人物圖片轉自wakarimasita of Flickr，本作品的版權持有者
(村上春樹2005年在麻省理工學院的一次演講中)
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/村上春樹
譯文轉自
http://blogs.myoops.org/lucifer.php/2009/02/25/alwaysstandontheeggside#more504
朱學恆的阿宅萬事通事務所
－－－－－－－－－－－－
總是和雞蛋站在同一邊
村上春樹於耶路撒冷文學獎
我是以小說家的身份來到耶路撒冷，也就是說，我的身份是一個專業的謊言編織者。
當然，說謊的不只是小說家。我們都知道，政客也會。外交人員和軍人有時也會被迫說謊，二手車業務員，屠夫和工人也不例外。不過，小說家的謊言和其他人不同的地方在於，沒有人會用道德標準去苛責小說家的謊言。事實上，小說家的謊言說的越努力，越大、越好，批評家和大眾越會讚賞他。為什麼呢？
我的答案是這樣的：藉由傳述高超的謊言；也就是創造出看來彷彿真實的小說情節，小說家可以將真實帶到新的疆域，將新的光明照耀其上。在大多數的案例中，我們幾乎不可能捕捉真理，並且精準的描繪它。因此，我們才必須要將真理從它的藏匿處誘出，轉化到另一個想像的場景，轉換成另一個想像的形體。不過，為了達成這個目的，我們必須先弄清楚真理到底在自己體內的何處。要編出好的謊言，這是必要的。
不過，今天，我不準備說謊。我會儘可能的誠實。一年之中只有幾天我不會撒謊，今天剛好是其中一天。
讓我老實說吧。許多人建議我今天不應該來此接受耶路撒冷文學獎。有些人甚至警告我，如果我敢來，他們就會杯葛我的作品。
會這樣的原因，當然是因為加薩走廊正發生的這場激烈的戰鬥。根據聯合國的調查，在被封鎖的加薩城中超過一千人喪生，許多人是手無寸鐵的平民，包括了兒童和老人。
在收到獲獎通知之後，我自問：在此時前往以色列接受這文學獎是否是一個正確的行為。這會不會讓人以為我支持衝突中的某一方，或者認為我支持一個選擇發動壓倒性武力的國家政策。當然，我不希望讓人有這樣的印象。我不讚同任何戰爭，我也不支持任何國家。同樣的，我也不希望看到自己的書被杯葛。
最後，在經過審慎的考量之後，我終於決定來此。其中一個原因是因為有太多人反對我前來參與了。或許，我就像許多其他的小說家一樣，天生有著反骨。如果人們告訴我，特別是警告我：「千萬別去那邊，」「千萬別這麼做，」我通常會想要「去那邊」和「這麼做」。你可以說這就是我身為小說家的天性。小說家是種很特別的人。他們一定要親眼所見、親手所觸才願意相信。
所以我來到此地。我選擇親身參與，而不是退縮逃避。我選擇親眼目睹，而不是矇蔽雙眼。我選擇開口說話，而不是沈默不語。
這並不代表我要發表任何政治信息。判斷對錯當然是小說家最重要的責任。
不過，要如何將這樣的判斷傳遞給他人，則是每個作家的選擇。我自己喜歡利用故事，傾向超現實的故事。因此，我今日才不會在各位面前發表任何直接的政治訊息。
不過，請各位容許我發表一個非常個人的訊息。這是我在撰寫小說時總是牢記在心的。我從來沒有真的將其形諸於文字或是貼在牆上。我將它雋刻在我內心的牆上，這句話是這樣說的：
「若要在高聳的堅牆與以卵擊石的雞蛋之間作選擇，我永遠會選擇站在雞蛋那一邊。」
是的。不管那高牆多麼的正當，那雞蛋多麼的咎由自取，我總是會站在雞蛋那一邊。就讓其他人來決定是非，或許時間或是歷史會下判斷。但若一個小說家選擇寫出站在高牆那一方的作品，不論他有任何理由，這作品的價值何在？
這代表什麼？在大多數的狀況下，這是很顯而易見的。轟炸機、戰車、火箭與白磷彈是那堵高牆。被壓碎、燒焦、射殺的手無寸鐵的平民則是雞蛋。這是這比喻的一個角度。
不過，並不是只有一個角度，還有更深的思考。這樣想吧。我們每個人或多或少都是一顆雞蛋。我們都是獨一無二，裝在脆弱容器理的靈魂。對我來說是如此，對諸位來說也是一樣。我們每個人也或多或少，必須面對一堵高牆。這高牆的名字叫做體制。體制本該保護我們，但有時它卻自作主張，開始殘殺我們，甚至讓我們冷血、有效，系統化的殘殺別人。（編按：可參考文化大革命事件）
我寫小說只有一個理由。那就是將個體的靈魂尊嚴暴露在光明之下。故事的目的是在警醒世人，將一道光束照在體繫上，避免它將我們的靈魂吞沒，剝奪靈魂的意義。我深信小說家就該揭露每個靈魂的獨特性，藉由故事來釐清它。用生與死的故事，愛的故事，讓人們落淚的故事，讓人們因恐懼而顫抖的故事，讓人們歡笑顫動的故事。這才是我們日復一日嚴肅編織小說的原因。
先父在九十歲時過世。他是個退休的教師，兼職的佛教法師。當他在研究所就讀時，他被強制徵召去中國參戰。身為一個戰後出身的小孩，我曾經看著他每天晨起在餐前，於我們家的佛壇前深深的向佛祖祈禱。有次我問他為什麼要這樣做，他告訴我他在替那些死於戰爭中的人們祈禱。
他說，他在替所有犧牲的人們祈禱，包括戰友，包括敵人。看著他跪在佛壇前的背影，我似乎可以看見死亡的陰影包圍著他。
我的父親過世時帶走了他的記憶，我永遠沒機會知道一切。但那被死亡包圍的背影留在我的記憶中。這是我從他身上繼承的少數幾件事物，也是最重要的事物。
我今日只想對你傳達一件事。我們都是人類，超越國籍、種族和宗教，都只是一個面對名為體制的堅實高牆的一枚脆弱雞蛋。不論從任何角度來看，我們都毫無勝機。高牆太高、太堅硬，太冰冷。唯一勝過它的可能性只有來自我們將靈魂結為一體，全心相信每個人的獨特和不可取代性所產生的溫暖。
請各位停下來想一想。我們每個人都擁有一個獨特的，活生生的靈魂。體制卻沒有。我們不能容許體制踐踏我們。我們不能容許體制自行其是。體制並沒有創造我們：是我們創造了體制。
這就是我要對各位說的。
我很感謝能夠獲得耶路撒冷文學獎。我很感謝世界各地有那麼多的讀者。我很高興有機會向各位發表演說。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064909.html
Always on the side of the egg
By Haruki Murakami
Tags: Israel News, Haruki Murakami
I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.
Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and military men tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling them. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?
My answer would be this: Namely, that by telling skillful lies - which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true - the novelist can bring a truth out to a new location and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth lies within us. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.
Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.
So let me tell you the truth. A fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came.
The reason for this, of course, was the fierce battle that was raging in Gaza. The UN reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded Gaza City, many of them unarmed citizens - children and old people.
Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. This is an impression, of course, that I would not wish to give. I do not approve of any war, and I do not support any nation. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.
Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me - and especially if they are warning me - "don't go there," "don't do that," I tend to want to "go there" and "do that." It's in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.
And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.
This is not to say that I am here to deliver a political message. To make judgments about right and wrong is one of the novelist's most important duties, of course.
It is left to each writer, however, to decide upon the form in which he or she will convey those judgments to others. I myself prefer to transform them into stories - stories that tend toward the surreal. Which is why I do not intend to stand before you today delivering a direct political message.
Please do, however, allow me to deliver one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: Rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:
"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."
Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will decide. If there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?
What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high, solid wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.
This is not all, though. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: It is The System. The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others - coldly, efficiently, systematically.
I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I fully believe it is the novelist's job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories - stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.
My father died last year at the age of 90. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school, he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China. As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the war.
He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.
My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.
I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong - and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others' souls and from the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow The System to exploit us. We must not allow The System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: We made The System.
That is all I have to say to you.
I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today.
Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and military men tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling them. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?
My answer would be this: Namely, that by telling skillful lies - which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true - the novelist can bring a truth out to a new location and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth lies within us. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.
Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.
So let me tell you the truth. A fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came.
The reason for this, of course, was the fierce battle that was raging in Gaza. The UN reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded Gaza City, many of them unarmed citizens - children and old people.
Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. This is an impression, of course, that I would not wish to give. I do not approve of any war, and I do not support any nation. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.
Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me - and especially if they are warning me - "don't go there," "don't do that," I tend to want to "go there" and "do that." It's in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.
And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.
This is not to say that I am here to deliver a political message. To make judgments about right and wrong is one of the novelist's most important duties, of course.
It is left to each writer, however, to decide upon the form in which he or she will convey those judgments to others. I myself prefer to transform them into stories - stories that tend toward the surreal. Which is why I do not intend to stand before you today delivering a direct political message.
Please do, however, allow me to deliver one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: Rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:
"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."
Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will decide. If there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?
What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high, solid wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.
This is not all, though. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: It is The System. The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others - coldly, efficiently, systematically.
I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I fully believe it is the novelist's job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories - stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.
My father died last year at the age of 90. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school, he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China. As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the war.
He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.
My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.
I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong - and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others' souls and from the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow The System to exploit us. We must not allow The System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: We made The System.
That is all I have to say to you.
I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
與卵共存：村上春樹耶路撒冷文學獎獲獎辭
譯：李華芳
今天，我以小說家的身份，也就是作為一個職業的說謊者，來到耶路撒冷。
當然，不是只有小說家說謊。眾所周知，政客也說謊。外交官和軍人有時也被迫說謊，二手車推銷員、屠夫和建築工人概莫能外。儘管如此，沒有人會用道德標準去苛責小說家，因為小說家說的謊與其他人不同。事實上，小說家的謊言越大、越好、越有匠心，就越有可能受到公眾和評論家的讚揚。這是為什麼呢？
我的答案是：通過高明的謊言——也就是說，創作看似真實的小說——小說家能夠把真相帶到新的地方並賦予它新的光彩。在大多數情況下，不太可能掌握真相的原型並進行精確描繪。因此把真相從其藏身之處引出來，轉移到幻境，用幻象取而代之，意在抓住真相的尾巴。然而，要達此目的，必須首先明晰真相的藏身之處。這是編造優秀謊言的重要資質。
不過，今天我無心撒謊。我將盡力坦誠相告。一年之中有幾天我不說謊，今天恰好是其中之一。
所以讓我實話實說。很多人勸我不要來領耶路撒冷文學獎。甚至有人警告我說如果敢來就杯葛我的書。
個中緣由，自是肆虐加沙地帶的激戰。根據聯合國的調查，超過1000人葬身於被封鎖的加沙城內，不少是手無寸鐵的平民——孩子和老人。
收到獲獎通知後，我再三思量，在這樣一個時候到以色列來領取一個文學獎是否合適，會不會給人造成一種印象，就是我支持衝突中的某一方、或者我支持一個選擇釋放壓倒性武力的國家政策。當然，我並不想給人造成這種印象。我不認同任何戰爭，我也不支持任何一方。當然我也不想我的書遭到抵制。
然而最終經過慎重考慮，我決定來到這裡。我這樣做的一個原因是有太多人告訴我不要這麼做。也許，與其他眾多小說家一樣，常常反其道而行之。如果人們告訴我 ——尤其是當他們警告我——「不要去那裡」，「不要那麼做」，我傾向於「要去那裡」、「就那麼做」。你或許可以說，這是我作為小說家的天性。小說家是異類。他們無法相信任何沒有親身經歷過的事物。
而這就是為什麼我在這裡的原因。我選擇親臨現場，而非避而遠之。我寧願親眼來看，而非視而不見。我寧願向你們演講，而非沉默不語。
這並不是說我來這裡是傳達政治訊息的。當然，判斷是非是小說家的最重要的職責之一。
不過，如果把他或她的判斷傳達給其他人，要留給每一個作家自己決定。我自己傾向於把它們轉化為故事——趨於超現實的故事。這就是為什麼今天我不打算站在你們面前傳達直接的政治訊息。
但請允許我傳達一條非常私人的訊息。這是我寫小說時始終銘記在心的東西。我竟然從未將它形諸文字裱於牆上：而是將它銘刻在我內心的牆上，它大致如下：
「以卵擊牆，我願與卵共存亡。」
是的，不管高牆多麼「偉光正」，卵多麼咎由自取，我都會與卵共存。別人將抉擇對錯；也許時間或歷史會來裁決。但無論如何，如果一個小說家，所寫的作品站在牆的那一邊，這樣的作品又有什麼價值呢？
這個隱喻的含義是什麼？某些情形下，它太簡單明瞭了。轟炸機、坦克、火箭和白磷彈就是那堅硬的高牆。那些被碾碎、被燒焦、被射殺的手無寸鐵的平民就是卵。這是隱喻的一種含義。
可這並非全部。它帶有更深的含義。仔細想想，我們每個人或多或少都是一個卵。每一個人都有一個獨一無二的、無法取代的裹在脆弱外殼裡的靈魂。對我來說如此，對諸位而言也是一樣。我們每個人也或多或少必須面對一堵高牆。這高牆名叫「體制」（The System）。體制本該庇護我們，但有時候體制不在受制於人，然後它開始殘殺我們，甚至讓我們冷血地、有效地、系統地殘殺別人。
我寫小說只有一個理由。那就是使個人靈魂的尊嚴彰顯，使它呈現光彩。故事的用意是敲響警鍾，用光明使體制透亮，以免它網羅和貶低我們的靈魂。我堅信，小說家的任務是通過寫作故事來不斷追求釐清每一個靈魂的獨特性——用生與死的故事，用愛的故事，用讓人潸然淚下的故事，用讓人不寒而慄的故事，用讓人笑顏逐開的故事。這才是我們日復一日一絲不苟寫作小說的理由。
先父去歲仙逝享年九十。他是一位退休教師，也是一位兼職佛教徒。讀研究生時，他應徵入伍並被派往中國參戰。我生於戰後，常見他每日早餐前在家中佛壇前長時間的虔誠祈禱。有一次我忍不住問他為什麼這樣做，他告訴我他是在為那些在戰爭中死於非命的人們祈禱。
他為所有死去的人祈禱，不論敵友。凝視著他跪在佛壇前的背影，我彷彿感到死亡的陰影包圍了他。
父親走了，帶走了他的記憶，我永遠不可能知道的記憶。但那被死亡包圍的陰影留在了我的記憶裡。這是我從他那裡繼承的少數幾樣東西之一，也是最重要的東西。
今天我只希望向你們傳達一件事情。我們都是人，都是超越國籍、種族、信仰的個體，都是面對著叫做「體制」的銅牆鐵壁的危卵。顯而易見，我們沒有獲勝的希望。這堵牆太高、太強大，也太冰冷。假如有任何獲勝的希望，那一定來自我們對自身和他人靈魂的絕對的獨一無二和不可替代的信任，來自於我們靈魂相聚所獲得的溫暖。
請仔細想一想吧。我們每個人都擁有一個真實的、活生生的靈魂。而體制沒有靈魂。我們不能讓體制來踐踏我們。我們不能讓體制自行其是。體制並沒有創造我們：是我們創造了體制。
這就是我要告訴諸位的一切。
我很榮幸獲得耶路撒冷文學獎。我很榮幸世上有許多國家的讀者正在閱讀我的書。我也很高興今天有機會能向諸位作演講。
(END)
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
http://culture.people.com.cn/BIG5/22219/8763175.html
耶路撒冷文學獎授予村上春樹：他好讀但不易理解
2009年02月06日16:29 來源：《文匯報》
你以為他是你的青春密碼，其實地球人都認識他。你以為他是頹廢不羈地打著1973年彈子球的文藝青年，其實他是每個清晨都頑強地出現在地平線上的長跑中年男——或許稱中年男都有些勉強，生於1949年的村上春樹已奔入60歲了。
60歲的村上春樹剛剛獲得第24屆耶路撒冷文學獎，據悉他將現身下週日舉行的耶路撒冷國際書展親領獎項。耶路撒冷文學獎創辦於1963年，每兩年頒發一次。2001年的獲獎者蘇珊·桑塔格評價該項獎「在相對短的歷史中，曾授予二十世紀下半葉一些最好的作家」：阿瑟·米勒、蘇珊·桑塔格、VS·奈保爾、 JM·庫切、博爾赫斯、米蘭·昆德拉等。在這串名單中，已被國人閱讀了20年的村上春樹恐怕是離國內青年讀者最近的一名獲獎者了。
東西糅和令人著迷
「決定將耶路撒冷獎頒給村上春樹，是出於對他藝術成就及對人類的愛的深切尊重。他的人道主義，在作品中有著明顯的體現。」記者在耶路撒冷文學獎官方網站上看到這樣的評價，「村上春樹是我們這一代最傑出的世界級作家之一。村上(的書)很好讀，但不易理解。抽象派的風格，明晰的文字，讓他很容易接近，但人們一讀他的作品，就能明顯感受到他的文學世界的全部複雜性——他的小說中，一般都有一個非正統的主角，講述著一個平行的異化世界中，自己人生經歷的荒謬性 ——讓村上春樹列身於這個脈絡的多位傑出作家當中，從卡夫卡到加繆，再到1971年耶路撒冷文學獎獲得者博爾赫斯。」
對於村上春樹小說風靡世界的獨特魅力，評委會是這樣詮釋的：「村上春樹是西方世界最為熟悉和喜愛的日本作家，這在很大程度上緣於他對日本文化和現代西方文化的奇特的糅和，這種糅和是其作品的典型特徵，也是西方讀者為之著迷之處。」
台灣譯者賴明珠曾經自問：「我們為什麼選擇村上春樹？」她的答案是：「他和他的作品帶給我們思想的特異空間，而輕描淡寫的日常生活片斷喚起的生活氣氛令我們有所共鳴。更重要的是他以六十年代的背景道出九十年代，甚至世世代代的年輕心聲。」
內地譯者林少華則密切注意著村上春樹的轉型突破，他評價說：「我們讀村上隻讀對了一半。他至少有一半作品不是『小資』，從《奇鳥行狀錄》開始，他的筆開始介入社會問題，筆鋒開始變硬，變犀利了，開始涉及到靈魂中最黑暗、最隱秘的部分。」
獲獎講演令人期待
其實，村上春樹曾多次被預言會獲得諾貝爾文學獎，耶路撒冷文學獎的摘得，似乎為其作品在全世界的名譽贏得再一次高水準的認可。與諾貝爾文學獎頒獎儀式一樣，歷來耶路撒冷文學獎的得主也會發表鄭重的講演，其中不乏精闢而精彩的見解。例如，在2001年5月9日「耶路撒冷獎」頒獎禮上，上台領獎的桑塔格發表了題為《文字的良心》的演說，在這篇文氣如虹的講稿中，她闡明了自由、和平與文學之間的關係，其中的名句包括：「作家的職責是使人們不輕易聽信於精神搶掠者。作家的職責是讓我們看到世界本來的樣子，充滿各種不同的要求、區域和經驗。」
庫切在1987年領取「耶路撒冷獎」時呼籲建立一個棄絕「充斥著病態的情感和冷漠的勢力，充斥著憤怒和暴力的」世界，使得人們得以安居在一個「可以自在地表達情感和思想的」世界。而米蘭·昆德拉1985年領獎時發表了著名的《人類一思考，上帝就發笑》的講演：「評價一個時代精神不能光從思想和理論概唸著手，必須考慮到那個時代的藝術，特別是小說藝術。」
因此，村上春樹在領取耶路撒冷文學獎上會說些什麼，令人期待，也許，這會是村上春樹將來出現在諾貝爾文學獎領獎台上的一次預演？而以色列的旅遊指南上說：「12月至2月為冬天的雨季，但即使是冬季，也經常出現驟雨中的陽光。」 （記者 吳越）
（責任編輯：黃維）
沒有留言:
張貼留言