Who needs another book on Hitler? Even one by Mailer?
The Castle in the Forest
By Norman Mailer
Random House. 467 pp. $27.95
Imagine a different April 1945. Red Army troops pull a bedraggled Adolf Hitler out of his bunker rabbit hole.
Before long the dentist is yanking back Hitler’s head to inspect his teeth. For several years the former Führer alternately rants and ruminates to world media, his trial for crimes against humanity lumbering to its inevitable verdict.
As Hitler stands on the Nuremburg gallows, surprisingly statesmanlike – by then totally overexposed to newspaper readers, radio listeners and newsreel buffs – a few Jewish witnesses to the execution chant “Mazel tov! Mazel tov!”, for which they’re later rebuked.
Would Hitler still have attracted hundreds of biographies, studies, histories, and novels after World War II? Would Norman Mailer, at 84, think the little painter worth another round in his first novel in 10 years?
Doubtful. By escaping his up-close and personal moment with the non-Nazi world through suicide, Hitler forced that world to investigate his uniquely destructive life and times. For decades, the publishing world churned out books to the refrain “Hitler, We Hardly Knew Ye!”
But eventually we did – through 900-page biographies, multivolume histories, pinpoint studies of everyone who ever crossed his path. The world learned what it needed to know. Which makes continuing books about him more suspect.
Yet “even today,” we’re told by the narrator of The Castle in the Forest, Mailer’s imaginative but misbegotten approach to young Adolf, “the first obsession remains Hitler. Where is the German who does not try to understand him?”
All over Germany, would be the answer. Been there, done that. Many Americans feel the same.
Similarly, the narrator later claims “the world has an impoverished understanding of Adolf Hitler’s personality. Detestation, yes, but understanding of him, no – he is, after all, the most mysterious human being of the century.”
Nonsense. Hitler is history’s most overanalyzed psychopath.
So why a novel putatively about Hitler until age 16? The answer seems to be that Mailer, as often before, wants to associate himself with a subject of paramount historical importance. Hitler remains the ultimate touchstone, to writers of his generation, for meditating about evil.
Fair enough. An immortal like Mailer deserves the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, a third factor gets in the way. The more you read Castle, the more you feel you’re reading a book about Norman Mailer.
Surprise?
The narrator of this bizarre intermingling of Hitler’s family and, one surmises, Mailer’s thoughts on his own sexuality and big brood, asks the reader to call him D.T., short for Dieter. At first he presents himself as an SS officer in 1938. He worked under Himmler, assigned to look into Hitler’s family background.
About 70 pages in, however, we learn that D.T. is really a “higher devil” who works for Satan himself (a.k.a., the Maestro and Evil One) in the eons-long clash with the deity German-speaking devils call the D.K., for Dummkopf. (That German-speaking devils use a two-letter abbreviation for a single German word is one of many quality-control problemsin Mailer’s effort to evoke German atmosphere.)
The narrator entered Dieter’s body, just as he’s entered others for centuries. It’s how Satan’s cadres get close to “clients,” swaying their choices. As part of his mission, Dieter segued back to Adolf’s childhood.
With that dubious setup, The Castle in the Forest turns out to be not all that much about little Adolf or “Adi.” Instead, it devotes most of its attention to Hitler’s (partly imagined) family roots. At the center is Hitler’s father, Alois, his much-younger third wife, Klara Poelzl (Hitler’s mother) – Alois’ putative niece, but perhaps his daughter – and how Alois views his young bride and children.
As the Wizard might say, pay no attention to that Provincetown paterfamilias behind the curtain with nine kids, many women and exes, and the much-younger wife for 30 years.
Alois is, at mid-book, “a man in his late middle age who dangled a wizened pup between his legs,” with “a total of eight kids alive or dead,” though you “could add a few not exactly accounted for… .”
Expect Castle to offer penetrating insights about Adolf? Hold off. The narrator’s few observations on young Adi stay pedestrian (“He was outrageously in need of love and damnably vulnerable”).
Meanwhile, we hear lots about Alois’ beekeeping and prodigal sexuality, beginning in the days when “he made love to each of the three women he could look upon as regulars,” including a 19-year-old waitress.
“She had kept the formal entrance to her chastity intact,” writes Mailer, in the style of 1950s paperback pornography, “but the same could not be said of her neighbor.” (Don’t ask.) We hear much about Alois’ “Hound” and its ability to poke.
Here is Alois, in his 50s, as he takes niece Klara from her room to his bed: “Half her body was on fire, but half was locked in ice, the bottom half. If not for the Hound, he might have stalled at the approach to such a frozen entry, but then her mouth was part of the fire and she kissed him as if her heart was contained in her lips, so rich, so fresh, so wanton a mouth that he exploded even as he entered her… .”
More Hitler material please!!! Saddam material!!! Anything but this!!!
Indeed, after such repeated priapic passages and plenty of scatological attention to “Adi’s pip-squeak of an anus” and “Adolf’s bowel movements,” one begins to feel that the Lech in Winter, the diaper-changer of nine, can’t pull himself away from sex and excretion to think about much else, even his official high historical agenda.
“I remain a devil, not a novelist,” admits the narrator at one point.
You said it.
Add to this many stylistic problems. Early on, the narrator tells us in regard to Hitler, “To borrow from the Americans, given their rough grasp of vulgarity, I am prepared to say: ‘Yes, I know him from asshole to appetite.” Here, as often, neither the German tone nor American syntax rings.
Structural choices in the novel also make little sense. At one point, the narrator launches a 47-page digression about “Nicky” and “Alix” (Nicholas II and Alexandra) while conceding: “I know by now that not even a loyal reader can stay true to an author who is ready to leave his narrative for an apparently unrelated expedition.”
Amen.
As The Castle crumbles, the narrator appears to know he’s in trouble: “[I]t must be obvious by now,” he declares, “that there is no clear classification for this book. It is more han a memoir and certainly has to be most curious as a biography since it is as privileged as a novel.”
Mailer reportedly plans to continue the saga, taking Hitler into manhood. Halten Sie, bitte! Do we need Hitler refracted through the libido of a horny old writer – with magnificent past accomplishments – who’s still a prisoner of sex?
Norman, wonderful Norman, a request. Before the eyes, ears and legs aren’t the only parts gone south, give us that unvarnished, tell-all memoir. It would instantly become a key history of late 20th-century America.
Call it Me, Myself and I, or even Ich und Mich if it makes you happy. But leave Hitler alone. He needs no further advertisements. Neither do you.
Of thought and metaphor
Deciphering the layered ways in which we communicate is his mission
Steven Pinker specializes in the psychology of language.
January 21, 2007
Peter Calamai
Science writer
Asking Steven Pinker, Harvard researcher and best-selling author, to pass the salt turns out to be very educational.
Not about sodium and high blood pressure, but about how we use language and what that reveals about human nature.
Pinker specializes in the psychology of language and also in shaking up the scientific establishment. Five years ago he ignited an academic firestorm with the best-selling book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, which argued that innate behavioural differences exist among individuals and between men and women.
The 52-year-old cognitive scientist, born and raised in Montreal, is again challenging conventional wisdom with The Stuff of Thought, a book about language due out in September. He’ll deliver a lecture in Toronto on the topic Wednesday, as part of 15th anniversary celebrations for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
“We have to do two things with language. We’ve got to convey a message and we’ve got to negotiate what kind of social relationship we have with someone,” Pinker says in a telephone interview from his home in Cambridge, Mass.
Even something as seemingly straightforward as asking for the salt involves thinking and communicating at two levels, which is why we utter such convoluted requests as, “If you think you could pass the salt, that would be great.”
Says Pinker: “It’s become so common that we don’t even notice that it is a philosophical rumination rather than a direct imperative. It’s a bit of a social dilemma. On te one hand, you do want the salt. On the other hand, you don’t want to boss people around lightly.
“So you split the difference by saying something that literally makes no sense while also conveying the message that you’re not treating them like some kind of flunky.”
The Harvard psychologist classes the salt request as an example of indirect speech, a category that also includes euphemisms and innuendo. Two other key themes for Wednesday’s talk are the ubiquity of metaphor in everyday language and swearing and what it says about human emotion.
For Pinker all three categories of language provide windows on human nature, and analyzing them can reveal what people are thinking and feeling. The approach builds upon his earlier thesis that human nature has distinct and universal properties, some of which are innate determined at birth by genes rather than shaped primarily by environment.
Known as evolutionary psychology, this field of study looks at human behaviour through the lens of natural selection, treating our mental faculties for things like language as the result of an evolutionary adaptation, just like the process that produces the human eye. This approach runs the risk of being hijacked by advocates of biological determinism our genes dictate what we do or even the proponents of eugenics the breeding of a master race.
Pinker is familiar with such dangers, having navigated the determinist shoals in both The Blank Slate and an earlier book, How the Mind Works. His current focus reaches even further back, to his first book for the general public, The Language Instinct, and to an even earlier academic tome about how children acquire verbs.
“I have a chapter on verbs in this book because verbs are how we talk about causation, who did what to whom, who’s responsible for someone’s death. The answer to that is very much like who gets to be the subject of a verb. I argue that we have a sense of causal agency or responsibility that both governs our language and governs our moral and legal reasoning.”
While verbs are undoubtedly pivotal, readers and listeners are more likely to be drawn by Pinker’s apparently exhaustive investigation of swearing, which challenges even a classic work in this field, Shakespeare’s Bawdy by Eric Partridge.
“As it turns out, people swear in five different ways. That’s why it took me a while to figure this out,” he says.
A family newspaper can’t reproduce most of Pinker’s instances of earthy language, without resorting to a surfeit of ‘s. Not to mention *s, !s and even XXXXs. His analysis of the subject matter and the impact of swearing, however, is a safer matter. Mostly.
“The subject matter of swearing is something that people don’t like to have taken lightly. Sex is a big deal. An atmosphere in which you bring up sex at the drop of a hat seems to many people to remove some of the inhibitions about thinking about sex. Casual speech about sex occurs in an atmosphere that would tolerate casual sex itself and there are a lot of reasons why people get upset about casual sex.”
Using sexual terms in swearing, something like motherf—er, evokes revulsion over the implied depravity.
In addition to sex, Pinker lists four taboo subjects that dominate swearing: religion, excretion, despised groups, and disease and infirmity.
These change over time and differ from one society to another.
“There were curses like `a pox on you’ in English, but we don’thave much of that anymore. In Yiddish, for example, the word for cholera, choleryeh, means curse.”
Then there’s the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Pinker spent the first 22 years of his life in Montreal graduating with a B.A. in psychology from McGill, so he has no trouble in cursing in French.
Yet he says that the root difference has more to do with Catholicism than with language. Before the Reformation, English swearing was rich in religious taboo words. It still is in nominally Catholic societies, like Quebec.
Pinker cautions that his work looks at what swearwords across languages have in common rather than the swearwords of any one language.
The most common denominator is taboo words that arouse strong negative emotions. Hearing or reading these words triggers activity in the amygdala, an almond-shaped part of the brain believed to invest our thoughts with aggression, fear, threat recognition, and other negative emotions.
But why does the amygdala light up, why do we get upset when someone swears at us, and why do societies pass laws against swearing on the airwaves?
“People know there is a difference between what you do and what you accept. There is a difference between me knowing that people swear, me hearing people swear and me swearing, and everyone accepting that this is something you can do as much as you like.”
While swearing may garner public attention, perhaps the more surprising aspect of Pinker’s work traces the pervasiveness of metaphor in language. Not flowery poetic allusions or rhetorical similes but concrete-to-abstract transitions so common in everyday speech and writing that we often don’t even recognize them as metaphorical.
Consider this sentence:
“He attacked my position and I defended it.” It uses the metaphor of argument as war. Or how about “this program isn’t going anywhere,” which uses the metaphor of progress as motion.
Says Pinker: “Look at almost any passage and you’ll find that a paragraph has five or six metaphors in it. It’s not that the speaker is trying to be poetic, it’s just that that’s the way language works.
“Rather than occasionally reaching for a metaphor to communicate, to a very large extent communication is the use of metaphor,” he says.
“It could be that 95 per cent of our speech is metaphorical, if you go back far enough in language.”
Why? Here, the teacher part of researcher and author Steven Pinker comes to the fore, offering a boring explanation and an interesting explanation, both with an element of truth.
The boring explanation is that using metaphor is a quick-and-dirty way of expressing a new idea without the trouble of coining [notice the metaphor] and propagating a new word.
“But that presupposes that the mind itself works metaphorically, that we see the abstract commonality between argument and war, between progress and motion. And it presupposes that the mind, at some level, must reason very concretely in order that these metaphors be understand and become contagious.
“And that’s the more interesting part of the story.”
Except, perhaps, for the revelation about asking for a salt shaker.
|
【2007年1月24日狱委讯】
自由亚洲电台记者张敏报道/1月22日下午,郭飞雄的太太张青从广州市公安局预审科得知,郭飞雄案1月19日已经从天河区人民检察院退回广州市公安局补充侦查。张青同时-得知,郭飞雄已经于1月20日被“移送转押”到辽宁省看守所。下面是自由亚洲电台记者张敏的采访报道。
维权人士郭飞雄,本名杨茂东,去年9月14日以“涉嫌非法经营罪”被拘留,9月30日被逮捕。
郭飞雄的太太张青1月22日在广州家中接受采访,谈她当天下午从警方得知关于郭飞雄案的最新情况。
张青说:“今天中午一点钟,广州市公安局预审科一个姓陈的警官打电话给我,让我去一趟,说有关杨茂东案件的情况要向我宣告,要见面说,叫我-两点钟去。我就去了。
他说元月19日,广州市天河检察院就把杨茂东的案件退回了广州市公安局,说是要补充侦查,期限是一个月。我从他手上要了这份广州市天河区检察院退查的文-书,我叫他复印一份给我,他先是答应给我复印。后来他进去,(出来)又说不能复印给我,所以我只是看到了(文书),上面有杨茂东的签字。
…这次是公安系统正式找我,说‘我来告诉你,你弟弟要判五到八年’。我当时说‘你们可以做,但只要不怕社会舆论
他马上就跟我讲‘在元月20日,为了侦查需要,将杨茂东本人移送转押到沈阳去了,现在关押在辽宁省看守所’”。
2005年,郭飞雄先生曾经因为参与太石村维权事件,被警方关押过三个多月。2006年他三次当着警方的面被殴打。2006年八、九月间,他又参与对维-权律师高智晟的营救。
郭飞雄这次被以“涉嫌非法经营罪逮捕”,据知情者说,涉案出版物为《沈阳政坛地震》一书。
听到郭飞雄被“移送转押”到沈阳的消息,他的太太张青说:“我当时觉得很吃惊,怎麽这麽快会转到沈阳去了?在十五、六日的时候我们打电话问了天河区人民-检察院,我说‘因为有辽宁的人找过他的姐姐和他的哥哥,是不是把他的案件要转移到那边去?’他们这边很坚决地说‘没有这回事’。我就问他,怎麽会这样子-呢?他说是为了重新侦查。这次补充侦查的期限是一个月,我看到那上面写着,这期限之内,可以申请变更强制措施,也就是说可以要求取保候审,我就在今天两-点多钟的时候,同时交了一份取保候审申请书”。
张青这是第三次递交取保候审申请书,前两次得到的回答都是“不予取保候审”。
得知郭飞雄被移送转押到沈阳,他的姐姐、住在湖北的医生杨茂平说:“我对沈阳这个地方非常恐惧,那是个冰天雪地的地方。任人摆布了,想弄到-哪儿,就弄到哪儿。”
杨茂平说,1月13日曾经有警方人士找过她。她说:“就是那个女的找的我,她说是我们当地公安局来找我,听她一口辽宁话,我当时很诧异。
他们通过单位来的,我也没有经验,按经验我应该看她的身份证,我什麽都没有看。我们单位找过我一次。这次是公安系统正式找我,说‘我来告诉你,你弟弟要-判五到八年’。我当时说‘你们可以做,但只要不怕社会舆论’。
她说,我弟弟在2001年有一个非法经营的事情,我说‘为什么那时候的事情扯到今天来呢?’她说‘你不相信公安系统,你要相信检察系统。’我说‘要是在-一年前,你们说什么我都相信,但是这一年发生在我们家里的事情太多了,我怎麽相信?’ 我说‘你看,我弟弟在家门口被打,在火车上被打,被指责是假(火车- )票,这都好像没有法律来管,都没有法了,没有检察机构了,我还相信谁呢?’我还说‘听说在虐待我弟弟’。
第二天,我另外一个弟弟说‘听说杨茂东的案件被转到沈阳,沈阳两个人来找我’,他问我要不要见,因为当时我弟弟不是太想见他们,就没有再见。
我母亲死的早,是我把我弟弟养大的。我现在觉得呼天无助啊。”
郭飞雄的代理律师、北京莫少平律师事务所主任莫少平律师说:“现在只是他太太通过公安机关跟她来讲的这个事情。因为我们前一段时间跟广州天河区检察院曾-经联系过,他说不可能移送。
像这种东西当然他应该可以跟亲属说,但是按正常规范来讲,因为我们是作为郭飞雄的律师,他应该跟我们先通报这个情况,就是像‘根据什麽规定,我们将这个-案件移送什麽沈阳那边的司法机关’,现在他们没有跟我们通报这个情况,只通知他亲属。”
问:“你们准备做些什麽?”
答:“从律师这个角度,我们要进一步跟广州那边司法机关核实这个事情,完后再定。”
|
以自由之笔为苦难见证──章诒和获独立中文作家笔会2004自由写作奖
国际笔会独立中文作家笔会最近通过评选,将二零零四年度自由写作奖颁发给《最后的贵族》的作者章诒和女士。独立中文作家笔会公布的“颁奖词”指出,“章诒和以三十年的苦难和血泪凝聚而成的文字,赋予了沦为权力和金钱的奴隶的当代汉语写作以崭新的质地──这种写作不仅仅是对黑暗时代的控诉,更重要的是申明了对不可摧抑的人性尊严的肯定和破坏这一尊严的所有企图的否定。”
“颁奖词”还指出,如德国作家黑塞所说,“作家是读取周围世界之良心状态的指针和地震仪”,章诒和的作品显示了当代中国作家中少有的捍卫人的自由、尊严和历史记忆的勇气。作为当年“中国第一大右派”章伯钧的女儿,章诒和与父亲一起承担了历史的重负。在长达十数年的牢狱生涯中,她曾被迫从事掩埋其他囚徒尸体的可怕工作。有一次,在风雨交加的荒野中,她几乎决心扑到死去的难友的墓穴里,以死亡来终结邪恶势力所给予她的一切凌辱。但她还是坚韧地活了下来,因为她记得父亲临终前的告诫──父亲希望女儿成为时代的见证人,父亲叮嘱女儿把那个时代的光荣与耻辱都记录下来。
三十多年之后,记忆之流终于迎来了破冰的一刻。二零零四年年初,随着遭到大量删节的大陆版本《往事并不如烟》和恢复原貌的香港版本《最后的贵族》的先后出版,章诒和在中国大陆和海外华文世界获得了普遍的声誉,而这两个版本的差异又为后世研究二十一世纪初中国大陆新闻出版自由提供了典型的范例。尽管不久之后,中共宣传部下令禁止《往事并不如烟》的印刷和发行,但该书早已深入千家万户(包括数十万册颇具中国特色的盗版书),并成为二零零四年度最受瞩目的文化事件之一。
“颁奖词”指出,“章诒和的作品既是文学,也是历史,是记忆,也是现实。在当代中国,与专制主义抗争的重要方式之一便是与官方有意制造的遗忘作斗争。章诒和用文字完成了对时间的超越,为读者展示了毛泽东时代以消灭知识分子为目标的”反右运动“的真相。在她那冷静而不乏温情的笔下,那些身处备受屈辱的状态却努力保持人格尊严的知识分子们获得了复活。章诒和为我们讲述的章伯钧、罗隆基、储安平、张伯驹、康同璧、马连良等旧时人物的故事,让我们知道在那个最黑暗的时代里,我们民族依然拥有那么一些高贵的灵魂,他们虽然受到猛烈而凄美的残酷打击、深陷于暴力的阴影下,但他们独自凝视着生命的姿影,注视着生存的漩涡和死亡的石磨,守望着自由这一天赋的价值。他们的存在,让暴君的画像和语录黯然失色;他们的存在,改变了中国恒久以来成王败寇的历史观。”
独立笔会的“颁奖词”还说,“章诒和的写作根植于中国源远流长的史官传统,乃是《史记》作者司马迁在屈辱中秉笔直书的遥远回应。章诒和的写作也得益于她作为一位优秀的戏曲研究者的身份,她从古代沉沦在社会底层却写透人情世故的伟大的戏曲家身上获得了悲情的力量。她的写作重现了中国知识分子在黑暗时代的心灵剧痛,并清晰地传达了这样的信念──尽管毛泽东及其所代表的意识形态竭力羞辱、贬低和蔑视文化和知识的价值,但是文明将如同压伤的芦苇那样永不折断,人类的良知也必将战胜那些一度看似无比强大的邪恶力量。”
独立中文作家笔会相信,章诒和女士以她的生命和写作表明,她是一位严肃的历史见证人和让人尊敬的自由事业的发言人。她给当代汉语写作注入了活力,带来了一种标竿性的尺度。独立中文作家笔会以能够将二零零四年度自由写作奖颁发给这样一位优秀的作家而感到荣幸。
独立中文作家笔会2004年“自由写作奖”的评选是根据会员提名、该笔会“自由写作委员会”评选并经过理事会最后投票通过的严格程序进行。获得提名的作家和文学团体有:肖雪慧、王怡、成都野草文学社、蒋品超、郑义、黄翔、杨春光、东海一枭、高尔泰、章诒和、哑默、陈桂棣春桃夫妻,最后结果为章诒和获奖。章怡和女士已经欣然接收了独立中文作家笔会的颁奖并发来了她的答谢词,全文附后。
国际笔会独立中文作家笔会二零零四年度自由写作奖颁奖词
国际笔会独立中文作家笔会已决定,将二零零四年度自由写作奖颁发给章诒和女士。独立中文作家笔会理事会和自由写作委员会均认为,章诒和以三十年的苦难和血泪凝聚而成的文字,赋予了沦为权力和金钱的奴隶的当代汉语写作以崭新的质地──这种写作不仅仅是对黑暗时代的控诉,更重要的是申明了对不可摧抑的人性尊严的肯定和破坏这一尊严的所有企图的否定。
如德国作家黑塞所说,“作家是读取周围世界之良心状态的指针和地震仪”,章诒和的作品显示了当代中国作家中少有的捍卫人的自由、尊严和历史记忆的勇气。作为当年“中国第一大右派”章伯钧的女儿,章诒和与父亲一起承担了历史的重负。在长达十数年的牢狱生涯中,她曾被迫从事掩埋其他囚徒尸体的可怕工作。有一次,在风雨交加的荒野中,她几乎决心扑到死去的难友的墓穴里,以死亡来终结邪恶势力所给予她的一切凌辱。但她还是坚韧地活了下来,因为她记得父亲临终前的告诫──父亲希望女儿成为时代的见证人,父亲叮嘱女儿把那个时代的光荣与耻辱都记录下来。
三十多年之后,记忆之流终于迎来了破冰的一刻。二零零四年年初,随着遭到大量删节的大陆版本《往事并不如烟》和恢复原貌的香港版本《最后的贵族》的先后出版,章诒和在中国大陆和海外华文世界获得了普遍的声誉,而这两个版本的差异又为后世研究二十一世纪初中国大陆新闻出版自由提供了典型的范例。尽管不久之后,中共宣传部下令禁止《往事并不如烟》的印刷和发行,但该书早已深入千家万户(包括数十万册颇具中国特色的盗版书),并成为二零零四年度最受瞩目的文化事件之一。
章诒和的作品是文学,也是历史,是记忆,也是现实。在当代中国,与专制主义抗争的重要方式之一便是与官方有意制造的遗忘作斗争。章诒和用文字完成了对时间的超越,为读者展示了毛泽东时代以消灭知识分子为目标的“反右运动”的真相。在她那冷静而不乏温情的笔下,那些身处备受屈辱的状态却努力保持人格尊严的知识分子们获得了复活。章诒和为我们讲述的章伯钧、罗隆基、储安平、张伯驹、康同璧、马连良等旧时人物的故事,让我们知道在那个最黑暗的时代里,我们民族依然拥有那么一些高贵的灵魂,他们虽然受到猛烈而凄美的残酷打击、深陷于暴力的阴影下,但他们独自凝视着生命的姿影,注视着生存的漩涡和死亡的石磨,守望着自由这一天赋的价值。他们的存在,让暴君的画像和语录黯然失色;他们的存在,改变了中国恒久以来“成王败寇”的历史观。
章诒和的写作根植于中国源远流长的史官传统,乃是《史记》作者司马迁在屈辱中秉笔直书的遥远回应。章诒和的写作也得益于她作为一位优秀的戏曲研究者的身份,她从古代沉沦在社会底层却写透人情世故的伟大的戏曲家身上获得了悲情的力量。她的写作重现了中国知识分子在黑暗时代的心灵剧痛,并清晰地传达了这样的信念──尽管毛泽东及其所代表的意识形态竭力羞辱、贬低和蔑视文化和知识的价值,但是文明将如同压伤的芦苇那样永不折断,人类的良知也必将战胜那些一度看似无比强大的邪恶力量。
独立中文作家笔会相信,章诒和女士以她的生命和写作表明,她是一位严肃的历史见证人和让人尊敬的自由事业的发言人。她给当代汉语写作注入了活力,带来了一种标竿性的尺度。独立中文作家笔会以能够将二零零四年度自由写作奖颁发给这样一位优秀的作家而感到荣幸。
答谢辞
章诒和
我从少年而青年,从青年而壮年,从壮年而中年,其间贯穿始终的一件事,是不间断地写检查,写交代,写总结,写汇报。由中年而鬓发皆斑,才开始了写作。如今,因写作而获奖。悲耶?喜耶?但无论是喜是悲,我都要感谢国际笔会独立中文作家笔会授予我2004年度自由写作奖。
这个奖项是给那些独立自由的写者。对于知识分子而言,怎样才能独立?如何算是自由呢?我想,恐怕首先是要以经济独立为前提。唯如此,才可做到不依附于任何的体制与权力而发出属于自己的声音。在中国,自上个世纪四十年代毛泽东发表了《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》以后,作家、艺术家除了成为革命的“螺丝钉”以外,还必须成为“歌手”、“战士”,连沉默都是不可以的,因为沉默被视为消极对抗、心怀敌意。有人不堪体制的束缚企图“自我放逐”,其结果是从地球上长期消失或永久消失。前者如萧军,后者如王实味。渐渐地,那些很有头脑和才气的人,在国家意识形态的强硬统摄下,失去了个人表达的勇气和社会洞察力。如果有人问:近现代中国最大的灾难是什么?我会回答:是对每个人天性与自由的剥夺。
现在的情况大有变化。知识分子的生活好了,在一定程度上也可以发出自己的声音。但是,另一种情况随之出现──很多人对“物”的热烈追求远远超过了对人性之“深”、对生活之“真”的冷静探究。神州大地,美不胜收。但是任何一个人只要怀着人道情怀和苦难意识,就很容易发现美景背后的灾难与不幸。我们似乎正从一种专制中走出,转身又走入另一种专横。
我们这些人究竟应该做些什么才好?这不禁使我想起了父亲的一个朋友──梁漱溟先生。他在中国民主同盟被执政的国民党取缔的时候,立即宣称:“政治问题的根本在文化”,要以思想见解主张贡献于国人。他言到行到,写出了《敬告中国共产党》一文。文章郑重请求共产党,容许一切异己者之存在。否则,将重蹈国民党的覆辙。梁先生早已去世,却仍是我的榜样,我们的榜样。
中国一向有着“文以载道”的文学传统,但文学毕竟是人学,写作是私人的事,是个体精神劳动。它属于民间,属于社会,与“官学”无涉、无干。官方可以成立宣传部,大搞宣传,大搞“五个一”工程,但从本质上是非文学、非艺术活动。而作家的使命就是关注和思考人类的命运及其生存状态,并以此唤起别人的关注和思考。这也是写作的原动力。
《最后的贵族》(香港牛津版,大陆版本名为《往事并不如烟》)说的都是陈年旧事。这些事浸透着父辈的血泪,而我的笔并不出色,只是字字来得辛苦。有朋友问:“你写作的诀窍,是不是由于记忆力特好?”我说:“我不过是有些经历,并对经历有些认识罢了。”日出月落,絮果兰因。从至大的动静到至微的气息,浅薄的我是永远写不出的。
奖项是奖励,于我也是一种戒惧。一者,我不知道自己还有几天的活头。命是个定数,谁也难以预料。
二者,本人能力水平极其有限,未来的写作很可能是个虎头蛇尾的结局。像徐志摩在《“诗刊”弁言》中所言。
再次感谢国际笔会独立中文作家笔会。
2004年10月8日于北京
在中国作家章诒和发表公开信,抗议中国新闻出版总署查禁她写的《伶人往事》之后,海内外很多人对章诒和表示支持,但同时也有人公开批评章诒和,说“她那个阶级是我们政权的敌人”。章诒和在接受自由亚洲电台记者申铧专访时,对支持她的人表示了感谢,并尊重批评她的人说话的权利。下面是申铧的采访报道。
章诒和的《伶人往事》一书的封面
中国新闻出版总署副署长邬书林在1月11号的一个会议上公布了不许出版发行的八本书的名单,其中包括章诒和的《伶人往事》,湖北原人大代表姚立法的传记《我反对》,胡发云的小说《如焉》等。《伶人往事》是章诒和被禁的第三本书。前两本书被禁时,她没有公开表示不满,但是第三本书被禁,而且理由是“因人废书”,她于是发表了一封公开信,表示政府禁书“直接剥夺我的出版权,而这是一个公民的基本权利”;她还声明要用生命维护她的文字。
这封信在海外的中文网站发表后,引起很大反响。中国作家沙叶新,原中国社科院研究员陈小雅,北京青年政治学院教授邢晓群等人公开发表文章对章诒和表示支持和声援;一些旅居海外的作家和政治人士还发起公开联署,谴责中国政府的禁书行为,支持章诒和的勇敢精神。
章诒和在接受本台专访时,对支持她的人表示了感谢。她还透露,支持她的人远比在媒体上公开的多得多:
“耶鲁大学,哥伦比亚大学到沙特的中国公司,日本大学教授,西班牙的商贩都表达了对我的同情和理解,我非常感激他们。最让我感动的是苏北的农民,还有钟表工,新疆的农垦医生,农业大学看门的是买不起就借来看,我非常感动。”
言论自由,说我反革命都没关系。我觉得最主要的就是我们的意志都可以表达。并不在于对和错。我尊重他的权利。
章诒和
但是也有人对章诒和对自己权利的维护进行了批评。据香港《明报》报道,北京大学中文系教授孔庆东日前在一次演讲中说,(章诒和)“她那个阶级是我们政权的敌人”,“共产党对他们是极其宽大的,但他们仍梦想变天,说当年反右反错了”。《明报》的报道还引述孔庆东的话说,“我们贫民百姓的血泪谁去写?矿井砸死60多人,谁给每人写一部《往事并不如烟》?”
在这里稍微说明一下,《往事并不如烟》是章诒和被禁的第一本书,回忆了他父亲,具有“中国头号大右派”称号的章伯均以及其他一些名人在上世纪五、六十年代的遭遇。对孔庆东的言论,章诒和表示,尊重他说话的权利:
“言论自由,说我反革命都没关系。我觉得最主要的就是我们的意志都可以表达。并不在于对和错。我尊重他的权利。”
北京大学毕业的自由作家余杰曾经是孔庆东的朋友。他说,孔庆东对章诒和的批评超越了正常的学术批评的范畴:
“他的这些言论已经不是一个学者应有的言论,普通人也不应该说出这样违背常识的话。任何人都有表达自己观点的自由。但是这样的言论已经超越了正常的学术批评的范畴,把别人的文学写作归结到阶级斗争的层面,这种想法跟毛当年所说的利用小说反党的思路是一样的。”
余杰还透露说,孔庆东在1989年的民主运动中曾经是北京大学研究生会经选举产生的主席,还因为这次运动其学业受到影响。余杰感叹,孔庆东思想上发生的变化令他吃惊:
“我非常奇怪,这位在89天安门事件中的著名学生领袖,在短短的时间内竟然堕落成中共政权的帮凶,我感到非常痛心,这也说明官方的收买招安政策如何有效。”
我希望大家都站出来,维护言论自由,这是一个很好的开端。我觉得没一个受伤害的和普通工公民都应该站出来。
余杰
本人也是自由作家的余杰也对章诒和的行为表示了支持,他希望更多的人能象章诒和一样站出来:
“我希望大家都站出来,维护言论自由,这是一个很好的开端。我觉得没一个受伤害的和普通工公民都应该站出来。”
章诒和在接受我的采访时表示,她的书禁和销并不重要,重要的是她的权利要得到尊重。她说,如果她的书违法,那么依法进行查禁,她就无话可说:
“对任何东西都有查禁制度。但是查禁也要依法,如果是公开,公正依照法律程序查禁《伶人往事》我也会遵守。事实不是这样。”
章诒和现在是中国艺术研究院戏曲研究所的研究员。她说,中国文化系统对她一直很包容,就是宣传部门和她过不去。她说她对政治不感兴趣,也不希望人们在她的作品中,或者任何的文学作品中,去挖掘思想性和政治性,她强调文学作品最重要的是要感染人。我采访她时问到她的书一再被禁,今后有什么打算:
“今后就是写到死就完了。我一向在文化上很悲观,个人生活也悲观。我一个人生活。很多人指责我是过着高高在上的贵族生活的人。他们根本不知道我这几十年的苦是什么。我也不愿意讲。”
记者:“有没有打算写自传?”
“这不是想写就能写的。我们现在有多少人都想些特别好的东西,不是都没写吗?也都没被允许写出来。”
章诒和一再表示,她不知道为什么中国政府宣传部门要一而再、再而三地禁她的书,她说她看不懂中国这盘棋:
“我不知道他们要这样,我看不懂中国这盘棋,连棋子都没有,连棋子的格都没有。”
我在采访中还试图请章诒和解释她在声明中说要用生命保护她的文字这句话的含义,她说过几天她会写一篇文章专门对此作出解释。
自由亚洲电台申铧采访报道。
中共实行文化专制主义由来已久。毛泽东抓枪杆子用来杀人,抓笔杆子同样用来杀人。自夺取政权起,中共为了巩固它的杀人制度,一直残暴地以强力对知识分子和各种思想及文学艺术作品乃至普通言论实行镇压,所犯罪行罄竹难书。“四人帮”倒台后,胡耀邦曾经代表中共发誓:今后永远不再干这种事情!但是言犹在耳,邓小平就改“放”为“收”,重新在整个意识形态领域实行高压政策,先后发动反自由化和清除“精神污染”运动,不断对知识分子和各种思想言论及优秀作品进行绞杀。江泽民时代以至今日,依然如此,抓人禁书禁报禁刊禁网成为家常便饭,黑色恐怖弥漫整个中国。最近,章诒和被禁了第三本书,另有其他作家的七本书同时被禁,这只不过是中共实行文化专制主义的最新纪录罢了。
我与章诒和是同时代人,遭遇比她更惨。上世纪六十年代,因与“反革命”有牵连,被压得抬不起头,后因参与八九民运又遭牢狱之灾,几乎死在狱中,这些都不说了;单是作品被禁,我就先后有过九次经历。正因为如此,我有资格也有义务同章诒和站在一起怒吼,对中共实行文化专制主义的滔天罪恶发出强烈抗议,进行殊死斗争。
在1980年的反自由化运动中,叶文福的诗歌《将军,你不能这样做》,王靖的电影文学剧本《在社会的档案里》,沙叶新的话剧《假如我是真的》,李克威的电影文学剧本《女贼》,以及刘克的中篇小说《飞天》等优秀文学作品,先后成为重点批判对象,在文学界乃至整个社会生活中产生了极大恐慌,同时也引起了激烈的斗争。我当时是中国人民大学文艺学研究生,也卷入了这场斗争的漩涡,先后写出了好几篇抗争的文章。我为《在社会的档案里》辩护的长篇评论〈〈在灵魂猛烈震颤之后〉〉,被人民文学出版社的〈〈新文学论丛〉〉发表在1981年第一期的当代文学评论头条,但是刚印出来就接到禁令,一万多册杂志被迫把我这篇文章扯下来才准发行。紧接着,我为〈〈飞天〉〉辩护的长篇评论〈〈当封建主义正在肆虐的时候〉〉,原定发表在〈〈新文学论丛〉〉1981年第二期,已经排好了版,也接到禁令而被毁了。接连两次被禁,我极为愤怒,当时担任人民文学出版社副总编辑的老作家秦兆阳也指着胸膛对我说:“心痛啊!”
1982年,我完成了硕士学位论文〈〈人道主义——文学的灵魂〉〉。这篇以马克思主义原理为人道主义辩护的文章,居然被禁了两次。先是兰州的〈〈当代文艺思潮〉〉决定采用,在排好版后被禁。1985年春,此文在纽约〈〈知识分子〉〉杂志和西安〈〈文学家〉〉杂志同时刊出,十万册〈〈文学家〉〉杂志未及发行的一半又被中共中央政治局委员胡乔木和中共中央书记处书记邓力群强令销毁,我主持〈〈文学家〉〉的权力也被剥夺。
1988年,我作为华岳文艺出版社副总编辑,为刘宾雁出版了报告文学选集〈〈关于不会说假话的中国人的故事〉〉,并为之写了题为〈〈历史无情 历史有情〉〉的代序。此序竟三次被禁:第一次是〈〈华人世界〉〉排好版后被主管该杂志的中共中央统战部禁了;第二次是〈〈延河〉〉杂志排好版后被中共陕西省委宣传部连下三道指示禁了;第三次是1989年那本报告文学选集出版后,随着我被捕入狱连书带序一起销毁。
1988年,我还为马德波的〈〈电影艺术纵横论〉〉写了题为〈〈电影艺术家的良知〉〉的序言,为〈〈阎纲短评集〉〉写了题为〈〈他终究是名功臣〉〉的序言。这两篇序言都在1989年我入狱后被禁。我为马德波写的序言还同我为刘宾雁写的序言一起被陕西日报点名批判。
六篇文章,九次被禁,还连带销毁了五万册杂志、六万册书,在我的这些经历中,人民既蒙受了惨重的经济损失,更蒙受了严酷的精神损失,究竟是为什么?如果说,后三次是因为我已经成为“反革命分子”,那么,前面六次我还是人民,甚至还是所谓领导干部呀,何以也禁呢?就六篇文章的内容而言,完全是符合中华人民共和国宪法的,甚至是符合马克思主义的,禁的理由何在?就因为我抨击了封建专制主义和法西斯主义,就因为我鼓吹了人道主义,就因为我坚决反对讲假话,竭力主张讲真话,如此而已!为此而禁,说明了什么?不是只能说明中共恰恰就是推行封建专制主义和法西斯主义,反对人道主义,只讲假话不讲真话的坏东西吗?这样的坏东西,难道不该批判和抨击么?
实在没有什么好说的了。历史和现实都告诉我们,对中共的文化专制主义必须认清本质,坚决抵制!这是捍卫和保障人权的伟大斗争的重要内容,我们一刻也不能懈怠!
2007年1月23日于西安
话说专制政权下,必然会出一些无耻的帮闲文人,由是这政权得以苟延残喘。这政权越是腐朽,这类帮闲的文人越是无耻,南明小朝廷的阮大钺便是。当今腐朽独裁的中共治下,帮闲文人辈出,孔庆东便是其中一位佼佼者。不过依我看,孔庆东在帮闲的道行上,要超过其师祖,所谓青出于蓝胜于蓝也。
近日中国国家出版总署的鸟副署长邬书林者,公然冒天下之大不韪,在二十一世纪的朗朗乾坤下,仿效秦始皇对章诒和等八本著作痛下杀手,下令禁书!此种践踏国家宪法的违宪行为,引来海内外士人的一片哗然,谴责声纷至沓来。原来,邬书林辈的违宪,应该招来国家司法机关的追究,以维护宪法的尊严。可就在人们引颈等候国家司法介入的时候,孔庆东却跳将出来,无耻的为邬书林的违宪辩护。且看孔庆东是如何说辞的:
北京大学著名教授孔庆东日前在演讲中公开批驳章詒和,指章家在上世纪 50年代国人捱饿的情形下,却享受共產党的特殊待遇,章詒和在书中自称「吃腐乳要吃 20多种」,「家里毛巾要每天换一条」,「 单是每天一换,洗的很白」,孔庆东指「她那个阶级是我们政权的敌人」,「共產党对他们是极其宽大的,但他们仍梦想变天,说当年反右反错了 ( ,孔庆东说:「你( 指右派)既然认為是堂堂正正的英雄,為什麼要求共產党平反?」「改革开放后都平反昭雪了,但大右派还百倍疯狂地向人民索取,比当年兇恶 10倍」,「我们平民百姓的血泪谁去写?矿井砸死 60多人,谁给每人写一部《往事并不如烟》?他们一人死了赔多少钱? 生命都是有价钱的。上层人的生命价格和下层人的生命价格不一样吗?革命本来就要改变这东西」,「我们必须肩顶住这个闸门,阳光才会射进来」。
小吴我也算是见多识广,可还没见过孔庆东这样的败类,这样的凶恶,这样的疯狂,这样的颠倒是非混淆黑白,俺也算是长了见识了!
按理说,章伯钧、罗隆基等人在毛泽东武力夺取国家政权的时候,也算对共产党有功,可是毛泽东经翻脸不认,大兴文字狱,把这些民主人士打入地狱,制造了旷古奇冤。”反右运动”祸及五十几万知识分子,大伤民族元气,这早有历史定论。章诒和先生以六旬高龄孤寡老妪,回忆这些往事,寄托自己对亲人的缅怀,也警醒后人,此于国于民都是好事。可是共产党就是不让人民知道过去,不让人民知道这个党所犯下的罪行,于是就剥夺章先生的写作,禁止出版她的著作。于是孔庆东边秉承主子旨意,张口就对章先生吠将起来。就连章伯钧作为一个交通部长的生活细节,也成了孔庆东的攻击材料,可谓是利令智昏,一派胡言乱语了。
孔庆东还扯到了矿难。矿难的频发,正可折射政府监管的缺失,社会的黑暗,这种完全是政府的罪孽却也算到了章先生的账上,可谓混蛋之尤!孔庆东你对矿难做了一些什么有益的事吗?你谴责了政府的失责了吗?你有什么资格责难章先生?!
可是小吴我也为孔庆东这样的草包文人感到羞愧,因为他的演说,逻辑混乱。且看,明明是出版总署违宪禁书,他不去评论禁得对不对,却扯到了章先生不写矿难,责问”谁给(矿工)每人写一部《往事并不如烟》?(!)章先生写什么要你孔庆东规定吗?这样的草包还是著名学者,我真担心他能培养出什么学生来,也为北大这样的高等学府感到羞愧!
孔庆东的劣行还不止于此。去年七月,在凤凰卫视的节目中,孔庆东竟然说什么”被帝国主义蹂躏过的学校(指香港高校)能有什么国际化的高校”,还说”北大太自由了,自由得需要老师语重心长的告诫学生”。一副奴才嘴脸!
孔庆东自称是孔子的直系后代。不过,这个有辱先祖的不肖子孙,丝毫不知羞耻,孔夫子地下有知,也要扼腕叹息了。有一点是可以肯定的,那就是孔庆东这样的文人,决不会给中国留下什么有价值的学术成绩,如果有朝一日人们说起这个人,那一定是他的无耻跟劣行给人们留下了记忆。行笔至此,小吴我不禁喟然长叹,中国怎么竟出这类无耻的文人呢!
2007 年1月 22日