找回密码
 注册
搜索
热搜: 超星 读书 找书
查看: 20033|回复: 15

[【图书推荐】] 何伟:甲骨文──流离时空里的新生中国

[复制链接]
发表于 2007-11-6 16:35:24 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


彼得‧海斯勒(Peter Hessler)著,盧秋瑩譯:《甲骨文──流離時空裏的新生中國》(Oracle Bones: A Journey between China's Past and Present, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006),臺北:久周出版文化事業有限公司,2007年5月。

  幾個月前,在書店新書展示區看到此書,本以為是本關於古文字研究的專著,稍事翻閱,才知所思不確。因書裡雖也談到陳夢家、石璋如等先生,及其它有關河南安陽考古發現種種人事物,但這只是書中所欲展現中國社會面相的背景之一。如同書名的附標題:「流離時空裡的新生中國」,作者著力敘述的是其親身遭遇,處於大變動的中國裡,隨著大環境浮沈求生的普通人的生活。這裡面包括從四川涪陵師範學校畢業的女學生,如何在繁華的深圳掙扎生根;來自新疆的維吾爾商人,不滿於北京雅寶路的淘金生活及新疆的政治現況,如何在美國求得另一新生的天地;來自四川內地的農村子弟,如何與女友在浙江溫州的私立學校中,尋求自身生活條件及社會身份的改變。。。。透過作者提供的總總圖象,引發讀者就此去揣摩想像,中國社會中可能存在的一些問題,及其難以預測的未來前景。當然,每個人都有不同的成長背景及價值觀念,觀察視角的不同,也會得到不同的圖象。但在閱讀作者所記錄的觀察所得,及因此而引發其思考的種種問題,可以感覺到作者基本上抱持對人性的基本關懷,及對中國善意的好奇,加上其不凡的文字敘述功力,提供了一個迷人而引人深思,認識中國的傑出作品。

  當然,書中談及詩人及古史研究者陳夢家先生的種種,也是我極感興趣的。讀過陳先生的幾本著作,對他的學問很是佩服;也在錢穆先生《師友雜憶》中得知,他是勸錢先生撰寫《國史大綱》的一個推動者。但以前只大略聽聞,他在文革剛開始沒多久,便自殺身亡了。雖然感歎,但有類似遭遇的學者並不在少數,而關於他此段時期遭遇的資料並不多,也並未刻意去追究。故知道作者有意去追尋陳氏此段遭遇的真相,便頗感興味,其中一個原因在於,裡面牽涉到現今著名的古史家李學勤先生。不過,讀了相關敘述後,有點爽然若失。因為事過境遷,即便人們有心去追尋,事情的真相也只能經由倖存者的回憶及殘存資料去拼湊,而所謂的真相,基本上是很難獲得的。好奇的是,身為陳氏助理的李學勤先生,如何對其撰文批判陳氏的事做一解釋,或著不做解釋。如同鼓勵何氏去追查這個故事的中國記者所言:「中國有太多這樣的故事溜掉了。」不過,李氏在洞悉何氏訪問的意圖時,並未出現煩惱、自我防衛,甚至生氣的表現。與何氏的感受相同,「如果他為自己辯護,又或者生氣起來,我會覺得好過一些;最讓人難受的是,我看到的是他的後悔。寫那些批判言論時,他才不過二十四歲。」

  作者彼得‧海斯勒(Peter Hessler),中文名為「何偉」,美國密蘇里州人。曾在1996-1998年間,以和平工作團(Peace Corps)一員的身份,在四川涪陵師範專科學校(現已改名長江師範學院)教授英語。此段經歷也曾寫成《消失中的江城:一位西方作家在長江古城探索中國》(River town : Two Years on the Yangtze,N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers, c2001,吳美真中譯,臺北:久周,2006)一書出版。其後擔任《華爾街日報》北京辦事處最後一名剪報員,並為《國家地理雜誌》、《紐約客》、《華爾街日報》撰稿,書中大部分文字,即曾在各刊物中發表過。本書首先以英文出版,即有評論者說:「每個生活在西方世界的人,都應該讀這本書。」我不清楚這句話對不對,也不知道西方世界一般人對中國的大體印象為何,瞭解中國的好奇心與意願又有多大!不過,對我而言,這本書著實有不小的吸引力。因以現實條件而言,我不可能具備作者的經歷,尤其遍歷中國新疆、四川、北京、溫州、南京、上海、深圳、台灣等地的旅遊經驗,更讓我艷羨不置。這比我偶爾在《大陸尋奇》等介紹性節目中所見所得,深度是遠過之而無不及的。閱讀後頗為喜愛,故樂於為之推薦。

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册

×
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2008-4-13 05:27:35 | 显示全部楼层
的確是很不錯的一本書。不知道那兒有電子版?
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2008-4-13 13:19:50 | 显示全部楼层
翻过此书,此书在美国还是畅销书呢。不过总觉得作者有些不厚道,书中记录作者采访李先生,李先生明明说有些话不要公开。但是作者还是把这些话写进书里,并且还用文学语言描写了李先生说话时的表情。读了之后让人感到作者的喜好有明显的倾向。况且作者采访李先生也是通过别人出的“计策”才获取了采访的机会的,作者这样做,本来很不地道,但是作者却冠冕堂皇地写出来,这在西方也是引以为豪的事情吗?记者真是可怕。奉劝各位以后碰见记者,说话要多多小心。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2008-4-14 08:08:18 | 显示全部楼层
很羡慕楼上诸位有机会读到此好书。更谢谢楼主精彩的推荐文章。
对那段历史很是好奇。那样的年代,那个容易冲动的年纪,有那样的错误也是在所难免的。尽管初次知道此事原委时,一直不愿接受它。历史便是这样,除了当事人自己,很多事也许我们永远也不可能知道完整的真相了。那就由它去吧。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-6 15:19:53 | 显示全部楼层
很可惜没能读到此书,只能在网上找找本书的介绍和评论读读。豆瓣网上有网友喜羊羊的书评,写得不错!现转贴于此!那算是对此书的一个推介吧!

冲突与妥协——从《甲骨文》里看中国
观点很重要,如果一个人相信他站在中心,那扩散在他严重是必然的;但如果你从一个外面一步一步走进去,一个文化看起来将是截然不同的。”
  ——摘自彼得-海斯勒《甲骨文:流离时空里的新生中国》
  
  
  拿到这本书是八月中了,离我去台湾交流学习已经整整一年了。一年前,在台湾清华大学的历史课堂上,张元先生重点推荐了这本书,我也从朋友那里借来翻阅了一下,第一印象只是觉得写作的角度很新颖,文字组织的很巧妙,至于内容和观点,反倒是没有什么太深刻的印象。今年初,有一个在美国学习的同学重提到了这本书,说英文版的读着非常好,很多很深刻的东西。这本书没有在大陆出版,只好再重新托台湾的同学来大陆的时候捎来了一本。用暑假最后的时光,认真地读了一遍。从纠结到疑惑到不满到理解到释怀,阅读的过程是我很少遇到的能这么刺激我思考的体验,我觉得很有必要写点东西,为自己留下些怀念。
  读这样一本书其实是一个蛮有意思的经历,由于它没有在大陆出版,所以我的第一个好奇的自然是为什么会不允许出版。从我小时候开始,父母就经常教育“注意自己的说话”。我相信大部分的中国人在成长的过程中都会听到过这样类似的训斥。我想这里的说话肯定不是单纯的礼貌用语的使用,而更多的是言谈的内容,这里面有一种共性的谨慎在里面,不管是潜意识里的,还是社会生活里的。书中的主人公是纷杂的,大约提及姓名的就在二三十人左右,南方朔先生和陈浩先生在开头的书评里,分别使用了“拼图”和“平民史诗”这样的词汇来概括这本书的结构和内容。所以,在读这本书的时候,我会看到很多自己很会说的话,很多我会做的事,很多在生活里见到了太多的事,而重要的是:他们说的话都没有很注意。
  我想,这可能是我不能看到这本书横排简体版的原因之一吧。
  
  一、写作与阅读
  对一本书的感受是从他的封面开始的。
  灰色的封面,黑色的人影,粗糙的街道,交织的缆线。《甲骨文》给我的第一反应是黯淡的,实重的。因为对它的内容有所了解,因为对它的观点也有所耳闻,所以在看之前我是做好了心理准备来接受一些我不会熟悉的观点的。书的编排可能费了很多的心思,正常的书写顺序被“古文物”这样的插入式专题打断,而且一直持续到底。这样一种将整体破碎开来的方法的确是像极了甲骨文所传达的古代讯息的支离和当今社会的一种流离状态。这点的确是很让人佩服。
  这不是一本学术著作,也不是一本游记,它更像是由一篇篇的新闻报道串联起来的新闻纪实,同时穿插上一些绵亘始终的人物线索,使书读起来更像是一本小说,而非是一本报道文学。
  书的第一主人公在我看来应该是文字。他不仅把“考古文物”这样的专题串联起来,更重要的是由文字而形成中国人共同的心理素质和和上升到信仰层面的民族文化。而全书的主题就在这样一种基础之上,将这种串联与信仰的主体——人——组织起来,形成了这本杰出的著作。
  既然主人公是文字,我的思考也开始从文字入手。
  写作和阅读是一犁和牛的关系,单独起来两者都能当工具,也都是有创造性的,但只有两者真正结合起来的时候,人类的生产才会进入一个新的阶段。但写作和阅读毕竟是不同的,所以在写作或者阅读的过程中,我们就经常会遇到一些言不达意或者不求甚解的情况。作者和阅读者的身份关系是很重要的,读一本是书,你是站在一个听命令的角度,站在一个听汇报的角度,还是站在一个听辩论对手发言的角度,这对我们如何理解作者的本意,是很重要的。
  海斯勒在《考古文物H:文字》的最后提到作为新闻记者的写作是非常苦恼的。他说:“如果我要的只是当一个专业的解构主义者,我当初待在研究所就好了。”新闻记者的苦恼很大一部分是来源于其职业写作的本能技巧,比如对重大事件的敏感度,比如确保事实数据的准确性,比如采访各种专家的观点和态度,这些对新闻记者写作的自由性和对人的关怀方面都是有限制的。海斯勒很幸运,他选择了一条独特的路。他长时间地报道同一件事或同一个人,他选择角度包括社会各个层面的人物,他对自己提出问题,探寻答案。这都是使他能成为一个杰出的作家而非记者的主要原因。但正如他自己所说,他真的娴熟于新闻报道。新闻记者的很多特点在他的文字里还是非常醒目的。
  我曾经读过一篇英语文章,里面提到了新闻报道中的那些“真实的谎言”。比如在新闻报道中我们可能得知今年的人均收入上涨了10%,然后记者的观点会鼓吹经济形势已经大好了。但事实是,收入上涨了百分之十,物价可能上涨了50%,这样的报道的确是提供了真实,但真实的可信度又有多少呢?记者会只从大量的材料中选择支持自己观点的论据,而作为读者的我们应该如何辨别哪些是真实,那些是真实的谎言呢?
  无疑,海斯勒在尽量控制自己的这种写作本能,在很多的资料:比如老赵先生的谈论,比如奥运会的出租车司机的谈论,比如九一一后中国人反应的谈论,他都大量地引用原话而非截取片段。但作为一个读者尤其是大陆的读者来说,经常会发现本能性地寻找他遗漏的一些事实和资料。比如***的描写,除了示威者和警察,我没有读到关于普通的中国人的态度和观点;比如关于波拉特的描写,是不是就这样具有普遍性和代表性。波拉特的一个朋友曾经说:“一半的维吾尔家庭的成员入过监狱。”这点我不知道,我也很好奇。如果作为一个没有到过中国的读者来说,我应该把这个当作事实呢,还是要对作者提出质疑?
  写作本身是没有问题的,新闻记者的一项工作就是提供事实,而不发表观点。这里有一个悖论,如果你知道事实是存在问题的,你是要发表评论呢,还是保持沉默?海斯勒无疑选择了后者,他在这方面的确做的很好,作为一个专业的作家,他恪守了他的承诺,在材料的选择和编排上下足了功夫。但作为一个读者来说,这点是非常痛苦的。因为我要时刻提醒自己客观的态度,一方面不要盲目地被心底的中国认同而误导,另一方面我又要客观地看待作者为我提供的这些材料和他的目的。
  这就是写作和阅读的问题,偶尔牛会走斜了,但犁要把它稳住扭过来;有时候犁会歪了,牛要保证力气把它拉直了。两者不是在角力,而是为了真正能理解对方,感受对方。有些时候,我会经常感觉作者就坐在我的对面,我可以感受他,试图理解他,而这样的一个阅读过程是真的很奇特的。
  
  二、矛盾
  《甲骨文》的阅读让我提出了一个问题:到底应该怎样更好地理解一个文化?是站在这个文化的中心看好呢,还是从外面看更好?
  事实上,阅读开始的过程非常不愉快。我试图卸下所有的偏激,来了解一个在中国生活了十几年的西方人对中国的看法到底是怎样的。但结果却让我非常失望。开篇的第一个故事就是作者在南京经历中国大使馆被炸后的示威游行。作者用极尽辛辣和嘲讽的笔触“客观”地描写了中国学生的示威和荒谬。这样一个事件,将作为美国人的作者和最直白的表达民族主义情节的中国人瞬间拉进了时空地漩涡。我经常在想,如果一个外国人,或者台湾人和香港人,他们读到这一段是什么样的感想?“打倒美帝!”“不吃肯德基!”“不吃麦当劳!”这些口号看来可能是很荒诞很幼稚的,但就像后来作者在采访姜文时用的一个比喻——“把中国想象成一片田”,我们也可以反过来使用,为什么会长出这样荒诞和幼稚的果实,难道仅仅是中国的原因吗?
  随即,由这个事件引发出了本文的第一个主人公——波拉特。我有一个学国际关系的同学,对这个人物非常感兴趣,他觉得从他偷渡到美国的过程可以看出太多的法学的问题和漏洞。当然我对这个不感兴趣,我感兴趣的是,为什么一个维族人对中国有这么多的愤怒和偏见,这种愤怒是针对汉人的,还是针对共产党的,还是针对中国的?如果现在统治中国的是一个不同的政府,那么他们会不会还是保持这样的态度?然后我又在思考,共产党的民族政策到底哪里出现了问题呢?这些问题一直非常纠结,直到我看到了文章的另一个板块《考古文物E:青铜头》。这一章的主要内容就是要说明中华文明的源头是多元的,而非是政治话语中的统一性。当然海斯勒并没有直接这样说明,而是用了访谈的方式,分别普林斯顿大学的青铜器研究教授、定居日本的考古学者、发现三星堆的农妇,以及三星堆博物馆的工作人员进行了访谈。我觉得这一章是非常有趣的,从这里,我可能看到我上面那些问题答案的蛛丝马迹。
  历史真相的发现是需要解释的,文物出土是考古学家的工作,而解释文物是历史学家的责任。我们在看一个历史的发展的时候,总是习惯用些现代的眼光来看待历史,比如徐朝龙,那位定居日本的考古学者,他有一个观点,认为政治权力把中国的考古学扭曲了,长期北方人的统治,自然对历史的描写会注重同源性和统一性。但问题是我们是不是在看问题的时候,从一个极端走向了另一个极端——权力中心到反权力中心。我们现在解释问题非常轻易地就将政府的作用负面化、妖魔化,认为有权力干涉的学术都是错误的。就中华文明的多源头来讲,中华文明的多源性是无需赘言的,但我们是不是就能忽略中华文明的统一性倾向呢?三星堆文明是高度发达的、可以与中原文明相媲美的,但历史的发展是不容假设的:三星堆文明消亡了,就目前所知的中华文明中,直接受到它影响的部分还是不可知的,而取代它的,正是中原文明在于长江流域文明的交流中的融合和统一,这是历史发展的事实。
  由此我就想到了关于新疆问题的由来。维族到底有没有上面提到的那种极端呢?一提到汉人政府、一提到共产党政权,自然就产生了一种负面的、妖魔的观点和态度。这点是非常难表达的。作为一个汉人,我对中华文化的认同自然让我很难理解维族人的心理特征,但就作为一个普通人来讲,我觉得人性的东西永远是共通的,我理解他们民族优秀文化的自豪感,我同情他们在历史上收到的不公平待遇,我也明白他们不同的信仰而带来的误解。但他们能不能对中华文明有一个更理性、更明确的认识呢?历史造就一个民族,他的政治制度、经济体制、甚至风俗习惯都可能发生变化,但这个民族的的文化是不会变的。前者只是觉得我们是怎么做,而后者则是决定我们是什么。维族的问题是需要双方共同解决的,不是很多人跑到国外就能解决的。我也读到海斯勒的话,维族后裔在美国的三代后,就不会在认同原来的文化了。我觉得很悲伤,如果在中国,他可能有很多的不满,有很多的愤怒,但他仍是一个维吾尔人,他有自己的信仰,有自己的民族,有自己的文化,但是他宁愿放弃。“中国人都是这幅德行!”波拉特在评价他的广东房东的时候说。听到这句话,我觉得反倒有些坦然了,他离开中国是他的解脱,更是中国人的福气。
  海斯勒的学生们是我最感兴趣的人物。威利和艾米丽身上有太多我自己和身边人的身影,虽然我们出生在东部,虽然我没有那么辛苦。但同时作为一个改革开放后的一代来说,在他们身上,我看到了许多自己要面对的问题:升学、就业、婚姻、对社会的不满和愤怒、对新生事物超强的适应能力。这些都让我产生了强烈的共鸣。海斯勒在他们身上也的确是下足了心血。他们代表了另一种人,一种为了生存而拼搏的底层人,更重要的是,他们中国数亿移民中的一份子。这是一个流离的时代,而他们的存在正是为中国这个巨大的画板提供了流动的色彩。不管是外出打工还是教书,他们面临的都是同样的问题:转型中的中国带来的伤痛。他们从闭塞的西部来到开放的东部,来到一个纸醉金迷、物欲横流的时代。各样的中国问题:政治腐败、官商勾结、道德败坏、民情冷漠,我可以想出无数的贬义词来形容这样一个时代,而那些寂寞的人要么寄情于忙碌的工作,要么寄情于一个电台虚拟的声音。狄更斯在《双城记》里说:“这是最好的时代,这是最坏的时代。”你不可否认,中国在进步,中国在发展,中国在变得更好。就像中国近代化转型初期一样,列强的侵略仅仅是一个伤痛的开始。你可能说我是典型的中国乐天派,但是我想中国即使现在再落后,也绝对要比唐宋发达;人们的生活即使在匮乏,也绝对要比清末丰富;人们的言论再受限,也绝对要比文革宽松。所以,当看到海斯勒不厌其烦地讲述着中国种种的落后、不文明、不人道的做法的时候,我突然感觉他很幸运:他没有生活在古代,不用受到几个月帆船的颠簸,可以到处飞来飞去;他也没有生活在文革,连中国的大门都进不来。这是一个好的时代,因为这个国家在努力做得更好,虽然不会一步到位,但像我开头说的那样,我们愿意看见它谨慎地迈步每一步,为了做到更好,我们愿意等。
   观点很重要,读书的观点不仅仅是从作者的话里你能听出什么立场,什么态度,什么方法,更重要的是,在阅读的过程中你能不能产生自己的立场、态度和方法。不可否认,海斯勒给我的启发是大的。这本身有一种奇怪的思维在作祟,比如我总是搞不清楚他为什么这样写,我总是在处处留心他有没有隐晦的观点和暗示。比如在描写玩中国武术参加奥运会的历史后,他突然加了一句:“该团(柏林奥运会的中国武术表演团,笔者注)还在希特勒面前表演过。”比如在叙述完中国太极拳的基本内容之后,他又说了一句:“太极拳比较接近***,而非奥运。”这样的话在书中处处都是,而且与前后文比较也是非常突兀,让人怀疑:这究竟是作者的补充说明,还是作者的观点态度?这样的阅读让我时刻处在一种矛盾的状态,一方面是和作者的矛盾,对他的观点产生质疑;另一方面是和自己的矛盾,我究竟有没有什么地方想错了,或者固定思维影响了我的思考。在这样的矛盾中,我完成了这本书的阅读。
  
  三、妥协
  真正开始让我对这本书真正的释怀是从波拉特移民美国后开始的。那是全书的第十二章《政治庇护》。
  其实如果你安静地读这本书的话,你会发现这是一个很奇特的章节,在全书中也是一个很有意思的转折。在这一章里,海斯勒第一次对美国进行了直接描写,从美国的司法漏洞到糟糕的社会治安,从非法移民到中国餐馆,海斯勒的态度里充满了调侃和讽刺,但在林肯纪念堂的时候,海斯勒写了全书最让我感动的一个场景:
  “纪念堂里的《盖茨堡宣言》刻在墙上:
  ‘八十七年前,我们的祖先在这片大陆上创立了一个新的国家,她孕育于自由之中,并奉献于人类生而平等的主张……’
  那些字句给人一种仿佛重读《圣经》一样的祥和感,就跟所有在了解意思前把它背起来的东西一样。我慢慢读,在固定押韵的句子后停顿:‘世界将不大会注意,也不会长久记得’,‘鞠躬尽瘁的奉献’——那天第一次,我得到一种平静。那是我的语言;这是我的家。”
  读到这一段,我突然也感觉平静了。这是这个美国人为数不多的真情流露的时刻,没有了新闻记者的那种冷漠的客观和追求真相的执着,没有了一个外国人对中国的各种观察和描写,没有了文化上的偏见和隔离,这一刻,我仿佛就站在海斯勒身边,跟他一起仰视着林肯的雕像,一种共通地语言和感情让我突然有些感动。
  如果你注意的话,这是二零零一年的元月,距九一一事件只有八个月的时间。
  从这一章开始,海斯勒的语气突然有了很大的变化。他的镜头更多地推向了一些自己不太熟悉的人:出租车司机、消费者协会的警察、著名的被禁的演员,这些人让他的写作有一种奇怪的平和。我可以听到更多的中国人的发声,而不是仅仅是他熟悉的他的维吾尔朋友和他在中国的学生。在这些人的声音里,我听到一种更客观、更理性、更中国式的思维方法和角度。你会发现,其实中国并不缺乏独立思考的声音和观点,也不缺乏民主的活力和激情。当海斯勒得知出租车司机老杨的女儿在新加坡读书时,他表现出了一种惊讶,认为一个普通人的孩子出国读书是很不可思议的。但这就是中国,你不只能看到你相看到的落后和黑暗,也有绝对出乎你意料的自信和乐观。
  而海斯勒的这种转变,我相信与九一一的关系是巨大的。作为一个当时正在读初中的学生来说,我依然记得当时中国人的反应和态度。可以这样说,这次事件绝大部分的中国人是拍手称快的。这当然不是对死亡的冷漠和残忍,而更多的是对美国的愤怒和不满。其实中国人的民族情节并不是天生的,你可以看到在抗日战争之前,绝大部分的中国人的民族情节是很冷淡的,尤其是大量的底层人民。但这种情节的调动除了中国知识分子的奔走和政府的教育外,外国的态度起到了很大的作用。从九八年到两千年,美国和中国的关系是非常僵硬的,大使馆、***、撞击事件、贸易摩擦,先不考虑两国的利益因素,美国对中国在国际社会中的地位和形象不停地进行打击和排挤,这个时候,是中国人的民族情节最容易扭曲并爆发的时候。中国已经不是清朝的中国,可以随便让人欺负;中国也不是毛主席时代的中国,可以对反对者强势说不。这是一个开放的时代,我们可以看到中国政府在极力地压制这种民族主义情绪的泛滥,但这并不影响底层人民对美国的反感和愤怒。因为他们不用担心拿不到美国的签证,不用担心拿不到美国的庇护,他们在乎的只有中国人信仰的“善有善报,恶有恶报,不是不报,时候未到”。
  书中我非常喜欢的一个角色是雪莉,一个作者只有寥寥数笔的一个人物。在九一一事件后,作者和雪莉夫妇一起吃饭,期间他们的对话我觉得是一个正常的中国家庭的态度和观点。美国人眼中的中国永远都是可怜、落后、教育程度低,他们不会知道温州在哪里,他们只知道那是中国的一个城市而已。雪莉和她的丈夫都是受过高等教育,有良好工作,未来的新兴中产阶级的代表,他们的态度代表了中国社会的主流态度。那次事件后,他们同情爆炸中的遇难者,但是却对美国政府继续反对,他们没有那么强烈民族主义情节,却依然参加了网上的一个反美论坛,足见当时中国社会于美国的态度紧张程度。
  但作为一个阅读者来说,我开始与作者妥协了。毕竟,九一一事件后,中美关系也缓和了。
  陈梦家是作者用心最多的一个人物。他也是个核心人物,因为他的存在,串起了文物和正常写作的断裂,他作为一个甲骨文学家,他身上有一种天然的符号特征:从甲骨文,到四合院,到旧家具;从云南到北京,到台湾,到美国;从民国到文革,到改革开放,到二十一世纪;从西南联大到留学美国,到文字改革,到断代工程。这个人物的存在可以串起整本书的写作线索。海斯勒以一个新闻记者的敏感度和执着,将一段尘封几十年的往事一点一点地挖出地面,又像解读甲骨文一样一点一点地把他们拼凑成图,撰写成文。最让我感动的是,他居然去台湾拜见了石璋如先生,令人敬佩。陈梦家是一个陌生的名字,也许将来能记得的人会更少了,关于他的描写,是最让我没有意见的部分。文革是中国人永远的伤痛,也是非大陆人永远不会理解的伤痛。我在台湾的时候跟台湾的老师和同学交流的时候,他们的态度是冷漠和傲慢的,为那种没有降临到他们头上的灾难我理应感谢国民党,保留了这样一块土地。
  文革的原因是很值得思索的。但就像海斯勒在追究陈梦家之死的原因中所遇到的人们的态度一样,绝大部分经历过那段历史的人都是不愿意再提的,他们宁愿把这一段从历史中,从记忆力抹去,写出《一滴泪》这样的著作所需要的不仅仅是正视伤痛的勇气,更需要一种对个人的探究和对文化的反思。很遗憾,《一滴泪》里我没有看到这种深度,但《甲骨文》却在当事人欲言又止的矛盾中,让我体会到了这样一种反省。探寻今天中国的流离和变迁,文革是绕不过去的坎儿,如何认识它,我还没有这个能力,毕竟那些伤痛已经离我远去了,即使今天的社会仍然会很小心翼翼地避开这个民族的伤痛,但它却依然是一块没有痊愈的伤疤。这种反思,我寄予美好的愿望。
  也就在和作者一起寻访陈梦家的过程中,我逐渐地释怀了。海斯勒全书最精辟的评论就在比较中美两国文化的地方出现了。他说中国人对文化和历史的信仰,就像美国人对自由和民主的信仰一样,中国人对未知事物有一种“塞翁失马,焉知非福”的置身事外的客观和冷静,中国人的虚伪,中国人的无知,中国人的民族情绪,中国人的务实,中国人的乐观,中国人的勤奋。这些都是一个客观存在的中国,不管你承不承认,他都在包裹着这十三亿的人口缓缓向前。个体的觉醒是历史发展的必然,但个人觉醒并不代表着就是集体主义的消亡。最近的四川大地震,最近的奥运会,最近的政治体制改革,都会让人感受到集体主义下个人力量能得到更高层次的发展,集体主义美学是人类众多文明和特色的一种,它的存在能够得到中国人的认同,就说明他是合适的,是有存在意义的。什么是中国?中国是五十六个民族独特而又灿烂的历史文化,在这里,你能看到集体主义美学和一统思想占主流的汉文化,也可以看到云南少数民族自由浪漫的文化,你能看到西北狂野剽悍的游牧文化,也能看到江南精致儒家的文化。这里有大陆左翼文化占主流的马克思主义政党政治,也有香港带殖民地特色的法治社会,也有台湾独特的转型期的民主政治。这就是中国,这就是我的祖国。
  我眼中的海斯勒在此刻真正成为我心中的一个了不起的文化学者。回到我在矛盾一节提到的问题:到底应该怎样更好地理解一个文化?海斯勒仿佛给了我一个非常生动的范例,他在中国生活了十几年,他熟知中美两国的历史和社会,更重要的是,他来自民间,他从大量的普通人的身上寻找一个文化的共通性,而这种寻找,更是基于他丰富的历史和文化知识,源于他勤于思考和执着追求的天性。我曾经专门去网上搜索了海斯勒的相片,那是一张算不上英俊的面孔,清瘦却充满力量、温柔却目光坚毅。
  一个在中国生活了十几年的人,见证了中国在流离时空里的变迁和社会进步,用一本著作串联起历史的和现实的中国,虽然他的许多观点让我充满矛盾和不解,但海斯勒在书中表现出的伟大的人文关怀和谦卑与怜悯,依然让我肃然起敬,对这本书充满了喜爱之情。
  关于中国,我不知道该说什么。就像海斯勒读到那些充满智慧的句子所产生的认同之情一样,我生活在这样一个伟大的国家,我认同这样一个历史悠久的文化,我对这个民族的前途充满了乐观和希望,“那是我的语言;这是我的家”。
   2008-9于济南
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-7 22:10:32 | 显示全部楼层
传一本呀,兄弟们盼望着。或者是联合起来,攒多些论坛币,求一本。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-7 23:55:13 | 显示全部楼层
台湾有关网站上引用的媒体对此书的评语,也转发过来,算个推介吧!

彼得.海斯勒用甲骨文精心佈置了一場令人目眩神搖的遊戲。─《紐約時報》,史景遷
海斯勒深入挖掘了一些從未人知的故事……每個生活在西方世界的人,都應該讀這本書。 ─《出版人週刊》
《甲骨文》是由海斯勒收集來的故事所鬆散串連而成的隱喻,當放在一起讀時,能使我們預卜今日的中國以及它的未來走向─《華盛頓郵報》
海斯勒描述了不斷轉變的現代中國……這是一部重要且具教育性的作品;對於中國未來的可能性,提供了一個獨一無二的觀點─《書訊》
一段卓越的旅行紀錄,以提供一個國家少許的瞭解。─《科克斯書評》
《甲骨文》榮獲 2006 年美國「國家圖書獎」非小說類的提名,實在難得,這當然也代表了本書所具有的文學價值和社會認可度。─李雪順(長江師範學院大學外語部主任)
本書其實就是一本隱喻拼圖之書,它是中國大變化時代的浮光掠影,……我相信憑著此書,作者無疑的已將晉身為新一代美國最佳中國通之列。─南方朔(文化評論家)
作者是一個說故事的能手,他的作品像是日常真人實事的浮世繪,……彼得.海斯勒的《消失中的江城》與《甲骨文》讓我驚艷,手不釋卷。─陳浩(中天書坊節目主持人)
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-8 12:16:06 | 显示全部楼层
From the acclaimed author of River Town comes a rare portrait, both intimate and epic, of twenty-first-century China as it opens its doors to the outside world.

A century ago, outsiders saw Chinaas a place where nothing ever changes. Today the coun-try has become one of the most dynamic regions on earth. That sense of time—the contrast between past and present, and the rhythms that emerge in a vast, ever-evolving country—is brilliantly illuminated by Peter Hessler in Oracle Bones, a book that explores the human side of China's transformation.

Hessler tells the story of modern-day China and its growing links to the Western world as seen through the lives of a handful of ordinary people. In addition to the author, an American writer living in Beijing, the narrative follows Polat, a member of a forgotten ethnic minority, who moves to the United States in searchof freedom; William Jefferson Foster, who grew up in an illiterate family and becomes a teacher; Emily,a migrant factory worker in a city without a past; and Chen Mengjia, a scholar of oracle-bone inscriptions, the earliest known writing in East Asia, and a man whosetragic story has been lost since the Cultural Revolution. All are migrants, emigrants, or wanderers who find themselves far from home, their lives dramatically changed by historical forces they are struggling to understand.

Peter Hessler excavates the past and puts a remarkable human face on the history he uncovers. In a narrative that gracefully moves between the ancient and the present, the East and the West, Hessler captures the soul of a country that is undergoing a momentous change before our eyes.



更多详细信息
Oracle Bones: A Journey Between China's Past and Present
作者:Peter Hessler
Edition: illustrated
由HarperCollins出版, 2006
ISBN 0060826584, 9780060826581
491 页
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-8 12:18:41 | 显示全部楼层
想看这本书的话,可以到Netlibrary看原文。

http://www.netlibrary.com/Details.aspx?ProductId=157301

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册

×
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-4-8 15:23:50 | 显示全部楼层
看不了,不知道为什么,还有看不了的同好乎?
This eContent is not included in your library's collection and is unavailable for viewing.
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2010-2-4 13:16:15 | 显示全部楼层
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2010-2-4 20:05:39 | 显示全部楼层
李银河博士在为其招致群氓非议的著作《后村的女人们》辩解时,曾经向读者普及过社会学的基础知识:“社会学的调查有两类,一类是通过真正的随机抽样,来推论整体,这是一种“定量”的调查方法。像后村这种‘定性’的调查方法,就只是发现问题,发现基本状况,是不能做推论的,也不是选来代表其他村子的。”看来何伟的作品当然属于后者,虽然并不知道他是否受过社会调查的专门训练,然而作为记者兼作家,他一定可以告诉我们60年来某几位中国人的生存状态及其演变。
然而,我想,也仅此而已。是否凭借这样一些观察,就足以“晋身为新一代美国最佳中国通之列”,正如同流离时空里的个人“命运”这样莫测的东西一般——是很难把握的。南方朔称此书为“浮光掠影”,其中是否有些讽刺的意味,没有读到评论全文,我也没有把握。
最近看到一些政府官方网站上的网上咨询栏目,发现一问一答之间真足以瞥见这社会的真面目。yngwie兄如果“艳羡”何伟这般的亲身遍历,何妨也去看看。至于在下,身在此山中,就不太有了解大时代的冲动了。与yngwie兄相同,对tiantian兄指为“不厚道”的片段倒是很有兴趣读一读。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2010-2-6 01:14:46 | 显示全部楼层
电子书网上不难找到,大家下载看看:http://ifile.it/frl1aes
单从书中这段话提到的内容,“自命甚高”、“竭力鼓吹自己”这样的话,如果说的是实情,似乎还不至于是ugly phrases。倒是作者那种倾向明显却不明言的态度,让我比较反感。

I ask if he remembers the names of any of the critics.
“Li Xueqin,” he says. “He wrote something saying that Chen’s research on
the oracle bones was wrong.”
“Was the criticism accurate?”
“No,” says the curator. “And he shouldn’t have written that paper at that
particular time. Chen already had enough trouble.”
“What’s Li Xueqin like?”
“Li Xueqin—” Ma shakes his head and thinks for a moment. “Buhao
shuo,” he says. “It’s not easy to say. But now Li Xueqin is at the top of the fi eld
of archaeology. For a period he was Chen Mengjia’s assistant.”
the curator won’t say more about the criticism. He drops the name and
leaves it at that, knowing that my curiosity has been raised. He has a reputation
for being politically savvy—during the Cultural Revolution, he reportedly
saved the museum’s artifacts by covering them with banners of Mao Zedong
slogans. Ma knew that Red Guards wouldn’t destroy the Chairman’s words,
and the Shanghai collections emerged intact. Today, the museum is considered
to be the best in all of China, and Ma is given credit for guiding the institution’s
expansion.

There are rumors that the museum actually profi ted from the Cultural
Revolution, when many intellectuals and wealthy people lost their belongings.
I ask the curator about this, and he takes the question in stride. “I was also
criticized,” he says. “We were just concerned with survival.” He tells a story
about a “struggle session” in which the curator and other museum staff were
lifted to a height and then dropped onto the marble fl oor. Ma says that he was
bruised but intact; another colleague landed on his head and died. The tale is
short but effective: I’m not going to ask any more questions about whether the
Cultural Revolution was good for the Shanghai Museum.
Before I leave, the curator photocopies Chen Mengjia’s last letter. The
handwritten document is dated January 26, 1966, the year that the scholar
committed suicide. The handwriting is beautiful, and there is no mention of
fear or political trouble. The characters are arranged as neatly as the furniture
in the Shanghai exhibit, and they feel just as empty:
We had a very pleasant talk last time, maybe you’ve forgotten, but it’s a
pity that we didn’t record it. You came to my home and the time was too
rushed. . . .
That yellow rosewood chair, it might date to earlier than the Ming dynasty,
and of course it should be donated to the Shanghai Museum. If you
like the other pieces, they can be donated as well. I hope that someone from
the museum can come here and pack them up. . . .
* * *
in beijing, i fi nd a copy of the criticism. It was published in 1957, shortly
after Chen Mengjia had been named a Rightist and an enemy of the Party. The
article consists of a long review of Chen’s book on oracle bones: the chrestomathy.
The review is sharply critical of Chen’s scholarship, and then, at the
end, the attack becomes personal:
Chen has not presented anything substantial enough to match his arrogance.
Chen has an extreme tendency to boast. For example, in the twenty
chapters of the book, Chen neglects many essays and theories of other
scholars, instead collecting only his own ideas. . . . This self-boasting attitude
should not be accepted by us.
It’s not hard to fi nd more information about Li Xueqin. In the fi elds of
archaeology and history, his name is everywhere—he publishes about oracle
bones, ancient bronzes, bamboo documents. He is brilliant and prolifi c; a

number of scholars tell me that he has the rare ability to do excellent research
while also deftly satisfying the Communist Party. One scholar of ancient Chinese
tells me bluntly that Li is a “toady”; a number of people mention his criticism
of Chen Mengjia.
In recent years, Li has been the director of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology
Project. Initiated in 1995, and funded by the central government, the project
was designed to establish exact dates for China’s early cultures. Previously,
the earliest date in Chinese history for which there was ample archaeological
and textual evidence was 842 B.C., but the Chronology Project came up with
a new timeline. Internationally, the project has been heavily criticized—many
foreign scholars believe that the Chinese are attempting to fortify their history
in ways that are more nationalistic than academic. Some say that the project
was motivated primarily by a sense of competition with the West, which has
earlier recorded dates for cultures such as ancient Egypt. During the Chronology
Project, academic differences about ancient dates were sometimes resolved
by voting—Chinese scholars gave their opinions, and the year with the most
votes won. Domestic press reports were often bizarre:
CHINA DAILY (December 16, 1998)—A PROJECT TO BRIDGE gaps in
China’s ancient history has made remarkable progress after two years of
research. China is world-famous for its 5,000-year history as a civilized
nation. Unfortunately, a 2,000-year gap in China’s development has concealed
the country’s true age. . . . The missing 2,000 years include the Xia,
Shang and Zhou dynasties and the time before that dating back to well
before 2100 B.C., says Li Xueqin, history researcher with the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences in Beijing. . . .
The exact time marking the beginning of China’s ancient history will be
published late next year, said Li.
* * *
after researching li xueqin’s career, I arrange a meeting with a friend
who is a Chinese journalist. He works for Xinhua, the Party news service, but
in his free time he researches history and archaeology. He uses his offi cial position
to access restricted documents and explore forgotten events; someday he
hopes he’ll be able to publish it all. He likes to say that his left hand works for
Xinhua but his right hand works for himself. We are the same age: early thirties,
born in the Year of the Rooster.
I ask my friend for advice about approaching Li Xueqin, and he tells me not

to mention Chen Mengjia. I should arrange an interview on another pretext,
and then bring up the criticism.
I ask, “What if he refuses to answer?”
“Well, he might do that. But if you take him by surprise, maybe he’ll
respond.”
“What do you think he’ll say?”
“There’s a Chinese saying—‘Like the sun at high noon.’ That’s where Li
Xueqin is right now. He’s at the high point of his career. When he looks at that
review, I doubt that he thinks, ‘I shouldn’t have attacked my teacher in this
way.’ Instead, he probably thinks, ‘Look how much I understood when I was
so young.’”
The reporter continues, “Scholars in this country are like that. It’s a very
dark group of people—many of them did things that they shouldn’t have
done. I’ve heard that after Chen Mengjia killed himself, scholars went through
his offi ce, reading his notes, and some of them later published his ideas as their
own. There are many scholars who did things like that in the past, but they
won’t admit it. The Chinese don’t like to examine themselves in this way. It’s
rare for them to admit that they were wrong.”
At the end of the conversation, my friend encourages me to pursue the
story; he says that too much history of this sort slips away in China. “This
isn’t something that a Chinese journalist can do,” he says. “I couldn’t do it for
Xinhua, of course. But as a foreigner, you can do it.”
i meet li Xueqin in his offi ce at Tsinghua University. He is almost seventy
years old, with a high forehead and heavy bags beneath his eyes—the face of
a hardworking scholar. He wears a gray woolen suit, red tie, and slippers. He
tells me that he has spent time in the States, including a sabbatical at Dartmouth;
he speaks good English. I have told him that I’m interested in the Xia-
Shang-Zhou Chronology Project.
“It started with a man named Song Jian,” he says. “He’s a specialist in
cybernetics, but he’s always been interested in archaeology. In the early 1990s,
he traveled to Europe and the Mediterranean, and he visited many museums,
especially in Egypt, Greece, and Israel. Afterward, he thought, ‘Foreign chronology
is much clearer than in China.’ He came back and talked to me and
other scholars, asking if there was anything we could do. Basically, we decided
to get scientists more involved in archaeology and history.”
The professor explains that astronomers have helped track eclipses that
were recorded in ancient documents, and other scientists have contributed
their skills to carbon 14 dating. He points out that the project funded work in

Anyang—the surveys that fi rst turned up evidence of the underground city.
“There isn’t such a big difference between our chronology and the previous
views,” he says. “For example, let’s look at the end of the Shang dynasty, when
they were defeated by the Zhou. This is a critical moment in history, but in the
past there have been forty-four signifi cant different opinions about the date,
involving a range of one hundred and twelve years. Using the most reliable
sources, we narrowed it down to a range of thirty years—1050 to 1020 B.C. We
decided that the most exact date was 1046 B.C. Now we aren’t saying that this
is defi nitely correct. But from the information we have right now, it’s the most
appropriate.
“This is really just a start,” he says. “We’re preparing for another project
about the origins of Chinese civilization. Of course, some people have said
that we are trying to extend Chinese history, but that isn’t true. We just want
to fi gure out how China developed. It’s no different from studying ancient
Greece, or Egypt, or Israel. These other ancient cultures have all been studied
more than China. And Chinese civilization has a special characteristic: it still
exists, whereas the others have all disappeared.”
i wait for half an hour before changing the subject. I take the critical review
from my bag and set it on the table between us. If Professor Li has any initial
reaction, he keeps it hidden.
“I was reading some of your articles,” I say, “and I noticed this one about
oracle bones. I also saw that K. C. Chang praised your theory about the Shang
sacrifi cial names.”
“Yes, that meant a lot to me,” the professor says with a smile. “But I didn’t
even see what he had written until much later. He was in Taiwan when he fi rst
read my paper, and of course there wasn’t any contact in those days. I never
actually saw his remarks until 1971.”
I point to Chen Mengjia’s name, which appears in the title. “I’m also interested
in this oracle bone scholar,” I say. “I’ve heard about him from people in
Anyang and also in Beijing. Were you his student?”
“He was a teacher here at Tsinghua, but I wasn’t formally his student,” Professor
Li says, and then he explains his background. Originally, Li Xueqin had
studied mathematical logic, but then, in the years after the Communist victory,
Beijing’s universities were reorganized. During an interruption in his formal
coursework, the young logician pursued his hobby of studying oracle bones.
“I had been interested in them since I was eighteen or nineteen,” he says.
“When I was young, I was interested in anything that I didn’t understand. It
might sound strange, but whenever anything struck me as symbolic or compli-
cated, I wanted to fi gure it out. That’s what attracted me to logic. And when I
fi rst looked at the oracle bones, I couldn’t understand them, and that made me
want to know more.”
He continues: “When the Kuomintang fl ed the mainland, they had taken
the oracle bones with them, but rubbings had been published in books. Many
of them hadn’t been studied carefully or even pieced together. In my spare
time, I worked on this; I arranged the broken pieces, fi guring out how they
fi t together. I had some success, and eventually it was brought to the attention
of Chen Mengjia and others. They asked me to work on the oracle bones
at the Institute of Archaeology. I was essentially a research assistant to Chen
Mengjia.”
There’s a slight shift in the man’s voice. His expression is unchanged—the
tilt of his jaw is the same, and his eyes hold steady. But he speaks faster now
and the pitch of his voice has risen. He tells the story:
“After 1957, he was named a Rightist—they put that hat on him. Those
were diffi cult years for him. And during the Cultural Revolution, people who
had been Rightists had even more serious problems. That was why he killed
himself.
“At that time, I was at a different research institute, so we weren’t at the
same place. I believe that he killed himself in the summer of 1966, but I didn’t
hear about it until the winter. When I found out, I was very upset. He was a
great scholar. And after the Cultural Revolution was fi nished, we took good
care of his things, his notes and books.”
His story is fi nished, but I open the review. In the center of the last page, the
personal attacks on Chen Mengjia stand out in ugly phrases:
“自命甚高”
“竭力鼓吹自己”
The professor’s gaze settles somewhere between the document and the fl oor.
“This isn’t something that we should talk about,” he says. “Chen Mengjia was
a great man, and I’d rather not discuss these things.”
“I’m just trying to understand what happened,” I say. “I’ve seen many criticisms
of him, and most of them were much worse. Everybody tells me that it’s
the way things were at that time. As a foreigner, it’s hard for me to understand
this kind of thing, so I wanted to ask you about it.”
Now the professor realizes why this interview is taking place. But the emotions
that I expected to see—annoyance, defensiveness, even anger—haven’t
materialized. If anything, the man just looks tired, the bags sagging heavy beneath
his eyes.

“It’s not diffi cult just for foreigners to understand,” he says. “It’s diffi cult
for young Chinese to understand. At that time, there was a kind of pressure on
us to write this sort of thing. The Institute of Archaeology asked me to write
it. I was very young and I couldn’t refuse. You’ll notice that I avoided saying
anything political. I never used the word ‘Rightist,’ or any of those terms. And
I put all of that criticism into a single paragraph, at the end.”
He’s right: the personal attack is condensed into a space of only fi ve lines.
“I didn’t want to do it,” the professor continues. “There was no problem
with the scholarly points that I made in the other parts of the essay. But the
personal criticism was something that I didn’t want to write. After that essay
was published, I rarely saw Chen Mengjia. But occasionally in the early 1960s, I
encountered him at the Institute of Archaeology, and whenever that happened,
I didn’t feel comfortable speaking to him. I just couldn’t hold a conversation,
because my heart felt bad. I always regretted that article.”
He continues: “I think that people understood. Much later, after he was
dead, I still had contact with his friends, and occasionally I saw his wife. None
of them ever attacked me. I think they understood what had happened, but I
still felt bad. Mei banfa. There was nothing I could do about that.”
Throughout the interview, I have been writing, and now Professor Li looks
at my notebook.
“I would prefer that you not write about this in the New Yorker,” he says
slowly. “It’s a personal problem. I’d rather you just wrote about the chronology
project and those things that we talked about earlier.”
I say that I won’t write about it unless I can explain everything fully.
“It’s hard to understand, apart from the fact that it was a horrible period,”
he says. “By the time the Cultural Revolution happened, if people criticized
you, then you truly believed that you were wrong. I was also criticized at that
time, and I believed the things that people said. Everybody was like that; it was
a type of social psychology. There were so many enemies—everybody was an
enemy, it seemed.”
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2010-2-8 11:26:31 | 显示全部楼层
二年多前的旧帖被翻了出来,呵呵。

记得当初是在巫宁坤的《一滴泪》新版序中,看到余英时先生提及,才会去找这本书来看。当然,主要原因如同原帖中提及,想明白陈梦家先生在文革中的遭遇,以及他和李学勤先生的过往。看了书里的叙述,老实说,没明白太多自己想知道的,有那么点失望。不过,心里也放下了些悬念,不再想去追究这类事,因为所谓的真相或许并不存在,同时也是丑陋的。看这类书籍,多少是想满足或证实自我道德上的优越感。因为指责别人总是容易些,事实证明,做乡愿比较好过日子。呵呵!记得小时候看了金庸的《连城诀》後,颇受打击。小说里面有各式各样的人,不过,我对花铁幹最感兴趣了,一个受人尊崇的武林大侠怎么变成了个贪生怕死、龌齣下流的懦夫?挺让人警惕。经历比较多了,总觉得这类事情在现实生活依然存在,也持续在发生,只是情节轻重而已。

罗嗦了一堆,还是尽一下发帖者的本份,努力回帖,呵呵。

tiantian老师说作者不厚道,我倒没这么想,主要因为李先生虽然要求他不要写有关陈梦家先生的事,他并未做下承诺,他的回答是:I won’t write about it unless I can explain everything fully.至於他是否对这些事的来龙去脉有完整的了解,只能说见仁见智了。以为长者、贤者讳的角度来说,当然是不写或不去谈更好。

公明兄对书评里有些话不太赞同。我也不太相信这些话,呵呵。不过,我想,这些问题不在作者身上。因为他并未因为在中国生活一段时间,也写了二本有关中国的书,并自诩为中国通。有时想想,自己喜欢看这类书,大概也因为能提供些想像,倒不把它当成理解中国问题的指南。

至於bibliomaniac兄说:「“自命甚高”、“竭力鼓吹自己”这样的话,如果说的是实情,似乎还不至于是ugly phrases。」自己的想法是,即便是实情,也属个人私德问题,在学术评论文字中涉及这类问题,好像不是那么合适。不过,大概对那个时期的气候,这种要求是是很无谓的,呵呵。
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2010-2-8 15:24:53 | 显示全部楼层
引用第13楼yngwie于2010-02-08 11:26发表的 :
二年多前的旧帖被翻了出来,呵呵。
.......
原来是旧帖,我竟啰嗦了一堆,又害得yngwie兄为盲人指路、为聋人说法
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2011-3-27 22:01:33 | 显示全部楼层
http://www.ewen.cc/cache/books/209/bkview-208894-650788.htm
作者又有新书。封面很有趣。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|网上读书园地

GMT+8, 2024-5-23 18:16 , Processed in 0.469631 second(s), 5 queries , Redis On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表