好書是怎樣煉成的

我曾以為，一個至高的平臺、一個奇妙的觀點和一個勁爆的書名就能成就一本驚世之作。然而，當我將這三點奉為創作的法寶，試圖將我的奇思妙想煉制成一本好書時，卻發現：紛亂的奇思妙想抵不過實踐的檢驗，空洞的思想熔爐煉不出好的作品……

When I was young I wanted to write a challenging book of ideas. I had in mind the kind of “deep” book that public intellectuals of the 1950s and 1960s wrote: The Lonely Crowd2)， The One-Dimensional Man3)， The End of Ideology4). Intellectuals talked seriously about them in magical places like New York and San Francisco， places I knew nothing about. Unfortunately， I didn’t really have anything deep to say. So I did what most intellectually ambitious young Americans do. I went to graduate school. I found nothing deep to say there. Instead， I learned to do research and write clearly. In the years that followed， I wrote books， but not deep books of ideas. My books were focused， well-documented demonstrations of some minor fact about the world. They added to what we know. That’s something.

Yet I still hungered to write a book of ideas. I knew I wouldn’t ever do so in academia. So after about a decade of teaching at a big university， I left to work in a staff position at a big magazine. In my mind， this magazine stood at the pinnacle5) of American intellectual life.

In 2005， Wikipedia was taking off. I thought its history might be interesting. So I wrote a piece on spec6) about the founding of Wikipedia. The editors at the big magazine liked it， and they published it in 2006. Around the time my Wikipedia article appeared in the big magazine， another Wikipedia piece appeared in another big magazine. Wikipedia was suddenly， as Tina Brown7) says， “v. hot.” This was my chance to write a book of ideas—not that8) I had any good ideas to write about. I sent an e-mail to a literary agent picked at random， asking whether I could write a book about Wikipedia-style collaboration on the Internet. I got a call within minutes. The nice fellow at the other end of the line said he’d read my article. I could get a book deal with a big New York trade publisher.

This is what I had to do. First， I needed to have a platform. A platform is something you stand on. It makes you taller than you are. In trade publishing， a platform is the same， but it’s a prestigious brand. I had two: from a trade editor’s point of view， I had been a “professor” at the big university and a “writer” at the big magazine. Second， I needed a big idea. A big idea is an enthusiastically stated thesis， usually taking the form of “This changes everything and will make you rich， happy， and beautiful.” A big idea must be counterintuitive9): the this that changes everything must be something everyone thinks is trivial， but in fact matters a great deal. In my case， the this had to be Wikipedia， so my big idea was “Wikipedia changes everything.” Third， I needed a catchphrase title like The Wisdom of Crowds10)， The Tipping Point11)， or The Long Tail12). The title had to be the kind of thing that becomes a cliché. And in fact a trade editor suggested a good title—WikiWorld.

My agent is not a cynical man. He never suggested that I misrepresent myself or commit to anything I couldn’t accomplish. He was simply doing his job， explaining to me how this particular game is played. He is also very good at what he does. So when the bidding ended， a New York trade publisher showed us a large number. I should point out that in actuality I had no book. All I had was a shaky platform， a supposedly big idea， and a catchy title. Yet there it was， the big number.

My editor at the New York publisher proclaimed that my book would be important. This was Wikipedia’s moment. My book would capture it. But what was the book going to be about? We weren’t sure. Something to do with mass collaboration and how it changes everything. I’d work it out. There was only one sticking point13)， a sticking point that almost tipped me over14): he wanted the book in six months. I said that was impossible. He told me to do the best I could. I thought of that large number and agreed to try.

I started doing research. This was revealing， as research should be. It forced me to scotch15) the idea that “Wikipedia changes everything，” because it obviously didn’t. The truth about Wikipedia was messy. I couldn’t boil it down16) to catchphrases and anecdotes17). So I did my best to reduce the inherent complexity of the subject， and submitted the manuscript. Was it good? Well， the book did the job as I understood it. Was it done18)? Yes， and that was important. But I was worried. I had strayed from the big-idea template. My book was a convoluted19) story involving evolution， human nature， media technologies， and their effects on human society and thought. Surprisingly， my editor liked it a lot. He compared me to Jared Diamond20). My agent told me that this was the best possible news: Diamond’s books sold like hotcakes.

Then my editor fell ominously21) silent. E-mails went unanswered， phone calls unreturned. What had happened? My agent explained that my big idea—which in fact was no longer my big idea—had a short shelf life22). That’s why my editor had wanted the book in six months. Other Wikipedia books were in the pipeline. Some of their authors had higher platforms， bigger ideas， and pithier titles than mine. The clock was ticking. After six months， my editor finally wrote me. Not surprisingly， he no longer liked my book. Too complicated for the average trade reader. He advised me to speculate. “Unleash your inner Marshall McLuhan23)，” he said， and rewrite the book.

This was excellent advice from a smart man with decades of experience in trade publishing. But I realized that I had no inner Marshall McLuhan. Even more important was my realization that I had no inner James Surowiecki， Malcolm Gladwell， or Chris Anderson. From my editor’s perspective， these were models， and rightly so. They made trade publishers a fortune. From my perspective， however， they were good writers who had spun big ideas into gold. I couldn’t write a big-idea book， because， as it turned out， I didn’t believe in big ideas. By my lights24)， they almost had to be wrong. Years of academic research taught me two things. First， reality is as complicated as it is， not as complicated as we want it to be. Some phenomena have an irreducible complexity that will defeat any big-idea effort at simplification. Second， most of the easy big questions about the way the world works have been answered. The questions that remain are really hard. Big ideas， then， can only reinvent the wheel or make magical claims.

So I forgot about big ideas and did what I was trained to do. I conducted research. I let the facts be my guide. My book contained no down-from-the-mountain revelations. Its conclusions would not make anyone rich， happy， and beautiful. Its rewards were unashamedly intellectual， and moreover not that easily achieved. It was a difficult book. I submitted it to my editor， hoping that he would accept it.

Of course he couldn’t. Wikipedia’s moment had passed， and my big idea had vanished. He killed the book， and the big number disappeared. I don’t blame him. He was just doing his job. I was the one， after all， who had not followed through on a promise. I said I would write a big-idea book， but I had instead written a book of ideas.

年輕時我就滿懷理想，要寫出一本具有挑戰性的、充滿真知灼見的好書。我滿腦子想的是20世紀五六十年代公共知識分子所寫出的那種“高深莫測”的圖書：《孤獨的人群》、《單向度的人》、《意識形態的終結》等。知識分子們鄭重其事地談論著這些書籍，他們聚集在像紐約和舊金山這樣充滿魔力的地方，而我當時對這些地方還一無所知呢。遺憾的是，我并沒有什么深刻的話語好說。于是，我就和大多數在知識上追求進步的美國年輕人一樣，上了研究生?？墒?，在研究生院，我還是沒有找到什么深刻的話語好說。相反，我學會了做研究，學會了怎樣寫出條理清晰的文章。在此后的若干年里，我寫了幾本書，但并不是充滿深奧思想的那種。我的書都是對現實世界某些微觀事實的展示，中心明確，引文、出處全都羅列得一清二楚。這種書可以增加人們的知識。這也很了不起。

然而，我仍然念念不忘要寫一本充滿真知灼見的書。我知道在學術界我永遠也無法實現這一夢想。于是，在一所名牌大學教了近十年書之后，我辭職來到一家大名鼎鼎的雜志社工作。在我心目中，這家雜志代表著美國知識界的頂尖水平。

2005年，維基百科開始騰飛。我想人們也許會對它的歷史感興趣，于是便抱著試試看的態度寫了一篇關于維基百科創辦經歷的文章。這家大牌雜志的編輯很喜歡，并在2006年發表了這篇文章。就在我這篇關于維基百科的文章在這家大牌雜志上發表之時，另一篇關于維基百科的文章也在另一家大牌雜志上發表。一時之間，維基百科突然變得——用蒂娜·布朗的話來說——“非?；鸨?。這可正是我寫一本充滿真知灼見之書的大好時機啊——雖然我并沒有什么真知灼見好寫。我隨便找了一位作家代理人，給他發了一封電子郵件，詢問我是否可以寫一本關于維基百科式的互聯網合作的書。幾分鐘之后我就接到了他的電話。在電話線的另一端，這位好心人告訴我說他已經讀過我的文章。我可以和紐約一家大牌商業出版社簽訂圖書出版合同。

我需要做的事如下。首先，我需要有一個平臺。所謂平臺，就是一個可以立足的地方，它使你顯得更加高大。商業出版界的平臺也不例外，但這里的平臺是一個名聲顯赫的品牌。這樣的品牌我有兩個：從商業編輯的角度來看，我曾是一所名牌大學的“教授”，又是一家大牌雜志社的“作者”。其次，我需要一個奇妙的觀點。一個奇妙的觀點就是一個寫得激情澎湃的主題，其常見形式是“它能改變一切，將會讓你變得富裕、幸福和美麗。”一個奇妙的觀點必須是違反直覺的：這個改變了一切的東西必須是人人都認為無關緊要但實際上又十分重要的東西。就我的情況而言，這個東西必須是維基百科，因此我的奇妙觀點就是“維基百科改變了一切”。第三，我需要一個吸引眼球的書名，諸如《群體智慧》、《引爆流行》、《長尾》之類的。這個書名必須是某個人們經常掛在嘴邊的詞語。事實上，一位商業編輯給我建議了一個好名字——《維基世界》。

我的代理并不是一個憤世嫉俗的人。他從不建議我做違心之事，或者做明知不可為之事。他只是盡自己的職責，告訴我這個行業的游戲規則。他的工作做得也很出色，投標結束時，紐約的一家商業出版社出了一筆很大的數目。應該說明的是，事實上我還沒有什么書。我所擁有的只是一個搖搖晃晃的平臺、一個號稱奇妙的觀點，還有一個花哨引人的書名。可就是這樣，竟然得到了那么一大筆數目。

紐約那家出版社的編輯宣稱我的這本書十分重要。這是維基百科的時代。我的書將抓住這個契機。但這本書到底要怎么寫呢？我們誰也不清楚。只知道要寫群體合作以及這種合作如何改變了一切。這需要我來挖掘。但只有一點比較棘手，這一點幾乎把我難倒：他要我六個月交出書稿。我說這不可能。他要我盡力而為。看在那筆不菲的數目的分上，我答應試一試。

我開始作研究。結果收獲還真不小，這也正是研究的意義所在。研究的結果讓我不得不放棄“維基百科改變一切”的觀點，因為它顯然做不到。關于維基百科的事實比較混亂，我無法將其濃縮成一個個閃光的句子和奇聞軼事。于是我使出渾身解數來簡化這個本質上十分復雜的話題，并將手稿交了上去。寫得夠好嗎？可以說，這本書已按照我的理解完成了自己的使命。寫得夠潮嗎？是的，這一點很重要。但我卻很擔心，因為我偏離了原定的奇妙觀點的模板。我的書講述的是一個盤根錯節的復雜故事，涉及進化、人性、媒體技術及其對人類社會和思想的影響。出乎意料的是，我的編輯非常喜歡。他拿我和杰瑞德·戴夢德相比。我的代理告訴我說，這也許是最好的消息了：戴夢德的書賣得火著呢。

可隨后我的編輯就杳無音信了，這讓我隱隱有一種不祥之感。電子郵件沒有回復，電話沒人接聽。到底出了什么事？代理解釋說，我的奇妙觀點——事實上已經不再是我的奇妙觀點——貨架期太短。這也是我的編輯要求我六個月交稿的原因。其他和維基百科相關的書也正待出爐。這些作者有的比我的平臺更高，觀點更奇妙，書名更言簡意賅。時間一點一滴地過去。六個月之后，我的編輯終于有了音信。不出所料，他已不再喜歡我的書。對普通商業讀者來說這本書太過復雜。他要我再好好想一想。他說，“把你內心深處的馬歇爾·麥克盧漢釋放出來”，重寫這本書。

這是一位有著幾十年商業出版經驗的聰明人給我提的寶貴建議。可是我卻發現我的內心沒有馬歇爾·麥克盧漢。更為關鍵的是，我還發現我也沒有什么內在的詹姆斯·索羅維基(注：《群體智慧》的作者)、馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾(注：《引爆流行》的作者)或者克里斯·安德森(注：《長尾》的作者)。在我的編輯看來，這些都是我的榜樣，事實上也的確如此。他們為商業出版商帶來了豐厚的利潤?？墒?，從我自己的角度來看，他們都是很優秀的作家，善于將絕妙的觀點變成黃燦燦的金子。我無法寫出這種具有奇妙觀點的書，因為我研究的結果證明，我已不再相信什么奇妙觀點。就我看來，它們幾乎注定是錯誤的。多年的學術研究經驗教會了我兩件事。其一，現實從本質上來說就是復雜的，而不是我們想讓它怎么復雜就怎么復雜。有些現象就包含著無可簡化的復雜性，任何試圖將其簡化成某種奇思妙想的努力都會以失敗而告終。其二，關于世界運行規律的大多數容易回答的大問題都已經有了答案。那些沒有答案的問題確實都是很難回答的問題。因此，所謂的真知灼見，要么是再發明一次車輪，要么就是提出魔法般的神奇論斷。

因此，我將奇思妙想扔到一邊，踏踏實實地做我受的教育教會我的事。我開始作研究。我讓事實成為我的向導。我的書中沒有揭秘什么驚天大內幕，得出的結論也不會使人變得富裕、幸福和美麗。但我可以毫不羞愧地說，它給讀者帶來的報酬是智力上的，而且這種好處確實是來之不易的。這是一本難讀的書。我把它交給了編輯，希望他能夠接受。

當然他無法接受。維基百科的好時光已經過去，我的奇思妙想也已不見蹤影。他槍斃了這本書，那筆可觀的數目也隨之消失了。我并不責怪他。他只是履行自己的職責而已。畢竟，是我自己沒有信守承諾。我說我要寫一本具有奇妙觀點的書，結果卻寫出了一本融匯各種見解的書。

1.meme weaver：一種比喻的說法，將作家等文化工作者比作文化基因的編織者、創造者。meme：(通過模仿等傳遞的)文化基因

2.The Lonely Crowd：《孤獨的人群》，美國社會學家大衛·理斯曼在同事的協助下完成的一部經典學術著作。該書的主旨是探討美國人社會性格的形成及演變，被譽為“當代最有影響的著作之一”。

3.The One-Dimensional Man：《單向度的人》，德裔美籍哲學家和社會理論家赫伯特·馬爾庫塞最負盛名的著作，其核心就是批判發達資本主義社會的意識形態。該書在20世紀60年代為馬爾庫塞贏得了世界性的聲譽，他被媒體稱頌為“新左派之父”，成為美國和歐洲最有影響的知識分子。

4.The End of Ideology：《意識形態的終結》，當代美國學者丹尼爾·貝爾的著作。該書的核心觀點認為，發端于19世紀人道主義傳統的普遍性意識形態已經走向衰落，新的地區性意識形態正在興起，在資本主義和社會主義之間存在的“左”“右”論戰已經喪失意義。

5.pinnacle [#712;p#618;n#601;k(#601;)l] n. 頂點，最高點

6.on spec：(=on speculation)碰運氣地

7.Tina Brown：蒂娜·布朗(1953～)，美國媒體界傳奇人物，現任新聞網站《每日野獸網》(The Daily Beast)和雜志《新聞周刊》(Newsweek)總編，曾任《名利場》(Vanity Fair) 、《閑談》(Tatler)、《紐約客》(The New Yorkers)等雜志總編。

8.not that：倒不是

9.counterintuitive [#716;ka#650;nt(#601;)r#618;n#712;tju#720;#618;t#618;v] adj. 違反直覺的

10.The Wisdom of Crowds：《群體智慧》，《紐約客》專欄作家詹姆斯·索羅維基(James Surowiecki)的著作，于2004年出版。該書的核心觀點為，群體做出的決策有時會優于個人的決策。

11.The Tipping Point：《引爆流行》，《紐約客》專欄作家馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾(Malcolm Gladwell)的著作，于2000年出版。該書以社會上突如其來的流行風潮研究為切入點，從一個全新的角度探索了控制科學和營銷模式。

12.The Long Tail：《長尾》，美國《連線》(Wired)雜志主編克里斯·安德森(Chris Anderson)的著作，于2006年出版。該書的主要觀點認為，商業和文化的未來不在于傳統需求曲線上那個代表“暢銷商品”的頭部，而是那條代表“冷門商品”的經常被人遺忘的長尾。

13.sticking point：癥結(造成或可能造成僵局的要點、問題或形勢)

14.tip over：(使)翻倒，(使)傾翻

15.scotch [sk#594;t#643;] vt. 打消，撤銷

16.boil down：濃縮，簡化

17.anecdote [#712;aelig;n#618;k#716;d#601;#650;t] n. 軼事，奇聞

18.done [d#652;n] adj. 時髦的，流行的

19.convoluted [#712;k#594;nv#601;#716;lu#720;t#618;d] adj. 錯綜復雜的

20.Jared Diamond：杰瑞德·戴夢德(1937～)，美國科學家，暢銷書作家，現任美國加州大學洛杉磯分校(UCLA)教授。

21.ominously [#712;#594;m#618;n#601;sli] adv. 惡兆地，不吉利地

22.shelf life：貨架期，保存期限

23.Marshall McLuhan：馬歇爾·麥克盧漢(1911~1980)，20世紀傳播學大師，最富有原創性的傳播學理論家，媒介環境學的開山祖師

24.by one’s lights：根據某人的理解