文艺与道德Art and Morality

王鼎钧 蔡力坚

人與人的行为交叉互动，行为从人性出发1，包括道德不道德，也包括表面道德其实不道德，或表面不道德其实道德。文学作品既然表现人生，作家就要考虑到人的复杂，不能以道德予以简化。

以短篇小说而论，文评家说它写的是“一个人，遇见一个问题，他想了一个办法来解决，得到结果”。进一步推演，它是“一个性格突出的人，遇见一个非常的问题，他想了一个独特的方法来解决，得到意料之外的结果”。从文学理论家的界说可以看出道德的局限，道德常常倾向于不作为2，而且往往难以解决“不道德”的问题3，看来“不甚道德”的人比较能干一些，军队作战的时候，往往是平时“调皮捣蛋”的分子有能力完成任务。一个单位里如果个个君子，难免单调沉闷，一旦进来一个“通权达变不拘细行”的新同事，马上古井生波，轶闻掌故陆续产生，人人眉宇5间多了些朝气。

道德缺少戏剧性，戏剧性是文学作品的一个成分6，它常由坏人产生，所以戏剧中不能全是好人。从前地方戏的口诀“戏不够神仙救”，时代戏的口诀“戏不够坏人救”;从前说“无女人不成戏”，现在说“无坏人不成戏”。7两句话的意思其实差不多，前代编导歧视女性，常把女人塑成负面角色，利用她推动情节。

我们常说“百善”“万恶”。善行大致类似，罪恶的行为则千奇百怪，匪夷所思。你想捐钱给红十字会吗？那很容易，技术上没什么挑战性，如果是向官员行贿就不同，你得够聪明机巧，有几分发明天才。捐款的经过平铺直叙，行贿的经过却可能很有趣或者很曲折，你愿意听一个行贿的故事还是听捐献的故事？

给歹角编戏难度高，编导先得自己“够坏”。好莱坞电影常常成为坏人作奸犯科的教材：香港一名大盗，开着挖土机挖掉银行门侧的自动取款机，那玩意儿的重量是七百五十公斤，他是看电影、学作案。纽约一名强盗坐在轮椅上，腿上盖着毯子，由一名女子推进银行，那男子突然掀开毯子，拔出手枪，这一对雌雄盗也承认他们作案的手法由电影学来。

中国的京戏不外“忠孝节义”，那是大处着眼，但戏剧是由许多细节组成，京戏对人心的奸诈险恶做了“有情的揭露”，入木三分但不失忠厚，坏人竭尽聪明机巧，最后却成全了好人，这是京戏的风格。究竟是哪一部分叫看戏的人津津乐道呢？是坏人做了些什么，不是好人最后得到了什么。曹操欺负汉献帝，能使一个庄稼汉跳上戏台把曹操杀死，郭子仪勤王能有这样的效果吗？

作家常以“不道德”或“非道德”为创新的手段。例如，“夫妇互相体谅”是道德典范，也是故事陈套，推陈出新的方法之一是反其道而行。有一个人在家中举行宴会，庆祝结婚二十周年，至亲好友来做长夜之饮，突然发现男主人不见了，大家到处寻找，在后院的石凳上找到他，只见他丢掉领带，敞露前胸，手里提着空空的酒瓶发呆。朋友问他怎么了，他说：“结婚后三个月我就发现无法跟她共同生活，她又坚决不肯离婚，我想杀了她。律师告诉我，你如果那样做了，法院会判你二十年徒刑，二十年太长了，我只好忍下来。你看，今天二十年了，如果我当初杀死她，今天我也自由了！我好后悔啊！”它显然不道德，然而很精彩，作家很难抵抗这种诱惑。

戏剧不允许好人做单调的表演12，如果引入坏人，那歹角可能夺走观众的注意力。戏剧情节向高潮发展，可以把不道德推向极端，相形之下，道德的挥洒空间较小。例如那一部叫作《色·戒》的影片，献身抗战的美女爱上他们要暗杀的大汉奸，泄漏了机密，以致参与行动的爱国青年全体丧生。故事显然违背道德家的要求，但是戏“好看”，道德家能提出更好的设计吗？          □

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来翻译，这句话可能被译成：Actions between persons are interactions， and actions start from human nature. 但问题在于，如果如此照顾了字面意思，照顾了原文结构，译文就既不“信”，也不“达”，更不“雅”。对于“人与人的行为交叉互动”这一描述，在英文里用human interaction两个词即可涵盖，从意义上来说已经毫无遗漏之处，而如果仿照中文单词及其主谓组合方式，译文就会极度累赘，令人无法忍受。另外，“行为从人性出发”也不宜按字面意思处理，称actions start from human nature没有意义。  2原文里的“不作为”本来是一个法律用语，是指行为人负有实施某种行为的特定义务却在能够履行的情况下不予履行。这一用法在英文里的对应词一般为omission。但在本文语境里，情况完全不是这样，翻译时如果只关注字面意思，硬把omission塞在此处，很可能会产生令人啼笑皆非的效果。

3“解决……问题”是中文里极为常用的一种结构，可用于各种不同的语境，不少译者一见到“解决……问题”就不假思索地将其译成solve the problem of…。虽然在某些语境中这样译或许未尝不可，但在多数情况下，这样译会显得多余或离奇，一般情况下我们只需说明问题所涉情况本身，而不必设法保留“问题”两字。  4 push the envelope意为approach or extend the limits of what is possible，相当于“通权达变不拘细行”。  5对于诸如“人人”“眉宇”等词语，没有必要硬译，“人人”即表示一种工作环境，用workplace environment来表示未尝不可。当然，翻译没有固定模式，只要能在确保“达意”的基础上反映内在含义，任何一种处理方式都是可以的，前提是不偏离文章主题和思路，确保前后衔接，确保原文的所有信息要素均得到再现。  6原文里“道德缺少戏剧性”和“戏剧性是文学作品的一个成分”为两个独立的分句，如果在译文里保留这一结构，容易导致累赘，不如合并处理。我们的关注点永远在于全面确切传递内在含义，而不应拘泥于原文的形式框架，因此对接下去两个分句的处理也是一样，译文结构完全依照译文表达的需要，所以参考译文里relies on、absence、keenly felt等在单词层面的含义在原文里是否具备无关紧要。

7作者靠中文词语的押韵达到特定效果，但这种组合只适用于中文，因为从内容上来看，两句话有重复，都包含了“坏人”的要素。中文两句话内容重复不要紧，因为押韵的特殊效果中和了重复的累赘性。另外，中文对重复容忍度很高，而英文对重复的容忍度很低，对逻辑合理性的要求却很高。即使我们想尽办法在英文里编出两个同样押韵的对仗句子，只要内容有重复，仍然是不可取的，在英文里押韵的效果无法抵消重复的累赘。  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（电影里的）手法。  10曹操在中文里人人皆知，自然不需要另加说明，但如果要在译文里保留曹操这个名字，我们就不得不作补充说明，故添加了a devious warlord作为同位语。  11与注10所述情况一样，仅仅说emperor of the Han dynasty似乎不够。为了烘托刺杀行为的无耻，添加了修饰词beloved。

12“戏剧不允许好人做单调的表演”，换句话说就是，利用坏人增加戏剧性。