英语写作略谈(6):什么是好结尾

作者: 徐海铭 陈婵娟 庄甘林

在《英语写作略谈(5)》一文中,我们论及了什么是好文章的开头。现在我们来谈什么是英语写作中好文章的结尾。

我们先接着在《英语写作略谈(5)》中提及的政治文章来说。这是一篇关于美国当代社会的宏大叙事式的政论。开篇从个人叙事的功能,如个体借助叙事表达个人身份,鸣发个人抱怨,表达对社会多重声音的认同或抵抗,以此来吸引社会关注,解决个人或家庭问题。之后,作者循此思路,把读者领入到抽象的国家叙事。个人叙事和国家叙事有很多共同特征:多重性的、互相关联、互相依赖的。作者以这对比和关联来开头,随即提出问题:为何一个美国却存在着“四个美国”的不同叙事。后面的正文无疑会阐述何为“四个美国”,即不同的政治模式、政党的代表人物及其具体执政主张、社会发展模式、经济模式和最终后果,以及为何一个叙事会被另外一个叙事替代。我们来看这篇文章的结尾:

(1)ALL four of the narratives I’ve described emerged from America’s failure to sustain and enlarge the middle-class democracy of the postwar years. They all respond to real problems. Each offers a value that the others need and lacks one that the others have. Free America celebrates the energy of the unencumbered individual. Smart America respects intelligence and welcomes change. Real America commits itself to a place and has a sense of limits. Just America demands a confrontation with what the others want to avoid. They rise from a single society, and even in one as polarized as ours they continually shape, absorb, and morph into one another. But their tendency is also to divide us, pitting tribe against tribe. These divisions impoverish each narrative into a cramped and ever more extreme version of itself.

笔者注:作者在本段提纲挈领,总结了“四个美国”的特征,且用四个单句扼要定义,不仅容易记忆,还能加深读者印象。最后一句指出“四个美国”导致社会不同阶层的裂变,使用了impoverish(使贫瘠,这里理解为“使单一、枯竭”)和 cramped(变形、扭曲)隐喻式表达。divide和division同源词重复使用,强调了分裂特征。

(2)All four narratives are also driven by a competition for status that generates fierce anxiety and resentment. They all anoint winners and losers. In Free America, the winners are the makers, and the losers are the takers who want to drag the rest down in perpetual dependency on a smothering government. In Smart America, the winners are the credentialed meritocrats, and the losers are the poorly educated who want to resist inevitable progress. In Real America, the winners are the hardworking folk of the white Christian heartland, and the losers  are treacherous elites and contaminating others who want to destroy our country. In Just America, the winners are the marginalized groups, and the losers  are the dominant groups that want to go on dominating.

笔者注:作者在本段指出,争夺社会地位导致了美国社会剧烈的焦虑和不安,由此驱动了“四个美国”的出现。作者使用对比手法,言说了在“四个美国”社会中赢者和输者的各自境况,在逻辑上进一步阐述“四个美国”出现的深层原因。

(3)I don’t much want to live in the republic of any of them.

(4)It’s common these days to hear people talk about sick America, dying America, the end of America. The same kinds of things were said in 1861, in 1893, in 1933, and in 1968. The sickness, the death, is always a moral condition. Maybe this comes from our Puritan heritage. If we are dying, it can’t be from natural causes. It must be a prolonged act of suicide, which is a form of murder.

(5)I don’t think we are dying. We have no choice but to live together—we’re quarantined as fellow citizens. Knowing who we are lets us see what kinds of change are possible. Countries are not social-science experiments. They are organic qualities, some positive, some destructive, that can’t be wished away. Our passions for equality, the individualism it produces, the hustle for money, the love of novelty, the attachment to democracy, the distrust of authority and intellect—these won’t disappear. A way forward that tries to evade or crush them on the road to some free, smart, real, or just utopia will never arrive and instead will run into a strong reaction. But a way forward that tries to make us Equal Americans, all with the same rights and opportunities—the only basis for shared citizenship and self-government—is a road that connects our past and our future.

(6)Meanwhile, we remain trapped in two countries. Each one is split by two narratives—Smart and Just on one side, Free and Real on the other. Neither separation nor conquest is a tenable future. The tensions within each country will persist even as the cold civil war between them rages on. (Parker, 2021: 78)

仔细阅读分析每一句,我们发现,作者对措辞的“经营”十分用心。作者在文章结尾部分多用简单陈述句,绝大多数句子长度不超过12个单词,且都使用对仗句式,如对立、重复、排比。如此句法阵势并置,与语义层面的截然对立呼应,即美国国家和社会分裂的现状。有些句子甚至可以作为箴言或警句阅读、记忆。此外,作者较少使用司空见惯的连接词来实现句间过渡,而是通过对上一句动词(如divide—division)、形容词(如die—dead)或名词(如die —death)的词形变化,完成语义衔接和逻辑连贯,获得典雅优美的修辞效果。更值得一提的是,这个结尾表达具有典型的美式英语特征,即使用短小常见的英语单词,不追求使用长词和特别一本正经的大词。上述引文的第6段不仅重复了文章开头关于“四个美国”的叙事,即Free(追求人的自由权利)、Smart(通过教育培养美国精英)、Real(不是务虚的空洞口号,而是立足美国地方的残酷的真实现状),Just(追求社会公正平权),而且还预言了两个分裂的美国、四种不同叙事之间的张力将永久持续,但是分裂和征服不会带来可以持续的未来。如此“落下”和“大结”的做法(Kirkpatrick & Xu,2012),既是对正文内容的高度凝练,又做到了要言不烦、简洁洗练(washed and refined)(司空图《二十四诗品》语,转引自宇文所安,2003),在读者脑海中留下深刻印痕。

我们再看另一篇《纽约客》(The New Yorker)上题为“When things go missing: reflections on two seasons of loss” 的长篇散文。作者开篇追忆自己近期在不同的地方丢三落四的趣闻轶事,然后从神经认知学、心理学,甚至迷信的角度,介绍了种种关于频繁丢东西的解释,口吻轻松活泼,笔调愉快幽默,既呈现丰富的学识,又充满了谐趣。在貌似漫不经心闲谈拉扯这些琐事的过程中,作者极其自然地穿插了几位诗人和作家对他们逝去的亲友、丢失的信件和衣物饱含诗意的感伤,这给原本庸常琐屑的生活轶事注入了厚重的人间情愫,也为下文探讨的主题,即“失去亲人何其悲痛,生者该如何面对如此永久的失去?”做好了铺垫。在文章的后半部,作者追忆了自己失去父亲之后各种揪心细节,把普通人在照顾即将逝去的亲人时感受的身体和心理的煎熬艰辛,以及在真正失去亲人后肝肠欲断的伤心,描绘得淋漓尽致,令读者身临其境,感同身受。文中有这样一个细节:作者父母40年相濡以沫,彼此默契,哪怕只是一个眼神,对方都能立刻心领神会。作者的父亲在临终前,轻微蠕动了一下嘴唇,母亲立刻明白了父亲的意思,贴上去跟他接吻,像是履行日常的临别仪式。这时,父亲极其艰难地睁开一只含泪的眼,算是向母亲表示感谢。这一细节描写令读者十分动容。

至此,追忆亲情的文章似乎可以结束。但是,亲情和挚爱并不是作家写作此文的全部要旨。至亲撒手人间,在作者的生活中留下巨大的无法弥合的黑洞,作家始终走不出亲人离去造成的悲恸阴影。突然,某个晚上,在作家的女伴念到美国诗人惠特曼的《过布鲁克林渡口》的诗句时,作者忽有顿悟,似乎明白了该当如何理解失去亲人的哲学意蕴:失去万物和亲人,乃宇宙造化更宏大的安排(greater scheme of things),这本就是宇宙秩序。对此,我们该如何面对物件的丢失和至亲的消逝?作者接着探讨了lose一词词源学上的语义演变(知识性很强,明显属于典雅型美文),最后过渡到颇具哲学意味的结尾:

经典小说推荐

杂志订阅