Skip to content

作者隐去,作品重生

作者隐去,作品重生

我们翻译这篇文章的理由

在《什么是作者》一文中,福柯提出“在思想、知识和文学历史里,在哲学和科学历史里,作者的概念构成了一种强烈的个人化时刻”。如果“上帝之死”并非出自尼采之口,或许我们会有全然不同解读。当文学文本的解释不再依据其表象,作者的生平也不再能赋予其意义,我们仍然要追问,作者的存在与否于作品的意义究竟是什么?或许这可以从罗马的匿名文学中找到答案——与其宣告“作者已死”、“读者诞生”,不如说作者的消失真正释放了文学的力量。
——王雅婧

👇

佚名之力

作者:Tom Geue

译者:王禹琦

校对:王雅婧

推荐:刘小康

策划:王雅婧& 不锁

The power of anonymous
佚名之力
Anonymous works of art and literature tend to rend and vex their audience. Debate still simmers over whether the UK street artist Banksy’s fugitive identity is a compelling act of cultural critique, or an annoying and cynical public itystunt. The same goes for the elusive, self-created pseudonym of an Italian novelist, Elena Ferrante: is the ‘real’ Ferrante’s absence making an important feminist point about anonymous authorship, flipping a genuine middle finger to the publishing industry and the capitalist culture of self-promotion,or is it a glorified money-spinner, a bare strategy of generating interest and sales, a joke, as it were, on us? Because anonymous works leave a crucial gap as a placeholder for the author’s ‘rightful’ position, they open themselves to the wild and contradictory gamut of responses. They can also give rise to other electric acts of creativity, responses stretching from conspiracy theories, to informed speculation, to new ways of understanding authorship, to new works of art and criticism.

匿名的文艺作品往往会搅得观众心烦意乱。英国街头艺术家班克斯维持其神秘的身份究竟是高调的文化批评,还是恼人矫情的宣传噱头?对此,人们仍争论不休。意大利小说家埃琳娜·费兰特这个难以捉摸的自封笔名也是如此:“真正的”作者选择隐匿于笔名之后,是在阐述颇有女权色彩的重要立场、向出版业和自我鼓吹的资本主义文化竖起中指吗?还是说,使用笔名不过是一棵粉饰过的摇钱树、是赤裸裸的营销策略,而我们被玩弄于股掌之中?铺天盖地的回应中夹杂着褒贬不一的声音,顺理成章地填补了匿名作品中作者留下的空白。同时,匿名作品还能激发更多创造性的火花。从阴谋论到合理猜测,从理解作者身份的新方式再到新的艺术作品和批评,各种回应层出不穷。

译注:班克斯(Banksy)是英国街头涂鸦艺术大师,自称艺术界恐怖分子,创作了大量以现实生活和反战内容为题材的作品,被誉为当今世界上最有才气的街头艺术家之一,其真实身份至今仍是一个谜。

译注:埃琳娜·费兰特(Elena Ferrante)是一位意大利小说家,自称1943年出生于那不勒斯,代表作品为“那不勒斯四部曲”。费兰特自1992年发表作品至今,一直坚持匿名,其从未在公开场合露面,从不公开接受媒体的当面采访,也未在网上留下任何公开照片。费兰特对此的解释是“作品一旦完成,它们也就不再需要作者了”。

Anonymity achieves much more than this spur to creative response, or this spurt of audience engagement. Not knowing the author of a literary work does something powerful to the reader: it makes her experience the words as an exemplary, representative, far-reaching burst of culture, a spark of art that seems to transcend the limits of the singular intelligence. Ferrante, for example, has won glowing praise for representing the world of women, or female friendship, in general. The potential of the anonymous work is in its ability to throw the reader into the realm of apparent universality. The question, then, is whether a work of literature’s oomph is actually jeopardised or atrophied by the presence of the author. If they all left, wouldwe miss authors after all? Or would their departure make their work stronger?
引起更多创造性的回应也好,让更多的受众参与也罢,佚名的力量远不止此,它也对读者产生了强大的影响。阅读匿名文学让读者得以体验到文字背后蓄势待发的力量,典型而深远,有如超越了个体智力极限而迸发出的艺术火花。例如,费兰特就因写实地刻画了女性世界、或说女性间的友谊而备受青睐。匿名作品的潜力在于它能将更多读者凝聚在一起。那么,问题来了——作者的存在到底是损害还是削弱了作品的魅力呢?如果作者“离开”了,我们会不会想念他们的存在呢?作品会因此而更加震撼吗?
Ancient Rome is a prime setting for grasping the power of anonymity, for Romans of the Classical world often acknowledged its power negatively, adversely. Literature for the Romans was primarily the product of a singular intelligence, a coherent creative force, known by short hand as an author. A literary text without authorship was often thought of as something dark, mysterious, lacking and disabled. In fact, a whole part-industry of scholarship sprouted up around securing attribution, making sure, that is, that the right texts had their proper authors, and that readers could know the worth of what they read.
古典世界的罗马人通常对权力持消极、否定态度,佚名之力由此兴盛是再自然不过的事情。起初,罗马文学是个体智慧的产物,源于一股从始至终的创作力,也就是来自我们熟知的个人作者。没有署名的作品通常被冠以阴暗莫测、鄙陋不堪之名。实际上,在完整的学术产业链中,其中一环就是围绕着归属而产生的,既要确保文字与作者一一对应,更要方便读者明确每份读物的价值。

When a Roman reader pictured the origins of a canonical work of literature, it was typically as the fruit of a real, flesh-and-blood, historical individual. This was reflected in the very way that libraries stored their goods: a ticket would hang off the end of the scroll marking the two most salient hashtags of identification: title of work and name of author. Even when there was no clear single point of origin for a work – eg, when the authorship was genuinely shared – Ancient readers invented one: it could never just be the Iliad or the Odyssey; it had to be the Iliad or Odyssey of Homer. There was little space in the culture of authorship for works whose author was properly unknown; and many modern readers have inherited these exclusionary tastes.
罗马读者勾勒出的文学巨作之源,通常是一位真实鲜活的历史人物。这一点从罗马图书馆贮存卷轴的方式上可见一斑:悬挂在卷轴尾的标签注明了两个最重要的信息——作品名与作家名。即便是作品无法清楚地追根溯源时(例如由多位作家共同完成),他们也会发明一个作者。不可以只是《伊利亚特》或《奥德赛》,必须是荷马的《伊利亚特》或《奥德赛》。佚名作品很少可以在文学界有一席之地,而许多现代读者的品味也沿袭了这种排斥的传统。
Still now, the value of a piece of literature seems pegged to the currency of the name it bears. It needn’t be this way. The anonymous literature of Ancient Rome is a species with its own special genius, its own idiomatic capabilities. When we recognise it as an incubation chamber for the power of anonymity, it shows us that literature can sometimes get on better without a Homer or equivalent to chaperone it into our consciousness. Names tame certain forces; anonymity unleashes them. That is, freedom from the author can generate new possibilities for literature, and new experiences of reading it.
时至今日,文学作品的价值似乎与署名的含金量挂钩。其实不必如此。古罗马的匿名文学有着自己专属的风采与秉性。我们盛赞古罗马的匿名文学是佚名之力的摇篮,也认识到,没有伟大作家名字照耀的文学,有时更深入人心。作者的名字驯服了某些力量,匿名则释放了它们。摆脱作者的束缚,得以为文学孕育出新的可能、带来新的阅读体验。
What could anonymous words on a page do that authored words don’t? One way toward an answer is through a reading experience common to both us and the Romans: graffiti. Now, of course, graffiti is a different register of writing than high, published, consecrated literature. All the same, the chain reaction of thought it sets off in a reader can be useful for understanding anonymous works of creative literature too.
有什么是匿名作品可以展示,而署名作品无法讲述的故事呢?答案可以从我们和罗马人都熟悉的“阅读体验”中寻得——涂鸦。当然,现在的涂鸦与高雅而神圣的出版文学有云泥之别,但通过分析涂鸦在读者心中引发的连锁反应,我们可以更好地理解匿名的文学创作。
Imagine yourself stumbling across a big, raw line of political graffiti etched on a public wall, perhaps something like ‘Smash Capitalism Now!’ Part of the power and shock of the statement is that it hovers in the world of the unsigned, set free from the constraints and relativism of an individual subjectivity. If we knew the name of the single scribe calling upon us to smash capitalism this very minute, we wouldn’t take it as seriously. It wouldn’t siphon as much power, and we wouldn’t take it as a loaded act designed to make something happen for many through words. For the graffiti to strike the reader as a sign of revolution in the making depends on the fiction of its collective origins, or its possible unlimited appeal; that is, because it comes from anywhere and nowhere, the sentiment seems to swarm from everywhere. Whether you’re for or against this impending revolution, the graffiti carries a potent effect of universality; for a crowded second, you believe, and either you panic or you rejoice.
假如你偶然经过一面公共墙,墙上画着一大片未经加工的政治性涂鸦,比如什么“打倒资本主义”。这句话之所以震撼,一定程度上是因为它诞生自匿名的世界,挣脱了个体主观性和相对主义的约束。假若我们知道了那位创作者的大名,知道是谁在此刻呼吁打倒资本主义,可能我们根本不会当真。它既不会抽离出庞大的能量,也不会通过文字赋予满载意义的使命感。集体源头的未知意味着无限可能,而涂鸦为世人吹响了革命的另一重号角:随处可见的涂鸦可以来自任何人,所以相同的愤慨似乎无处不在。革命在即,无论你支持与否,涂鸦都承载着一种更为广泛而强烈的力量。但不论是恐慌不已,还是欣喜若狂,你都会在熙攘的一瞬间,认同这股力量的存在。
Proverbs also show the potential power of being unsigned, unhoused. These little snippets of wisdom derive their authority not from their individual crafters (if they could even be recovered) but from the fact that everyone has said them over and over again for a very long time. For Roman writers of the early empire, who prized the weaponising of rhetoric through short, sharp verbal formulations (known as sententiae), the truth of the proverb carried great purchase. It was a truth understood to come from anonymity as almost tantamount to cultural unanimity.
谚语也显示了佚名的潜力。一个个智慧片段并非从个体智者(要是能找到他们的话)那里继承了权威性,而是在口口相传、代代相传之后才沉淀为共识。古罗马帝国早期的作家崇尚修辞术的威力,主张将短小精悍的言语表达(即“格言”)作为利器。谚语意蕴深远,是匿名的真理,几乎与文化一致性无异。
Humans constantly simplify the complexities of the world to the intelligent design of a few lucky proper names
人类惯于将纷繁的世界归功于少数幸运儿的“智能设计”
Quintilian, a Roman teacher of rhetoric from the second half of the 1st century CE, writes about the authority of proverbs for use in legal rhetoric. He makes the point that even run-of-the-mill sayings and titbits of popular wisdom can have a big impact, precisely because they come across as the products of unbiased minds: ‘In some sense they’re testimonies, even more powerful because they’re not serving specific causes but spoken or created by minds free from resentment and favour – for the sole reason that they seemed the best or the truest things to say.’ They seal a nugget of hard truth, and can slip into the mainstream of the cultural commons, ‘because they have no known author’. In other words,they possess a different kind of authority than that of a statement with a big name attached. Proverbial words sans author pulse with their own magnetism of exemplarity. Some anonymous works of Roman literature are capable of the same.
昆提利安(Quintilian)是公元一世纪后半叶的一位古罗马修辞学老师,他曾写道:谚语在法律修辞方面的特有的权威性。他指出,就算是老生常谈的道理和生活的点滴感悟也会产生巨大的影响,因为它们承载的观点不偏不倚:“从某种程度上说,它们也是证词,甚至比证词还有说服力。谚语不为任何特定案件服务,它们出自没有怨恨和偏恃的人之口,因为这些话好得不能再好,真得不能再真了。”谚语印证了一个个硬道理,“因作者不详”而混入主流文化圈。换言之,与署有鼎鼎大名的作品相比,匿名作品拥有另一种权威。佚名的谚语仍有其作为典范的魅力。罗马文学中的一些佚名作品也毫不逊色。
Readers tend to be much more accommodating of anonymity in popular genres such as graffiti and proverbs than in high literature. It is generally OK for the ‘popular’ to come from everywhere and nowhere; however, when it comes to sublime poetry or anintricate novel, readers grow anxious to pin down and picture a source. It’s as if the degree of ‘authoredness’ of a piece of text swells in direct proportion to its place in the ranking system of literary prestige. Compare fan fiction or genre fiction (eg, the ‘cheap romance novel’) at one end – mostly anonymous, sometimes collectively authored, and correspondingly undervalued in the literary sphere – with James Joyce’s novel Ulysses (1922) at the other – single-authored,original, a work of ‘genius’.
照比阳春白雪,在涂鸦、谚语等通俗的作品形式中,读者更容易接受匿名。“通俗”的无源性无伤大雅;然而论及崇高的诗歌或是精妙的小说,读者就被勾起探索起源的渴望,仿佛一篇文章的“权威程度”与作者的文学声望成正比。一边是大多匿名或集体创作、在文学圈籍籍无名的同人小说或流派小说(比如“廉价的爱情小说”),一边是詹姆斯·乔伊斯被誉为“天才之作”的原创小说《尤利西斯》(1922),高下立判。
This elevation of the author-as-personrings particularly true in a culture such as that of the modern capitalist West, which prizes bourgeo is individualism so highly, tends to attribute everything of importance that happens on its watch to the super-agency of singular super-agents (eg, Donald Trump, say, or Elon Musk), and so naturally associates the value of its artistic products with their status as autonomous creations of an omnipotent and unique creator. Humans are constantly reducing and simplifying the complexities of the world to the intelligent design of a few lucky proper names. But the truth is, we might get on very well without these super-agent individuals. We might even understand the world better if wedidn’t lean so heavily on them.
在现代资本主义西方文化中,将作家定位为个人的风气甚嚣尘上。中产阶级个人主义受到高度推崇,人们恨不得把一切重要事件都归功于同期超级机构的某些超级个体(比如唐纳德·特朗普或埃隆·马斯克),供奉他们为无所不能、独具一格的创作者,然后理所当然地将艺术品的价值和其地位联系起来。人类惯于将纷繁的世界归功于少数幸运儿的“智能设计”。但事实是,没有这些“时势英雄”,我们或许会过得更好,要是不那么依赖他们,或许我们还能更好地理解这个世界。
In Roman literature, my favourite example of an anonymous work that makes use of its anonymity to come across as an authoritative proverb writ large is a wonderful historical tragedy, the Octavia. It’s impossible to establish from today whether the play was originally released anonymously (although I have a strong hunch that it was, based on the play’s strange experimental style that tends to minimise the use ofproper names), or whether it merely lost its author as a casualty of textual transmission later down the track. But this doesn’t really matter.Whether the author was absent from the off, or left later on, the effect of the play is amplified (rather than stunted) by anonymity.
罗马文学中,我最喜欢的佚名作品是伟大的历史悲剧《奥克塔维亚》,它充分利用了匿名的力量,可谓是超长版的权威谚语。今天没有人能确定,这部戏是从诞生之初就匿名(鉴于其奇怪的实验风格,比如偏向于减少专用名称的使用,我预感如此),还是作者的名字在后来的广而流传中逐渐消亡。不过这都不重要。无论作者何时离席,这部剧都因佚名而卓越非凡(而非饱受掣肘)。
The anti-anonymity biases of the Classical canon mean that it’s unlikely you’ll have ever heard of this strange piece of drama. The play is ananonymous masterpiece, and it is about the divorce and exile of Nero’s firstwife, Octavia, set in 62 BCE. It stages the domestic tension and revolutionary springback of absolute power spinning out of control, and it does so with more ambition and urgency than almost any other piece of drama to survive from Ancient Rome. There are a raft of memorable heroes and villains: Octavia the first wife, defiant in being so brutally discarded, the pitiable sacrificial victim of the blood thirsty tyrant Nero; Nero as said tyrant, a maniacal Henry VIII steam rolling everything good and true to get his way, and crying ‘off-with-their-heads’ every which way; Seneca, Nero’s virtuous but completely ineffective right-hand adviser; the ghost of Agrippina, Nero’s murdered mother who acts as the tragedy’s revenge totem, cursing the son who had her clipped; a riled-up and revolutionary chorus of the Roman people, who act as partisans of Octavia, rioting and tearing down statues, a brute force that Nero revels in brutally repressing. The play is a serious and committed piece of political literature. It hits the jugular of imperial caprice and violence beautifully, even better than many more renowned works.
鉴于古典经典的对匿名文学的排斥,你可能根本没听过这部怪诞的戏剧。该剧是一部匿名杰作。故事背景设定在公元62年,讲述了尼禄的第一任妻子奥克塔维亚离婚与流亡的故事。剧中展现了国内的紧张局势和绝对权力失控后造成的革命性反弹,背后的野心和紧迫感几乎超过了古罗马以来任何一部戏。剧中有一群令人难忘的的英雄与反派:奥克塔维亚(嗜血暴君尼禄的第一任妻子,也是其手下可悲的牺牲品和受害者,被残忍抛弃的后仍顽强反抗自己的命运)、尼禄(所谓的暴君,狂躁版亨利八世,碾碎一切真和善只为大行其道,四处大吵“砍掉他们的脑袋”)、塞内加(尼禄自以为是却形同虚设的谏官)、阿格丽品娜之魂(尼禄母亲,诅咒儿子导致自己被谋杀,象征着这场悲剧中的复仇)、还有愤而革命的罗马人民(奥克塔维亚的拥虿,他们发动暴乱、拆毁雕像,受到尼禄的残酷镇压)。《奥克塔维亚》是一部严肃而忠诚的政治文学,它甚至胜过许多著名作品,完美地击中了帝国的要害,揭露其反复无常、横行霸道的丑恶嘴脸。
The Octavia travelled down to us from antiquity as part of the corpus of Seneca the younger (ie, the same Seneca as the character above). Seneca was the court philosopher of Nero, a Stoic thinker who left behind a two-pronged attack of literary output: on the one hand, philosophical essays and letters; on the other, tragedies on Greek mythological subjects broaching the big ethical and political questions of the day. The Octavia was lumped in with this latter group, the tragedies, because it has a lot in common with them, linguistically, thematically and dramatically. For example, the repellently tyrannical Nero of the Octavia shares a strong typology with the crazed power-addicts of Senecan tragedy such as King Atreusin the Thyestes, who serves his brother a nice main course of his own children. But there are several reasons ruling out Senecan authorship. Firstly, the improbability of having a play by an author which actually stages that author as a dramat is persona; secondly, there are certain moments in the drama that seem to foreshadow events that happened after Seneca’s death, and Seneca, for all his talent, was no clairvoyant; thirdly, the play’s linguistic style is also sui generis, compared with the rest of the Senecan corpus. So, if not Seneca, then who?
《奥克塔维亚》中记载了塞内加(即上文提到的角色塞内加)的诸多语录,它们也随着这部经典剧作跨越历史长河。塞内加是尼禄的宫廷哲学家,也是一位斯多葛学派思想家,他在文学领域留下了浓墨重彩的两笔:一是哲学散文和书信,二是希腊神话题材的悲剧,后者在当时引发了重大的伦理和政治问题讨论。《奥克塔维亚》也属于悲剧,它们在语言、主题和戏剧表现上有许多相似之处。例如,剧中令人反感的暴君尼禄符合塞内加悲剧中嗜权成瘾的人物形象。《提斯特斯》中的阿特勒斯国王也属于这一类,他为兄弟呈上的一道菜是用自己的骨血做成的。但我们仍可以排除塞内加就是该剧的作者:首先,一部戏中,作者本人不可能是戏剧人物之一;其次,戏中有特定的场景似乎预示了塞内加死后发生的事情,而塞内加本人纵有万般才华也并非洞悉一切;最后,这部剧的文学风格与其他的塞内加作品相比别树一帜,自成一派。所以,不是塞内加的话,那应该是谁呢?
The logic of impersonality is similar to what we see in modern scientific discourse
现代科学之类的话语,本质上是匿名的
Anonymous works tantalise their readers into asking the question ‘Whodunnit?’, but there are good reasons to resist this summons to detective work. In the Octavia’s case, we should take the proposition seriously that the work wants no author. Indeed, that it is much better off without one. What I mean by this is that the play has a few good reasons to duck and weave a single origin, to lie down and play anonymous instead. Let’s entertain these conspiracy theories briefly. The first reason could be political sensitivity,or the classic ‘anonymity as self-protection’ move. It’s likely that the play was published and performed at some point in the 20 or so years following Nero’s death. At this moment in history, Nero still had significant popularity and following, particularly among Rome’s lower classes, but also among certain factions of the elite. It took a while for belief in Nero’s monstrosity to catch on and calcify as consensus. Accordingly, it might have been dangerous at this point to attach your name to a play that so uncompromisingly slams Nero as pure evil. The high politics of the Roman empire was, after all, a labile, changeable landscape, where you never quite knew which of today’s heroes would wind up as tomorrow’s villains. This story, though plausible, takes the more conventional view of anonymity’s purpose and effect. It holds that keeping anonymous is a kind of dodge, or aprophylactic strategy: reactive, cautious and defensive. It could be. But there is also more to it.
匿名作品诱使读者发问“是谁做的?”,但是我们需要抑制住这颗侦探心。在《奥克塔维亚》的例子中,我们应该认真审视这样一个命题——这部作品不需要作者。诚然,起初就没有作者的话当然更好。不过我想指出的是,不管作者是用假名包装自己,还是躲在匿名之后都无可厚非。接下来我们稍微品品这些阴谋论。首先可能是出于政治敏感,所以作者选择传统的“匿名保身”。《奥克塔维亚》很有可能是在尼禄死了20多年之后才发行并公演。当时,尼禄仍享有极大的盛名,其追随者主要是罗马的下层阶级,但也有一定的精英群体。人们花了一段时间才相信尼禄是个怪物、认识到他的恶行。在这个关头,要是实名控诉尼禄是个彻头彻尾的魔鬼,想想也知道是很危险的。毕竟,罗马帝国的高层政治风云多变,你永远不会了然今日英雄会不会摇身一变成为明日恶人。这个说法看似合情合理,但却是以一种更为传统的视角解读匿名的目的和效果,它不外乎认为匿名是一种逃避或预防策略,是严谨防御式的应激反应。事实可能如此,但绝非仅仅如此。
Rather than this negative constellation of cause and effect for the Octavia’s anonymity, there is a more positive and ‘active’ possibility:that whoever wrote this play was shooting for the same hard-hitting realm of universality and ‘truth’ achieved by the proverb. Seneca and other major political figures around Nero were eventually nudged into suicide after falling foul of the emperor, and so their surviving faction of elite opposition would have reason to be hostile, would be wielding an axe to grind against Nero’s memory. If someone from that faction were out as the author of the Octavia, the risk would be that the play would seem more partial, blinkered and motivated by personal vendetta – not exactly‘free from resentment and favour’, as per Quintilian’s ideal above.
《奥克塔维亚》的佚名效用,远非这般消极被动,还有一种更为积极“主动”的可能:无论谁写了这部剧,他想让戏剧内容沉淀为“真相”,就像是谚语在流传中逐渐演变为“真理”。塞内加等尼禄身边的政治人物在与国王发生冲突后,最终被逼到了自杀的境地。因此,残存的精英反对派满怀敌意地挥舞着斧头砍断、重塑对于尼禄的记忆,也就不足为奇了。要是他们中有人自称是《奥克塔维亚》的作者,那么这部戏就会显得比现在更偏颇狭隘、更多地受到个人恩怨的驱使,与昆提利安理想中的“没有怨恨和偏恃”也就相去甚远。
But if the play were made to seem by no one? Readers or audience members might feel it as a more powerful and exemplary piece of political theatre; a play seriously attempting to express a collective view of ‘the Roman people’, even as it helps to script that view in the voicing. It would acton readers with a logic of impersonality similar to what we see in modern scientific discourse, whose truth value is boosted by the sense that there are no individuals interfering with the channelling of objective facts. The Octavia would be trying to amplify the memory of Nero as a monster; and its anonymity would help it migrate that sentiment beyond upper-class cut-and-thrust, would make it look like the spontaneous and ‘real’ eruption of words on a wall, or the consensus view that many mouths had helped to hammer into shape, a slogan for infinite circulation, eventual assent and final absorption into the common verdict of ‘cultural memory’. Certainly for us, just under 2,000 years on, the anonymity of the Octavia has the power to make fiction read like history.
但如果这部剧意在佚名化呢?读者或观众可能会觉得这是一出更有说服力、更具典范意义的政治戏剧,旨在严肃地表现并且记叙下来“罗马人民”的集体视角。不参杂个人色彩的匿名文学会对读者产生一定的影响,就像是现代科学中的话语,当没有人为干预客观事实的传播时,其真实性就得以提升。《奥克塔维亚》意在放大人们对于尼禄禽兽不如的记忆,而匿名化使得这种情绪超越了与上层阶级的交锋,变成墙上自发而生、“真实”爆发的话语,变成口口相传的共识,变成一个无限循环的口号,最终被融入到共同的“文化记忆”的论断中。当然,对于我们来说,仅仅两千年的时间里,佚名的《奥克塔维亚》有化虚构为历史的威力。
The Octavia is just one example of how somespecial pieces of Roman literature directly mobilise their anonymity to grand effect. Rather than treating these works as somehow defective or deficient – crippled by the lack of identifiable hands behind them – I would say they should be handled as unique testaments to the power of literature to achieve dazzling pyrotechnics of ‘universality’, which are at once both real and illusory. Anonymity has its strange ways of convincing the reader to invest in the ‘truth’ of the words on the page. Literature without authors, in other words, conjures its own eerie source of authority. If we ignore that power of the unknown, we are missing something big. But we do not miss the author.
罗马文学中的一些作品利用其匿名性产生了更深远的影响,《奥克塔维亚》只是其中一例。我们不能因为缺少辨识度高的名字为幕后推手,就视这些作品为残次品。它们是文学力量的特别证明,让一度交织在真实与虚幻中的文学有了更普适的意义,在更多读者心中升起炫目的烟火。佚名化以独有的方式说服读者相信书页上文字的是真实的。换言之,没有作家的文学召唤出了自己诡谲的权威之源。如果我们忽视了未知的力量,就会错失更恢弘的存在,但我们确实不会对作者有所眷恋。

👇

参考阅读:

“作者死了”吗?——关于“文学与作者”的对话(上)
在这个“人人为作者”,创作变得日趋复杂、多元化、充满交互性的时代,“作者已死”的论断似乎越来越深入人心。那么,作者真的死了吗?今天的文学研究还需要关注作者吗?作者、文本、世界和读者之间的关系是什么?
http://www.xinhuanet.com/book/2019-08/15/c_1210242914.htm

今天还会诞生文学经典吗?——关于“文学与作者”的对话(下)

“作家创作是不是为读者服务?是不是为衣食父母服务?可能有些作家是,但也有很多作家不一定是。很多作家是不考虑读者的,比如乔伊斯,他的作品对很多人来说是天书,《尤利西斯》还比较容易读一些,后来的《芬尼根守灵夜》,很多人根本读不懂。如果是为了赚钱,我想他不会这么写。至少要让读者看得懂,读者才会买你的书。我觉得乔伊斯完全就是为了艺术。在我们这个时代,像乔伊斯这样的人可能不多。换句话说,真正为艺术而艺术、为艺术而献身的作者可能会少一些,但也还是会有。”
http://www.xinhuanet.com/book/2019-09/17/c_1210283228.htm

“只看作品,不看作家”的匿名作家竞赛落幕,它带来关于文学的什么思考?

“我觉得我们这个时代比过去任何时候都热爱名人,热爱被大家熟知的名字,连我们这个没什么人看的文学杂志也是邀请名人写稿。如果村上春树写一小段话,哪怕特别差,我们也一定会用的。这就是这个时代的方式。从这个角度来说,我想跟朋友们一起决定做这样一个比赛,隐去所有的名字,我们只看到文本的本身。”

https://www.qdaily.com/articles/59369.html

作者隐去,作品重生

  • 本文原载于 AEON

  • 原文链接:https://aeon.co/essays/lessons-from-ancient-rome-on-the-power-of-anonymity

一、了解取经号 |我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入

二、学习贴士|如何打印输出PDF如何使用微信读书订阅取经号

三、翻译服务| 咨询邮箱:[email protected]

四、社交媒体 |微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW

五、译文归档 | 访问网站:qujinghao.com

六、学习社群 |翻译社(暂停中)

作者隐去,作品重生

Be First to Comment

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注