村上春樹《Always on the side of the egg(永遠站在蛋的一邊)》

永遠站在蛋的一邊

村上春樹

翻譯：王俊超

晚上好。今天我是以小說家的身份——也可以說以職業謊話編造者的身份來到耶路撒

冷。

當然，小說家并非唯一說謊的人。眾所周知，政治家們也說謊。外交官和有時也說

他們那種謊話，二手汽車推銷員、屠夫和建筑商都這樣做。盡管如此，小說家的謊話與其他

人的不同之處在于，沒有人批評小說家說謊是不道德的。事實上，謊話說的越多、越好，謊

話構思越巧妙，小說家可能越受到公眾和批評家的贊揚。這是為什么呢？

我的答案會是：通過說巧妙的謊話——也就是構造看起來真實的小說——小說家能夠把

真實帶出來到另一個位置，并以新的光芒照亮它。在多數情況下，事實上不可能按其本來樣

子把握真實并準確加以描述。這就是為什么我們試圖通過把真實從其藏身之處出來，轉

移到一個虛構的位置，用虛構的樣子替換它，以把握其蹤跡的原因。盡管如此，為了達到這

一目的，我們須首先闡明在我們心里真實存在于哪里。這是構造好的謊話的一個重要條件。

盡管如此，今天，我沒有說謊的打算。我將盡量誠實。在今年有幾天的時間我沒有致力

于說謊，今天恰好是其中之一。

所以請讓我告訴你們真相。許多許多的人建議我不要來這里接受耶路撒冷文學獎。有些

人甚至警告我，如果我來，他們將對我的書發起抵制。

當然，這都是因為加沙正白熱化的激烈戰爭。聯合國報告已有1000多人在被封鎖的加沙

城中失去了生命，包括許多手無寸鐵的平民——孩子和老人。

自收到這一獎項的通知后，我無數次問我自己，在這樣的時刻是否該去以色列，接受這

一文學獎是否正確，是否會造成這樣的的印象——我支持沖突中的某一方，或者，我公開贊

同某國選擇發動壓倒性軍力的政策。當然，這是一個我不希望給出的印象。我不贊同任何戰

爭，我也不支持任何國家。當然，我更不希望看到我的書被抵制。

盡管如此，經過仔細考慮后，最終我決定來到這里。如此決定的一個原因是太多太多的

人建議我不要這樣做。可能，像其他許多小說家一樣，我傾向于去做與別人告訴我的恰好相

反的事。如果人們告訴我——尤其如果他們警告我——“不要去那里”，“不要做那些事”，

那么我往往想“去那里”和“去做那些事”。你們可能會說，這是我作為小說家的天性使然。

小說家是特殊的族群。他們發自內心地不信任他們沒有親眼見到過或沒親手接觸過的事情。

這就是我為什么在這里的原因。我選擇來到這里而不是避開。我選擇親眼目睹而不是無

視。我選擇對你們講話而不是保持沉默。

這并不是說我來這里是傳達一個政治信號。當然，對是非作出判斷是小說家最重要的責

任之一。

盡管如此，決定以什么樣的形式把這樣的判斷傳達給別人，取決于每一位作家自身。我

自己更喜歡把他們轉換成故事——趨向于超現實的故事。這就是為什么今天我不打算站在你

們面前傳達一個直接政治信號的原因。

盡管如此，請一定允許我傳達一個非常私人的信號，是我寫小說時一直緊記的。我從來

不會將其寫在一張紙上貼在墻上，而是刻在我心靈的墻上，它是這樣的：

“在一堵高而堅固的墻和一只撞它的蛋之間，我會一直站在蛋一邊。”

是的，不管這堵墻可能是多么正確，這只蛋是多么錯誤，我將與蛋站在一起。別人會必

須決定什么正確什么錯誤；可能時間或歷史會決定。如果有一位小說家，不管因為什么原因，

寫的作品站在墻一邊，那么這樣的作品有什么樣的價值？

這個隱喻是什么意思呢？在某些情況下，它是那么簡單和清楚。炸彈、坦克、火箭和白

磷彈就是那堵高而堅固的墻。蛋就是被它們碾碎、焚燒和擊斃的手無寸鐵的平民。這就是這

條隱喻的含義之一。

然而，這并非全部。它有一層更深的含義。這樣想。我們每一個人，或多或少，都是一

只蛋。我們每一個人都是一個獨一無二的、無可替代的、帶著一個脆弱外殼的靈魂。我是這

樣，你們每個人也是這樣。我們每一個人，在或多或少的程度上，面對著一堵高而堅固的墻。

這堵墻有個名字：就是“體制”。“體制”本來是保護我們的，但有的時侯它表現出自己的生

命，然后開始殺戮我們，使我們去殺別人——冷酷，高效，有系統地殺戮。

我寫小說的原因只有一個，就是把個體靈魂的尊嚴拿到表面上并以光芒照亮它。故事的

目的是拉響警報，保持一束瞄準“體制”的光芒，來阻止它纏結我們的靈魂于它的網絡和踐

踏我們的靈魂。我充分相信通過寫故事來盡力闡明每個個體靈魂的獨一無二性是小說家的工

作——寫生與死的故事，愛的故事，使人們帶著恐懼哭泣和發抖的故事和使人們帶著大笑打

顫的故事。這就是為什么我們不停地，日復一日帶著絕對的嚴肅杜撰小說的原因。

我的父親去年去世，享年90歲。他是一名退休教師和一名兼職佛教徒。他在研究生院讀

書時被征召入軍隊，并被派到中國打仗。作為一個戰后出生的孩子，我常常看到他每天早上

早飯前在我家佛壇前長時間非常虔誠地祈禱。有一次我問他為什么這樣做，他告訴我他在為

戰爭中死去的人祈禱。

他說他為所有死去的人祈禱，同胞和敵人。當他跪在祭壇前時看著他的脊背，我好像感

到他周圍盤旋著的死亡的陰影。

我的父親去世了，帶走了他的記憶，我永遠不會知道的記憶。但潛藏在他身上的死亡的

影子卻留在我的記憶中。這是我從他身上獲得的東西之一，也是最重要的東西之一。

今天我只有一樣我希望能傳達給你們東西。我們都是人，是超越國籍、種族和地域的個

體，是面對堅固“體制”之墻的脆弱的蛋。眾所周知，我們幾乎沒有贏的希望。這堵墻太高

太堅固——且太冷酷。假如我們有一點勝利希望的話，它必將來自我們對于自己和別人靈魂

的絕對獨一無二性和無可替代性的信仰，來自我們從聯合我們的靈魂中獲取的溫暖。

花一點時間來想想這些。我們每一個人擁有一個可觸摸到的、活生生的靈魂。“體制”

沒有這些。我們必須禁止“體制”攫取我們。我們必須禁止“體制”表現出它自己的生命。

“體制”沒有制造我們：我們制造了“體制”。

這就是我必須要對你們說的。

我對于被授予耶路撒冷文學獎表示感激。我很感激我的書被世界許多地方的人們閱讀。

我很高興今天有這樣的機會對你們講這些。

謝謝。

Published 10:22 17.02.09 Latest update 22:56 17.02.09

Always on the side of the egg

By Haruki Murakami

From:/culture/arts-leisure/always-on-the-side-of-the-egg-1.270371

I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.

Of cour, 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 ud 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 praid 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 cas, 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 advid 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 cour, 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 mylf 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 endord the policies

of a nation that cho to unleash its overwhelming military power. This is an impression, of

cour, that I would not wish to give. I do not approve of any war, and I do not support any nation.

Neither, of cour, do I wish to e 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 advid 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 en with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.

And that is why I am here. I cho to come here rather than stay away. I cho to e for mylf

rather than not to e. I cho 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 cour.

It is left to each writer, however, to decide upon the form in which he or she will convey tho

judgments to others. I mylf 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.

Plea 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 el 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 cas, 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 enclod 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 lesr degree, is confronting a high, solid

wall. The wall has a name: It is The System. The System is suppod to protect us, but sometimes

it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cau 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 purpo 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 riousness.

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 nt to fight in China. As a

child born after the war, I ud to e him every morning before breakfast offering up long,

deeply-felt prayers at the Buddhist altar in our hou. 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 emed 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

prence 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 posss 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.

新聞背景

圖一 村上春樹在以色列總統西蒙·佩雷斯的陪伴下出席2009年耶路撒冷文學獎頒獎典禮

圖二 村上春樹捧獎杯和$10000獎金

2月15日，日本作家村上春樹赴以色列領取授予他的耶路撒冷文學獎。此前“巴勒斯坦

論壇”和“巴勒斯坦學術與文化抵制以色列運動”等組織公開呼吁，村上不應在此時前往以

色列。“巴勒斯坦論壇·日本”在一封致村上春樹的公開信中寫道：“我們請您慎重考慮，像

您這樣一位世界知名作家出席該書展可能造成的社會和政治意義。該書展乃由以色列外交部

和耶路撒冷市政當局全力支持，并將從耶路撒冷市長手中領獎，而此時以色列剛剛在加沙奪

走了1300余人的寶貴生命，致傷5300余人，包括500名重傷者，摧毀了無數人的生活，因此

犯下了一系列的戰爭罪行。”信中稱，耶路撒冷獎所宣揚的“社會中的個人自由”與以色列

的屠殺、集體懲罰、封鎖政策、定居點建設，以及建造隔離墻等“有效摧毀巴勒斯坦人自由”

的行為完全矛盾。“如果您接受此獎，”該信寫道，“將通過媒體的渲染和傳播，傳達一個錯

誤的信息，即以色列尊重‘社會中的人的自由’。”但村上執意前往。

獲獎聲明贊揚了村上的藝術成就和“對人民的愛”，并稱：“他的人道主義清晰地呈現于

其作品中。”“村上容易閱讀，但不易讀懂。”聲明說，“他的極簡主義與明晰的文風結合，使

他成 為高度可讀的作家，但其文學世界的復雜性，即便對初讀者來說，亦十分顯著。他小

說的主人公通常為反英雄，敘述在一個并行的疏離世界里其生活故事的荒謬，這 令村上入

列以同一精髓寫作的作家群：從卡夫卡、加謬，到1971年的耶路撒冷獎得主博爾赫斯。”

耶路撒冷文學獎創辦于1963年，每兩年頒發一次，意在表彰其作品涉及人類自由、人與

社會和政治間關系的作家。往屆得主包括阿瑟·米勒、蘇珊·桑塔格、伯特蘭·羅素、VS.

奈保爾、JM.庫切、博爾赫斯、米蘭·昆德拉、西蒙娜·波伏瓦、奧克塔維奧·帕斯和巴爾

加斯·略薩等人。

參考鏈接：

/book/txt/2009-02/20/content_

/art/2009-02/06/content_

/book/2009-02/05/content_