因為讀書不多﹐所以寫起東西來老是詞不達意。往往花上了幾百個字﹐不單止未能確切地把心裡意思簡單地表達出來﹐甚至會讓人誤會了其他意思。世界上很多事情﹐其實早已有很多人談論過許多遍。只要我們多讀﹐不但能夠扼要地掌握到當中意思﹐更能輕易地在那鞏固根基上面建立起自己的想法。
我的問題不是沒有自己的想法。我的問題是﹐我的想法沒有一個鞏固的根基。
搬到歐洲生活後﹐因為每天都讀《泰晤士報》﹐也勤跑劇院和舊書店﹐眼光是擴大了﹐亦認識了許多以前未曾碰見過的想法。自己的思想的確受著很大的衝擊。在這樣的環境底下﹐要建立自己的一套﹐不是難事。正如黑格爾所言﹐一切進步都由於矛盾﹐由矛盾才會產生正理。辨證法有正﹑反﹑合三個面﹔正﹑反的矛盾﹐產生真理便是合﹔但馬上又有一個反面出現﹐形成矛盾而產生另一個合。
可是﹐因為小時候懶惰﹐不勤讀書﹐只甘心做一部考試機器﹐弄得自己底子不好﹐於是﹐現在所產生的正﹑反﹑合﹐其實都建基於一個毫不牢固的地基上面。也就由於都建築在那不甚牢固的地基上面﹐所以我不能夠簡單清楚地講得到自己的想法。
想起這樣的事﹐因為近來讀了英國當代作家魯詩迪一段關於SAMUEL BECKETT的文字。魯詩迪就是那位因為《撒旦的詩篇》而遭穆斯林下格殺令的作家。
早陣子﹐我在這裡談過串字問題。我寫道﹕
「早知道﹐很多英語世界裡面的人串字都有點困難。......那是母語的問題。就正如我們中國人的錯別字。就正因為那是自己的母語﹐我們寫作的時候﹐都會很容易給那些字的發音矇騙﹐寫了別字﹐或串錯了字。所以﹐那些語文教育學者常言的『我手寫我口』﹐其實不是一件好事。世界上有些事情﹐總是要跳出框框﹐冷靜地從外面觀看﹐方能避免很多錯誤。寫文章是其中一件。
因此﹐在這方面﹐在殖民地時代的香港人是幸福的。他們講的是粵語﹐寫的卻是英文和白話文。因為都要先在腦袋裡把句子重組過來才能下筆﹐所以能夠避免很多別字﹐很少會串錯字。」
只是讀著魯詩迪那段文字﹐我不禁大叫一聲﹐那其實是我想講的話。他是這樣寫SAMUEL BECKETT﹕
「A man speaking English beautifully chooses to speak in French, which he speaks with greater difficulty, so that he is obliged to choose his words carefully, forced to give up fluency and to find the hard words that come with difficulty, and then after all that finding he puts it all back into English, a new English containing all the difficulty of the French, of the coining of thought in a second language, a new English with the power to change English forever.」
同時候﹐也想起了丘世文的一段說話﹕
「未來世界全球化的發展﹐雙語乃至多語並用勢將成為尋常慣見得現象。在這方面香港這國際城市無疑是有著示範實驗的作用﹐很值得不囿於一時文化偏見的人予以應有的了解和認識。」那是丘世文在香港回歸前一年講的話。
我知道﹐我要繼續多讀書。只希望未為晚也。
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
謝謝,我讀的書更少。
我又懶又讀得書少。
Hmmm, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your use of Hegel's dialetic at the level of individual progress. But heck, I'm impressed that you could even reference Hegel's dialectic and I'm glad to know finally Hegel's name (as well as Rushdie's) in Chinese via your post.
Regarding the use of English by non-native English speakers in literature, I think Arundathi Roy's observation about Indian-English literature is even sharper than Rushdie's. I don't have time to find the source now, but she said something along the lines that it is the overlay of one language system over another - in other words, one thought system over another - and the dissonances that such bilingual authors have to work through, that result in the kind of English literature that is frame-breaking, precisely because its genesis requires the breaking up of traditional frames of reference.
Although I really don't have much time for Rushdie as a literary figure (which I've already blogged about before), I do appreciate his reading of Beckett. But I think here, again, Rushdie doesn't entirely hit the mark in stating his case: Beckett, like all Irish playwrights of his generation, do not have English as his only linguistic reference. Beckett already had to negotiate the thought boundaries between Irish and English in his remaking of the English language, before he added French to his linguistic mix. Arguably, the musicality of Beckett's writing stems more from his Irish heritage than because of his knowledge of French.
michelle and 新鮮人,
i think it's never too late to know the problem. never too late it's a problem. that's why i'm reading as much as i can now. but as snowdrop pointed out before, the "expert authority" thing. i think i need some guidelines now (for i didn't spend enough time in reading when i was young).
oooh, what i'm talking about now......
anyway enjoy reading. it is fun.
snowdrop,
this time, my fault. i forgot to put the actual names of those in my blog.
as i said i didn't read much. i don't know Ms Arundathi Roy. i'd like to read what she said about the use of English by non-native English speakers in literature. tried google it but not found yet. please let me know when you find the source. thanks in advance.
about beckett. i think i read similar things before - the musicality of Beckett's writing stems more from his Irish heritage than because of his knowledge of French. since "may i go to toilet" is the only gaelic sentence i know, i'm afraid i can't make any comment on it. i'm sorry. but, to my, an outsider of gaelic language, the pronuciation of gaelic and french are similar. please correct me. thanks.
Post a Comment