The Etiquette of Talking Back　回應(yīng)的禮節(jié)

The Etiquette of Talking Back

回應(yīng)的禮節(jié)

Mortimer Jerome Adler

莫蒂默·杰爾姆·阿德勒

作者簡(jiǎn)介

莫蒂默·杰爾姆·阿德勒(Mortimer Jerome Adler，1902—2001)，以學(xué)者、教育家、編輯等多重身份享有盛名。在芝加哥大學(xué)執(zhí)教時(shí)，他協(xié)助策劃了“名著計(jì)劃”，并于1952年起任哲學(xué)研究所所長(zhǎng)。他在著作中普及推廣西方文明的偉大思想，如《西方世界的偉大著作》(Great Books of the Western World)、《如何閱讀一本書(shū)》(How to Read a Book)和《六種偉大思想》(Six Great Ideas)等。他還是1974年第15版《大英百科全書(shū)》(Encyclopedia Britannica)的編輯。

本文節(jié)選自1940年出版的《如何閱讀一本書(shū)》。莫蒂默認(rèn)為，閱讀就像一種無(wú)聲的對(duì)話，既然作者娓娓道來(lái)，讀者就該認(rèn)真回應(yīng)。如此這般，才能對(duì)一本書(shū)有真正的了解，才能不辜負(fù)作者的一片苦心。

Reading a book is a kind of conversation. You may think it is not conversation at all, because the author does all the talking and you have nothing to say. If you think that, you do not realize your opportunities and obligations as a reader.

讀書(shū)是一種對(duì)話?；蛟S你認(rèn)為這根本不是對(duì)話，因?yàn)樽髡哔┵┒?，你卻無(wú)話可說(shuō)。如果你這么想，說(shuō)明你沒(méi)有意識(shí)到作為讀者應(yīng)有的機(jī)會(huì)和責(zé)任。

As a matter of fact, the reader has the last word. The author has had his say, and then it is the reader's turn. The conversation between a book and its reader would appear to be an orderly one, each party talking in turn, no interruptions, and so forth. If, however, the reader is undisciplined and impolite, it may be anything but orderly. The poor author cannot defend himself. He cannot say, “Here, wait till I've finished, before you start disagreeing. ”He cannot protest that the reader has missed his point.

事實(shí)上，讀者在作者之后發(fā)言。作者說(shuō)完了要說(shuō)的話，接下來(lái)輪到讀者了。書(shū)和讀者之間的對(duì)話有序可循，雙方輪流陳述，不會(huì)被打斷、干擾。但如果讀者缺乏修養(yǎng)、蠻橫無(wú)理，這番對(duì)話就可能毫無(wú)章法?？蓱z的作者無(wú)法為自己辯護(hù)。他沒(méi)法說(shuō)：“抱歉，等我把話說(shuō)完，您再提出異議。”讀者的理解有偏差，他也無(wú)法據(jù)理力爭(zhēng)。

Ordinary conversations between persons who confront each other are good only when they are carried on decently. I am not thinking merely of the decencies according to conventions of social politeness. There is, in addition, an intellectual etiquette one should observe. Without it, conversation is bickering rather than profitable communication. I am assuming here, of course, that the conversation is about a serious matter on which men can agree or disagree. Then it becomes important that they conduct themselves well. Otherwise, there is no profit in the enterprise. The profit in good conversation is something learned.

只有當(dāng)雙方都有禮有節(jié)，普通的對(duì)話才可能順利進(jìn)行。我設(shè)想的有禮有節(jié)，不僅是社交禮儀意義上的習(xí)俗，更是一個(gè)人應(yīng)該遵循的知性禮儀。沒(méi)有這樣的禮節(jié)，對(duì)話就不是有效的溝通，而是混亂的爭(zhēng)吵。當(dāng)然，我在此假設(shè)的是圍繞一個(gè)嚴(yán)肅問(wèn)題的對(duì)話，一個(gè)人可以贊成也可以反對(duì)。然后，雙方的自制就變得相當(dāng)重要，否則整個(gè)過(guò)程就無(wú)益可言。好的對(duì)話之所以有益，就在于你能從中學(xué)到東西。

What is true of ordinary conversation is even more true of the rather special situation in which a book has talked to a reader and the reader answers back. That the author is well disciplined, we shall take for granted temporarily. That he has conducted his part of the conversation well can be assumed in the case of great books. What can the reader do to reciprocate? What must he do to hold up his end well?

日常對(duì)話中是這樣，閱讀時(shí)更是這樣——在某種特殊情境下，書(shū)向讀者傾訴，讀者作出回應(yīng)。我們暫且假定作者遵守禮儀。假定在一本好書(shū)中，作者對(duì)話時(shí)會(huì)很好地控制自己。讀者該如何回報(bào)?他要如何扮演好自己的角色?

The reader has an obligation as well as an opportunity to talk back. The opportunity is clear. Nothing can stop a reader from pronouncing judgment. The roots of the obligation, however, lie a little deeper in the nature of the relation between books and readers.

讀者有機(jī)會(huì)也有責(zé)任回應(yīng)。這里說(shuō)的“機(jī)會(huì)”很明顯。沒(méi)有什么能阻止讀者宣布自己的判斷。然而，“責(zé)任”則深植于書(shū)與讀者關(guān)系的本質(zhì)。

If a book is of the sort which conveys knowledge, the author's aim was to instruct. He has tried to teach. He has tried to convince or persuade his reader about something. His effort is crowned with success only if the reader finally says, “I am taught. You have convinced me that such and such is true, or persuaded me that it is probable.”But even if the reader is not convinced or persuaded, the author's intention and effort should be respected. The reader owes him a considered judgment. If he cannot say, “I agree,”he should at least have grounds for disagreeing or even suspending judgment on the question.

在一本傳授知識(shí)的書(shū)里，作者的目標(biāo)是指導(dǎo)。他試著教育讀者，說(shuō)服讀者相信某事。只有讀者最后說(shuō)出“我懂了!你說(shuō)服了我這是真的，這是有可能的”，作者才算成功。但即便讀者沒(méi)有被說(shuō)服，作者的意圖和努力仍需得到尊重。讀者欠作者一個(gè)經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮的判斷。如果讀者不能說(shuō)“我同意”，至少也要給出個(gè)不同意或稍后再判斷的理由。

I am saying no more than that a good book deserves an active reading. The activity of reading does not stop with the work of understanding what a book says. It must be completed by the work of criticism, the work of judging. The passive reader sins against this requirement, probably even more than against the rules of analysis and interpretation. He not only makes no effort to understand; he dismisses a book simply by putting it down or forgetting it. Worse than faint praise, he damns it by no critical consideration whatsoever.

我只想說(shuō)，一本好書(shū)值得我們主動(dòng)去閱讀。閱讀的主動(dòng)性不應(yīng)停留在理解書(shū)的內(nèi)容，要加上批評(píng)和判斷，主動(dòng)閱讀才算完成。被動(dòng)閱讀者違背了這個(gè)要求，甚至可以說(shuō)違背了分析和闡釋的原則。他們不僅不試圖理解，而且看書(shū)時(shí)隨隨便便就放下，或者忘得一干二凈。比蒼白無(wú)力的贊美之詞更糟的是不假思索就破口大罵。

Remember Bacon's recommendation to the reader: “Read not to contradict and confute; not to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider.”Sir Walter Scott cast even more direful aspersions on those “who read to doubt or read to scorn.”

請(qǐng)記住培根對(duì)讀者的忠告：“讀書(shū)不為爭(zhēng)長(zhǎng)道短，不為輕信盲從，不為高談闊論，而應(yīng)推敲度量。”沃爾特·司各特爵士1對(duì)那些“閱讀只為懷疑，或只會(huì)嘲諷”的人給出了更嚴(yán)厲的批判。

There is a certain truth here, as we shall see, but I do not like the aura of impeccability with which books are thus surrounded, and the false piety it breeds. Readers may be like children, in the sense that great authors can teach them, but that does not mean they must not be heard from. I am not sure Cervantes was right in saying, “There is no book so bad but something good may be found in it.”I do think, however, that there is no book so good that fault cannot be found with it.

我們都知道，這種說(shuō)法是對(duì)的。但我不喜歡所謂“毫無(wú)瑕疵”的書(shū)，也不喜歡它們導(dǎo)致的盲目崇拜。偉大作家可以教導(dǎo)讀者，從這個(gè)意義上看，讀者或許像是孩子;但這不意味著讀者就不能對(duì)書(shū)作出批評(píng)。塞萬(wàn)提斯2說(shuō)：“沒(méi)有一本書(shū)會(huì)壞到找不到優(yōu)點(diǎn)。”我不知道這個(gè)說(shuō)法是否正確。但我認(rèn)為，沒(méi)有一本書(shū)會(huì)好到找不到缺點(diǎn)。

It is true that a book which can enlighten its readers, and is in this sense better, should not be criticized by them until they understand it. When they do, they have elevated themselves almost to peerage with the author. Now they are fit to exercise the rights and privileges of their new position. Unless they exercise their critical faculties now, they are doing the author an injustice. He has done what he could to make them his equal. He deserves that they act like his peers, that they engage in conversation with him, that they talk back.

確實(shí)，對(duì)于一本能帶給讀者啟迪的書(shū)，即在這一意義上優(yōu)點(diǎn)多于缺點(diǎn)的書(shū)，讀者應(yīng)該等理解之后再作評(píng)論。這么做的時(shí)候，讀者已將自己提升到幾乎與作者平等的地位?，F(xiàn)在，他們?cè)撌煜ひ幌伦约旱男侣殭?quán)和新特權(quán)。除非不具備評(píng)論能力，否則他們得給作者一個(gè)公正的評(píng)判。作者已傾盡所有，對(duì)讀者平等相待。讀者也應(yīng)對(duì)作者平等相待，全身心投入對(duì)話、積極作出回應(yīng)。

As I pointed out before, docility is generally confused with subservience. (We tend to forget that the word “docile”is derived from the Latin root which means to teach or be taught.) A person is wrongly thought to be docile if he is passive and pliable. On the contrary, docility is the extremely active virtue of being teachable. No one is really teachable who does not freely exercise his power of independent judgment. The most docile reader is, therefore, the most critical. He is the reader who finally responds to a book by the greatest effort to make up his own mind on the matters the author has discussed.

正如我此前所說(shuō)，順從和卑躬屈膝通常被混為一談。(我們忘記了“順從”這個(gè)詞源于拉丁語(yǔ)，本義是“教導(dǎo)”或“傳授”。)如果一個(gè)人被動(dòng)且易受影響，我們會(huì)誤認(rèn)為他很順從。恰恰相反，順從是一種易于受教的、極其積極的品質(zhì)。一個(gè)人如果無(wú)法獨(dú)立判斷，就不是真的易于受教。因此，最順從的讀者也最具批判精神。這種讀者在經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮之后，最終會(huì)對(duì)一本書(shū)作出回應(yīng)，就作者討論的問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn)。

* * *

一個(gè)人如果無(wú)法獨(dú)立判斷，就不是真的易于受教。

Mortimer Jerome Adler 莫蒂默·杰爾姆·阿德勒

* * *

————————————————————

1.沃爾特·司各特(Walter Scott，1771—1832)，英國(guó)著名歷史小說(shuō)家和詩(shī)人，一生創(chuàng)作了20余部歷史小說(shuō)。

2.米蓋爾·德·塞萬(wàn)提斯·薩韋德拉(Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra，1547—1616)，文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期西班牙小說(shuō)家、劇作家、詩(shī)人，諷喻小說(shuō)《堂吉訶德》是其代表作。