導讀： 中文名: 自由原名: Freiheit別名: Freedom作者: Jonathan Franzen譯者: Bettina Ababarnell圖書分類: 社會資源格式: PDF版本: 德語版(2010紐約時報年度好書）出版社: Rowohlt Verlag書號: 978-3498021290發行時間 中文名: 自由原名: Freiheit別名: Freedom作者: Jonathan Franzen譯者: Bettina Ababarnell圖書分類: 社會資源格式: PDF版本: 德語版(2010紐約時報年度好書）出版社: Rowohlt Verlag書號: 978-3498021290發行時間: 2010年09月地區: 德國語言: 德文簡介:


Im Mittelpunkt der Handlung stehen Walter und Patty Berglund, ein junges, liberales Paar, die als Vorboten der Gentrifizierung in die Innenstadt St. Pauls ziehen, wo ihre Kinder Joey und Jessica aufwachsen. Ein Teil des Buchs ist als autobiografische Skizze Pattys gestaltet und blickt auf Ereignisse ihrer Jugend in den 1960er und 70er Jahren zurück. Im Verlauf der Handlung, die sich bis in die Jahre der Präsidentschaft George W. Bushs erstreckt, entfremden die Kinder sich zunehmend von ihren Eltern. Die Berglunds verlassen schließlich ihr mühsam renoviertes Haus und ihre Ehe zerbricht, nachdem Patty eine Affäre mit Walters Jugendfreund Richard Katz beginnt und Walter daraufhin eine Beziehung mit seiner deutlich jüngeren Assistentin Lalitha eingeht. Nachdem die Kinder erwachsen geworden sind, verbessert sich das Verhältnis zu ihren Eltern jedoch wieder und einige Jahre nach dem Unfalltod Lalithas beschließen Walter und Patty, wieder gemeinsam zu leben.
Freedom is not the kind of Great American Novel that Franzen's predecessors wrote — not the kind Bellow and Mailer and Updike wrote. The American scene is just too complex — and too aware of its own complexity, for anything to loom that large over it ever again. But Freedom feels big in a different way, a way that not much other American fiction does right now. It doesn't back down from the complexity. To borrow a term from the visual arts, Franzen's writing has an enviable depth of field: it keeps a great deal in focus simultaneously. Freedom is not just a domestic novel or a political novel. Franzen doesn't chop the world up that way. Walter Berglund's political and environmental passions began in his lousy childhood, which was a product of the history of his family, who emigrated from Sweden, and the vagaries of the economy, which are in turn fatally bound up with the health of the environment, and so on.
弗蘭岑的小說同他前輩們寫的那種偉大的美國小說不同，如多波，梅勒和厄普代克的小說。美國景象實在太復雜，並且對美國其自身的復雜性也太為熟悉，於是要再想讓一些事情更為凸現，是不可能的。但《自由》以一套不同方式去顯示出那種“大”環境，它在復雜面前並不退卻。這種方式美國目前其他許多小說並不采用。借用視覺藝術中的一個術語，弗蘭岑的小說有一種令人艷羨的視角深度：它同時關注許多方面。《自由》不僅僅是一本國內小說或政治小說。弗蘭岑並不把世界這樣分割開來。沃爾特•賓格萊對政治和環境的熱愛始於他並不美滿的童年時代，是他家庭經歷的產物（他們是瑞典移民），經濟無常的產物。經濟反過來又不可避免與環境好壞緊密相連，等等。
The word freedom echoes down the corridors of Freedom. It stalks the characters, cropping up in chance remarks, in song lyrics, engraved on buildings. It seemed to me, Franzen says, that if we were going to be elevating freedom to the defining principle of what we're about as a culture and a nation, we ought to take a careful look at what freedom in practice brings. The weird thing about the freedom of Freedom is that what it doesn't bring is happiness.
在《自由》一書中各處都回響著“自由”一詞。它在小說人物中蔓延，在偶然的話語中突然出現，夾雜在歌詞中，印刻在建築物上。弗蘭茨說，“在我看來，我們若想把對‘自由’的定義，提升到一種文化上和民族上的對自身認識的定義原則，那麼我們應仔細注意‘自由’實際上能給我們帶來什麼。”奇怪的是，《自由》一書中的自由給我們帶來了除幸福以外的一切。
For Franzen's characters, too much freedom is an empty, dangerously entropic thing. After all, energy companies are free to ravage and poison the breeding grounds of the cerulean warbler. If Patty and Walter divorced, they would be free, but it's a freedom they would do almost anything to avoid. At her lowest ebb, Patty reflects that she had all day every day to figure out some decent and satisfying way to live, and yet all she ever seemed to get for all her choices and all her freedom was more miserable. And no one is freer than a person with no moral beliefs. One of the ways of surrendering freedom is to actually have convictions, Franzen says. And a way of further surrendering freedom is to spend quite a bit of time acting on those convictions.
對於弗蘭岑書中的人物來說，太多自由是無意義的，是危險的。畢竟能源企業不受約束便會去掠奪和污染深藍色林莺的繁殖地。假如貝蒂和沃爾特離婚，他們便都自由了。但他們會不遺余力的去避免這種自由。當貝蒂處於人生的最低谷時，她思考著“自己每天都是不停地去尋找一種體面和令人滿意的生活方式，然而她全部的選擇和全部的自由給她帶來的似乎只是更多的痛苦。”沒有人能比一個毫無道德信仰的人更自由。“放棄自由的方法之一是去樹立一種信念，”弗蘭岑說，“而更進一步放棄自由的方法便是花點時間去實踐這一信念。”
This idea may earn Franzen another all-American kicking — Oprah-Hating Writer Now Says Freedom Overrated! — but it is not only true; it is also important. There is something beyond freedom that people need: work, love, belief in something, commitment to something. Freedom is not enough. It's necessary but not sufficient. It's what you do with freedom — what you give it up for — that matters.
這一思想也許會再次使美國人齊心協力，給弗蘭岑狠狠一“踢”——反對奧普拉的作家現在又說對《自由》評價過高——但弗蘭岑的思想不僅正確而且重要。在自由之外，人們還有其他的需要：工作，愛情，信仰和對某事的承諾。僅有自由還不夠。自由是必須的，但還不完滿。真正重要的是我們如何去對待自由，不沉溺於自由而另有專注。
Early readers of Freedom, including this one, have found that the book has an addictive quality, the kind one usually associates with mysteries or thrillers. This isn't by accident. Franzen is very conscious that people are freer than ever — that word again — to spend their time and attention being entertained by things that aren't books. That awareness has changed the way he writes.
《自由》的早期讀者，包括這本，都發現該書能讓人上瘾，正如未解之謎和驚悚小說通常都能讓人上瘾一樣。這並不偶然。弗蘭岑十分清楚人們比以往更加自由——又說到自由了——他們的時間和精力往往消耗在其他娛樂而非書本上。這一認識，改變了弗蘭茨的寫作方法。
A lot of literary fiction strikes a bargain with the reader: you suck up a certain amount of difficulty, of resistance and interpretive work and even boredom, and then you get the payoff. This arrangement, which feels necessary and permanent to us, is primarily a creation of the 20th century. Freedom works on something more akin to a 19th century model, like Dickens or Tolstoy: characters you care about, a story that hooks you. Franzen has given up trying to impress with his scintillating prose (which he admits he was still doing in The Corrections). It seems all the more imperative, nowadays, to fashion books that are compelling, because there is so much more distraction they have to resist, he says. To me, now, to do something new is not to develop a form for the novel that has never been seen on earth before. It means to try to come to terms as a person and a citizen with what's happening in the world now and to do it in some comprehensible, coherent way.
大量文學小說同讀者達成了一個協議：要先克服某些困難和抵制心理，認真解讀乃至忍受乏味，然後你才會獲得報償。這種我們認為必要並且會永久存在的安排，是20世紀的產物。《自由》所寫作的更像是一種19世紀的樣式：人們所關注的人，能勾住人們的故事（例如狄更斯和托爾斯泰的小說）。弗蘭岑往往努力想以充滿才氣的散文給人們留下印象，而這次他沒做這種努力。（他承認在寫《糾正》時他還在這樣做）“目前，似乎能吸引眼球的時裝書勢在必行，因為人們得經受住更多的干擾。”他說，“現在，對我來說創新並不是去開創一種新的從未在地球上出現過的小說形式。作為一個人和一位公民，創新意味著關注當前世界上正在發生的事，並以簡單連貫的文字記錄下來。”
There are any number of reasons to want novels to survive. The way Franzen thinks about it is that books can do things, socially useful things, that other media can't. He cites — as one does — the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard and his idea of busyness: that state of constant distraction that allows people to avoid difficult realities and maintain self-deceptions. With the help of cell phones, e-mail and handheld games, it's easier to stay busy, in the Kierkegaardian sense, than it's ever been.
讓小說存在的理由有許多。關於這一點，弗蘭岑認為書能替我們做些事情，一些其他媒介無法做到的有助於社會的事情。關於對“忙碌”的認識，他引用了哲學家基爾克歌德的觀點來說明：“忙碌”是一種注意力經常分散的狀態，借此人們能逃避艱難的現狀並維持一種自我欺騙。有了手機，電子郵件和手持游戲設備，基爾克歌德認為，人們比以往更容易保持一種“忙碌”狀態。
Reading, in its quietness and sustained concentration, is the opposite of busyness. We are so distracted by and engulfed by the technologies we've created, and by the constant barrage of so-called information that comes our way, that more than ever to immerse yourself in an involving book seems socially useful, Franzen says. The place of stillness that you have to go to to write, but also to read seriously, is the point where you can actually make responsible decisions, where you can actually engage productively with an otherwise scary and unmanageable world.
閱讀是忙碌的反面，它是在一種安靜和持續專心的狀態下進行的。“我們發明的科技產品及接觸到的大量所謂信息如此干擾和吞沒了我們，以至專心閱讀比以往似乎更有益於社會，”弗蘭岑說，“你要寫作和認真閱讀就得去一個寧靜的地方，在這裡你能真正做出負責任的決定；外面的世界雖令人提心掉膽，難以對付，但在這裡你能開展有成果的工作。”
As a biographical subject, Franzen is no prize. Unlike, say, Hemingway's or Mailer's, his life doesn't exactly teem with incident. He was married once — an autoclave of a marriage, to another writer, is how he describes it — but he's divorced now. The most striking fact about Franzen's life is that although he writes almost exclusively about families, he has not made one of his own.
要寫一本傳記，弗蘭岑可不是個好人選。比如他並不像海明威和梅勒的生活那樣充滿變故。他結過一次婚——和另一個作家的一次滿是壓力的婚姻——這就是他對那次婚姻的描述。不過他現在離婚了。弗蘭岑的生活最引人注目的一點便是他雖專門寫家庭生活，卻還沒有自己的家庭。
This minor detail hasn't escaped his notice. In fact, a few years ago, when he was in the weeds with Freedom, he suggested to Chetkovich — this story comes with a rueful I-can't-believe-I-did-that laugh — that they acquire some children. Adopt some Iraqi war orphans maybe. I began to think the reason I'm not getting anywhere is that I'm a family guy, he says. Family is perhaps my primary prism for refracting the world into meaningful constituents, and one way or another we need to have some kids in our lives.
他自己也注意到了這個小細節。事實上，幾年前在他寫《自由》期間，他因為毫無靈感便向克萊克維奇提議領養一個孩子，也許領養一個伊戰孤兒。（訴說時，他說他無法相信竟做過那件令人發笑的事，面帶悔意）“我開始把寫作毫無進展的原因歸結於缺少一個家，”他說，“家庭也許是我的主稜鏡，它幫我把世界折射成有意義的部分。無論如何我們的生活中需要孩子。”
But the moment passed. Cooler heads convinced him that the way to get his novel written wouldn't be to adopt children, it would be to write his novel. If Freedom is all about giving up freedom by committing to things — people, causes, beliefs, life — what Franzen has committed to is not life but art. Novels are his family. As he did with his laptop, Franzen has stripped his world of virtually all distractions. He has never had any other career than this. He doesn't take vacations. Freedom is dedicated to his editor and his agent.
但這一念頭很快過去了。更加冷靜的頭腦使他相信小說寫成與否，與領養孩子無關，而是靜下心去寫就是了。假如《自由》是一本提倡放棄自由，另去專注的書——專注人，事業，信仰和生活——那麼弗蘭岑所專注的不是生活而是藝術。小說就是他的家。當他把電腦“清洗”完後，弗蘭岑幾乎在他的世界裡驅除了所有干擾。他從未放棄小說而去另辟他路。他從不度假。他把《自由》獻給了他的編輯和代理商。
Franzen's main extravagance is watching birds, a hobby he took up after The Corrections. Until then, his life had been geared and balanced for constant struggle. I don't think, until The Corrections was published and had done well, I'd ever allowed myself joy for its own sake, he says. And the bird-watching happened to be what was lying at hand, and I indulged it.
看鳥是弗蘭岑主要的奢侈行為。這一愛好是他寫完《糾正》後培養起來的。在那以前，他老是上緊發條，協調好一切，時刻准備同生活做斗爭。“我認為，在《糾正》出版和取得成功前，我從未允許過自己為快樂而去追逐快樂。”他說，“而觀鳥恰好就在手邊，隨時都可以去做，我就欣賞起來了。”
The bird-watching isn't much at Moss Landing, at least while the tide is in. But as the afternoon wears on and the water retreats, a crowd of little birds arrives to feast in the shallows: short-billed dowitchers, Western sandpipers, a black-bellied plover. Franzen hands me the binoculars so I can admire that last, and he's right: even I, who do not twitch, can see that it's a hell of a bird, with its solid breastplate of black feathers.
在莫斯蘭汀並沒有太多鳥可看，至少在漲潮時是這樣。但隨著夜幕降臨，潮水退去，一群小鳥在一處淺灘落下，盡情吃喝起來，有短嘴半蹼鹬，西部鹬黑腹繢。弗蘭岑把望遠鏡遞給我，讓我最後再觀賞一次。盡管我不常賞鳥，但他是對的，我看到了好大一群鳥，它們腹部黑黑的羽毛好像一個護胸甲。
But not even Franzen can watch birds all the time. There were a couple of years when I could enjoy blowing off a workday and going bird-watching, he says, followed by some years in which I came to realize that because my purpose on earth seems to be to write novels, I am actually freer when I'm chained to a project: freer from guilt, anxiety, boredom, anger, purposelessness.
但即使是弗蘭岑也不能一直賞鳥。“過去有兩三年，我能給自己放一天假去看看鳥，”他說，“隨後幾年我逐漸意識到我生活的目的似乎就是寫小說。事實上，當我有一個計劃的時候，我感到更自由：遠離罪惡，焦躁，無聊，憤怒和迷茫。”
Birds are supposed to be free, or that's what the song says, but when Franzen looks at them, that's not what he sees. Birds aren't free. They have work to do — eat, breed, fly, sing — and they do it. They're not paralyzed by self-consciousness or indecision. When Franzen watches birds, he sees himself, but himself at his best, which is at work, miserable work, in his rented office, chewing tobacco (he's still at it), shouting himself hoarse in front of his crippled laptop. Birds don't take vacations, and neither does he. I'm already losing sleep, Franzen says, trying to figure out how to lock myself inside a big novel again.
人們認為鳥是自由的，或者歌詞中都是這樣歌頌的，但當弗蘭岑觀察它們的時候，他看到的並不如人們所認為的。鳥並不自由，它們有工作要做，它們要吃，繁殖，飛翔，還要唱歌，這就是他們的工作。它們並不因為忸怩和猶豫不決而喪失勇氣。弗蘭岑在觀看鳥類時，他看到了自己，是處於最佳狀態的自己：在租來的工作室裡工作著，痛苦的工作著，嘴裡嚼著煙草塊（他目前還在嚼），在他那老掉牙的電腦前大聲呼喊直至嘶啞。鳥類並不給自己放假，他也是這樣。“我已經失眠了一陣子，我正努力構思另一部長篇小說，再次讓自己去忘我地工作。