For the drift of the Maker1 is dark, an Isis hid by the veil …
—Tennyson, Maud (1855)
I do not know. This story I am telling is all imagination. These characters I create never existed outside my own mind. If I have pretended until now to know my characters’ minds and innermost thoughts, it is because I am writing in (just as I have assumed some of the vocabulary and “voice” of) a convention universally accepted at the time of my story: that the novelist stands next to God. He may not know all, yet he tries to pretend that he does. But I live in the age of Alain Robbe-Grillet and Roland Barthes; if this is a novel, it cannot be a novel in the modern sense of the word.
So perhaps I am writing a transposed autobiography2; per-haps I now live in one of the houses I have brought into the fiction; perhaps Charles is myself disguised. Perhaps it is only a game. Modern women like Sarah exist, and I have never understood them. Or perhaps I am trying to pass off a con-cealed book of essays on you. Instead of chapter headings, perhaps I should have written “On the Horizontality of Exis-tence,” “The Illusions of Progress,” “The History of the Novel
Form,” “The Aetiology of Freedom,” “Some Forgotten As-pects of the Victorian Age” ... what you will.
Perhaps you suppose that a novelist has only to pull the right strings3 and his puppets will behave in a lifelike manner; and produce on request a thorough analysis of their motives4 and intentions. Certainly I intended at this stage (Chap. Thirteen—unfolding of Sarah’s true state of mind) to tell all—or all that matters. But I find myself suddenly like a man in the sharp spring night, watching from the lawn beneath that dim upper window in Marlborough House; I know in the context of my book’s reality that Sarah would never have brushed away her tears and leaned down and delivered a chapter of revelation. She would instantly have turned, had she seen me there just as the old moon rose, and disappeared into the interior shadows.
But I am a novelist, not a man in a garden—I can follow her where I like? But possibility is not permissibility5. Hus-bands could often murder their wives—and the reverse—and get away with it. But they don’t.
You may think novelists always have fixed6 plans to which they work, so that the future predicted by Chapter One is always inexorably the actuality of Chapter Thirteen. But nov-elists write for countless7 different reasons: for money, for fame, for reviewers, for parents, for friends, for loved ones; for vanity, for pride, for curiosity, for amusement: as skilled furniture makers8 enjoy making furniture, as drunkards like drinking, as judges like judging, as Sicilians like emptying a shotgun into an enemy’s back. I could fill a book with reasons, and they would all be true, though not true of all. Only one same reason is shared by all of us: we wish to create worlds as real as, but other than the world that is. Or was. This is why we cannot plan. We know a world is an organism, not a machine. We also know that a genuinely created world must be independent of its creator; a planned world (a world that fully9 reveals its planning) is a dead world. It is only when our characters and events begin to disobey us that they begin to live. When Charles left Sarah on her cliff edge, I ordered him to walk straight back to Lyme Regis. But he did not; he gratuitously10 turned and went down to the Dairy.
Oh, but you say, come on—what I really mean is that the idea crossed my mind as I wrote that it might be more clever to have him stop and drink milk ... and meet Sarah again. That is certainly one explanation of what happened; but I can only report—and I am the most reliable witness—that the idea seemed to me to come clearly from Charles, not myself. It is not only that he has begun to gain an autonomy;
I must respect it, and disrespect all my quasi-divine plans for him, if I wish him to be real.
In other words, to be free myself, I must give him, and Tina, and Sarah, even the abominable11 Mrs. Poulteney, their freedom as well. There is only one good definition of God: the freedom that allows other freedoms to exist. And I must conform to that definition.
The novelist is still a god, since he creates (and not even the most aleatory avant-garde modern novel has managed to extirpate12 its author completely); what has changed is that we are no longer the gods of the Victorian image, omniscient13 and decreeing; but in the new theological image, with free-dom our first principle, not authority.
I have disgracefully broken the illusion? No. My characters still exist, and in a reality no less, or no more, real than the one I have just broken. Fiction is woven into all, as a Greek observed some two and a half thousand years ago. I find this new reality (or unreality) more valid14; and I would have you share my own sense that I do not fully control these crea-tures of my mind, any more than you control—however hard you try, however much of a latterday Mrs. Poulteney you may be—your children, colleagues, friends, or even yourself.
But this is preposterous15? A character is either “real” or “imaginary”? If you think that, hypocrite lecteur, I can only smile. You do not even think of your own past as quite real; you dress it up, you gild16 it or blacken it, censor17 it, tinker with it ... fictionalize18 it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf—your book, your romanced autobiography. We are all in flight from the real reality. That is a basic definition of Homo sapiens.
So if you think all this unlucky (but it is Chapter Thir-teen) digression has nothing to do with your Time, Progress, Society, Evolution and all those other capitalized ghosts in the night that are rattling19 their chains behind the scenes of this book ... I will not argue. But I shall suspect you.
I report, then, only the outward facts: that Sarah cried in the darkness, but did not kill herself; that she continued, in spite of the express prohibition20, to haunt Ware21 Commons. In a way, therefore, she had indeed jumped; and was living in a kind of long fall, since sooner or later the news must inevi-tably come to Mrs. Poulteney of the sinner’s compounding of her sin. It is true Sarah went less often to the woods than she had become accustomed to, a deprivation22 at first made easy for her by the wetness of the weather those following two weeks. It is true also that she took some minimal23 precautions of a military kind. The cart track eventually ran out into a small lane, little better than a superior cart track itself, which curved down a broad combe called Ware Valley until it joined, on the outskirts24 of Lyme, the main carriage road to Sidmouth and Exeter. There was a small scatter25 of respecta-ble houses in Ware Valley, and it was therefore a seemly place to walk. Fortunately none of these houses overlooked the junction26 of cart track and lane. Once there, Sarah had merely to look round to see if she was alone. One day she set out with the intention of walking into the woods. But as in the lane she came to the track to the Dairy she saw two people come round a higher bend. She walked straight on towards them, and once round the bend, watched to make sure that the couple did not themselves take the Dairy track; then retraced27 her footsteps and entered her sanctuary28 unob-served.
She risked meeting other promenaders on the track itself; and might always have risked the dairyman and his family’s eyes. But this latter danger she avoided by discovering for herself that one of the inviting29 paths into the bracken above the track led round, out of sight of the Dairy, onto the path through the woods. This path she had invariably taken, until that afternoon when she recklessly—as we can now realize— emerged in full view of the two men.
The reason was simple. She had overslept, and she knew she was late for her reading. Mrs. Poulteney was to dine at Lady Cotton’s that evening; and the usual hour had been put forward to allow her to prepare for what was always in essence, if not appearance, a thunderous clash of two brontosauri; with black velvet30 taking the place of iron cartilage, and quotations31 from the Bible the angry raging teeth; but no less dour32 and relentless33 a battle.
Also, Charles’s down-staring face had shocked her; she felt the speed of her fall accelerate; when the cruel ground rushes up, when the fall is from such a height, what use are precautions?
1 maker | |
n.制造者,制造商 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 autobiography | |
n.自传 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 strings | |
n.弦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 permissibility | |
允许,容许性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 countless | |
adj.无数的,多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 makers | |
n.制造者,制造商(maker的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 gratuitously | |
平白 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 abominable | |
adj.可厌的,令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 extirpate | |
v.除尽,灭绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 omniscient | |
adj.无所不知的;博识的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 preposterous | |
adj.荒谬的,可笑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 gild | |
vt.给…镀金,把…漆成金色,使呈金色 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 censor | |
n./vt.审查,审查员;删改 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 fictionalize | |
把(历史事件等)编成小说,使小说化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 rattling | |
adj. 格格作响的, 活泼的, 很好的 adv. 极其, 很, 非常 动词rattle的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 ware | |
n.(常用复数)商品,货物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 deprivation | |
n.匮乏;丧失;夺去,贫困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 minimal | |
adj.尽可能少的,最小的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 outskirts | |
n.郊外,郊区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 scatter | |
vt.撒,驱散,散开;散布/播;vi.分散,消散 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 junction | |
n.连接,接合;交叉点,接合处,枢纽站 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 retraced | |
v.折回( retrace的过去式和过去分词 );回忆;回顾;追溯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 sanctuary | |
n.圣所,圣堂,寺庙;禁猎区,保护区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 inviting | |
adj.诱人的,引人注目的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 velvet | |
n.丝绒,天鹅绒;adj.丝绒制的,柔软的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 quotations | |
n.引用( quotation的名词复数 );[商业]行情(报告);(货物或股票的)市价;时价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 dour | |
adj.冷酷的,严厉的;(岩石)嶙峋的;顽强不屈 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 relentless | |
adj.残酷的,不留情的,无怜悯心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |