A man talking to a skull. A monologue about suicide, at the porous border between sanity and madness. A girl drowning in a brook, grief-stricken for her father. If David Lynch had made Twin Peaks 400 years ago, he might have come up with something similar. But this was William Shakespeare. In 1596, his son Hamnet died at the age of 11 – and five years later, as the playwright was finishing his tragedy Hamlet, Shakespeare’s father suffered a serious illness. He was to die in September 1601.

一個(gè)男子對(duì)著頭蓋骨喃喃自語(yǔ)。他在清醒與瘋狂的邊界游離，吐出一段關(guān)于自殺的獨(dú)白。一個(gè)被小溪淹沒(méi)的女孩，因?yàn)楦赣H患病而悲痛欲絕。如果大衛(wèi)·林奇在400年前拍攝《雙峰》，他可能也會(huì)想出相同的情節(jié)。但這是莎士比亞的作品。1596年，莎翁年僅11歲的兒子哈姆雷特去世；5年后，當(dāng)這位劇作家即將完成悲劇《哈姆雷特》時(shí)，他的父親患上了重病，并在1601年去世。

porous /'p??r?s/ adj.having many small holes that allow water or air to pass through slowly透水的

“Something must have been at work in Shakespeare, something powerful enough to call forth this linguistic explosion,” writes Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt. “As audiences and readers have long instinctively understood, passionate grief, provoked by the death of a loved one, lies at the heart of Shakespeare’s tragedy.” The death of his son and the impending death of his father “could have caused a psychic disturbance that helps to explain the explosive power and inwardness of Hamlet”. What is revered as one of the greatest works in literature is likely to have sprung from a place of intense emotional suffering.

“莎士比亞一定發(fā)生了改變，而這改變足以讓他的文學(xué)才華迸發(fā)，”哈佛教授史蒂芬·格林布拉特寫(xiě)道?！熬拖裼^眾和讀者們?cè)缇透惺艿降哪菢?，深?lèi)?ài)之人的死亡帶來(lái)的強(qiáng)烈悲傷，是莎士比亞悲劇的核心。”愛(ài)子之死與父親隨時(shí)即將到來(lái)的死亡“可能引起了心理上的波動(dòng)，這也就解釋了《哈姆雷特》的爆發(fā)力與本質(zhì)。”這部文學(xué)史上最了不起的作品之一，可能是強(qiáng)烈情感折磨的結(jié)果。

impending /?m?pend??/ adj. that is going to happen very soon 即將發(fā)生的

The crucible in which Hamlet was forged might help explain why the tragedy continues to speak to audiences around the world four centuries on. It came eighth in BBC Culture’s Stories that Shaped the World poll, with voters praising its extraordinary insight into human nature. Hamlet is “the play that exemplifies Shakespeare’s profound understanding of the human psyche in so much of its nuanced extremity… our simultaneous blending of genius and self-sabotage, our capacity for love and hate, creativity and destruction,” claims the US poet, novelist and critic Elizabeth Rosner. According to the UK author and critic Adam Thorpe, it’s a story that has “influenced the way we think about our muddled selves. We enter Hamlet’s inner core and emerge rinsed of illusion.” Hamlet reveals how much stories can teach us about ourselves.

創(chuàng)作《哈姆雷特》的痛苦背景也許能解釋?zhuān)瑸槭裁催@個(gè)悲劇能在四個(gè)世紀(jì)內(nèi)引起世界各地讀者的共鳴?！豆防滋亍吩?/span>BBC文化“塑造世界的作品”中位列第八，支持者贊揚(yáng)了它對(duì)人性卓越的洞見(jiàn)?！豆防滋亍敷w現(xiàn)了“莎士比亞在其細(xì)致入微的極端中深刻理解了人類(lèi)的心靈——我們身上同時(shí)有著天才與自我毀滅；有著愛(ài)與恨、創(chuàng)造與毀滅的能力?！坝?guó)詩(shī)人、小說(shuō)家兼批評(píng)家伊麗莎白·羅莎爾（Elizabeth Rosner）如此寫(xiě)道。英國(guó)作家、批評(píng)家亞當(dāng)·索普（Adam Thorpe）則說(shuō)，這是一部“影響我們?nèi)绾嗡伎甲陨?/span>復(fù)雜性的作品。我們進(jìn)入哈姆雷特的內(nèi)心，將幻象沖洗得一干二凈?！薄豆防滋亍犯嬖V我們，文學(xué)作品能告訴我們多少與自身相關(guān)的信息。

muddled /'m?dld/ confused and vague; used especially of thinking 混亂的

As the philosopher Noam Chomsky has said, “we will always learn more about human life and personality from novels than from scientific psychology” – something the critic and author David Lodge has explored. In his 2004 book Consciousness and the Novel, Lodge argues that “l(fā)iterature is a record of human consciousness, the richest and most comprehensive we have… The novel is arguably man’s most successful effort to describe the experience of individual human beings moving through space and time.

哲學(xué)家諾曼·喬姆斯基曾說(shuō)過(guò)，“要了解人類(lèi)生活和性格相關(guān)的知識(shí)，小說(shuō)告訴我們的永遠(yuǎn)比心理科學(xué)要多?！边@也是批評(píng)家、作家大衛(wèi)·隆戈的發(fā)現(xiàn)。在他2004年出版的《知覺(jué)與小說(shuō)》一書(shū)中，隆戈說(shuō)道：“文學(xué)是人類(lèi)自我認(rèn)知的記錄，它最豐富，也最全面…小說(shuō)可以說(shuō)是人類(lèi)在描述每一個(gè)個(gè)體在不同時(shí)間、地點(diǎn)的經(jīng)歷中，最成功的方式?！?/span>

Lodge argues that “The crises are basically the same: we all have the same wishes and the same hopes… in fiction you get models of how other people react” 

隆戈認(rèn)為“危機(jī)仍然是一樣的：我們都有著一樣的愿望和希望…在小說(shuō)中你會(huì)習(xí)得他人的反應(yīng)模式?！?/span>

On one level, it’s the ability to spy on other people’s thoughts that gives literature this insight. “We do not really know what anybody else is actually thinking at any time – consciousness is a very private thing – and we partly go to literature in its various forms to make up or compensate for the necessary solipsism of our own inner lives,” Lodge tells BBC Culture. “Fundamentally, the reason why we read literary texts is that it gives the impression, if it’s successful, of enabling you to understand how other people think. We know what we feel and what we think, and what we hope for and fear, but we don’t really know how other people process these feelings and observations.”

從某種程度上來(lái)說(shuō)，是對(duì)他人思想細(xì)致入微的觀察賦予了文學(xué)這樣的洞察力。“我們不知道其他人在所有時(shí)刻的所思所想，這一點(diǎn)是千真萬(wàn)確的。感知是非常私密的事，我們閱讀各種形式文學(xué)的部分原因就是為了彌補(bǔ)我們自身生活的唯我論。”隆戈告訴BBC文化：“總體上，我們閱讀文學(xué)文本是因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)告訴我們別人是怎么思考的。我們知道自己的感受、想法；期待、害怕的事物，但是我們其實(shí)并不了解別人會(huì)如何處理這種感情與觀察?！?/span>

solipsism /?s?lip?siz?m/ n. the theory that only the self exists or can be known 唯我論

As Greenblatt argues, in Hamlet, Shakespeare “had perfected the means to represent inwardness… coming in the wake of Hamnet’s death, it expressed Shakespeare’s deepest perception of existence, his understanding of what could be said and what should remain unspoken, his preference for things untidy, damaged, and unresolved over things neatly arranged, well made, and settled”.

如同格林貝特說(shuō)的那樣，在《哈姆雷特》中，莎士比亞“表現(xiàn)本質(zhì)的方式已經(jīng)爐火純青，哈姆雷特死后的那一段表現(xiàn)了莎翁對(duì)于存在最深層的感知，應(yīng)該直白表達(dá)什么、應(yīng)該對(duì)什么隱而不發(fā)，他偏愛(ài)雜亂、損壞、懸而未決，而非整潔、精美、井井有條?！?/span>

No one, before or since Shakespeare, made so many separate selves – Harold Bloom

莎翁是創(chuàng)造眾多獨(dú)立自我的第一人，空前絕后——哈羅德·布魯姆

The critic Harold Bloom has gone so far as to claim that “Shakespeare will go on explaining us, in part because he invented us”. The playwright’s characters, Bloom argues in his 1998 book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, “are extraordinary instances not only of how meaning gets started, rather than repeated, but also of how new modes of consciousness come into being… no one, before or since Shakespeare, made so many separate selves”. He credits his own passion for books as stemming from the access they give him into the minds of others: “I am naive enough to read incessantly because I cannot, on my own, get to know enough people profoundly enough.”

批評(píng)家哈羅德·布魯姆（Harold Bloom）甚至說(shuō)，“莎士比亞的作品創(chuàng)造了我們，因此將繼續(xù)闡釋我們?！辈剪斈吩谧约?/span>1998年的作品《莎士比亞：創(chuàng)造人類(lèi)》中說(shuō)到：“莎翁筆下的人物是創(chuàng)造意義、而不是重復(fù)意義的絕佳證明，作品也體現(xiàn)了新的認(rèn)知模式是如何產(chǎn)生的——莎翁是創(chuàng)造眾多獨(dú)立自我的第一人，空前絕后。”布魯姆說(shuō)，正是因?yàn)闀?shū)能使他洞察他人思想，他才如此熱愛(ài)書(shū)本。“我足夠無(wú)知，不能非常深入地了解足夠多的人，所以要手不釋卷。”

Ways of seeing

看世界的方式

That impulse can go beyond simply understanding who we are: reading can shape our sense of ourselves. “Whether it’s Dante when I turned 60 or Alice in Wonderland when I was an adolescent, these stories were for me autobiographical,” Alberto Manguel, writer and director of the National Library of Argentina, tells BBC Culture. “I understood perfectly what Alice felt in the world of absurd adults, where she tries as politely as she can to ask intelligent questions, when everything around her seems absurd. That helped me understand the mad world I was in – and later, when I discovered the political world and the Mad Hatter says there is no room at the table, and Alice points out that the table is set for many people and there is lots of room, I felt that was exactly what I was seeing in society, where a group of people like the Mad Hatter were saying to others who were starving that there’s no room at the table.”

這樣的動(dòng)力也會(huì)超越僅僅理解自身的局限——閱讀可以塑造我們對(duì)自我的認(rèn)知?！盁o(wú)論是60歲時(shí)讀的但丁還是青少年時(shí)期讀的《愛(ài)麗絲夢(mèng)游仙境》，這些作品對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)都像自傳一般?！薄栋⒏?guó)家圖書(shū)館》的作者兼導(dǎo)演阿爾伯特·滿格爾（Alberto Manguel）對(duì)BBC文化這樣說(shuō)道?！拔彝耆斫鈵?ài)麗絲在成人世界中的感受。當(dāng)周?chē)磺卸硷@得荒誕無(wú)理時(shí)，她試著用盡可能禮貌的方式問(wèn)一些機(jī)智的問(wèn)題。這幫助我理解了我所在的這個(gè)瘋狂世界?！S后，我知道了到政治世界。書(shū)中，瘋帽子說(shuō)位置已經(jīng)滿了，而愛(ài)麗絲指出這張桌子是為很多人準(zhǔn)備的，位置還有的是，我覺(jué)得這就是我在社會(huì)中見(jiàn)到的情形：一群像瘋帽子一樣的人對(duì)忍饑挨餓的人說(shuō)，桌子上已經(jīng)沒(méi)有位置了?！?/span>

autobiographical /???t?ba???ɡr?f?k(?)l/ adj. relating to someone’s life or autobiography 自傳的

“Words reveal to Alice that the only indisputable fact of this bewildering world is that under an apparent rationalism we are all mad,” writes Alberto Manguel 

“別人的話讓愛(ài)麗絲明白，這個(gè)瘋狂世界唯一不變的事實(shí)就是我們都是瘋狂的，”阿爾伯特·滿格爾寫(xiě)道。

He insists that reading has given meaning to his life experiences. “I’m certain that if I hadn’t read Alice in Wonderland and Dante, I wouldn’t understand so many aspects of myself.” In his book Curiosity, Manguel claims he might not be able to identify himself in a police line-up: “I’m not sure whether this is because my features age too rapidly and too drastically or because my own self is less grounded in my memory than the printed words I’ve learned by heart.”

他堅(jiān)信，閱讀讓他的生活經(jīng)歷有了意義?！拔掖_定，如果我沒(méi)有看過(guò)《愛(ài)麗絲漫游仙境》與但丁的作品，我不會(huì)了解到自己身上這么多面?！痹谒摹逗闷妗芬粫?shū)中，滿格爾說(shuō)，如果在警局，和一列嫌疑人站在一起，他可能認(rèn)不出自己?！拔也淮_定這是因?yàn)樽约旱拿嫒堇先サ锰?、?/span>突然還是因?yàn)槲覍?duì)自己的記憶并不如腦海中印刷的字眼印象深刻?！?/span>

drastically /'drɑ:st?kl?/ adv. to a very great and usually very worrying degree 大幅度的地

Identification with a story can come in unexpected ways. Preti Taneja’s debut novel We That Are Young reimagines King Lear in modern-day Delhi. Studying the play at school in the UK, she felt a profound connection – one that surprised her. “In King Lear I recognised the Indian extended family I was used to visiting in Delhi each summer,” she has written. “Shakespeare somehow recognised the part of my life my English friends had no idea about – the Indian part, in India.”

與文學(xué)作品產(chǎn)生共鳴的方式可能出人意料。普雷提·塔內(nèi)加（Preti Taneja）的第一本小說(shuō)《年輕的我們》以如今的德里為背景，重構(gòu)了《李爾王》的故事。在英國(guó)學(xué)習(xí)這部劇時(shí)，塔內(nèi)加體會(huì)到了一種深厚的連結(jié)——這種連結(jié)使她驚訝?！霸凇独顮柾酢分?，我看到了自己過(guò)去每個(gè)夏天都會(huì)去的印度家庭?！彼龑?xiě)道?！吧勘葋喣撤N程度上看到了我的英國(guó)朋友完全不了解的部分——印度人的那一面，在印度的故事。”

King Lear helped her to think about the Partition of India(1). “No one talked about it at school, yet there was this definite sense that there was a huge story that had brought us to this country, that was the reason I’d been born here – and then suddenly there it was, in Shakespeare of all things,” Taneja tells BBC Culture. “This story of partition that leads to civil war, this story of daughters who are forced into performing well for family honour and duty – which is the situation many second-generation immigrant women face.”

《李爾王》幫她理解了印巴分治?！皩W(xué)校里沒(méi)有人講這個(gè)，但所有人都感覺(jué)到，一定有一個(gè)事件把我們帶到這個(gè)國(guó)度，這個(gè)背景正是我出生在這里的原因——而突然，在莎翁的作品中就找到了這一點(diǎn)?！?/span> 塔內(nèi)加告訴BBC文化，“它是一個(gè)有關(guān)于分裂導(dǎo)致內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的故事、一個(gè)女兒們被迫為了家族榮譽(yù)和責(zé)任必須好好表現(xiàn)的故事。后者正是許多移二代女性必須面對(duì)的情況。”

(1)印巴分治：印巴分治是指于1947年8月14日和15日發(fā)生在印度次大陸的歷史事件，大英帝國(guó)統(tǒng)治下的英屬印度解體，由于當(dāng)時(shí)分治條款只涉及現(xiàn)代的印度和巴基斯坦二國(guó)的劃分問(wèn)題，而沒(méi)有考慮到兩個(gè)地區(qū)的民族、宗教問(wèn)題，最終導(dǎo)致內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。

“Literature can make us think about how patterns are repeated… generational damage is something that we have to work so hard to reverse,” says Taneja 

“文學(xué)可以讓我們思考模式是如何重復(fù)的…代際的損害是我們必須努力逆轉(zhuǎn)的東西，”塔內(nèi)加說(shuō)。

By turning king into beggar, obedient daughters into villains, loyal daughter into banished exile, legitimate son into outcast and illegitimate son into insider, King Lear messes with ideas of fixed identities. “There’s an aspect in which almost every character is cast into a position of otherness to themselves,” says Taneja. “Everyone gets swapped around. This play really is about alienation from the self, and exploration of the other within the self – how we reconcile those two sides, and come to terms with the fact that we’re all hybrid beings, and that society isn’t a fixed thing.”

把國(guó)王變成乞丐，把順從的女兒變成反派、把忠誠(chéng)的女兒流放、把婚生子邊緣化、把私生子變成心腹，《李爾王》混淆了固定身份的概念?！皬哪撤N角度上來(lái)說(shuō)，幾乎里面所有角色都變成了自己的對(duì)立面，”坦納加說(shuō)：“每個(gè)人都發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化。這部劇講的是與自我脫離、探索自己的另一面——我們?nèi)绾握{(diào)和兩個(gè)極端，如何認(rèn)識(shí)到我們都是混合的個(gè)體，以及社會(huì)不是一成不變的?！?/span>

alienation /.e?li?'ne??(?)n/ n. the feeling that you do not belong in a particular society, place, or group 疏離感

Bloom touched on thiswhen he said that “Shakespeare will not make us better and will not make us worse, but he may allow us to overhear ourselves when we talk to ourselves… he may teach us how to accept change in ourselves as in others, and perhaps even the final form of change.” With characters who gauge what they seem like from others’ perspectives, and then adapt their behaviour accordingly, he believes the plays reveal the process of self-revision – the ability “to change by self-overhearing and then by the will to change”.

在說(shuō)到“莎士比亞不會(huì)讓我們變得更好，也不會(huì)讓我們變得更差，但他能讓我們聽(tīng)到與自己對(duì)話時(shí)的那個(gè)自己…他能教會(huì)我們?nèi)绾谓邮茏陨砗退松砩系淖兓赡苌踔潦亲罱K的改變形式?！睍r(shí)，布魯姆說(shuō)到了這一點(diǎn)。角色們丈量著他人眼中的自己，并隨之調(diào)整自己的行為。他相信這部劇體現(xiàn)出了自我調(diào)整的過(guò)程，“通過(guò)自我監(jiān)測(cè)進(jìn)行改變，而后自愿改變”的能力。

A light in the dark

暗處的光明

But as well as identifying with characters, we read to find out how people profoundly different from us think. “The canon I was introduced to at school included Philip Larkin⁽²⁾, JM Coetzee⁽³⁾ – all these men writing about masculinity and writing about society with a very particular gaze,” says Taneja. “It felt to me like what I was learning was how I was seen. This is what the male characters they are voicing think of me, and of the world of others that I belong to. There were lots of epiphanies in that – Coetzee is one of my favourite writers because his work is so sharp – it taught me about the way that a certain kind of patriarchal masculinity sees me in the world.”

但當(dāng)我們與角色產(chǎn)生共鳴的同時(shí)，也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)人與人之間想法的差異?！霸趯W(xué)校時(shí)，我讀的精選集中有菲利普·拉金（Philip Larkin）、約翰·庫(kù)切（JM Coetzee）的作品——這些男性都會(huì)寫(xiě)到男子氣概、寫(xiě)到從一個(gè)非常特殊的角度看到的社會(huì)，”塔尼賈說(shuō)?！皩?duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，我了解到了社會(huì)對(duì)我的看法，也就是他們筆下男性角色對(duì)我、對(duì)我所屬的那個(gè)他人的世界的看法。我從中獲得了許多頓悟——庫(kù)切是我最喜愛(ài)的作家之一，因?yàn)樗奈恼路浅Ｏ淖髌犯嬖V我，父權(quán)社會(huì)對(duì)我的看法。”

epiphany/?'p?f?ni/ n. a Christian festival, held on the 6 January, in memory of the time when the Magi came to see the baby Jesus at Bethlehem 主顯節(jié)；頓悟

(2) 菲利普·拉金，英國(guó)詩(shī)人。1922年8月9日生于考文垂。著有詩(shī)集《北方船》、《少受欺騙者》、《降靈節(jié)婚禮》和《高窗》。

(3) 約翰·庫(kù)切（1940年2月9日－），又譯柯慈，南非當(dāng)代著名小說(shuō)家，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)2003年的得主。他是非洲第3位諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的得主。

According to Manguel, “the quest to find out who we are… is responsible, in some measure, for our delight in the stories of others” 

滿格爾認(rèn)為：“找到自我的渴求……責(zé)任重大，從某種程度上來(lái)說(shuō)，正是我們享受他人故事的原因。”

Storytelling has an evolutionary role in fostering empathy. As Atticus Finch said in To Kill a Mockingbird, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Reading encourages us not to reduce others to caricatures. “Unconsciously we begin to accept that the other is always a mystery and that easy characterisations lead nowhere,” says the Greek writer Amanda Michalopoulou. “Literature transforms amorphous fear and pity into individualities. It tells us: the other is not what it seems.”

文學(xué)對(duì)培養(yǎng)同理心有著顛覆性的作用。就像《殺死一只知更鳥(niǎo)》中阿蒂克斯·芬奇說(shuō)的那樣：“你永遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)法真正了解一個(gè)人，除非你從他的立場(chǎng)看待問(wèn)題，除非你鉆進(jìn)他的心里，在里面走一圈?！遍喿x鼓勵(lì)我們不把他人簡(jiǎn)化成漫畫(huà)形象?！安恢挥X(jué)，我們就會(huì)接受，他人永遠(yuǎn)是一個(gè)謎團(tuán)，簡(jiǎn)單的臉譜化毫無(wú)意義?！毕ＥD作家阿曼達(dá)·米恰洛叵羅（Amanda Michalopoulou）說(shuō)?！拔膶W(xué)把無(wú)形的恐懼與遺憾轉(zhuǎn)換成個(gè)性，它告訴我們：別人并不像看起來(lái)那么簡(jiǎn)單?！?/span>

caricature /'k?r?k?t??r/ n. a representation of a person that is exaggerated for comic effect漫畫(huà)形象

譯者注：斯庫(kù)特和杰姆的父親，律師。出身于中產(chǎn)世家，年輕時(shí)是神射手，發(fā)妻已逝。他有不少幽默感，并且將強(qiáng)烈的道德正義感成功地灌輸給下一代。他是梅科姆鎮(zhèn)里為數(shù)不多的堅(jiān)持與致力于種族平等的居民之一。在湯姆·魯濱遜被指控強(qiáng)奸了一名白人女子后，他毅然為其辯護(hù)。因此，他的家庭成為鎮(zhèn)上居民發(fā)泄憤怒的對(duì)象。他具有堅(jiān)定的信念與睿智，設(shè)身處地為他人著想。他在小說(shuō)中是道義的化身。

Fiction can place us in uncomfortable positions too. At BBC Culture’s Stories that Shaped the World event, the author Colm Tóibín argued that it should “show you evil so that you would know it”. In the case of Clytemnestra in the Oresteia⁽⁴⁾, he said: “I need to show you someone who was once good… how easily she could become corrupted, what a monster she could become – where you’re almost following her when she comes to murder her husband Agamemnon, thinking ‘I want you to do this’ – you’re pushing the reader’s imagination into areas where the reader might not want to go.”

小說(shuō)也會(huì)把我們帶到不自在的處境中。BBC文化“塑造世界的作品”活動(dòng)中，作家科爾姆·托賓（Colm Tóibín）認(rèn)為文學(xué)作品應(yīng)該“展現(xiàn)邪惡，從而使讀者了解這種邪惡”。在評(píng)價(jià)《奧瑞斯提亞》克呂泰墨斯特拉這個(gè)角色時(shí)，托賓說(shuō)：“我要指出，一個(gè)曾經(jīng)的好人…有多么容易被侵蝕，又能變得多么禽獸不如——讀者幾乎能完全理解她殺死丈夫阿伽門(mén)農(nóng)的行為，想著“我想讓你這么做”。這時(shí)，作者就在把讀者的想象推到讀者可能不愿意去的地方?！?/span>

（4）《奧瑞斯提亞》：埃斯庫(kù)羅斯的三連劇《奧瑞斯提亞》是古希臘悲劇的奠基之作，文中提到的是阿伽門(mén)農(nóng)相關(guān)部分。阿伽門(mén)農(nóng)的妻子克呂泰涅斯特拉對(duì)于阿伽門(mén)農(nóng)在出征時(shí)因得罪狩獵女神阿耳忒彌斯而以長(zhǎng)女伊菲革涅亞獻(xiàn)祭之事懷恨在心，便與情人埃癸斯托斯一起謀害了他。

And just as stories demonstrate that humans are neither straightforwardly ‘good’ nor ‘evil’, they also remind us how quickly we change. “Our readings are never absolutes: literature disallows dogmatic tendencies,” writes Manguel. “Instead, we shift allegiances… if we recognise ourselves in Cordelia today, we may call Goneril our sister tomorrow, and end up, in days to come, kindred spirits with Lear, a foolish, fond old man. This transmigration of souls is literature’s modest miracle.”

文學(xué)作品告訴我們，沒(méi)有絕對(duì)的好人或壞人，它也提醒我們，人改變的速度可以很快。“我們的閱讀從不是絕對(duì)的，文學(xué)拒絕教條傾向，”滿格爾（Manguel）寫(xiě)到?！拔覀冎С值慕巧珪?huì)變化…今天，我們?cè)诳嫉饮悑I身上看到了自己的影子，明天我們可能會(huì)把貢納莉看成自己的姐妹；而后來(lái)，再過(guò)上幾天，可能會(huì)和昏聵、溫柔的老李爾王產(chǎn)生共鳴。在各個(gè)靈魂之間切換正是文學(xué)微不足道的奇跡。”

dogmatic /d?ɡ'm?t?k/ adj. being certain that your beliefs are right and that others should accept them, without paying attention to evidence or other opinions教條的

Perhaps most importantly, reading can reaffirm a feeling we all have – that who we are as humans varies from moment to moment. In response to the question posed by the Caterpillar – “Who are you?” – Alice says: “I-I hardly know, Sir, just at present. At least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have changed several times since then.”

也許，最重要的是，閱讀會(huì)重新強(qiáng)調(diào)我們都有的一種感覺(jué)——作為人，我們時(shí)時(shí)刻刻都在發(fā)生著變化。毛毛蟲(chóng)問(wèn)“你是誰(shuí)？”時(shí)，愛(ài)麗絲回答：“我——我不知道，先生。至少現(xiàn)在我不清楚。今天早上起床時(shí)，我明白自己是誰(shuí)，但從那以后，我已經(jīng)變了好幾次?！?/span>