小说《菲雅尔塔的春天》中政治逃亡的叙述者拐弯抹角地提到俄国大革命是“左翼剧院轰隆隆响的后台。有趣的是,Pitzer自己运用剧院的隐喻叙述二十世纪的历史(“其他的悲剧正在边厢里等待。”),以此表明考虑艺术和历史之间联系着的一种可能方式——纳博科夫对剧院的兴趣。

在纳博科夫全部作品的光环笼罩下,他的戏剧作品却鲜有发掘。不过,他首期主要作品当中就有一出戏剧——《莫恩先生的悲剧》。这出戏剧写于俄国,当时纳博科夫年仅24岁,并在1923年至1924年间的冬季生活在布拉格。因为写于十月革命的影响还未消退的时期,所以这出戏剧在纳博科夫有生之年从没得到出版或上演。1997年,《莫恩先生的悲剧》在纳博科夫去世后出版在俄国文学期刊Zvezda上。现在这出戏剧经由托马斯·卡珊和Anastasia Tolstoy翻译成精彩的英文后,首次在美国上演。虽然在2012年夏天就已在英国上演过,然而莫恩没有激发出类似2009年媒体对《劳拉的原型》狂风暴雨般的狂热。不过,这出戏剧依然是颗宝石,值得我们关注。如果未完成的小说《劳拉的原型》向世界展现出纳博科夫天赋中最后的琥珀,那么,《莫恩先生的悲剧》则闪现出他才华横溢的最初火花,并在后来诸如《微暗的火》(1962)等作品中发展壮大。不过,《莫恩先生的悲剧》不仅有趣在其种种领先纳博科夫成熟时期作品的地方,而且《莫恩》也表明,纳博科夫非但没有掩埋历史材料,反而通过戏剧的棱镜将之完全转型。

这出戏剧设定在某个想象的国度,围绕着国王莫恩展开。在这个乔装的君主的统治下,曾经因内战四分五裂的国家重新获得了繁荣。莫恩爱上了米迪亚。她的丈夫加纳斯是一名革命者,已经被打发到劳改营里去。通过这样的预先设定,这出戏剧就将政治阴谋,爱情角逐,以及戏剧性的刻意编织在一起。这一切都令人联想到莎士比亚和卡尔德隆。尽管Pitzer没有讨论《莫恩》,然而所有令她对纳博科夫感兴趣的元素都在这出戏剧中呈现出来:暴力、独裁、以及劳改营的提及。的确,正如托马斯·卡珊在他启发性引言中指出:纳博科夫再也不会这么直白地写到革命和革命的思想体系。然而在《莫恩》中,纳博科夫已经写到如何艺术性地将历史材料转型,继而创作出一个虚构的全新世界。他在莎士比亚的历史剧中找到了一处灵感的源泉。其中,政治状态可充做一个剧院,而虚构的力量可以推翻或者重建一个王国,如同手中的一沓牌。在《微暗的火》中,这个戏剧元素再一次被拾起,最后的国王Zembla通过连接王宫和皇家剧院的秘密通道逃跑。

纳博科夫可能不是杰出的剧作家,但是他无拘无束地向戏剧艺术学习借鉴。最近出现的探索纳博科夫对戏剧兴趣的学术书籍中,有席格·弗兰克的《纳博科夫的戏剧想象》(2012),某种程度上托马斯·卡珊本人创作的《弗拉基米尔·纳博科夫和戏剧的艺术》(2011)也算其中。特别的是,席格·弗兰克不仅将纳博科夫尝试戏剧写作诉诸细节,而且也记述了戏剧性是怎样弥漫在他的叙述性小说中。

纳博科夫对戏剧的观点同时让人进一步了解他对待历史的态度。在他首次在美国受聘于斯坦福大学任教期间,他教授一门戏剧的暑期课程。这一职务帮助他在1940年获准离开欧洲。在一次题为《悲剧的悲剧》的讲座中,纳博科夫透露自己对充斥在许多戏剧写作中的逻辑宿命论的反感。纳博科夫头脑中的悲剧的悲剧是指类型依赖于人们常规意义上理解的因果法则和命运的压迫式概念。针对这两点,纳博科夫基于美学和道德的依据进行驳斥。摒除传统悲剧,纳博科夫青睐他称之为莎士比亚的“梦幻悲剧”,诸如《哈姆雷特》和《李尔王》,以及Henri-René Lenormand的戏剧Time Is a Dream。或许从这种富于想象的戏剧盛宴中,纳博科夫本能地感觉到,将历史当做梦而不是文献来对待可能会是个产生强大影响的艺术选择,会对专政进行沉重的打击。

虽然纳博科夫或许是历史上的侯蒂尼,他的艺术却不过是一种逃遁。他关于悲剧的讲学在很多方面领先于Lionel Abel在1963年(发表的)《源戏剧:戏剧形式的新观念》。简单说来,Abel认为,尽管古典悲剧呈现出的世界受到命运、冷漠的神和种种固定模式的操控,然而受到它们启发的莎士比亚、卡尔德隆的源戏剧以及现代的剧作家们,不仅赞美了戏剧的艺术技巧,同时也赞美了人生本身的戏剧性。Abel觉得这一点解放了思想。如果整个世界是一个舞台,人生是梦,那么秩序就是不断通过人类的斗争和想象而得到改进。换句话说,如果我们所知道的世界是通过人类的想象创造出来的(常常通过平庸而又粗俗的暴君的头脑),那么,这个世界也会适应其它的意识形态所做出的改变。纳博科夫《斩头之邀》中的Cincinnatus C勇敢地行刑,认识到“一切都在解体”,似乎通过将舞台布景拆卸,他不仅回归到他的创造者的心里,而且朝着“解体”的方向走下去,那里,从听到的声音判断,站着许多与他类似的人。

在采访中,纳博科夫因“具有卓越的历史感和时代感”而受到称赞的时候,他回应道:“我们应该定义我们对‘历史’的历史,如果我们没有定义过。”然后作家表达他对‘历史’的保留看法。这个词可能会“经由平庸的作家和狭隘的评论家不断地修饰”。纳博科夫所知道的历史肯定留有道德的陷阱,Pitzer本人的历史分析就十分危险地接近这些陷阱。聊到《洛丽塔》时,Pitzer声称:“如果亨伯特值得任何怜悯,那么纳博科夫就留下了一个同情的焦点:安娜贝尔·李,亨伯特的初恋,她在1923年在科孚死于斑疹伤寒。”据Pitzer说来,“成千上万的难民曾在科孚的集中营避难。”她也玩味着一种可能:亨伯特·亨伯特是个犹太人:“正如亨伯特的罪孽是自作自受、不可饶恕一样确凿,同样真实的是,他也是遭到历史毁灭的人。”纵贯历史,人们常常呼吁运用用过去的伤疤来评判后来的暴行,恳求同情。虽然纳博科夫招来许多俄国政治逃亡者的批评,然而正是他在艺术上对“历史”保持的距离和怀疑,才没有使他像后来的Solzhenitsyn落进圈套,既拥抱普宁又拥戴狂热的民族主义。纳博科夫说道:“我不相信‘历史”能够脱离历史学家而存在,如果我想选择一个档案保管人,我想还是选择自己比较安全(至少,出于我的心安)。”

 

译注:哈里·侯蒂尼(Harry Houdini, 1874-1926),美国特技表演家,因轰动性的脱险表演而声名大噪。

About “Theme”

对于不少本科生,甚至研究生来说,这是个常常会“take for granted”的话题——好像知道,可真要细究起来,又说不清楚。了解以下几点有助于加深对主题的理解,尤其有助于自己写论文时,提炼概括出自己论文的“Theses Statement”:

  • A theme is the controlling idea or central insight. It can be
    1). a revelation of human character;
    2). may be stated briefly or at great length; and
    3). a theme is not the “moral” of the story.
  • A theme must be expressible in the form of a statement – not “motherhood” but “Motherhood sometimes has more frustration than reward.“
  •  A theme must be stated as a generalization about life; names of characters or specific situations in the plot are not to be used when stating a theme.
  • A theme must not be a generalization larger than is justified by the terms of the story.
  • A theme is the central and unifying concept of the story. It must adhere to the following requirements:
    1). It must account for all the major details of the story.
    2). It must not be contradicted by any detail of the story.
    3). It must not rely on supposed facts – facts not actually stated or clearly implied by the story.
  • There is no one way of stating the theme of a story.
  • Any statement that reduces a theme to some familiar saying, aphorism, or cliché should be avoided. Do not use “A stitch in time saves nine,” “You can’t judge a book by its cover, ” “Fish and guests smell in three days,” and so on.

200岁的《傲慢与偏见》仍然招人爱戴的10个理由

‘Pride & Prejudice’ was first published 200 years ago Monday, on Jan. 28, 1813

1813年1月28日,英国作家简·奥斯丁的第二部小说《傲慢与偏见》正式出版发行。2013年1月28日,《傲慢与偏见》200岁了。英国和美国举办了多种活动为这部经典作品庆生。200年来,《傲慢与偏见》的读者可谓长盛不衰。开篇的这一句“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”更可谓耳熟能详,是不朽的经典名句。

《今日美国》(USA Today)在祝贺《傲慢与偏见》200岁生日快乐的同时,还做了一个专栏,讨论为什么这部小说200年来能够始终如一地得到读者爱戴的原因。USA Today列举了以下10个理由:

1. It’s the ultimate “happy ever after” tale. Pride & Prejudice established the template for an infinity of romance novels, yet no subsequent love story has ever come close to equaling the delights of the original. In P&P, opposites repel then attract: Mr. Darcy is sullen and arrogant. Elizabeth is vivacious and charming. He is rich, she is poor. He is madly in love, she can’t bear him. In a scene both hilarious and dramatic, Elizabeth squashes Mr. Darcy’s massive pride when she rejects his first proposal. To win her, Darcy is forced to change, to become more kind and polite. But Elizabeth also changes, though her journey from prejudice is less visible.

2.It’s fun. The plot of P&P scarcely seems to be the stuff of comedy. Here are five unmarried girls in rural England who will face poverty once their improvident father kicks the bucket since his estate must pass to a male heir. If they can’t snag husbands, their career options involve downwardly mobile humiliations such as working as governesses or paid companions to the wealthy. And yet the novel, brimming with sparkling dialogue, “is a pure joy to read,” as Anna Quindlen once put it. Perhaps it is Elizabeth’s father, Mr. Bennet, who best explains its appeal: “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”

3. It’s the rom-com of all rom-coms. Which is why P&P has been adapted for screens big and small around the world. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth have been portrayed by Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson (1940) and Matthew Macfadyen and the radiant Keira Knightley (2005). There is even a 2004 Bollywood musical, Bride and Prejudice. But for many fans, the ultimate adaptation is the 1995 BBC miniseries starring Jennifer Ehle. Her co-star Colin Firth may have won an Oscar playing a British monarch, but to Darcy fans, he is a god thanks to a certain scene involving a wet white shirt. These days, you can watch a Web adaptation on YouTube called The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, which stars Ashley Clements as Lizzie.

Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen are the most recent actors — but by no means the only ones — to embody Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy on the big screen, in 2005.(Photo: Alex Bailey, Focus Features, via AP)

4. Sex, lies and runaway teens. The next time someone dismisses Pride & Prejudice as a fussy old story about the breeding habits of early 19th-century Brits, point out that the novel’s villain, George Wickham, would probably be arrested today as a serial pedophile. An Army officer in his 20s, Wickham is a smooth operator who tries to seduce underage girls for fun and profit. Though he fails to lure Mr. Darcy’s 15-year-old heiress sister into marriage, Wickham succeeds in deflowering and shacking up with Elizabeth’s 16-year-old sister, Lydia, without benefit of clergy, thanks to her “animal spirits.”

5. P&P isn’t just “how to marry a millionaire, Regency style.” You can divide the world into two groups: mad romantics who adore those passionate Brontë tales about women yearning for tormented psychos like Heathcliff, and more pragmatic souls who admire Elizabeth Bennet’s decision to marry for love and money. Readers know that Austen, who never married, disapproves of Elizabeth’s friend Charlotte Lucas’ decision to marry a “conceited, pompous, narrow-minded, silly man” simply for money. Mr. Darcy, however, wouldn’t be Mr. Darcy without the ka-ching of 10,000 pounds a year and the big estate up north. Elizabeth herself jokes about her change of heart regarding Darcy: “I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley.”

6. Before the Kardashians, there were the Bennets. Reality TV didn’t invent miserable, weird families. Just look at Lizzie’s parents, the supremely ill-matched Ma and Pa Bennet. When not locked in his library reading, Mr. Bennet entertains himself by teasing and tormenting his whiny dimwit of a wife in front of their offspring. The deepest bond in the novel isn’t romantic love, it’s affection between siblings. (Austen adored her own sister Cassandra, who, in turn, encouraged Austen’s writing.) Even when Elizabeth dislikes Mr. Darcy, she admits he’s an outstanding brother to his little sister. And it’s sibling solidarity, not rivalry, with Elizabeth Bennet and her older sister, the head-turning beauty Jane. Indeed, it is a worried Elizabeth rushing to help Jane, fallen sick while dining with wealthy new neighbors, that captured the heart of British writer Martin Amis, who wrote: “Impelled by sibling love, Elizabeth strides off through the November mud to Netherfield, that fortress of fashion, privilege, and disdain. She arrives unannounced, and scandalously unaccompanied, ‘with weary ancles, dirty stockings, and a face glowing with the warmth of exercise.’ By now the male reader’s heart is secure (indeed, he is down on one knee).”

7. Back then, well-off people’s purpose really was to eat, drink and be merry. Name the one activity that Mr. Darcy, Bingley, Sir Lucas and Mr. Bennet all avoid: Work! They visit the ladies. Hunt birds. Attend balls. Ride horses. Travel. The one worker bee in the bunch — Elizabeth’s uncle Mr. Gardiner — is socially handicapped because of that icky thing called his job. Even military life appears to be a social club for swanky young studs — pretty remarkable since P&P was published at time when Napoleon was rampaging through Europe.

8. Now, as then, we choose to see what we want. First Impressions was Austen’s original title. Though far less catchy, it does convey perfectly Austen’s important message: First impressions are often wrong. For example, Darcy’s little sister is often mistaken for proud when she’s simply painfully shy. Other first impressions are dangerous. P&P‘s one truly evil character is the slick seducer Wickham, who charms everyone, even Elizabeth, who prides herself on being nobody’s fool.

9. Hypocrisy is always good for a laugh. Some of Austen’s funniest and sharpest scenes involve hypocrites. There’s Mr. Collins, the clergyman. Upon learning that his teenage cousin Lydia is living in sin, this man of God writes a letter to Mr. Bennet, noting that “the death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison” and closes by urging, “Let me then advise you, dear sir, to console yourself as much as possible, to throw off your unworthy child from your affection forever, and leave her to reap the fruits of her own heinous offense.” Nice. ​And while Mrs. Bennet embarrasses her family with her loud voice and silly ways, she’s Emily Post compared with the snobbish Lady Catherine de Bourgh, the novel’s rudest character.

10. Technology might change, but human nature remains the same. Give cellphones to the youngest Bennet daughters — the boy-crazy shopaholics Kitty and Lydia — and they would fit right in at any high school. Their father is every Baby Boomer dad ignoring both his upside-down mortgage and his out-of-control kids. The one homely Bennet female, Mary, is the 19th-century version of an insecure, overachieving nerd.

我也特别喜欢这篇专栏文章的最后一段总结。它能够代表很多P&P读者的心声:

In the end, although Austen crafted her characters with a quill pen dipped in ink, they have remained fresh, instantly recognizable and fascinating for 200 years. Whether people read P&P on a print page, a tablet or some future gadget, the love story of how Mr. Darcy won Elizabeth Bennet, will, no doubt, continue to captivate readers for another two centuries.

2012年度美国国家图书奖获奖作品《圆屋》及其作者厄德里克简介

Louise Erdrich(1954- )

纽约当地时间11月14日晚,2012年度美国国家图书奖颁奖仪式在Cipriani酒店举行,印第安裔女作家路易丝•厄德里克(Louise Erdrich)凭借一部感人至深的小说《圆屋》(The Round House)击败了胡诺特•迪亚兹及戴夫•伊戈斯等人极受好评的新作,获得了2012年度美国国家图书奖小说奖。

创建于1950年的美国国家图书奖(American National Book Award)是美国文学界的最高荣誉之一,是与著名的普利策文学奖齐名的文学奖项。

2012年美国国家图书奖小说奖的竞争比去年更加激烈。和往年不同的是,往年都有许多不知名作家入围。但今年的评委将许多知名作家选入最后短名单。除了路易丝•厄德里克,还有前普利策奖小说奖得主朱诺•迪亚兹。他的入围小说是《这就是你失去她的道理》(This Is How You Lose Her)。戴夫•易格斯的《国王的全息象》(A Hologram for the King),以上两位作家的作品也都曾在中国翻译出版。凯文•鲍威尔(Kevin Powers)的《黄色鸟群》(The Yellow Birds)也入围了今年的国家图书奖短名单。(他的小说中文版已在翻译中,估计近期将会出版。)最终厄德里克的小说《圆屋》荣获此项殊荣。

厄德里克是以描写美国原住民部落成名的小说家、诗人、儿童小说作家。其作品主要关注美国印第安文化遗产方面的问题。她是批评家肯尼思•林肯(Kenneth Lincoln)所倡导的“印第安文学复兴”运动中于1968年之后出现的最具代表性的一位作家。她被视为可与威廉•福克纳齐名,是美国当代最多产、最重要、最有成就的作家之一,曾先后获纳尔逊•阿尔格伦短篇小说奖、苏•考夫曼奖、欧•亨利短篇小说奖、全国书评家协会奖。2008年在我国由译林出版社出版发行的中文版小说《爱药》是她的成名作和代表作,也是第一部被译成中文的当代美国印第安长篇小说。

《圆屋》是路易丝•厄德里克的第14部小说,展现了奥吉布瓦人和白人居住在同一个社区中的艰辛。在厄德里克的获奖感言中,她用印第安人的奥吉布瓦语发表自己的感想,她说获得国家图书奖部分是对美国原住民语言的肯定,也是对“原住民女性优雅和坚韧”的肯定。“这部作品是对原住民保留地还在发生的大量不公正事件的控诉。感谢你们让更多人知道”。厄德里克通过描写这些贴近生活的人物角色,充分展现了生活中的悲剧性、戏剧性。评论家齐亚巴塔里(Jane Ciabattari)说,《圆屋》是厄德里克所创作的最优秀的一部小说, Continue reading