Chapter 33 Tanner's Two Tigers—Who Is That Woman?

My teacher, Mr. Zhu Xining, spent a lot of time and energy encouraging people to write, which has reached the point of wasting and hurting his own novel writing.Regarding the career of literature, their generation is indeed more firm and pious than ours, and they are also much more optimistic and happier.This is of course not to say that they will not feel difficult, confused and exhausted repeatedly when they are actually immersed in the practice of writing, just like us today, but the most fundamental thing is that they are not as suspicious as we are today, they always believe that writing is Good things, even noble things, should be extended to others.If we can’t help but suspect that writing is hard labor, something done by a madman, and some kind of curse that you don’t know when you offended the gods, of course you don’t want to be so vicious and ask others to follow suit isn't it?All you can do is stop him, warn him, or at least send him back sadly walking away alone and wishing him the best.

In fact, it is not only literary writing, for example, it is the same for marriage and love, so it is a kind of comprehensive life attitude and life proposition in the final analysis. We obviously have different assumptions about the world in front of us. In Teacher Zhu Xining's long list of encouragement, abduction, and assistance, including a Confucian general of the same generation, he wrote a novel called "Both Banks of the Fuhe River" with great success, and it was successfully published. It is strange that after this most difficult step has been taken, there has been no news since then. It turns out that Mr. Zhu Xining said with a smile several times in the future. After reading the novel, the major general’s wife shed tears every day. It doesn't matter if you tell me the truth, who is that woman?"

We often say that only lunatics and children can't distinguish the boundary between the real world and the virtual world, but is there?We have quoted this sentence repeatedly in this way, and used it to talk about fashion, TV soap operas, Hollywood, electronic toys, the Internet, love, religion and the number of destiny, and politics. This is not exactly to say that people who can't tell the difference between reality and fiction are everywhere, and it is not limited to lunatics and children.Therefore, the word lunatic here means that the mind is abnormal and unclear, and the child means that the mind is immature and unclear. What we are really talking about is the accusation and ominously aware of a certain alienation and weakening of the human mind.This is a more elegant, bookish curse words.

To be honest, what is closer to the truth of the matter is that people do not have a generally clear mind, nor do they keep it clear all the time.Whenever there is something charming in front of us, at the right situation and at the right moment (for example, when we are alone in the middle of the night when we are alone), our eyes are easily blurred, following the bright and fascinating light like gemstone fire, light and floating The earth spins into a world that doesn't distinguish between reality and reality. The novel as a thing is a radioactive gemstone, a fascinating thing. The infiltration, entry and exit, substitution and mutual camouflage of reality and virtuality are originally its patented skills, and the completion of the novel is A world where real things are fake and fake things are real.Therefore, the person who will keep asking who that woman is is definitely not just the major general's wife who is alert to the threat of love, marriage and family being threatened by vixen.Strictly speaking, everyone and every kind of people in the world of novels will fall into this situation sooner or later or to some extent, and you are not completely exempted because you have already known its "realistic/virtual" nature intellectually.The so-called every kind of person we are talking about refers not only to readers, but also critics and academic researchers who should be more respectful, as well as writers themselves. Yes, they are also novel writers. When facing other people’s novels, , will still "humanly" doubt, question, and speculate about the true and false elements of it, and even become more eager because of the location and convenience of some colleagues in the industry.Liars will also be deceived, isn't this common sense?And gossip and rumors always start from and prevail in the same industry, isn't this more common sense?

"007" intelligence agent James Bond went to bed without moving, and Ivan Tanner went to bed without moving even though he did not sleep in theory.In fact, the reason why Tanner is so sleepless and constantly diligent in going to bed is precisely because the predecessor Bond did it first.Tanner clearly imitated Bond, or we correctly say that Bullock wrote Tanner in this way, which is a parody of Ian Fleming's Bond who "saved the world easily in bed"—— Parody, a technical term, generally means a kind of funny imitation reproduction with a little more exaggeration, and then pushing forward with the trend, so as to dispel the pretense of the original situation and expose its absurdity, and the degree is roughly between jokes and jokes. Between irony, or rather, it subverts the Joe Zhang-made shell of absurd things with a special laughing sound.

I would like to say a few words for Bond or Ian Fleming. In fact, Bond, an agent of the British Intelligence Agency in the original novel, despite his extraordinary talent and sexual desire, basically can help ladies pull chairs, The English-style gentleman who stands up when the lady leaves the table actually does not go to bed so frequently, nor does he emphasize the time and frequency like an aphrodisiac drug advertisement, let alone come right away without saying a word.Ivan Tanner's simulacrum is actually closer to Sean Connery on the United Artists movie screen, and before the credits come out, there is usually a section of Let's make friends.

But the most interesting inversion of Evan Tanner's mirror image of James Bond is that, of course, the high-spirited Bond is the master-initiator of the sex (isn't it rude to let the lady take the initiative? ), while Tanner, who is always a little cringe and a bit lecherous, is always "forced", at least it is hard to refuse (also another kind of impolite, if you refuse).Like the passage where the son was left behind after the defeat of the Macedonian revolution, there is a revolutionary fire that transcends the individual and is passed on to the public, and a little bit of labor is added, while others, including Ireland and the French-speaking part of Canada that is fighting for independence this time, are more or less It is used to repay the host's hospitality and even risk his life for hospitality.

In this way, we can see a more bizarre and contradictory landscape from such a mirror - not the kind of enemy spies, guerrilla leaders and farm owners in the enemy's rear, and scientists who have been kidnapped and imprisoned, all have daughters. The phenomenon of single-childhood, although it is unusual to think of it, is a general rule; but Tanner's novels build on this general rule, creating a character so absurd that he will be scolded, that is, a nymphomaniac, a glamorous Sexy and afraid of the heat, she doesn't wear much clothes, just like a Bond girl, but with the predatory attack instinct of a leopard and lioness, Tanner, who always follows the trend at first sight, throws her to the ground.

Like the typical type of fans who are fans of war, adventure, all winning and losing games, and the Savage Brigade on the African continent (that is, wearing disgusting khaki shorts with two big white legs, shooting lions, rhinos, antelopes, etc.) Like the so-called male tough guy, Ian Fleming is monotonous and regresses back to the Victorian women's views. It is well known to passers-by that no feminists will jump out and expose the denunciation (in fact, it has been exposed for not a day or two), the novel He will retaliate against him and punish him for his achievements.For Ian Fleming, a good storyteller who actually has delicate observation and writing skills, women have become the worst and weakest gap in his novels. It only takes six words to express it in Chinese: "Gao Zhe Bone and Thick Lips"; but if we also think that this is Lawrence Bullock's female point of view, we will be very wrong. The fiction and reality of the novel can't be so stupid, so lazy, and so tolerant of a grain of sand in our eyes. The answer, in Nabokov's words, is (Like all other novelists, Nabokov faced the endless speculation of readers, critics, and researchers, including his somewhat eccentric and funny and insisted that the Russian exile professor Pnin was an incarnation of himself), "people tend to underestimate my imagination and my ability to evolve several selves in the work".

Today, especially for readers in Taiwan, due to the strange time dislocation, this wrong guess is not easy to happen, because we have read and read Matthew Scudder, who is more sincere and more ambitious. series of novels.We've seen him write about Elaine Maddie, we've seen him write about Jane the sculptor who died of cancer in the brutal season of a demonic foreknowledge of death, and we've seen him write about any female character who's gone, if only for a moment. Also, some people have seen his wife, Lynne, who was there during Bullock's visit to Taiwan. She is beautiful, smart, and considerate, but it seems that she is far more sensitive than her overly sensitive (so It is unavoidable that fragile and juicy) husbands are strong and bright, and they are the ones who take power and make decisions at important moments, as Mendoza described the novelist García Márquez’s wife Mercedes and the women of the Caribbean, “They were in Canada Cía Márquez, with a tactful grasp of reality, forms a real authoritative force after power".

Here, the true and false truth of the matter is obviously turned around, a bit paradoxical but very interesting-the reason why Tanner and Bond's bed behavior with the same result is a mirror image of the left and right is most likely not just a joke Sexual deformation, or at least, such a parody joke on Fleming and Bond, but is derived from, built on, and subject to Bullock's completely different view of women, that is, fictional The joke is both inspired and bound by some unshakable truth.He cannot arbitrarily change Ivan Tanner's attitude towards women, and cannot let him treat women as daily necessities and consumables, but someone has to do something, just like Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva vowed not to become a Buddha if the hell is not empty, so I have to make it clear Jokingly, he's in charge of playing the downed consumable, isn't he?The real thing is fake and the fake thing is true. The real thing looks fake, but the fake is just like the real thing. However, some feminists don't appreciate it, and scolding should be scolded, just as there will always be other feminists who insist that as long as it is sexual enjoyment, it should be welcomed as much as it is, which is more mysterious and difficult. Just as they argue about whether women wear makeup because of goddamn men or for their own pleasure, we wait quietly for them to make their own conclusions.Here, what we intend to distinguish a little is nothing more than the less important issue of whether the novel is true or false. Speaking of Bullock's wife, Lynne, during the stay in Taipei, there was a frightening thing, because I saw the danger from the eager and kind eyes of some readers. Big questions such as "Is Elaine Madai the same as your wife Lynn" come out of the mouth-of course you know that this is well-intentioned, such as the novelist Yuan Qiongqiong's claim that he wants to marry the former prostitute Elaine Madai Such a woman is a wife, but if you really ask this, it will still be ruined, won't it? This catastrophe that never happened can be regarded as a fable. If you understand its meaning, you can almost understand the ABC about the truth and falsehood of the novel. Know how to offend a novelist the fastest?One of the most efficient ways is to take out one of his novels to speculate, talk about or even assert whether it is true or false.We shouldn’t look at this rude move, even if you use pious words and respect, it’s useless, it’s more like lighting firecrackers to anger this gentle and elegant person at the first moment than anything else.If you claim that this is completely true and realistic, you will offend him; but if you point out that this is false and purely imaginary, you will offend him as well.Here we just take Greene's reaction as an example: "I will shout: 'This is Indochina, Mexico, and Sierra Leone, carefully and correctly portrayed. I am not only a novelist, but also a newspaper correspondent. I Assure you, that's what a dead child is lying in a ditch, blocking up the canal...'" The origin of this passage is in response to the so-called "Grimm Country", and we know that this Most of the time the statement is praise, which is used to admire Green's miraculous performance and ability to turn half of the world and different countries into novels, but Green just heard the intentional or unintentional derogatory meaning, just like the suspicious girl in love You can hear stupidity from beauty, and you can hear sorry looks from temperament.This is the second time I personally quote this passage, but this time I want you to read Green's expressive tone. The reason why you will definitely be offended is that the bottom line is that this kind of speculation and judgment of truth and falsehood is not only on a layman's and wrong level, but also abruptly separates the indivisible and integrated truth and reality of the novel. Destroyed, so it is bound to be fallacious, and it is 100% completely wrong, there will be no probability or degree of guessing half (just like there is no such thing as "surrender and lose half" in Stud gambling, that is a joke made by Stephen Chow's movie).Fiction, as a unique creation of human beings, if you say it is true, everything and every part of it is true, it is what people see with their eyes and what people think in their hearts; if you say it is false , it is indeed all imaginary, and every presentation of it is "refracted" by someone's special eyes and mind.Therefore, the so-called true and false are not even the words used by the writer of the novel, and they are not the real issues that he cares about when writing.A more expert way of saying it should at least be like this. This is a passage from Nabokov in his famous novel "Pale Fire": "I saw a unique physiological phenomenon; Shade (the poet in the book) on one side Feeling the world while transforming it, he takes the world into his body, disassembles it, reassembles it, and stores it, so that at a certain moment, he can create a miracle of vitality, integrate images and music, and generate a line of poetry. I I have experienced the same excitement as a child: I remember the day at my uncle's castle, a magician sat across the table, just after a magic show. He was quietly tasting his vanilla ice. I watched him wipe He stared at the magic flower on his cufflinks with his pink cheeks—a colorful flower after another ran out there just now, and now it is a fixed white carnation. His dexterous fingers are even more amazing People are incredible, they can turn a spoon into a ray of sunshine at will, or throw his plate into the air and turn into a pigeon. Yes, Scheider's poems are like the magic that suddenly blooms in front of your eyes: My Best Friend Huafa , dear old magician, put a stack of cards into the hat—and suddenly, shake out a poem." Incidentally, Nabokov's "Pale Fire" has just been published in Taiwan, and finally there is a chance for Taiwanese novel readers to end the long Nabokov single-food period.Other books by Nabokov should follow, this is a fantastic and unique novelist-writer who is irreplaceable, maybe not as easy to read, but that's what good things are all about, isn't it?For those with ambition and aspirations, it is worth giving it a go.In this upcoming Nabokov reading season (hopefully), we will take advantage of the trend to follow up a passage of his passage, which is more difficult and more professional in literature. Of course, those who are really not interested can skip this passage: "Reality is a very subjective thing. I can only define it this way: reality is the gradual accumulation of information, and it is a specialized thing. For example, lilies or any other natural objects. In the eyes of naturalists, lilies are more important than ordinary objects. It is more real to the human eye. However, in the eyes of a botanist, it is even more real. If the botanist is an expert on lilies, this kind of realism will be further. That is to say, it is getting closer and closer to the real. The closer. However, people are never close enough to reality. Because reality is the step of cognition, the infinite continuation of the level, the false bottom of the drawer, going forward without end. People can know more and more about a thing, But it's never possible to know everything about the thing—don't hope for it. So we live more or less among ghostly things, surrounded by them. . . Just how mysterious it is.” Fiction writers are given the widest privilege of imagination and fabrication in the human world, but the better, the more sincere, and the more advanced the novel writers, the more they will recognize the richness and multi-facetedness of real things. , rooting, and its irreplaceable imitation power, as Nabokov said, this is a process of understanding.From this point of view, imagining and fabricating is to complete it, not to abandon it and replace it, to imagine and fabricate a special weapon that can be recognized as such. There are two kinds of truth in the novel that are worth pointing out, and in fact they cannot be hidden or denied.One is the concrete things as all basic materials, and the other is the real existence of the novel writer himself. For example, if you want to write a person, his flesh and blood texture, all his details, appearance, clothing, place of residence and house style, disease, eccentricity, some kind of accident, hit a car or hit someone, etc., the writer does not have to be the same So exhausted to make it up by himself, he just needs to pick around, the whole real world is an almost infinite hypermarket of all kinds of weird things, and as long as you can find what you want in its disorderly pile, you can buy it. No need to pay.But the real point is not here, but that real things must have an indescribable texture, such as a piece of wood, a stone, a vegetable leaf; The organic, subtle but strong, and extremely comfortable relationship or symbiotic relationship has formed a kind of chimeric "position" that can hardly be pulled out. Simply put, it looks like this It is right and reasonable (it is this kind of understanding that makes it easy for novelists to knowingly invade privacy, so that the defendant has to pay).This is something that people cannot do through imagination and fabrication (strange how some novel writers think they can), pure artificial objects are usually for some special purpose or even instrumental, exaggerating a certain unit you want. Facing the characteristics, it can be harder, lighter, smoother, less rotten, and farther away in the universe, but it is impossible to be as comprehensive as life without proof. The other truth is inalienable and indisputable, because it is the fundamental premise of novel writing, the first one, that there are words from the beginning, and this is the existence and continuous existence of the writer himself.Ultimately, this has nothing to do with the choice of novel writing skills. The writer can be humble and hidden without using any specific elements of self, or he can be strong and impatient and jump out of the whole person, like Hugo Tolstoy let himself hide on the sidelines, who is as transparent as God but knows everything, while Tolstoy goes directly to the front line of fire to discuss and even quarrel with readers.But we say that this "I" is all there, and even if the writer merely retells a known story episodically, he has changed the story, in terms of perspective, tone of voice, and rapidity of rhythm. The fine-tuning of the focus shown slowly and slowly, such as the specific details consciously or unconsciously.Virginia Woolf said: "First he has to believe." To believe it to be true, or to believe it is absurd, like Bullock's belief that Tanner's life with a bunch of nymphomaniacs is false, is right. Respect the "seven" joke, so it is even more unscrupulous. You believe, and then the narrative or retelling of the story begins. At the moment of belief, you have inevitably entered the story. The "Bible" puts it like this The experience of the Son is called justification by faith. So Borges said: "My attitude towards my literary beliefs can be explained in a religious sentence: I believe in it, not because it is the first, but because I believe in it. To be honest, I think The following assumption holds true everywhere, even to those who try to deny it: All literary works are ultimately autobiographical." Later, he said that he had never created a character in his life, He wrote about himself from beginning to end, "all the encounters of the same old Borges in various impossible time and space". A little embarrassed about Borges and his wise words, but we should be able to say the same - Tanner and these nymphomaniacs of all nationalities are actually the same old Bullock at various improbable times Bed in space. Did you notice?Borges used the singular when he said he was "the same old Borges", while Nabokov's "I evolve several selves in my work" is plural. Singular or plural, originally irrelevant, of course, is only a matter of semantics, and their fundamental meanings are the same.But they do emphasize different things and point to different thinking paths. Here, Nabokov's plural selves can just help us answer the question about "who is that woman?" The fundamental difference between readers and their wives' speculations about the same novel is that the former is idle and idle gossip, while the latter is clearly and immediately related to the well-being of the family.In relationships and marriages, we often have to make certain over-commitments, because otherwise we would not be able to pass the ceremonial inquiry before the church priest announces the establishment of the marriage (“Do you promise to love her forever? Don't abandon her?..." Is it like the "Miranda warning" when the police catch a thief-"You can keep silent, everything you say may become evidence in court..."?); Don't stop making certain demands that you know are impossible and insist on fulfilling them. For example, there should be no secrets between lovers and everything should be transparent.However, there are many kinds or levels of so-called secrets, like delicious croissant bread. Opportunity to think and talk about it, and then, as Benjamin said, I don’t know how to describe myself. The deepest level is that I don’t know it. It will only be discovered and evolved in a different or impossible time and space encounter. So it is a secret, but it is also a human potential and possibility. What’s worse, novels, on a certain level, carry out exactly this deep exploration and evolution work, which is of course noble and brave to all human beings, but “the good food of male geese is not equal to the good food of female geese.” ", for the poor wife of the writer himself, this is often a fatal news. What she sees is not a rare achievement, but an unbelievable secret, another husband who is completely strange, including his original (Can) see the opposite sex in this way, look at relationships and marriage, look at life and life itself, even though none of this actually happens in real life, does it just mean a lack of proper opportunities?Is it a foretelling of an unpredictable and terrible future?Moreover, some things constitute crimes if they are not actually done. In the strict laws of emotion and marriage, the crime is usually more serious than the crime, isn't it?Because a crime may be born by accident or a moment of confusion, but the intention to commit a crime is rooted and deliberate, so it is even more abominable, isn't it? Therefore, it is not just a question of "who is that woman?" It is rather the most superficial or the most urgent or the most tolerable or unbearable question that can be asked specifically. Bullock's Matthew Scudder is an unlicensed private detective who makes a career out of finding out secrets, but in one case, when he faced the eyes of the victim's widow and his future mistress Lisa, what he told us at that moment was Yes: "I'm more afraid of finding something inside." Therefore, behind every successful novelist (in fact, including the unsuccessful ones) there is such a suffering wife. Reason prevents her from guessing and thinking about it, but the capacity of reason is limited, isn't it?Besides, rational deterrence only makes this predicament more lonely, doesn't it? If you want to eat fish, just go to the fish market and buy one, and you don’t need to build a fishing port for it; similarly, if you like to read novels, just go to the bookstore and buy one, and you don’t need to marry a novel writer because of it.Perhaps this advice should be considered to be printed on the cover of every novel like the safety warnings on cigarette packs.