夕陽影裏一歸舟
行而知天下，攝而錄我知，文而記我得，閱書閱人，皆為快事
《魔術師》是一本黑魔法的書，我被魔咒罩住，那2周，心情停在低點。驚悚小說？懸疑小說？恐怖小說？都不搭，很難界定。從開始的欣賞到困惑，然後不解，爾後挫敗沮喪，還有憤怒、鄙夷、不知所措。。。放下書，似有釋然，也無釋然。可以說，這本小說是迄今為止我讀過的最令人費解的書。
一位牛津畢業生尼古拉斯來到希臘福萊克索斯島當老師，小說以他的愛情關係始，以愛情關係終。希臘狂野的風景和強烈的光照，讓人和人之間的關係也變得強烈，非愛即恨。險惡又迷人，希臘獨一無二的品質，讓英式溫和柔美在這裏沒有立足之地。尼古拉斯經曆了波瀾壯闊的故事，超越讀者想象力，而且一層疊一層，每層都顛覆對前麵的理解。魔術師的法力，就是製造幻覺，挑戰正統思維。觀眾/讀者不解之餘，感覺很刺激。而這本書裏的魔術師，不止一人。更奇的是，這場盛大的魔術演變成化妝舞會，唯一的觀眾也成了演員，不限場地，處處舞台，這第一個舞台就在福萊克索斯島的一個莊園裏。
愛琴海上灑落許多島嶼，不管有否居民，島上有山有林，麵對絲滑湛藍的海，一種毫不費力不用質疑的美麗。大島定時有輪渡，沒有輪船的時候就是孤島。夏天有遊客，冬天就是空監獄。在這裏，浩大空曠，靜謐無聲，也無交往，讓人一目望盡眼前和現在。人們不能不聯想前塵往事，過去似乎被拉近了十倍。。。而希臘，有太多的曆史可以回顧。
“Greece is like a mirror, it makes you suffer, then you learn.“
希臘像一麵鏡子，先委以苦，然後了悟。
尼古拉斯曆經曲折痛苦，他了悟到啥了？誰是他的敵人？誰是朋友？不得而知。盡管再版時出版社的前言試圖解釋為尼古拉斯成長的心路曆程，我不能完全接受這麽簡單的解釋。沒錯，教育會灌給我們許多無用甚至誤導的知識，我們的性格也有許多銳角尖刺，成長就是心理瘦身 — — 一方麵讓人害怕甚至鄙視自己的笨拙和無能，而且看似違背自己的心願，但另一方麵卻像是甩脂肪一樣最終是健康和必然的。也許我太在意公正、自由意誌和權利，不能接受假美好意願的名義侵犯這些公正、自由意誌和權利，再冠冕堂皇仍然脫不了騙子的醜惡。魔術師就是高級騙子，隻不過門徒和喝彩的觀眾被魔法罩住而已。這也是我讀到半中間憤怒不已的原因之一。幾星期後，我的憤憤開始平複。這個世界沒有直接了當的真相，謊言之下還是謊言，連眼見都不為實，我們還能相信什麽？一個人是否智慧在於是否看穿，並讀到背後的真相。如果《魔術師》這書能給我什麽啟示，這算其一吧。它的本意就是讀者各取所需，整本書看起來就是個寓言故事。
另外，寫書的年代正是薩特大行其道的年代，作者約翰福爾斯自稱這本書有強烈存在主義色彩。存在主義的主要觀點是人類存在在先，後有本質，即特性；人有自由意誌；我們是孤立的個體，每個人的存在獨一無二；世界並沒有固定的意義或目的，我們需要創造和發現意義；死亡是我們的生命中不可避免的一部分。聽起來沒問題，體現在小說裏，孤獨頹廢自我中心充斥幾位主角，魔法的荒謬，從頭到尾的不確定性。。。你要是理解為約翰福爾斯用710頁栩栩如生的故事給我們講一個哲學道理也不為過，故事中的故事無不震撼，哲理金句遍布，抄到手酸。
這本小說寫了近15年，作者不停修改，雖然是處女作，卻拖到出版了2本書才於1965年發表，1977年後再次修改。作者本人不看好這本小說，受到讀者的狂愛，他很吃驚。這本處女作編製了很多元素，情節複雜，不僅僅主人翁不知所措，讀者不知所措，連作者本人也不曉得自己想往那裏去。後四分之一我認為是虎頭蛇尾，而且和前頭鋪墊的理念互相矛盾，抑或我沒讀明白。不管怎樣，這本書很有挑戰性。想輕鬆點的話，就不要試圖去理解所有細節，更不要推理，而是純粹體驗。有一點我確認無疑：讀者也是被實驗對象！從這個意義上來說，《魔術師》是本心理小說當仁不讓。這本書原名叫《上帝的遊戲》。
大部分讀者為結局所困，作者蓄意所為，就為了闡述存在主義說的世界不確定性？還有一個可能 — — 咳，作者自己都不知道！這樣的書讀起來是不是很好玩？
書末有兩行拉丁文：
“eras amet qui numquam amavit
quique amavit eras amet”
英文有兩個截然相反的譯法：
- Tomorrow he will die who never loved and he who loved will die tomorrow.
- Tomorrow let him who has loved no one love; whoever loves will tomorrow love.
”愛過的人將永遠懷念愛，未曾愛過的人將永遠追尋愛。”
男主和女主，究竟是有緣還是終結？《魔術師》裏反複提到的莎劇《暴風雨》（The Tempest）是喜劇，裏頭也有戲中戲，魔法、島嶼、愛和恨。。。最後有情人終成眷屬。但我並不樂觀，因為我不認為約翰這本書是個愛情故事。他的《法國中尉的女人》有一句話：小說家“一半是學者，一半是魔術師。” 整個英語世界是這位約翰的舞台！
也許我和作者一樣，腦子被燒壞了。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Reading Questions (Caution, Spoilers)
1. What in the book intrigues you the most?
- Immediately after reading for the first time, I couldn’t shake off the marvel at the complex layers of the experiment so creatively staged and masterfully executed. I also marveled at how Nicholas falls for it so hard. I would have stopped week 2 had I been the subject of the game. Curiosity kills. Boredom destroys. Sex entices. Lily / Julie is introduced at the end of week 2, Conchis does know how to bait a smart cat. Nicholas is very smart and wants to see it through till very end. He gets outsmarted himself this time.
- One month away from reading, I now regard the book as a game of rich people, with too much time and wealth to play with, taking themselves too seriously and wanting to instill wisdom in people they see fit. A noble idea but a bad taste. That’s me, who gives probably too much weight on justice and fairness. From philosophical perspective, there are many grains of truth revealed by the lies. It reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. The antagonist launched lectures on books and knowledge so true and real that I almost thought he is the protagonist in disguise.
2. What perplexes you the most?
- The lies, upon lies upon lies! Second most is the unconsent conduction of experiments and drugs on subjects. Both are for manipulative purpose, abusing and violating human rights. The first is of moral, the second legal in today’s world. They would be locked up if they dare today.
- The role of lies — is to tell the truth, Conchis claims. Seriously? Well, okay. People should be open to sex with other partners as long as there is no lie between them, says Conchis’ sex partner and lover. The twist is visible here from the perspective of moral lies. What’s more — Nicholas falls in love with Alison again and can’t help telling her about his feeling toward Lily / Julie. No sex involved yet, just emotional attachment toward another beautiful woman. At this truth Alison explodes and breaks. Would she prefer Nicholas to keep it to himself? They might have ended the trip with the illusion of getting back together. The very opposite of lying changes the course and contradicts the first type of lies and also the second type. I can’t put the puzzles together.
3. Emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity, which carries more weight in the book?
- On the surface, neither. The real infidelity, by Conchis through his lover, is the one that hides the sextual infidelity. The theory is sex is “in no way a different pleasure than any other.” In a love relationship, the essential part is not sex but truth and trust two people build between their minds. Thus there is no sextual infidelity in a relationship as long as there is trust. A few incidents seem to support this theory: Lily/Julie, Conchis’ lover and Alison intercourse with multiple men without guilt. Alison readily excuses Nicolas’ visits to whore houses. However, this theory won’t stand under close scrutiny. If it is just another pleasure, why has Lily/Julie been holding it off till the last minute and asks Nicholas to promise to remember it forever (according to 1977’s edition)? She grants sex so much weight! Nicholas believes all along that his love for her and hers for him is real. She is acting and finally to Nicholas’ realization it’s a setup. The trust is falsely built and therefore she commits a real infidelity, according to her mentor’s theory. Another detail proves my suspicion is the chastity Nicholas tries very hard to keep while he waits for Alison. Nicholas, after “enlightened”, stays away from sexual conduct and thoughts as if everything is depending on it. The teaching and actions in the book simply do not match. No theory mentioned really on emotional infidelity. Contradictories like this I found plenty. Author John Fowles over-wove that he himself couldn’t connect the ends without knots.
4. What do you like the most?
- The language! John Fowle’s writing is beautiful and witty. He appears a philosopher to me and a scholar. Unless he received pro help, the psychological analysis and verdict paper is so plausible, I was sold! John Fowel’s creativity is bottomless, his other novels are of similar nature, without repeating patterns nor formular like other best seller authors. I look forward to his The French Lieutenant's Woman.
5. If you can ask the author one question except the ending, what would you ask?
- At which point of Nicholas and Alison’s relationship did Conchis gang get involved?
- I believe the school is owned by Conchis, why is he interested only in the English masters to be his subjects? His sudden switch to an American has any significance?
- How do Alison and Lily Montgomery become good friends? I could not imagine the two would ever crossed paths because their paths are not in the same dimension. Relating to the above question, I believe Lily goes out of her way and befriends Alison for a reason.
- What does Alison see in Nicholas that she loves him so much and so soon, after knowing him only for a month or so, given that Alison is a girl of a flying butterfly?
- Can you confirm if Lily / Julie Holms is Conchis’ mistress? I almost hope she is. According to Lily / Julie’s mother, sex is open and beautiful as long as all parties involved give consent. The mother raised her daughters that way and does not have a say of her adult daughter’s choices.
- Who is Kemp?
6. What does freedom mean in the story?
- Free to choose without considering others. Conchis underlines it when he makes a choice against 80 lives. It almost sounds like the absolute freedom promoted by the likes of Sade: moral, legal and religion have no place in the decisions of an individual. That person should choose what’s best for him/her and him/her alone. Nicholas is atheist and anarchist. Conchis is no difference. He shows no respect for religion nor follows the Hippocratic oath. This knocks out two freedom factors from the equation: legal and religion. That leaves moral to limit freedom. Any moral boundary? I found none. The characters are all in for the absolute freedom. Nicholas should not be surprised by the consequence. Or does he ever realize the consequence of the beliefs he subscribes? He and the Conchis gang like the idea of absolute freedom as long as they are the applicant, not the supplicant. Freedom in civilization often has a price and fences. Without fences, freedom, especially of certain groups’ as the privilege, is very destructive.
7. What do you think of Conchis?
- A savior and scarecrow.
8. What existential element do you notice in the book?
- Everyone is everyone’s hazard. The world is uncertain.
9. If you happened to read the book more than once, did you drive to the same conclusion after each reading?
- Not me. I got the opposite conclusion, partly because I noticed more in round 2, partly because I read different editions. The older edition had more clues about the ending, while the second deleted quite some by the author. On this book, love and hate at once.
以為是納博科夫的《魔術師》，原來是約翰福爾斯的《巫術師》，感覺巫術師的翻譯更貼切。不知為什麽，尼古拉斯·於爾菲讓我想起了思特裏克蘭德高更的原型，到荒島上尋找生命的意義，所不同的是一個結束了自己的生命，另一個進入了另一番“神戲”。。。。
“Greece is like a mirror, it makes you suffer, then you learn.“
希臘像一麵鏡子，先委以苦，然後了悟。
好喜歡歸舟這句話的翻譯。文縐縐，卻道出了其中的精華。