文藝與道德Art and Morality

王鼎鈞 蔡力堅

人與人的行為交叉互動，行為從人性出發1，包括道德不道德，也包括表面道德其實不道德，或表面不道德其實道德。文學作品既然表現人生，作家就要考慮到人的復雜，不能以道德予以簡化。

以短篇小說而論，文評家說它寫的是“一個人，遇見一個問題，他想了一個辦法來解決，得到結果”。進一步推演，它是“一個性格突出的人，遇見一個非常的問題，他想了一個獨特的方法來解決，得到意料之外的結果”。從文學理論家的界說可以看出道德的局限，道德常常傾向于不作為2，而且往往難以解決“不道德”的問題3，看來“不甚道德”的人比較能干一些，軍隊作戰的時候，往往是平時“調皮搗蛋”的分子有能力完成任務。一個單位里如果個個君子，難免單調沉悶，一旦進來一個“通權達變不拘細行”的新同事，馬上古井生波，軼聞掌故陸續產生，人人眉宇5間多了些朝氣。

道德缺少戲劇性，戲劇性是文學作品的一個成分6，它常由壞人產生，所以戲劇中不能全是好人。從前地方戲的口訣“戲不夠神仙救”，時代戲的口訣“戲不夠壞人救”;從前說“無女人不成戲”，現在說“無壞人不成戲”。7兩句話的意思其實差不多，前代編導歧視女性，常把女人塑成負面角色，利用她推動情節。

我們常說“百善”“萬惡”。善行大致類似，罪惡的行為則千奇百怪，匪夷所思。你想捐錢給紅十字會嗎？那很容易，技術上沒什么挑戰性，如果是向官員行賄就不同，你得夠聰明機巧，有幾分發明天才。捐款的經過平鋪直敘，行賄的經過卻可能很有趣或者很曲折，你愿意聽一個行賄的故事還是聽捐獻的故事？

給歹角編戲難度高，編導先得自己“夠壞”。好萊塢電影常常成為壞人作奸犯科的教材：香港一名大盜，開著挖土機挖掉銀行門側的自動取款機，那玩意兒的重量是七百五十公斤，他是看電影、學作案。紐約一名強盜坐在輪椅上，腿上蓋著毯子，由一名女子推進銀行，那男子突然掀開毯子，拔出手槍，這一對雌雄盜也承認他們作案的手法由電影學來。

中國的京戲不外“忠孝節義”，那是大處著眼，但戲劇是由許多細節組成，京戲對人心的奸詐險惡做了“有情的揭露”，入木三分但不失忠厚，壞人竭盡聰明機巧，最后卻成全了好人，這是京戲的風格。究竟是哪一部分叫看戲的人津津樂道呢？是壞人做了些什么，不是好人最后得到了什么。曹操欺負漢獻帝，能使一個莊稼漢跳上戲臺把曹操殺死，郭子儀勤王能有這樣的效果嗎？

作家常以“不道德”或“非道德”為創新的手段。例如，“夫婦互相體諒”是道德典范，也是故事陳套，推陳出新的方法之一是反其道而行。有一個人在家中舉行宴會，慶祝結婚二十周年，至親好友來做長夜之飲，突然發現男主人不見了，大家到處尋找，在后院的石凳上找到他，只見他丟掉領帶，敞露前胸，手里提著空空的酒瓶發呆。朋友問他怎么了，他說：“結婚后三個月我就發現無法跟她共同生活，她又堅決不肯離婚，我想殺了她。律師告訴我，你如果那樣做了，法院會判你二十年徒刑，二十年太長了，我只好忍下來。你看，今天二十年了，如果我當初殺死她，今天我也自由了！我好后悔啊！”它顯然不道德，然而很精彩，作家很難抵抗這種誘惑。

戲劇不允許好人做單調的表演12，如果引入壞人，那歹角可能奪走觀眾的注意力。戲劇情節向高潮發展，可以把不道德推向極端，相形之下，道德的揮灑空間較小。例如那一部叫作《色·戒》的影片，獻身抗戰的美女愛上他們要暗殺的大漢奸，泄漏了機密，以致參與行動的愛國青年全體喪生。故事顯然違背道德家的要求，但是戲“好看”，道德家能提出更好的設計嗎？? ? ? ? ? □

Human interaction reflects human nature. It includes both moral and immoral acts. It also includes acts that seem moral but are in fact immoral， and those that seem immoral but are in fact moral. To depict human life truthfully， literary writers should try to capture this complexity without relying on an over-simplified moral yardstick.

Take short stories. Critics suggest that these stories explain how an individual encounters a problem and how he copes with and solves it. Or better yet， they should be about how a very special individual encounters a very special problem and how he comes up with a unique solution that leads to an unexpected result. The formula advanced by critics seems to point to a limit to morality’s reach. Often moral agency isn’t proactive. It could be hard to rely on it to overcome what’s immoral. Besides， those who seem morally dubious are often better at achieving results. For example， when the armed forces are engaged in combat operations， those usually mischievous members tend to be more effective at getting the job done. An organization staffed only with morally rigid individuals would be mired in boredom. The arrival of a new colleague unbound by convention and more prone to push the envelope4 would bring a breath of fresh air， generating stories that attract the attention of many and injecting life into a stifling workplace environment.

Morality is short on drama， a key ingredient of literature. Drama often relies on the role of a villain， and its absence would be keenly felt in a story populated only by good guys. In the olden days， the standard recipe for an enhanced dramatic effect called for enlisting the help of either supernatural beings or a female character， whereas modern plays are spiced up by the presence of a villain. The role of a female character was essentially the same as that of a bad guy， because back then women were discriminated against and relegated to an anti-hero role needed for adding plot twists.

We often use the numerical term “hundreds” when talking about good deeds， but use “tens of thousands” to highlight the vast multitudes of evils. This peculiar language feature reflects a relative similarity between good deeds and an abundant variety of evils. Making a donation to the Red Cross isn’t a technically challenging feat， whereas an attempt to bribe an official entails guile and ingenuity. It’s pretty dull to see how a donation is made， but it can be enthralling to follow the twists and turns in a bribery scheme. Which story， then， do you like to hear？

It’s a tall order to create a compelling black hat8. For starters， screenwriters and directors would have to be “devious enough” themselves. Indeed， Hollywood movies often become textbooks for criminals. A robber in Hong Kong drove an excavator to remove an ATM—which weighed 750 kilograms—from the side entrance to a bank. He took his cue9 from a movie. A criminal in New York sat in a wheelchair， his legs covered with a blanket， and was pushed into a bank by a lady. Once inside， the man removed the blanket to reveal his gun. Later， they also acknowledged that their heist was inspired by crime movies.

Beijing opera stories are presented within the framework of traditional Chinese values of loyalty， filial piety， moral integrity and ethical living. They do， however， contain many subplots about treachery and deception. Criticism is usually measured， though at times incisive. Good always prevails over evil. Black hats display consummate duplicity only to benefit a good cause. That’s the usual storyline of Beijing opera. Which part of a play is more captivating？ A villain’s intrigue or a hero’s reward？ Once when a scene was being played out where Cao Cao， a devious warlord10， humiliated the beloved11 emperor of the Han dynasty， a country bumpkin charged onto the stage and killed the warlord. Can a story of moral triumph match such enthralling power？

Writers often experiment with what’s considered immoral or not moral when they try to be innovative. For example， a time-honored ethical rule calls for mutual understanding between husband and wife. Many trite stories are based on this rule. One way to buck convention is to run counter to it. Thus， a new story goes as follows. A man hosted a banquet at home celebrating his 20th wedding anniversary， and invited his relatives and friends. But the host went missing amidst all the wining and dining. His guests looked for him everywhere and finally found him on a stone bench in his backyard， dazed and disheveled， his tie gone， his chest bared， an empty wine bottle in his hand. His friends asked him what was wrong. He said， “Three months after I got married， I realized there was no way I could get along with her， but she refused to end our marriage. I wanted to kill her， but my lawyer said I’d be put behind bars for twenty years if I did that. Twenty years would be too long， I thought. I had no choice but to put up with the pain of this loveless marriage. Now twenty years is gone. If I had killed her back then， I would have been freed today. I regret I didn’t do it.” This is obviously an immoral tale. But it’s captivating. The temptation to write a story like this is too strong to resist.

To add drama to a story， we often have to fall back on bad guys. But they may well steal the show. A movement toward a story’s climax may propel immorality to a new level. By contrast， morality’s reach is more limited. In a movie called “Lust， Caution”， a beautiful girl devoted to the pursuit of liberation fell in love with a traitor whom her resistance group had planned to assassinate. Overcome by emotion， she divulged the secret， resulting in the arrest and execution of all young patriots involved in the scheme. This story violates the teachings of moralists—big time. But it’s riveting. Can moralists propose a better storyline？

1如果按照中文組合方式來翻譯，這句話可能被譯成：Actions between persons are interactions， and actions start from human nature. 但問題在于，如果如此照顧了字面意思，照顧了原文結構，譯文就既不“信”，也不“達”，更不“雅”。對于“人與人的行為交叉互動”這一描述，在英文里用human interaction兩個詞即可涵蓋，從意義上來說已經毫無遺漏之處，而如果仿照中文單詞及其主謂組合方式，譯文就會極度累贅，令人無法忍受。另外，“行為從人性出發”也不宜按字面意思處理，稱actions start from human nature沒有意義。? 2原文里的“不作為”本來是一個法律用語，是指行為人負有實施某種行為的特定義務卻在能夠履行的情況下不予履行。這一用法在英文里的對應詞一般為omission。但在本文語境里，情況完全不是這樣，翻譯時如果只關注字面意思，硬把omission塞在此處，很可能會產生令人啼笑皆非的效果。

3“解決……問題”是中文里極為常用的一種結構，可用于各種不同的語境，不少譯者一見到“解決……問題”就不假思索地將其譯成solve the problem of…。雖然在某些語境中這樣譯或許未嘗不可，但在多數情況下，這樣譯會顯得多余或離奇，一般情況下我們只需說明問題所涉情況本身，而不必設法保留“問題”兩字。? 4 push the envelope意為approach or extend the limits of what is possible，相當于“通權達變不拘細行”。? 5對于諸如“人人”“眉宇”等詞語，沒有必要硬譯，“人人”即表示一種工作環境，用workplace environment來表示未嘗不可。當然，翻譯沒有固定模式，只要能在確保“達意”的基礎上反映內在含義，任何一種處理方式都是可以的，前提是不偏離文章主題和思路，確保前后銜接，確保原文的所有信息要素均得到再現。? 6原文里“道德缺少戲劇性”和“戲劇性是文學作品的一個成分”為兩個獨立的分句，如果在譯文里保留這一結構，容易導致累贅，不如合并處理。我們的關注點永遠在于全面確切傳遞內在含義，而不應拘泥于原文的形式框架，因此對接下去兩個分句的處理也是一樣，譯文結構完全依照譯文表達的需要，所以參考譯文里relies on、absence、keenly felt等在單詞層面的含義在原文里是否具備無關緊要。

7作者靠中文詞語的押韻達到特定效果，但這種組合只適用于中文，因為從內容上來看，兩句話有重復，都包含了“壞人”的要素。中文兩句話內容重復不要緊，因為押韻的特殊效果中和了重復的累贅性。另外，中文對重復容忍度很高，而英文對重復的容忍度很低，對邏輯合理性的要求卻很高。即使我們想盡辦法在英文里編出兩個同樣押韻的對仗句子，只要內容有重復，仍然是不可取的，在英文里押韻的效果無法抵消重復的累贅。? 8 black hat即“歹角”。

9 to take one’s cue的意思是to model one’s actions based on the example or influence of someone or something else，在此表示仿效（電影里的）手法。? 10曹操在中文里人人皆知，自然不需要另加說明，但如果要在譯文里保留曹操這個名字，我們就不得不作補充說明，故添加了a devious warlord作為同位語。? 11與注10所述情況一樣，僅僅說emperor of the Han dynasty似乎不夠。為了烘托刺殺行為的無恥，添加了修飾詞beloved。

12“戲劇不允許好人做單調的表演”，換句話說就是，利用壞人增加戲劇性。