考研·翻譯碩士·散文英譯30篇@喵大翻譯

1、<p><b>　　直譯·順譯·歪譯</b></p><p><b>　　茅盾</b></p><p>　　“直譯”這名詞，在“五四”以后方成為權(quán)威。這是反抗林琴南氏的“歪譯”而起的。我們說林譯是“歪譯”，可絲毫沒有糟蹋他的意思；我們是覺得“意譯”名詞用在林譯身上并不妥當，所以稱它為“歪譯”。</p>

2、<p>　　林氏是不懂“蟹行文字”的，所有他的譯本都是別人口譯而林氏筆述。我們不很明白當時他們合作的情形是別人口譯了一句，林氏隨即也筆述了一句呢，還是別人先口譯了一段或一節(jié)，然后林氏筆述下來？但無論如何，這種譯法是免不了兩重的歪曲的：口譯者把原文譯為口語，光景不免有多少歪曲，再由林氏將口語譯為文言，那就是第二次歪曲了。 </p><p>　　這種歪曲，可以說是從“翻譯的方法”上來的。</p>

3、<p>　　何況林氏“衛(wèi)道”之心甚熱，“孔孟心傳”爛熟，他往往要“用夏變夷”，稱司各特的筆法有類于太史公，……于是不免又多了一層歪曲。這一層歪曲，當然口譯者不能負責，直接是從林氏的思想上來的。</p><p>　　所以我們覺得稱林譯為“歪譯”，比較切貼。自然也不是說林譯部部皆歪，林譯也有不但不很歪，而且很有風趣——甚至與原文的風趣有幾分近似的，例如《附掌錄》中間幾篇。這一點，我們既佩服而又驚奇。&l

4、t;/p><p>　　現(xiàn)在話再回到“直譯”。</p><p>　　照上文說來，“五四”以后的“直譯”主張就是反對歪曲了原文。原文是一個什么面目，就要還它一個什么面目。連面目都要依它本來，那么，“看得懂”，當然是個不言而喻的必要條件了。譯得“看不懂”，不用說，一定失卻了原文的面目，那就不是“直譯”。這種“看不懂”的責任應(yīng)該完全由譯者負擔，我們不能因此怪到“直譯”這個原則。</p>

5、<p>　　這原是很淺顯的一個道理，然而不久以前還有人因為“看不懂”而非難到“直譯”這個原則，而主張“順譯”，這也就怪了。</p><p>　　主張“順譯”者意若曰：直譯往往使人難懂，甚至看不懂，為了要對原文忠實而至使人看不懂，豈不是雖譯等于不譯；故此主張“與其忠實而使人看不懂，毋寧不很忠實而看得懂”。于是乃作為“順譯”之說?！绊槨闭?，務(wù)求其看得懂也。</p><p>　　在這里

6、，我們覺得不必嚕嚕蘇蘇來駁斥“順譯”說之理論上的矛盾（因為它的矛盾是顯然的），我們只想為“直譯”說再進一解：</p><p>　　我們以為所謂“直譯”也者，倒并非一定是“字對字”，一個不多，一個也不少。因為中西文字組織的不同，這種樣“字對字”一個不多一個也不少的翻譯，在實際上是不可能的。從前張崧年先生譯過一篇羅素的論文。張先生的譯法真是“道地到廿四分”的直譯，每個前置詞，他都譯了過來，然而他這篇譯文是沒人看得懂的

7、。當時張先生很堅持他的譯法。他自己也知道他的譯文別人看不懂，可是他對《新青年》的編者說：“這是一種試驗。大家看慣了后，也就懂得了！”當時《新青年》的編者陳促甫先生也不贊成張先生此種“試驗”，老實不客氣給他改，改了，張先生還是非常不高興?，F(xiàn)在張先生大概已經(jīng)拋棄了他的試驗了罷，我可不十分明白，但是從這個故事就證明了“直譯”的原則并不在“字對字”一個也不多，一個也不少。“直譯”的意義就是“不要歪曲了原作的面目”。倘使能夠辦到“字對字”，不多也

8、不少，自然是理想的直譯，否則，直譯的要點不在此而在彼。</p><p>　　Appropriation, Distortion and Literal Translation</p><p><b>　　Mao Dun</b></p><p>　　The term “l(fā)iteral translation” has become somethi

9、ng of authority since the May Fourth Movement in clear opposition to Lin Qinnan’s “distortion in translation”. When referring to Lin’s translation as “free”, we do not intend to disparage him in the least. Nonetheless, t

10、he term “free translation” is not exactly applicable to Lin, and as a result, “distortion” is our denomination of his translation. </p><p>　　Lin had no knowledge of any European languages whose letters were

11、no more than “squiggles” to him. All of his translations were done after they had been orally translated by others. We are not quite sure how they collaborated at that time. Was it that someone orally translated one sent

12、ence, which was the n followed by Lin writing it down? Or was it only after one paragraph or passage was orally translated that Lin transcribed the oral version? In any event, this practice could barely avert a dou</p

13、><p>　　Such distortion may be traced onto his “translation methodology”. Lin was a passionate champion of orthodox Confucian teachings, and “the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius” had been spiritually passed do

14、wn to him. He would identify Scott’s style with that of the great Chinese historian Sima Qian… the corollary could only be yet another distortion. His collaborators, however, could not be blamed for the last type of dist

15、ortion, which derived directly from Lin’s ideology. </p><p>　　Therefore, we opine that it is fairly befitting to call Lin’s translation “distortion”, by which we do not mean that every translation by Lin is

16、a product of distortion. Some of his translations are not distorted too badly at all, and they certainly lack no sense of humour, which shows some resemblance to what is inherent in the original text, as is evidenced in

17、some of the pieces in the Sketch Book, 1820. This has filled us with wonder and admiration. </p><p>　　Let us come back to the term “l(fā)iteral translation”. As stated earlier, insistence on “l(fā)iteral translation

18、” after the May Fourth Movement was in opposition to distortions of the original text. the features of the original text should be kept in a translation. If even all the features are supposed to be retained, “intelligibi

19、lity” is, without a doubt, a prerequisite for translation. But if a translation turns out to be “unintelligible”, needless to say, it must have lost the features of the origin</p><p>　　This argument is prett

20、y easy to follow. But it is odd that not long ago, some people maintained appropriation in translation on the grounds that, due to “unintelligibility”, the principle of “l(fā)iteral translation” would have to be abandoned. T

21、hose espousing appropriation in translation believe that obscurity and even “unintelligibility” are attributable to literal translation. If faithfulness to the original text leads to “unintelligibility”, translation is t

22、antamount to non-translation. Thus, th</p><p>　　At this point, we consider it utterly unnecessary to direct a prolix and verbose refutation at the contradictions in the the ory of appropriation (for they are

23、 apparent contradictions). We merely wish to present a further exposition of “l(fā)iterary translation”. It is our view that the so-called “l(fā)iteral translation” is not necessarily “word-to-word” translation, or equivalence w

24、ith neither a word more, nor a word less. Due to the structural differences between Chinese and Western languages, such n</p><p>　　Mr Zhang Songnian once translated an essay by Bertrand Russell. Zhang’s tran

25、slation is an “one hundred percent” literal translation, omitting not even a single preposition. However, no one could understand this translation. But Mr Zang adamantly refused to give up his way of translation. Fully a

26、ware that his translation would be unintelligible, he made this remark to the editor of New Youth: “It was an experiment. When people get used to it, they will understand it!” the editor of New Youth at t</p><

27、p>　　Maybe Mr Zhang has renounced his experimentation now, though I am not so sure. But what this anecdote proves is that the principle of “l(fā)iteral translation” does not entail “word-for-word” translation, not a word m

28、ore, and not a word less. the underlying meaning of “l(fā)iteral translation” is simply “do not distort the features of the original text”. If it were possible to attain “word-for-word” translation, with nothing being added

29、or lost, it would naturally be an ideal translation; however, this </p><p>　　金圣華 《一座長橋》</p><p>　　翻譯就像一座橋，橋兩端，氣候懸殊，風光迥異。兩端之間，原隔著險峻的山谷，湍急的溪流。兩旁的人，各忙各的，世代相傳，分別發(fā)展出一套不同的習俗風尚以及語言文化來。</p><p&

30、gt;　　有一天，這不同文化習俗的人，忽然想起要跟對岸打個招呼。怎么辦？要渡過峽谷，不得不起一座橋，誰來起橋？</p><p>　　終于來了，一群傻里傻氣的志愿者。</p><p>　　問他們：“你們可知道，干這份工作，必須吃得起苦，干勁十足？”</p><p>　　他們點點頭，充滿信心地說：“我們有的是干勁，我們也不怕吃苦。”</p><p&g

31、t;　　再問道：“這份差事，待遇并不好，趕起工來，日以繼夜。說老實話，你們可知道付出的勞力與報酬并不相符？”</p><p>　　答道：“我們不是想發(fā)財?！?lt;/p><p>　　再追問：“難道不知道從來沒有人是干這一行而發(fā)達的嗎？做這一行必須默默耕耘，若想抱著沽名釣譽的心，還是趁早別干。橋造好了，人在橋上踏，沒有誰會為你們立紀念的?！?lt;/p><p>　　又答道：“

32、我們不是想出名?！?lt;/p><p>　　最后只有嘆道：“好吧！既不為名也不為利，可別怪大家沒提醒你們，這工作可得小心經(jīng)營，起橋最要緊的是兩端根基扎得實。起石橋得一塊塊石頭砌；起木橋得一塊塊木頭搭；哪怕是座繩橋也馬虎不得，須一根根繩子打結(jié)，不然人一上橋就摔下深澗，怎么還到得了對岸？”</p><p>　　橋還是建了，一座座、一條條。知識在傳遞，文化在交流?？墒怯姓l想起建橋人？</p&g

33、t;<p>　　A Long Bridge</p><p>　　Jin Shenghua</p><p>　　Translation is like a bridge with a very different climate and landscape at either side of it. Under the bridge, there lies a valley b

34、etween steep mountains with a rapid stream flowing through it. Before the bridge is built, people on either side of the valley have for generations made no contact with those on the other. Hence, there have developed two

35、 different customs and habits, and two different languages and cultures. </p><p>　　One day, people of the sides, each with a different culture and custom, suddenly desire to communicate with each other. What

36、 can they do? A bridge of culture has to be built in order to cross the valley. But who is to build it?</p><p>　　At last, a group of people naively offer the mselves for the job. </p><p>　　Someo

37、ne asks the m, “Don’t you know you’ll have to go about this job earnestly and fear no hardship?”</p><p>　　They nod their heads and answer with confidence, “We’re full of drive and not afraid of hardship. ”&l

38、t;/p><p>　　The questioner says again, “This profession you’re joining pays badly. And often you even have to work round the clock. Frankly, you won’t be fairly rewarded according to your labor. ”</p><

39、;p>　　They answer, “We don’t want to get rich. ”</p><p>　　The questioner says again, “Don’t you know that none in this profession have ever become profession. You have to toil away in obscurity. If you wan

40、t to go after fame and compliments, you had better not choose this profession. When people walk on the bridge after it is built, none will ever think of putting up a monument to you. ”</p><p>　　They answer a

41、gain, “We don’t care for fame. ”</p><p>　　The questioner concludes with a sigh, “Ok, so you seek neither fame nor wealth. But mind you, you have to be very careful in doing this job. A solid foundation must

42、be laid at each end of the bridge. A stone bridge is built with block after block of stone. A wooden bridge is built with piece after piece of wood. Even the building of a rope bridge requires great care. Each rope has t

43、o be tied tightly lest the foot passengers should fall into the ravine, to say nothing of reaching the opposite sid</p><p>　　Bridges are being built one after another. Knowledge spreads and cultures interflo

44、w. But who thinks of the bridge builders?</p><p><b>　　語言的局限</b></p><p><b>　　林巍</b></p><p>　　人們一般認為，“言為心聲”，即有何種思想感情便有怎樣的語言表達。然而，語言在許多情況下，又是有限的，不能盡如人意。</p&g

45、t;<p>　　在我國古典文學作品中，不乏這樣的表述。例如，劉禹錫的《視刀環(huán)歌》：“常恨言語淺，不如人意深”；黃庭堅的《品令》：“口不能言，心下快活自省”；《妙法蓮華經(jīng)·方便品》：“止、止不須說！我法妙難思”，以及“余欲無言”、“解人難索”、“辭不達意”等等。</p><p>　　更為典型是陶潛的《飲酒》：“此中有真意，欲辯已忘言”；而陸機的《文賦》：“恒患意不稱物，文不逮意”，透露的則是

46、一種作者與語言之間永恒的掙扎。</p><p>　　著名學者錢鐘書論道：“談藝時每萌此感。聽樂、讀畫，睹好色勝景，神會魂與，而欲明何故，則已大難，即欲道何如，亦類賈生賦中鵬鳥之有臆無詞。巧構(gòu)形似，廣設(shè)譬喻，有如司空圖以還撰《詩品》者之所為，縱極描摹刻畫之功，僅收影響模糊之效，終不獲使他人聞見親切。是以或云詩文品藻只是繞不可言者而盤旋”（《管錐編》）。</p><p>　　當代作家章詒和亦有

47、一段刻骨銘心的描述：“我拿起筆，也是在為自己尋找繼續(xù)生存的理由和力量，拯救我即將枯萎的心。而提筆的那一刻，才知道語言的無用，文字的無力。它們似乎永遠無法敘述出一個人內(nèi)心的愛與樂，苦與仇”（《往事并不如煙》）。正如劉勰在《文心雕龍·神思》中所說：“思表纖旨，文外曲致，言所不追，筆固知止”。</p><p>　　同時，語言一旦形成，又有其相對的獨立性和多面性。例如，墨子的說“言多方”，“行而異，轉(zhuǎn)而危，遠而

48、失，流而離本”（《墨子·小取》）；呂不韋言：“言不可以不察”，“多類非而是，多類是而非”（《呂氏春秋·察傳》）。而這從另一方面證實了語言的“不可靠性”。</p><p>　　總之，理解語言的局限性，其實有利于我們更深刻地認識和掌握語言。</p><p>　　Limitations of Language</p><p><b>　　Li

49、n Wei</b></p><p>　　It is said “words are the voice of the mind”, that is to say whatever thinking and emotions one may have will finally be reflected in his or her language. However, in many cases, lan

50、guage is limited and may not be as powerful as one may expect. </p><p>　　Concerning the issue, there is no shortage of descriptions of this kind in Chinese classical literatures. For examples, Liu Yuxi (772–

51、842) wrote: “How lamentable it is that words are so powerless to express one’s deep feelings; there is no match between the two” (“Shidao huange”); Huang Tingjian (1045–1105) had a poem: “While my mouth may not be unable

52、 to utter what I am feeling, my heart is really content with what I have appreciated” (“Pinling”). Also, a Buddha in the Lotus Sutra: “Stop, stop!</p><p>　　More typically, Tao Yuanming (365–427) said in his

53、“Poems after Drinking Wine”: “There are certain things that move me deeply, which I would like to tell but at the very moment I lose the words”. the critic Lu Ji (261–303) had a comment in his Rhapsody on Literature: “My

54、 constant concern is that my ideas may not have reflected the objects accurately, and my writing may be deficient of my abundant ideas”, revealing a constant struggle between an author and his language. </p><p

55、>　　As the well-known scholar Qian Zhongshu points out, “Discussing literatures or arts often causes the same frustration. When listening to music, viewing a painting, or enjoying fabulous scenery, your heart and soul

56、are merged with the things that have been perceived. Yet it is almost impossible for you to describe and convey what you have been moved by at the spot; if you do that, you may end up resembling the roc in Jia Yi’s poem

57、where he could not put his thoughts into words properly. Or, if yo</p><p>　　The contemporary writer Zhang Yihe has a heartbreaking writing: “By writing this book, my desire was to relieve my dying heart and

58、to gain some strength and purpose for my survival. However, I was dead wrong! the moment I picked up the pen, I realized how powerless and useless the words, the language!…I doubt they can ever convey a person’s true lov

59、e, joy, pain or hatred” (The Past Events Have not Vanished like Smoke). This has proved literary critic Liu Xie’s (465–522) point in his Dragon Carvi</p><p>　　Meanwhile, once a saying is formed it becomes in

60、dependent and multifaceted. As Mozi said that “Utterance has many meanings”, “As the language is being conveyed its meanings may vary gradually; as it changes its course, it may damage someone. When it is carried far awa

61、y, it will be lost somewhere; when it is set adrift it will deviate from its original route” (Mozi, “Xiaoqu”). Also, the historian Lü Buwei pointed out in his the Spring and Autumn Annals of Lü: “Words cannot g

62、o without being scruti</p><p>　　In short, by realizing its limitations, we may in fact gain certain insights in mastering a language. </p><p>　　謝冰瑩 《粉筆生涯》</p><p>　　開學了，寂寞的教室，突然熱鬧起來。

63、一到晚上，滿院子電燈輝煌，嘹亮的讀書聲非常悅耳。整天和一群年輕的孩子在一塊，自己也好像年輕了許多。上課的時候，難免要裝出一副老師的面孔騙一騙孩子們；一到下課，便現(xiàn)出真面目來了。我和她們一同散步，一同談笑，講故事給她們聽；常常就寢鈴搖了，還有躲在我房子里玩的學生。只要她們不妨礙功課，我是喜歡她們來玩的，為了和我接近的大都是女孩，于是惹起那些男生的嫉妒。</p><p>　　“老師有封建思想，他不和我們男生玩。”&l

64、t;/p><p>　　直到后來我?guī)椭麄兙幜藗€《曙光》文藝周刊，登在《廈門日報》，不怕麻煩地替他們修改，編排，這才使他們知道：“呵，原來老師對我們并沒有兩條心。”</p><p>　　孩子們是可愛的，他們天真，坦白，熱情，心里想到什么就說什么，沒有絲毫虛偽，沒有絲毫勉強。我愛他們，我愿永遠和他們在一起生活。</p><p>　　這時，使我回憶起北平的生活來了：記得安徽中

65、學，曾有兩個最頑皮的學生，他們有時把黑板刷子懸在天花板上；有時把花生殼裝在我的口袋里；還有一次寫四個大字“孩子先生”在黑板上，明明在譏諷我是個孩子，等到我責備他們時，卻改變了口吻：</p><p>　　“老師，我們是說您是孩子的先生，并不是說您是孩子?！?lt;/p><p>　　其實，說來慚愧，那時學生里面，有好幾個是比我年紀大的；也許因為我自己也像個孩子，所以和他們相處得很好。那時他們研究文

66、藝的空氣特別濃厚，我還記得有一位叫做仇振遠，小說寫得非常之好。后來，校長說我只教學生寫語體文太不像話，有意叫我走，于是我便提出辭職。學生們聽到了這個消息就拼命挽留我；因為我的關(guān)系，他們還鬧了一場風波，振遠和其他的幾位同學，居然被開除了。這件事一直到現(xiàn)在回想起來，我還覺得對不住他們。</p><p>　　My Teaching Career</p><p>　　Xie Bingying<

67、;/p><p>　　School has started after the vacation. the quiet classrooms have suddenly begun to buzz with activity. At night, the whole school compound is ablaze with lights and rings with the pleasant sound of st

68、udents reading their lessons aloud. Mixing with the kids all day long has made me feel like many, many years younger. Though I’m often obliged to meet my class assuming a grave teacher-like countenance, I’ll go for a str

69、oll with some girl students, chat gaily with the m or tell the m stories. Often,</p><p>　　“Our teacher’s a slave to old conventions, ” they grumbled. “She’s so stand-offish towards us boys. ”</p><

70、p>　　Their displeasure lasted until I helped the m with the publication of Aurora, a weekly literary supplement in the Xiamen Daily. I took great pains to polish and arrange their articles. they exclaimed, “Ah, our tea

71、cher’s after all of one mind with us boys!”</p><p>　　The kids are just lovely. they are naïve, candid and cordial. they speak straight from the heart, without the slightest insincerity or reluctance. I

72、love the m dearly and wish I could be with the m forever. </p><p>　　All that has brought back to my mind memories of my life in Peiping where I used to teach at Anhui Middle School. Over there, two very naug

73、hty students sometimes went so far as to hang my blackboard eraser high up under the ceiling or fill my pockets with peanut shells. Once they chalked up four big characters on the blackboard meaning “Child Teacher”, obvi

74、ously a dig at me being so young. However, when I took the m to ask, they tried to explain it away by saying. </p><p>　　“Ma’am, we mean that you’re a teacher of us children, not that you yourself are a child

75、. ”</p><p>　　As a matter of fact, to my great embarrassment, quite a few of my students the n were older than I. But, since I behaved so much like a child, I got along very well with the m. I remember that o

76、ne student, named Qiu Zhenyuan, was particularly good at writing stories. Later, when I learned that the headmaster had the intention to dismiss me on the pretext that I had been making the grave mistake of calling on th

77、e students to use vernacular rather than classical Chinese for composition writing, I </p><p>　　王小波 《智慧與國學》</p><p>　　我有一位朋友在內(nèi)蒙插過隊，他告訴我說，草原上絕不能有驢。假如有了的話，所有的馬群都要“炸”掉。原因是這樣的，那個內(nèi)地的、長耳朵的善良動物來到草原上，看到了

78、馬群，以為見到了表親，快樂地奔了過去；而草原上的嗎沒見過這種東西，以為來了魔鬼，被嚇得一哄而散。于是一方急于認表親，一方急于躲鬼，都要跑到累死了才算。</p><p>　　近代以來，確有一頭長耳朵怪物，奔過了中國的原野，攪亂了這里的馬群，它就是源于西方的智慧。</p><p>　　讓我們來看看驢子的古怪之處。當年歐幾里德講奴隸給他一塊錢，還諷刺他道：這位先生要從學問里找好處??！又過了很多年

79、，法拉第發(fā)現(xiàn)了電磁感應(yīng)，演示給別人看，有位貴婦人：說這有什么用？法拉底反問道：剛生出來的小孩子有什么？按中國人的標準，這個學生和貴婦有理，學以致用嘛，沒有用處的學問哪能叫做學問。</p><p>　　有學者指出，中國傳統(tǒng)的思維方式有重實用的傾向，他們認為，這一點并不壞。抱著這種態(tài)度，我們能欣賞一臺電動機。這東西有“器物之用”，它對我們的生活有些貢獻。我們還可以像個迂夫子那樣細列出它有“抽水之用”、“通風之用”，等

80、等。如何得到“之用”，還是個問題，于是我們就想到了發(fā)明電動機的那個人——他叫做西門子或者愛迪生。他的工作對我們可以使用電機有所貢獻；換言之，他的工作對器物之用又有點用，可以叫做“器物之用之用”。像這樣林林總總，可以揪出一大群：法拉底、麥克斯韋，等等，分別具有“之用之用之用”或更多的之用。像我這樣的驢子之友看來，這樣來想問題，豈止是有點笨，簡直是腦子里有塊榆木疙瘩。我認為在器物的背后是人的方法與技能，在方法與技能的背后是人對自然的了解，在

81、人對自然了解的背后，是人類了解現(xiàn)在、過去與未來的萬丈雄心。按老派人士的說法，它該叫做“之用之用之用之用”，是末節(jié)的末節(jié)。一個人假如這樣看待人類最高尚的品行，何止是可恥，簡直是可殺。</p><p>　　Wisdom and the Traditional Chinese View of Knowledge</p><p>　　A friend of mine, who had been s

82、ent to Inner Mongolia to live among the Herdsmen for a number of years, told me that donkeys must never be allowed on the prairie, for if they were, all the herds of horses would "explode". thereason he gave wa

83、s as follows: if the long-eared innocent animal from the interior came to the prairie and saw the horses, it would think it had met its cousins and would happily rush over. Whereas the horses on the prairie, who had neve

84、r seen such a creature, would think a </p><p>　　In recent times there is indeed a long-eared monster that has galloped across China's open country and disturbed the herbs of horses here. It is none other

85、 than the wisdom which originated in the West. </p><p>　　Let's firs have a look at the eccentric character of this "donkey". Many years ago when Euclid was teaching geometry, a student asked hi

86、m what profit this knowledge could bring him. Euclid told his slave to give the student a coin and said sarcastically, "This gentleman wants to find profit from knowledge!" Many years later Michael Faraday disc

87、overed electromagnetic induction. As he was carrying out a demonstration, a rich lady asked, "What's the use of this?" Faraday replied with a question, "W</p><p>　　Some scholars have point

88、ed out that the traditional Chinese way of thinking tends to emphasize the practical use of knowledge, and furthermore they think this is not a bad thing. If we hold this kind of attitude, we can quite appreciate an elec

89、tric motor, for it is "useful as an appliance", contributing to the improvement of our daily life. Like a pedantic scholar, we can list in detail its various uses, such as "useful for pumping water" a

90、nd "useful for ventilating the air". As to how we acquir</p><p>　　季羨林 《文學批評無用論》</p><p>　　讀最近一期的《文學評論》，里面有幾篇關(guān)于“紅學” 的文章，引起了我的注意。有的作者既反省，又批判。有的作者從困境中找出路。有的作者概嘆，“紅學”出了危機。如此等等，煞是熱鬧。文章的論點都非常

91、精彩，很有啟發(fā)。但是，我卻忽然想到了一個怪問題：這樣的“紅學”有用處嗎？對紅學家本身，對在大學里和研究所里從事文學理論研究的人，當然有用。但是對廣大的《紅樓夢》的讀者呢？我看是沒有用處。</p><p>　　《紅樓夢》問世二百年以來 ，通過漢文原文和各種譯文讀過本書的人，無慮多少個億。這樣多的讀者哪一個是先看批評家的文章，然后再讓批評家牽著鼻子走，按圖索驥地去讀原作呢？我看是絕無僅有。一切文學作品，特別是像《紅樓

92、夢》這樣偉大的作品 ，內(nèi)容異常地豐富，涉及到的社會層面異常地多，簡直像是一個寶山，一座迷宮。而讀者群就更為復雜，不同的家庭背景，不同的社會經(jīng)歷，不同的民族，不同的國家，不同的文化傳統(tǒng)，不同的心理素質(zhì)，不同的年齡，不同的性別，不同的職業(yè)，不同的愛好——還可以這樣“不同”下去，就此打住——，他們來讀《紅樓夢》，會各就自己的特點，欣賞《紅樓夢》中的某一個方面，受到鼓舞，受到啟發(fā)，引起了喜愛；也可能受到打擊，引起了憎惡，總之是千差萬別。對這些讀

93、者來說，“紅學家”就好象是住在“太虛幻境” 里的圣人、賢人，與自己無關(guān)。他們不管“紅學家”究竟議論些什么，只是讀下去，讀下去。</p><p>　　因此我說，文學批評家無用。</p><p>　　不但對讀者無用，對作者也無用。查一查各國文學史，我敢說，沒有哪一個偉大作家是根據(jù)文學批評家的理論來進行創(chuàng)作的。</p><p>　　那么，文學批評家的研究不就是毫無意義了嗎

94、？也不是的。他們根據(jù)自己的文學欣賞的才能，根據(jù)不同的時代潮流，對文學作品提出自己的看法，互相爭論，互相學習，互相啟發(fā)，互相提高，這也是一種創(chuàng)作活動，對文學理論的建設(shè)會有很大的好處。只是不要幻想，自己的理論會對讀者和作者有多大影響。這樣一來，就可以各安其業(yè)，天下太平了。</p><p>　　On the Futility of Literary Criticism</p><p>　　Ji

95、Xianlin</p><p>　　In the latest issue of the Literary Review, several articles on Redology have attracted my attention. Some of the authors are introspective as well as critical; some try to find a way out of

96、 their academic predicament; some sigh with regret that Redology is faced with a crisis; and so on and so forth. the discussion is quite animated. the arguments set forth in the articles are very interesting and enlighte

97、ning. Nevertheless, a strange question has occurred to me: Is this kind of Redology of any</p><p>　　Ever since the publication of this novel some 200 years ago, hundreds of millions of people have read its C

98、hinese original or its translations in various languages. Of these innumerable people, how many have read the novel by starting with a perusal of the critics’ articles and allowing the mselves to be led by the nose by th

99、e critics as to how to read the novel? Next to none. All literary works, especially a monumental one like A Dream of Red Mansions, are extremely rich in content and involve </p><p>　　Therefore, I reiterate,

100、literary criticism is useless. </p><p>　　It is useless not only to the readers, but also to writers. Looking up the literary history of each and every country, I dare say that none of the world’s great liter