“逝實(shí)”的樂趣

The Joy of (Outdated) Facts

“逝實(shí)”的樂趣

Geoff Nicholson

杰夫.尼科爾森

作者簡(jiǎn)介

杰夫?尼科爾森（Geoff Nicholson，1953—），英國(guó)作家，文學(xué)期刊《界限》（Ambit）編輯。其作品繼承了伊弗林.沃（Evelyn Waugh）的諷刺風(fēng)格，以黑色幽默再現(xiàn)社會(huì)習(xí)俗。

尼科爾森的代表作《獵人與收集者》（Hunters and Gatherers）、《食物鏈》（The Food Chain）、《流血的倫敦》（Bleeding London）都曾入圍惠特布萊德獎(jiǎng)（Whitbread Prize）。部分評(píng)論家甚至將其與《萬有引力之虹》（Gravity’s Rainbow）的作者托馬斯.品欽（Thomas Pynchon）相提并論。

本文發(fā)表于2010年5月的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（The New York Times），從《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》（Guinness Book of Records）談起，一直說到百科全書乃至網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索引擎。作者憑借詼諧幽默的語言，說明了所謂的“事實(shí)”是多么不可靠。但讀罷此文，你會(huì)意識(shí)到，離譜的“事實(shí)”能帶給人無限樂趣。

The other day I realized I absolutely had to own a copy of the recently published facsimile of the first Guinness Book of Records from 1955 (limited edition of 5,000, mine is No. 177). It’s a fine book, and it gave me just want I wanted. Since I bought it, I’ve been regaling people with stories of Jacko, a dog owned by one Mr. J. Shaw of London that killed 1,000 rats in an hour and 40 minutes in May 1862; Mrs. Theresa Vaughan of Sheffield, who had had 61 bigamous marriages by the age of 24; and Dionsio Sanchez of Spain, who once drank 40 pints of wine in 59 minutes. It was a different world.

A world in which, if the book’s preface is to be believed, men went into bars and argued about facts. Dreamed up by Sir Hugh Beaver, the chairman of the Guinness Brewery, the Guinness Book of Records was to be kept behind the bar and pulled out to settle disputes, like, apparently, those over how many entrechats Nijinsky could perform in a single elevation. (Ten, since you ask.)

某天，我意識(shí)到自己必須擁有一本最新出版的1955年版《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》復(fù)制本。此書限量發(fā)售5000本，我這本編號(hào)177。這是本好書，里面正好有我想要的東西。買了這本書之后，我總是拿以下趣事逗朋友開心：倫敦肖先生的小狗杰科，1862年5月在1小時(shí)40分鐘里殺了1000只老鼠；謝菲爾德的特蕾莎?沃恩女士，24歲時(shí)就已犯過61次重婚罪；西班牙的迪恩西奧?桑切斯，在59分鐘里喝了40品脫葡萄酒。這真是另一個(gè)世界。

如果此書序言可信的話，在這個(gè)世界里，男人們?nèi)ゾ瓢蔂?zhēng)論事實(shí)。在吉尼斯啤酒廠老總休?比弗的想象中，人們可以把《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》放在酒吧里，拿它來平息爭(zhēng)論，比如尼金斯基[1]躍起一次雙腳能互擊多少次？（如果你要問，答案是10次。）[2]

It took a while for me to understand why my need for the book had been so great, and then I realized, with a bit of a slap to the head, that for much of my life I’ve been accumulating “books of facts,” single volumes as well as multivolume sets. I also have eight random volumes of the 1969 World Book Encyclopedia, which I found on the street. Since I have the L volume, I can give you an idea of how the World Book editors thought things stood in London, Los Angeles and Luxembourg at that time, and what the prospects were for the lumber industry and for literature for children: Miriam Gurko’s Restless Spirit: The Life of Edna St. Vincent Millay, for example, comes highly recommended for “older boys and girls.” But don’t ask me about anything from D to K.

As for why I’ve acquired these books, no doubt childhood trauma comes into it. While I grew up in an unbookish household, we did own (and I still have) a copy of Everybody’s Pocket Companion: A Handy Reference Book of Astronomical, Biblical, Chemical, Geographical, Geometrical, Historical, Mathematical, Physical, Remedial, and Scientific Facts, Dates Worth Knowing, World Sports and Speeds Records, Mythological, Physiological, Monetary, Postal and General Information. It’s undated but seems to be from the early 1950s. Within its small pages, you could learn the capitals of all the French colonies, “various trigonometrical formulae,” and how to remove a wet ink stain. (Steep it in milk.)

我想了半天，想弄清自己為什么如此需要這本書。然后我猛然發(fā)現(xiàn)，自己大半輩子都在收集“記錄事實(shí)的書”，無論它們是單卷還是成套。我甚至在街邊淘到了1969年版《世界圖書百科全書》里面的8本。我有首字母L的那卷，所以我能告訴你《世界圖書百科全書》編輯如何看待當(dāng)時(shí)發(fā)生在倫敦、洛杉磯、盧森堡的事，如何看待木材工業(yè)和兒童文學(xué)的前景[3]。例如，他們向“年紀(jì)較大的男孩女孩”強(qiáng)烈推薦米麗婭姆?古爾科的《不息的精神：埃德娜?圣文森特?米萊的一生》。但別問我首字母從D到K的事。

至于我為什么收集這些書，無疑與童年創(chuàng)傷有關(guān)。我在一個(gè)不愛讀書的家庭長(zhǎng)大，我們只有一本《所有人的口袋書：關(guān)于天文學(xué)、圣經(jīng)、化學(xué)、地理、幾何、歷史、數(shù)學(xué)、物理、醫(yī)療和科學(xué)常識(shí)、約會(huì)須知、世界體育與速度記錄、神話、生理、金融、郵政與常識(shí)的便攜參考手冊(cè)》，我今天還保存著這本書。書上沒印日期，但看上去像是20世紀(jì)50年早期的書。在它小小的書頁里，你能了解到所有法國(guó)殖民地的首都、“各種三角公式”，還有如何去除未干的墨跡（浸在牛奶里）。

Most of us, I suppose, like to think we have a good general knowledge. But knowledge is rarely “general” at all. It’s usually extremely specific. As an Englishman who’s been in the United States for well over a decade, I still find many of the questions on “Jeopardy!” distinctly parochial. You may know what American city has Chocolate Avenue running through it (Hershey, Pa.). But why would I? An American watching English quiz shows would feel equally adrift.

Similarly, books of facts always display localized preferences, cultural values, sometimes straightforward prejudices. My New American Cyclopaedia (1872) tells me that in 1855 there were 25,858 people in New York who could neither read nor write, and 21,378 of them were Irish. This may well have been true, but why exactly did it need to be emphasized? Well, I think we might hazard a guess.

我猜想，我們大多數(shù)人都自認(rèn)為很有常識(shí)。但知識(shí)不只是“常識(shí)”，它往往非常確切。作為在美國(guó)生活了10多年的英國(guó)人，我至今仍覺得“危險(xiǎn)邊緣”[4]里許多問題帶有明顯的地域性。你或許知道巧克力大街橫穿哪個(gè)美國(guó)城市（賓夕法尼亞州的赫爾希鎮(zhèn)），但我為什么要知道？一個(gè)美國(guó)人看英國(guó)知識(shí)競(jìng)猜節(jié)目，也會(huì)同樣覺得自己孤陋寡聞。

同樣，記錄事實(shí)的書總是帶有地域傾向、文化價(jià)值觀，有時(shí)還有赤裸裸的偏見。我的1872年版《新美國(guó)百科全書》告訴我，1855年紐約共有25858人沒有讀寫能力，其中21378人是愛爾蘭人。這可能是真事，但為什么要強(qiáng)調(diào)愛爾蘭人？我們可以大膽猜測(cè)一下。[5]

With hindsight, we can always see through the dubious “authority” of such historical sources. Few things look as unstable as the rock-solid certainties of previous ages. Since encyclopedias are supposed to be balanced and disinterested, the bias often seems even more naked. Sometimes I wonder if the editors of my 1952 Encyclopaedia Britannica ever regretted their assessment of William Faulkner: “It is naturalism run to seed, for it means nothing...In the hands of Faulkner brute fact leads to little but folly and despair.” Certainly the current editors of the Britannica reckoned some serious updating was required. In the online edition, we now read, “Some critics...have found his work extravagantly rhetorical and unduly violent, and there have been strong objections, especially late in the 20th century, to the perceived insensitivity of his portrayals of women and black Americans.” Note, however, that instead of a lofty judgment, we’re now given the opinion of these shadowy “some critics.”

作為事后諸葛亮，我們總能看透這類歷史資料不可靠的“權(quán)威性”。過去發(fā)生的事看似穩(wěn)如磐石，但很少有東西像它一樣易變。百科全書通常被認(rèn)為是公正客觀的，所以書中的偏見往往顯得更加赤裸裸。有時(shí)我想，我的1952年版《大英百科全書》的編輯們，是否會(huì)后悔自己對(duì)威廉??？思{作的評(píng)價(jià)：“他走下坡路是自然的，因?yàn)樗淖髌泛翢o意義……在?？思{的筆下，殘酷的事實(shí)只會(huì)導(dǎo)致愚蠢與絕望。”當(dāng)然，《大英百科全書》如今的編輯認(rèn)為內(nèi)容要大幅更新。在百科全書網(wǎng)絡(luò)版上，我們現(xiàn)在能讀到：“一些批評(píng)家……認(rèn)為他的作品辭藻過于華麗、內(nèi)容過于極端。他對(duì)女性和黑人麻木不仁的描寫引起了強(qiáng)烈抗議，特別是在20世紀(jì)晚期?！钡?qǐng)注意，我們現(xiàn)在讀到的觀點(diǎn)來自含糊其辭的“一些批評(píng)家”，而非編輯傲慢的評(píng)判。

The preface to the 1952 Britannica says “experience indicates” that 75 percent of its material needs updating “only at long intervals” while the other 25 percent “requires constant revision.” Now there are online changes every day, with markers in the database to denote the comparative “volatility” of the entries, the executive editor, Michael Levy, told me.

However, changes are evidently still not to be undertaken lightly. According to the “article history,” the entry for Faulkner has been amended just four times since 2006, three of them the addition of Web site links. Wikipedia, where anyone can make changes, has a much more freewheeling attitude: 30 revisions for Faulkner in April 2010 alone, although some of them, of course, are simply undoing other people’s revisions.

Keen scholars can use these histories to track how our knowledge about the world and everything in it changes over time, but the rest of us use Wikipedia and similar repositories of facts mainly as a quick and very blunt research tool. This has its pitfalls. A school librarian friend who teaches research skills tells me (with despair) that her greatest struggle is getting students to do more than tap into Google. The corollary is that kids have also told her with complete confidence that the moon landings were fake and that 9/11 was an inside job. Their proof: It says so online.

1952年版《大英百科全書》的序言說，“經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明”75%的資料“過很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才需要更新”，剩下25%的資料“需要不斷修訂”。執(zhí)行編輯邁克爾?利維告訴我，現(xiàn)在《大英百科全書》的網(wǎng)絡(luò)版每天都有變化，因?yàn)樽珜懺~條的人會(huì)時(shí)不時(shí)調(diào)整內(nèi)容。

然而，變化顯然讓人難以接受。根據(jù)“詞條歷史”，“?？思{”這個(gè)詞條自2006年以來修改了4次，其中3次是增加網(wǎng)站鏈接。任何人都能修改的維基百科，態(tài)度更加隨心所欲：“?？思{”詞條僅在2010年4月就有30次修改，盡管其中一些只是把別人修訂的地方改回來。

敏銳的學(xué)者會(huì)利用這些詞條歷史，追蹤我們對(duì)世界和萬物的知識(shí)如何隨著時(shí)間而變化，其他人則主要把維基百科和類似的知識(shí)庫(kù)作為快速而笨拙的檢索工具。這存在隱患。我有個(gè)朋友在學(xué)校圖書館工作，教授研究技巧。她曾絕望地告訴我，她最頭疼的事是讓學(xué)生不要只用谷歌搜索資料。只用谷歌搜索資料的必然結(jié)果是，孩子們言之鑿鑿地告訴她，登月是場(chǎng)騙局，9 ?11事件其實(shí)是監(jiān)守自盜。他們的證據(jù)是：網(wǎng)上是這么說的。

It’s sometimes tempting to see the Internet as a free-for-all where facts, conspiracy theories and downright lies are created equal, but hierarchies of one kind or another still operate. The last time I looked, a Google search yielded about 350,000 results for Edna St. Vincent Millay and 1.5 million for William Faulkner—pretty good numbers, until you see that Lady Gaga gets over 70 million.The name Dionsio Sanchez (probably a misprint of the suspiciously appropriate Dionisio) yields just 9 results, not all of them for the record-breaking wine drinker. As a matter of fact, Sanchez no longer appears in Guinness World Records either. As the current editor in chief, Craig Glenday, has said: “We’re not going to encourage that sort of thing today. That’s how people get hurt.”

Of course, ideas of what’s worth knowing, and even what’s interesting, are constantly changing: The fascination with trigonometrically formulas certainly seems to have receded. But in a world where ever fewer people care about, or even understand the nature of, fiction, where readers and viewers demand facts and reality, outdated books of supposedly impartial information can be a useful reminder of just how slippery facts are—as unreliable as the most unreliable narrator.

將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)視為對(duì)所有人免費(fèi)開放的平臺(tái)，事實(shí)、陰謀論和徹底的謊言在網(wǎng)上平等存在，有時(shí)這么想很誘人，但這樣那樣的等級(jí)制度仍然存在。上次我看的時(shí)候，谷歌搜出了35萬條關(guān)于埃德娜?圣文森特?米萊和150萬條關(guān)于威廉?福克納的結(jié)果——這是夠多的，但你看到Lady Gaga的搜索結(jié)果有7000多萬條之后，就會(huì)覺得它不值一提了。不過，迪恩西奧?桑切斯（或許印錯(cuò)了，懷疑是迪奧尼西奧）只有9個(gè)搜索結(jié)果，還不都是那個(gè)破紀(jì)錄的酒徒。事實(shí)上，桑切斯已經(jīng)不在《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》上了。《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》的現(xiàn)任主編克雷格?格倫迪說過：“現(xiàn)在我們不鼓勵(lì)人們?nèi)プ瞿欠N事，因?yàn)槿藗儠?huì)受傷害。”

當(dāng)然，值得了解或有趣的事情總在變化——看上去三角公式的魅力是衰退了。關(guān)注虛構(gòu)的人越來越少，更別說理解虛構(gòu)的本質(zhì)了；讀者和觀察者都在追求事實(shí)和真相。不過，在這樣一個(gè)世界上，被認(rèn)為是公正記錄信息的“逝實(shí)之書”的確很有用，它能提醒你，所謂的“事實(shí)”是多么不可靠——就像說話最不可信的人一樣靠不住。

Douglas Adams once told me that shortly before he wrote The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy he was working on a screenplay with the premise that all human civilization had been obliterated, except for a single copy of the Guinness book. Aliens from another planet tried to use it to reconstruct what life on Earth had been like: people sitting atop poles for 152 days at a time, eating 77 hamburgers at a sitting, talking nonstop for 127 hours.

The movie was never made, which I think was a great shame. The poster could have been emblazoned with the words “based on a true story.” All the facts were right there in the book, and you can’t argue with facts, can you?

道格拉斯?亞當(dāng)斯曾經(jīng)告訴我，寫《銀河系漫游指南》之前不久，他在寫一個(gè)電影劇本。背景設(shè)定是：人類文明已經(jīng)毀滅，只剩下一本《吉尼斯世界紀(jì)錄》。來自另一個(gè)星球的人試圖按這本書重造地球上原有的生命——人們能在柱子頂上靜坐152天，一口氣吃77個(gè)漢堡包，連續(xù)說話127小時(shí)。

這部電影始終未能拍成，我覺得很遺憾?！案鶕?jù)真實(shí)故事改編”本可為電影海報(bào)錦上添花。畢竟，事實(shí)都在書里寫著呢，你總不能否認(rèn)事實(shí)吧？

“逝實(shí)之書”的確能提醒你，所謂的“事實(shí)”是多么不可靠——就像說話最不可信的人一樣靠不住。

Geoff Nicholson 杰夫?尼科爾森

[1] 瓦斯拉夫.尼金斯基（Vaslav Nijinsky，1890—1950），震撼世界芭蕾舞壇的俄羅斯奇才。

[2] 原文如此，事實(shí)上尼金斯基跳躍一次能在空中做12次這個(gè)動(dòng)作。

[3] 倫敦（London）、洛杉磯（Los Angeles）、盧森堡（Luxembourg）、木材工業(yè)（lumber industry）、兒童文學(xué)（literature for children）的英文名稱都以“L”開頭。

[4] “危險(xiǎn)邊緣”，美國(guó)最著名的智力競(jìng)猜節(jié)目。

[5] 當(dāng)時(shí)的美國(guó)人歧視愛爾蘭人，因?yàn)榻^大多數(shù)愛爾蘭移民沒有受過良好的教育。

第三章 書香·雜趣