雙語散文|季羨林——文學(xué)批評無用論
- 中文
- 英文
文學(xué)批評無用論
讀最近一期的《文學(xué)評論》，里面有幾篇關(guān)于“紅學(xué)”的文章，引起了我的注意。有的作者既反省，又批判。有的作者從困境中找出路。有的作者慨嘆，“紅學(xué)”出了危機。如此等等，煞是熱鬧。文章的論點都非常精彩，很有啟發(fā)。但是，我卻忽然想到了一個怪問題：這樣的“紅學(xué)”有用處嗎？對紅學(xué)家本身，對在大學(xué)里和研究所里從事文學(xué)理論研究的人，當(dāng)然有用。但是對廣大的《紅樓夢》的讀者呢？我看是沒有用處。《紅樓夢》問世二百年以來，通過漢文原文和各種譯文讀過本書的人，無慮多少個億。這樣多的讀者哪一個是先看批評家的文章，然后再讓批評家牽著鼻子走，按圖索驥地去讀原作呢？我看是絕無僅有。一切文學(xué)作品，特別是像《紅樓夢》這樣偉大的作品，內(nèi)容異常地豐富，涉及到的社會層面異常地多，簡直像是一個寶山，一座迷宮。而讀者群就更為復(fù)雜，不同的家庭背景，不同的社會經(jīng)歷，不同的民族，不同的國家，不同的文化傳統(tǒng)，不同的心理素質(zhì)，不同的年齡，不同的性別，不同的職業(yè)，不同的愛好——還可以這樣“不同”下去，就此打住——，他們來讀《紅樓夢》，會各就自己的特點，欣賞《紅樓夢》中的某一個方面，受到鼓舞，受到啟發(fā)，引起了喜愛；也可能受到打擊，引起了憎惡，總之是千差萬別。對這些讀者來說，“紅學(xué)家”就好像是住在“太虛幻境”里的圣人、賢人，與自己無關(guān)。他們不管“紅學(xué)家”究竟議論些什么，只是讀下去，讀下去。
因此我說，文學(xué)批評家無用。
不但對讀者無用，對作者也無用。查一查各國文學(xué)史，我敢說，沒有哪一個偉大作家是根據(jù)文學(xué)批評家的理論來進行創(chuàng)作的。
那么，文學(xué)批評家的研究不就是毫無意義了嗎？也不是的。他們根據(jù)自己的文學(xué)欣賞的才能，根據(jù)不同的時代潮流，對文學(xué)作品提出自己的看法，互相爭論，互相學(xué)習(xí)，互相啟發(fā)，互相提高，這也是一種創(chuàng)作活動，對文學(xué)理論的建設(shè)會有很大的好處。只是不要幻想，自己的理論會對讀者和作者有多大影響。這樣一來，就可以各安其業(yè)，天下太平了。
上面這些話其實只有幼兒園的水平。可是還沒有見有什么人這樣坦率地說了出來。就讓我當(dāng)一個“始作俑者”吧！“黎明前的北京”除譯為Predawn Beijing外，也可譯為Beijing before Dawn或Beijing before Daybreak。
On the Futility of Literary Criticism
In the latest issue of the Literary Review, several articles on Redology have attracted my attention. Some of the authors are introspective as well as critical; some try to find a way out of their academic predicament; some sigh with regret that Redology is faced with a crisis; and so on and so forth. The discussion is quite animated. The arguments set forth in the articles are very interesting and enlightening. Nevertheless, a strange question has occurred to me: Is this kind of Redology of any use at all? It is of course useful to the Redologists themselves as well as to those engaged in the study of literary theory at universities and research institutes. But, to my mind, it is of little use to readers of A Dream of Red Mansions at large.
Ever since the publication of this novel some 200 years ago, hundreds of millions of people have read its Chinese original or its translations in various languages. Of these innumerable people, how many have read the novel by starting with a perusal of the critics' articles and allowing themselves to be led by the nose by the critics as to how to read the novel? Next to none. All literary works, especially a monumental one like A Dream of Red Mansions, are extremely rich in content and involve diverse social strata — to such an extent that they virtually resemble a mountain of treasure or a labyrinth. And the readers are even more complicated, differing from each other in family background, social experience, nationality, country, cultural tradition, psychological condition, age, sex, profession, hobby, etc., etc. The list could go on endlessly, so I wouldn't mind stopping here. They will each appreciate a certain aspect of the novel according to their own individuality. They may feel inspired and enlightened, and hence love it, or they may feel hurt, and hence loathe it. In short, the reactions vary. To them, the Redologists seem to be sages and men of virtue residing in the "Illusory Land of Great Void" and having nothing whatsoever to do with them. They just read on and on, caring not what the Redologists may say.
Therefore, I reiterate, literary criticism is useless.
It is useless not only to readers, but also to writers. Looking up the literary history of each and every country, I dare say that none of the world's great literary figures ever did their writing in line with the theory of literary critics.
On the other hand, however, does it follow that the research done by literary critics is totally meaningless? No, that is not true either. In accordance with their own capacity for literary appreciation and the different historical trends, the views they put forward for mutual discussion, study, inspiration and improvement are also something creative and conducive to the development of literary theory. Only they should be under no illusion about their theories exerting powerful influence on the readership or writers. That is the way for each to have a role of his own to play and for peace to reign under heaven.
What I've said above is only skin-deep, of kindergarten level. But so far none else have ventured to be equally candid. Therefore, let me be reconciled to being saddled with the epithet of "originator of a bad practice".
