斯蒂芬·金的“穿越小說”

斯蒂芬·金的“穿越小說”

In all of Stephen King’s work there is an admixture of the ordinary and the supernatural — call it the weird quotidian. In his new novel, “11/22/63,” it is a rabbit hole into the past that pops up in Lisbon Falls, a woebegone corner of Maine.

斯蒂芬·金(Stephen King)的作品中往往有一個(gè)結(jié)合體，是那種司空見慣小事與匪夷所思奇景的結(jié)合體，也可以叫做“怪異的平常事”。在他的最新作品《11/22/63》當(dāng)中，這樣的事情就是通過兔子洞穿越到美國緬因州一個(gè)破敗的角落：里斯本福爾斯(Lisbon Falls)。

On one end is 2011. An unpopular diner has finally been bought out by L. L. Bean. The diner — and the time portal inside it — may last a few more weeks in the footprint of a burned textile mill.

時(shí)間門的一端是在2011年。一家生意慘淡的餐館最終被畢恩(L.L. Bean)買了下來。這家餐館——時(shí)間門就在餐館里面——坐落在一個(gè)被燒掉的紡織廠遺址上，還可能會(huì)經(jīng)營幾周。

On the other end is America under Eisenhower. The mill churns out white smoke. “Vertigo” is showing at the outdoor movie theater — on its first run. The Kennebec Fruit Company isn’t a curio for tourists; it sells oranges. And John Kennedy, the young senator from Massachusetts, is still alive.

時(shí)間門的另一端停留在艾森豪威爾執(zhí)政時(shí)期的美國。磨房的煙囪冒著白煙，電影《迷魂記》(Vertigo)正在露天影院首映。肯納貝克果品公司(Kennebec Fruit Company)在出售柑橘，尚且不是一個(gè)觀光勝地。馬薩諸塞州的年輕參議員約翰.肯尼迪(John Kennedy)仍然活著。

The rules of the rabbit hole into the past are outlined in the first pages of the novel. Al Templeton, the owner of the diner, explains them to Jake Epping, an English teacher at the local high school. Walk to the back of the pantry. Mind the 60-watt bulb overhead. Expect the smell of sulfur. And keep walking until you feel your foot fall.

小說的前幾頁， 借助餐館老板艾爾·坦普勒頓(Al Templeton)之口簡單介紹了通過兔子洞穿越到過去的規(guī)則。他為當(dāng)?shù)匾凰咧械挠⒄Z老師杰克·埃平(Jake Epping)解釋說：徑直走到餐具室后邊，小心頭頂那個(gè)60瓦的燈泡;你會(huì)聞到硫磺的味道，然后一直走，最后會(huì)感覺自己的雙腳在下沉。

Suddenly you’re back on Sept. 9, 1958. It’s 11:58 a.m. There are, Al says, only two conditions. One, it’s not a one-way trip. It doesn’t have to be. But when you return, no matter how long you’ve stayed in the past — two days, five years, whatever — only two minutes have gone by in the present. Two, each time you go back to the past, there is a reset. Like a Magic Slate. It’s 11:58 a.m., and everything you did on your previous trip has been erased.

突然間，你就回到了1958年9月9號(hào)的上午11:58分。據(jù)艾爾說，這種時(shí)間旅行只有兩個(gè)限制：第一，這不是單程旅行，因?yàn)闆]這個(gè)必要。無論你在過去停留了多久，兩天或者五年，等你回到現(xiàn)在的時(shí)候，時(shí)間都只過去了兩分鐘。第二，每次你穿越到過去，時(shí)間都會(huì)重置，像魔法石板一樣。再去的時(shí)候，時(shí)間仍然是11:58分，你回到過去所做的事都已被抹去。

With that, King dispenses with many of the mechanics of time-travel — and thank God for it. There is no extended discussion of the “grandfather paradox.” (“What if you killed your grandfather?” “Why on earth would you do that?”) The rules are simple.

有了這兩個(gè)限制，金省掉了許多關(guān)于時(shí)間旅行的麻煩問題——謝天謝地。這里沒有關(guān)于“祖父悖論”的冗長討論(“如果你殺了你的祖父怎么辦?” 、“你到底為什么要那么做?”)。這里的規(guī)則很簡單。

There is a reason for this: King is after something bigger. “11/22/63” is a meditation on memory, love, loss, free will and necessity. It’s a blunderbuss of a book, rife with answers to questions: Can one man make a difference? Can history be changed, or does it snap back on itself like a rubber band? Does love conquer all? (The big stuff.)

原因在于：金想寫的是比時(shí)間旅行更重要的東西?！?1/22/63》這部小說是對(duì)記憶、愛情、失去、自由意志和必然性的思考。這是一本志存高遠(yuǎn)的書，包含著各種問題的答案：孤身一身的個(gè)體能否做出巨大的改變?歷史能否推翻重來?還是會(huì)像橡皮筋一樣彈回去?愛情能否戰(zhàn)勝一切?(全都是些大問題)

Al — the scuttlebutt is that he is serving burgers made of dog, or cat — is dying of lung cancer. Coughing up blood into a pile of maxi-pads. He enlists Jake to do what he couldn’t: stop Lee Harvey Oswald. It’s a fabulous pitch. “Save Kennedy, save his brother. Save Martin Luther King. Stop the race riots. Stop Vietnam, maybe. . . . Get rid of one wretched waif, buddy, and you could save millions of lives.”

餐館老板艾爾——傳言說他出售用狗肉或貓肉做的漢堡——得了肺癌，生命垂危，咳出來的血染紅了一堆衛(wèi)生巾。他要求杰克繼續(xù)完成他未竟的事業(yè)：阻止李·哈維·奧斯瓦爾德(Lee Harvey Oswald)(刺殺約翰·肯尼迪的人——編者注)。這是一處神來之筆。“拯救肯尼迪，拯救他的兄弟，拯救馬丁·路德·金。阻止種族騷亂，阻止越南戰(zhàn)爭，也許…除掉一個(gè)該死的家伙，老兄，你就可以拯救千百萬人的生命。”

Jake Epping is a burned-out teacher with a seriously alcoholic ex-wife and nothing better to do than disappear into the past. The guilt trip works. And Epping falls into the past with a new name, George T. Amberson — as if time-travel required a new identity — and a clear mission. Correct the past. Undo some of the evils of the 20th century.

杰克是一名疲憊不堪的教師，還有個(gè)嗜酒如命的前妻，能夠穿越到過去對(duì)他來說是一件再好不過的事情。歉疚之心產(chǎn)生了效果。杰克以喬治·安伯森(George T. Amberson)的名字——就跟時(shí)間旅行需要一個(gè)新身份似的——回到了過去，帶著一個(gè)明確的目標(biāo)：修改歷史。鏟除二十世紀(jì)的一些罪惡。

Once in 1958, however, Amberson is immediately confronted by a double mystery: the mystery of what really happened then, and the mystery of what might be otherwise.

然而，回到1958年之后，安伯森立刻遇上了一個(gè)雙重的謎題：事情的真相是什么，其他的可能性又是什么。

Before George/Jake can alter the course of history, he has to know what actually occurred. Was it Oswald, shooting from the depository? Was it a conspiracy? Another shooter on the grassy knoll? How about George de Mohrenschildt, one persistent minor character in conspiracy thinking? They are the nightmare uncertainties of an event that has been over-examined, and never understood. Jake is a good person. He cannot kill Oswald without first knowing whether he was the responsible party, and a good part of the adventure is the investigation.

在喬治/杰克做出改變歷史軌跡的動(dòng)作之前，他必須了解當(dāng)時(shí)的真實(shí)狀況。從倉庫大樓開槍射擊的人是不是奧斯瓦德?這是一場(chǎng)陰謀嗎?還是草丘上另有開槍射擊的人?在陰謀論當(dāng)中反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的小角色喬治·德·莫倫斯喬特(George de Mohrenschildt)又是怎么回事呢? 這些就是整個(gè)事件當(dāng)中可怕的不確定性，追查這個(gè)事件的努力已經(jīng)過了頭，真相卻始終沒有查清。杰克是個(gè)好人，如果不能確定奧斯瓦德就是責(zé)任方，他絕不會(huì)下手。這樣一來，相關(guān)的調(diào)查就成了這次旅行的重頭戲。

Once in Dallas, Amberson has years to get to know Oswald, but he can’t just bust down the door. History is fragile; he has to peer around corners. He buys tape recorders and long-distance listening devices, moves into grubby neighborhoods, trails Oswald as he stashes his rifle. What he learns is no surprise. Oswald was unpleasant in ordinary ways. Emotional, violent with his wife, unsure of himself and desperate to change a broken world.

到了達(dá)拉斯之后，喬治·安伯森可以有幾年的時(shí)間來了解奧斯瓦德，可他并不能就這么破門而入。歷史是非常脆弱的，他必須采取轉(zhuǎn)彎抹角的方法。他買了錄音機(jī)和遠(yuǎn)距離收聽設(shè)備，住進(jìn)各種骯臟的居民區(qū)，跟蹤奧斯瓦德到他藏匿步槍的地方。他所了解到的情況不足為奇。日常生活中的奧斯瓦德不受人歡迎，情緒化，對(duì)妻子動(dòng)粗，不自信，不顧一切地想要改變這個(gè)破碎的世界。

Did he kill Kennedy? It’s easy to see King, the writer and researcher, as a fellow time-traveler, hopelessly curious about what Oswald might say on tape or reveal while strolling around Fort Worth. But the past, the novel repeatedly reminds us, is obdurate. Under interrogation, it guards its darkest secrets. Weeks before the 22nd, Amberson is living below the Oswalds, and he still can’t be sure: “I tried the distance mic, standing on a chair and holding the Tupperware bowl almost against the ceiling. With it I could hear Lee talking and de Mohrenschildt’s occasional replies, but I couldn’t make out what they were saying.”

奧斯瓦德殺了肯尼迪嗎?我們可以明顯地看出來，小說作者、資料搜集者金也是一個(gè)時(shí)光旅行者，非常好奇奧斯瓦德留下了一些什么口供，在沃斯堡(Fort Worth)市內(nèi)閑逛的時(shí)候又有些什么表現(xiàn)。但小說一再提醒我們，歷史是非常執(zhí)拗的。即便你竭力追查，它依然不會(huì)吐露它最黑暗的秘密。在22號(hào)到來之前的幾周里，喬治·安伯森一直住在奧斯瓦爾德樓下，但仍不能確定：“我試過遠(yuǎn)距離收音麥克，還站在椅子上，把特百惠的碗往上舉，幾乎頂?shù)搅颂旎ò濉＿@樣我就能聽到李的談話，和德·莫倫斯喬特偶爾的回復(fù)，但是我聽不清楚他們?cè)谡f什么。”

In “11/22/63,” we get glimpses of a nimbus of evil that surrounds the world. There are no single crimes. Each act of cruelty or violence is somehow associated — harmonized, King would suggest — with every other act. Inside the past, Amberson learns there are no accidents, no inadvertencies. Just an infernal machine. (Tick, tock.) He says: “Coincidences happen, but I’ve come to believe they are actually quite rare. Something is at work, O.K.? Somewhere in the universe (or behind it), a great machine is ticking and turning its fabulous gears.”

在《11/22/63》這本小說中，讀者可以覺察到一股邪氣籠罩著整個(gè)世界，沒有單獨(dú)存在的犯罪，每一個(gè)殘忍行為或暴力行徑在某種程度上都是與其他行為互相聯(lián)系的——按照金的說法，互相協(xié)調(diào)。身處歷史內(nèi)部，喬治·安伯森了解到這里并沒有意外事故，也沒有任何疏忽，有的只是一部罪惡的機(jī)器。(滴答，滴答。)他說：“巧合的確存在?？晌乙呀?jīng)認(rèn)定，巧合是非常少見的東西。冥冥之中一定有什么東西在操縱，明白嗎?宇宙之中(或者是宇宙之外)，一定有一臺(tái)龐大的機(jī)器轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)著無比精巧的齒輪， 滴答，滴答。”

There is a darker what-if. What if history is too forceful to redirect? What if jiggering the engine produces no favorable outcome — merely a postponement of the inevitable? If he had lived, Kennedy might not have escalated the war in Vietnam, and might have kept America out of a bloody mire. But we don’t know. What if we were headed there anyway? Then our tampering might only make things worse. It is not historical inevitability, but something close.

還有一個(gè)更加黑暗的“如果……那么……”。如果歷史的力量強(qiáng)大到無法逆轉(zhuǎn)，那么該怎么辦?如果阻止機(jī)器的運(yùn)行并沒有產(chǎn)生有利的結(jié)果，只是推遲了不可避免的事情，那又該怎么辦?如果肯尼迪還活著，他可能不會(huì)讓越南戰(zhàn)爭升級(jí)，美國也可能因此遠(yuǎn)離一個(gè)血腥的泥潭。但是我們并不能確定。如果歷史無論如何都會(huì)朝那個(gè)方向發(fā)展，那又該怎么辦?那樣的話，我們的干預(yù)可能只會(huì)讓事情變得更糟。這樣的看法雖然不是歷史決定論，卻已經(jīng)非常接近了。

Yet Amberson’s own story is poetic and moving. It’s complicated by romance: he falls in love with Sadie, the new school librarian in Jodie, Tex., his new hometown. The real events aren’t historical, they’re very small — giving advice to a football player, staging the school play, doing the Lindy Hop with Sadie. We are brought back to the weird quotidian, endlessly surrounded by the detritus of civilization: Kresge’s, Ban-Lon, Aqua Velva, Studebaker. At first I found myself mildly irritated by the endless swirl of products. But I came — honestly — to love it. The past is full: of slogans and fry cooks and beautiful cars. And King has an excellent feel for how all of that transpires within the forward roll of history.

然而，喬治·安伯森自己的故事卻是充滿詩意、感人至深的。浪漫的情節(jié)使他的故事更加復(fù)雜：安伯森與莎蒂相愛，這個(gè)女孩是德克薩斯州約迪鎮(zhèn)新來的學(xué)校圖書管理員，安伯森的新家就在這個(gè)鎮(zhèn)上。他們之間的事情很瑣碎，沒有什么歷史意義，無非是給一名橄欖球運(yùn)動(dòng)員提提建議、組織學(xué)校演出、跳跳林迪舞而已。小說把讀者帶回了怪誕的日常事務(wù)當(dāng)中，處處都是那個(gè)年代的痕跡：克雷斯基百貨商店(Kresge’s)、班綸衣物(Ban-Lon)、Aqua Velva男士用品、斯圖貝克(Studebaker)轎車(該公司于1966年停產(chǎn)倒閉——編者注)。最開始我發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被這些數(shù)不清的品牌惹怒了，但是老實(shí)說，我慢慢地喜歡上了它們。小說擁有十足的歷史感，充滿了過去的各種宣傳口號(hào)、煎炸食品和漂亮汽車。金擁有敏銳的歷史觸覺，他體察到這些生活瑣事在滾滾向前的歷史中漸漸消失的過程。

In my favorite passage, King writes: “For a moment everything was clear, and when that happens you see that the world is barely there at all. Don’t we all secretly know this? It’s a perfectly balanced mechanism of shouts and echoes pretending to be wheels and cogs, a dreamclock chiming beneath a mystery-glass we call life. . . . A universe of horror and loss surrounding a single lighted stage where mortals dance in defiance of the dark.”

在我最喜歡的一段話里，金寫道：“有那么一瞬間，一切都變得清晰。這時(shí)你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，世界已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在。私底下，我們不都明白這一點(diǎn)嗎?喧囂與回響構(gòu)成了完美的平衡，模擬著齒輪的聲音，好似一座轟然鳴響的夢(mèng)幻時(shí)鐘，隱藏在我們稱之為生活的那塊神秘玻璃之下……，無盡的恐怖與失落圍繞著一個(gè)孤零零的光亮舞臺(tái)，凡夫俗子在這個(gè)舞臺(tái)上翩然起舞，以抗拒四周的黑暗。”

King has said that he struggled with the idea for this book for more than 30 years. One can see why. In fiction, we can decide who did or did not kill Kennedy. Writer’s choice (and King chooses). But he pays his debts to history in other ways — by showing the machine and, at the same time, the simplest human knots, the love stories behind history: Sadie and George, Jack and Jackie.

金說，這本小說的構(gòu)思在他的心里翻騰了30多年。原因顯而易見。在科幻小說當(dāng)中，我們可以自行確定誰是刺殺肯尼迪的兇手，誰又不是。作者有這樣的選擇權(quán)(金也行使了這樣的選擇權(quán))。不過，他也以其他的方式還了歷史一個(gè)人情——他向我們展示了這部機(jī)器，同時(shí)展示了那些最簡單的人類紐帶，歷史背后的愛情故事：莎蒂和喬治，杰克和杰姬(約翰.肯尼迪與杰奎琳·肯尼迪的昵稱-編者注)。

It all adds up to one of the best time-travel stories since H. G. Wells. King has captured something wonderful. Could it be the bottomlessness of reality? The closer you get to history, the more mysterious it becomes. He has written a deeply romantic and pessimistic book. It’s romantic about the real possibility of love, and pessimistic about everything else.

總而言之，這是自赫伯特·喬治·威爾斯(H.G. Wells)以來最好的時(shí)間旅行小說之一。金捕捉到了某種妙不可言的東西。我們可不可以說，這種東西就是現(xiàn)實(shí)所具有的那種深不可測(cè)的性質(zhì)呢?你離歷史越近，歷史本身就變得越神秘。金完成了一部非常浪漫、悲情的書。浪漫之處在于愛情的真實(shí)可能性，除此以外就都是悲情的韻味。