英語寫作略談（6）：什么是好結(jié)尾

在《英語寫作略談（5）》一文中，我們論及了什么是好文章的開頭。現(xiàn)在我們來談什么是英語寫作中好文章的結(jié)尾。

我們先接著在《英語寫作略談（5）》中提及的政治文章來說。這是一篇關(guān)于美國當(dāng)代社會的宏大敘事式的政論。開篇從個人敘事的功能，如個體借助敘事表達個人身份，鳴發(fā)個人抱怨，表達對社會多重聲音的認同或抵抗，以此來吸引社會關(guān)注，解決個人或家庭問題。之后，作者循此思路，把讀者領(lǐng)入到抽象的國家敘事。個人敘事和國家敘事有很多共同特征：多重性的、互相關(guān)聯(lián)、互相依賴的。作者以這對比和關(guān)聯(lián)來開頭，隨即提出問題：為何一個美國卻存在著“四個美國”的不同敘事。后面的正文無疑會闡述何為“四個美國”，即不同的政治模式、政黨的代表人物及其具體執(zhí)政主張、社會發(fā)展模式、經(jīng)濟模式和最終后果，以及為何一個敘事會被另外一個敘事替代。我們來看這篇文章的結(jié)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.

筆者注：作者在本段提綱挈領(lǐng)，總結(jié)了“四個美國”的特征，且用四個單句扼要定義，不僅容易記憶，還能加深讀者印象。最后一句指出“四個美國”導(dǎo)致社會不同階層的裂變，使用了impoverish（使貧瘠，這里理解為“使單一、枯竭”）和 cramped（變形、扭曲）隱喻式表達。divide和division同源詞重復(fù)使用，強調(diào)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.

筆者注：作者在本段指出，爭奪社會地位導(dǎo)致了美國社會劇烈的焦慮和不安，由此驅(qū)動了“四個美國”的出現(xiàn)。作者使用對比手法，言說了在“四個美國”社會中贏者和輸者的各自境況，在邏輯上進一步闡述“四個美國”出現(xiàn)的深層原因。

（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）

仔細閱讀分析每一句，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，作者對措辭的“經(jīng)營”十分用心。作者在文章結(jié)尾部分多用簡單陳述句，絕大多數(shù)句子長度不超過12個單詞，且都使用對仗句式，如對立、重復(fù)、排比。如此句法陣勢并置，與語義層面的截然對立呼應(yīng)，即美國國家和社會分裂的現(xiàn)狀。有些句子甚至可以作為箴言或警句閱讀、記憶。此外，作者較少使用司空見慣的連接詞來實現(xiàn)句間過渡，而是通過對上一句動詞（如divide—division）、形容詞（如die—dead）或名詞（如die —death）的詞形變化，完成語義銜接和邏輯連貫，獲得典雅優(yōu)美的修辭效果。更值得一提的是，這個結(jié)尾表達具有典型的美式英語特征，即使用短小常見的英語單詞，不追求使用長詞和特別一本正經(jīng)的大詞。上述引文的第6段不僅重復(fù)了文章開頭關(guān)于“四個美國”的敘事，即Free（追求人的自由權(quán)利）、Smart（通過教育培養(yǎng)美國精英）、Real（不是務(wù)虛的空洞口號，而是立足美國地方的殘酷的真實現(xiàn)狀），Just（追求社會公正平權(quán)），而且還預(yù)言了兩個分裂的美國、四種不同敘事之間的張力將永久持續(xù)，但是分裂和征服不會帶來可以持續(xù)的未來。如此“落下”和“大結(jié)”的做法（Kirkpatrick & Xu，2012），既是對正文內(nèi)容的高度凝練，又做到了要言不煩、簡潔洗練（washed and refined）（司空圖《二十四詩品》語，轉(zhuǎn)引自宇文所安，2003），在讀者腦海中留下深刻印痕。

我們再看另一篇《紐約客》（The New Yorker）上題為“When things go missing： reflections on two seasons of loss” 的長篇散文。作者開篇追憶自己近期在不同的地方丟三落四的趣聞軼事，然后從神經(jīng)認知學(xué)、心理學(xué)，甚至迷信的角度，介紹了種種關(guān)于頻繁丟東西的解釋，口吻輕松活潑，筆調(diào)愉快幽默，既呈現(xiàn)豐富的學(xué)識，又充滿了諧趣。在貌似漫不經(jīng)心閑談拉扯這些瑣事的過程中，作者極其自然地穿插了幾位詩人和作家對他們逝去的親友、丟失的信件和衣物飽含詩意的感傷，這給原本庸?，嵭嫉纳钶W事注入了厚重的人間情愫，也為下文探討的主題，即“失去親人何其悲痛，生者該如何面對如此永久的失去？”做好了鋪墊。在文章的后半部，作者追憶了自己失去父親之后各種揪心細節(jié)，把普通人在照顧即將逝去的親人時感受的身體和心理的煎熬艱辛，以及在真正失去親人后肝腸欲斷的傷心，描繪得淋漓盡致，令讀者身臨其境，感同身受。文中有這樣一個細節(jié)：作者父母40年相濡以沫，彼此默契，哪怕只是一個眼神，對方都能立刻心領(lǐng)神會。作者的父親在臨終前，輕微蠕動了一下嘴唇，母親立刻明白了父親的意思，貼上去跟他接吻，像是履行日常的臨別儀式。這時，父親極其艱難地睜開一只含淚的眼，算是向母親表示感謝。這一細節(jié)描寫令讀者十分動容。

至此，追憶親情的文章似乎可以結(jié)束。但是，親情和摯愛并不是作家寫作此文的全部要旨。至親撒手人間，在作者的生活中留下巨大的無法彌合的黑洞，作家始終走不出親人離去造成的悲慟陰影。突然，某個晚上，在作家的女伴念到美國詩人惠特曼的《過布魯克林渡口》的詩句時，作者忽有頓悟，似乎明白了該當(dāng)如何理解失去親人的哲學(xué)意蘊：失去萬物和親人，乃宇宙造化更宏大的安排（greater scheme of things），這本就是宇宙秩序。對此，我們該如何面對物件的丟失和至親的消逝？作者接著探討了lose一詞詞源學(xué)上的語義演變（知識性很強，明顯屬于典雅型美文），最后過渡到頗具哲學(xué)意味的結(jié)尾：

（1）And yet， if anything， our problem is not that we put too many things into the category of loss but that we leave too many out. One night， during those weeks when I could find solace only in poetry， my partner read “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” aloud to me. In it， Walt Whitman leans against the railing of a ship， exalting in all he sees. So expansive is his vision that it includes not just the piers and sails and reeling gulls but everyone else who makes the crossing： all those who stood at the railing watching before his birth， all those watching around him now， and all those who will be there watching after his death—which， in the poem， he doesn’t so much foresee as， through a wild， craning omniscience， look back on. “Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky， so I felt，” he admonishes， kindly.

筆者譯：可是，我們的問題，如果有的話，并不是我們在失去的范疇里放置了太多東西，而是忽略了太多。在那些我只能在詩歌里找到慰藉的幾個星期當(dāng)中，某天晚上，我的伴侶大聲朗讀了《過布魯克林渡口》給我聽。詩歌中，詩人沃爾特·惠特曼斜靠著渡船欄桿，沉醉在目之所見當(dāng)中。他的所見如此廣袤，不僅包括了橋墩、船帆和盤旋的海鷗，而且還包括所有與他一起渡河的人：在他出世之前所有站在船只圍欄邊上觀望的人，此刻在他身邊的所有觀望的人，還有在他死后將在那里觀望的所有人——在這首詩中，與其說他預(yù)見到了這些，不如說他借助一個不受羈絆、伸長脖子的全知視角，回望到這些?！罢缬^望河流和天空時你所感覺到的，我在當(dāng)時也感覺到了，”他善意提醒道。

（2）And， just like that， my sense of loss suddenly revealed itself as terribly narrow. What I miss about my father， as much as anything， is life as it looked filtered through him， held up and considered against his inner lights. Yet the most important thing that vanished when he died is wholly unavailable to me： life as it looked to him， life as we all live it， from the inside out. All my memories can’t add up to a single moment of what it was like to be my father， and all my loss pales beside his own. Like Whitman， his love of life had been exuberant， exhaustive; he must have hated， truly hated， to leave it behind—not just his family， whom he adored， but all of it， sea to shining sea.

筆者譯：如同那神明一般，我的失去感頓時顯得狹隘極了。我對父親的思念，和對其他東西的思念一樣，是經(jīng)過家父視角過濾之后所顯現(xiàn)的人生，是根據(jù)他的內(nèi)心視角所堅持和思考的人生。不過，伴隨他的離世而消失的最重要的東西是我完全無法得到的：人生，是在他眼中看到的人生，從內(nèi)到外，如同我們所有人經(jīng)歷的人生一樣。我的所有記憶都無法拼湊出他作為父親的片刻感受，我的所有失去在他本人失去面前算不了什么。像惠特曼一樣，他的生命之愛是熱情洋溢、徹頭徹尾的。他一定非常討厭，真的討厭丟下這個世界——不僅丟下他愛慕的家人，而是丟下生命的全部，大海到波光粼粼的大海。

（3）It is breathtaking， the extinguishing of consciousness. Yet that loss， too—our own ultimate unbeing—is dwarfed by the grander scheme. When we are experiencing it， loss often feels like an anomaly， a disruption in the usual order of things. In fact， though， it is the usual order of things. Entropy， mortality， extinction： the entire plan of the universe consists of losing， and life amounts to a reverse savings account in which we are eventually robbed of everything. Our dreams and plans and jobs and knees and backs and memories， the childhood friend， the husband of fifty years， the father of forever， the keys to the house， the keys to the car， the keys to the kingdom， the kingdom itself： sooner or later， all of it drifts into the Valley of Lost Things.

筆者譯：意識滅絕令人震驚。但是那種失去—我們自身終極的非本質(zhì)存在—在更加宏大的物序面前，也顯得渺小。我們在經(jīng)歷失去的時候，經(jīng)常覺得失去是反?，F(xiàn)象，擾亂了事物的常規(guī)秩序。可事實上，失去恰恰是常規(guī)秩序。熵，死，滅：宇宙的全部規(guī)劃皆由失去構(gòu)成，生命等同一個逆向儲蓄賬戶，我們最終會在這個賬戶中被奪走一切。我們的夢想、計劃、工作、膝蓋，背脊和記憶、童年的朋友、五十年的丈夫、永遠的父親、房子鑰匙、汽車鑰匙、王國鑰匙，王國本身：或遲或早，所有這一切都會飄移到“失物谷”去。

（4）There’s precious little solace for this， and zero redress; we will lose everything we love in the end. But why should that matter so much？ By definition， we do not live in the end： we live all along the way. The smitten lovers who marvel every day at the miracle of having met each other are right; it is finding that is astonishing. You meet a stranger passing through your town and know within days you will marry her. You lose your job at fifty-five and shock yourself by finding a new calling ten years later. You have a thought and find the words. You face a crisis and find your courage.

筆者譯：對此而言，極少有慰藉，更無補救機會。我們終會失去我們的所愛?？蔀楹芜@一點如此重要呢？根據(jù)定義，我們并不是生活在終點，我們活在過程當(dāng)中。那些每天都為彼此邂逅的奇跡而驚嘆的一見鐘情者是對的；正是“找到”才令人驚訝。你遇到從你的城市經(jīng)過的陌生人，幾天內(nèi)你就知道你要娶她。你在五十五歲失業(yè)，卻在十年后驚訝地找到一份新的志業(yè)。你有了思想并找到表達它的言辭。你面臨危機，但是找到了你的勇氣。

（5） All of this is made more precious， not less， by its impermanence. No matter what goes missing， the wallet or the father， the lessons are the same. Disappearance reminds us to notice， transience to cherish， fragility to defend. Loss is a kind of external conscience， urging us to make better use of our finite days. As Whitman knew， our brief crossing is best spent attending to all that we see： honoring what we find noble， denouncing what we cannot abide， recognizing that we are inseparably connected to all of it， including what is not yet upon us， including what is already gone. We are here to keep watch， not to keep.

筆者譯：正是因為短暫，所有這一切才顯彌足珍貴，而不是更不足惜。無論失去什么，錢包或父親，教訓(xùn)都是一樣的。消失提醒我們要關(guān)注，短暫提醒我們要珍惜，脆弱提醒我們要捍衛(wèi)。失去是一種外在感知，它敦促我們要更好地利用有限日子。我們短暫的擺渡時間最好花在關(guān)注我們的所見所看：實現(xiàn)我們認為是高尚的，拒斥我們無法容忍的；認識到我們與所有這一切緊密關(guān)聯(lián)，無法分離，包括尚未降臨我們身上的，包括業(yè)已逝去的一切，這些惠特曼知道。我們在現(xiàn)世存在，是為了守望，不是為了持有。

這樣的哲思性結(jié)尾，與前半部分的內(nèi)容高度關(guān)聯(lián)，是前半部分的自然延伸，更是對前述人生經(jīng)歷的哲學(xué)升華。讀者不僅跟隨作者體悟日常生活中失去親人的痛苦——這是散文的日常性部分，也跟隨作者一起思考并領(lǐng)悟關(guān)于這段人生可能包含的人生啟迪或生存智慧。無疑，這樣的結(jié)尾更能給讀者留下極其深刻的印象——這是散文的哲思性或智性結(jié)尾。

接下來，我們再來看法國作家維克多·雨果（Victor Hugo）的小說《巴黎圣母院》（The Hunchback of Notre-Dame）的結(jié)尾：

After a year and half or two years after the events which concluded this story， when a search was made in the vault of Montfaucon for the body of Oliver le Daim， who had been hanged two days before， and to whom Charles VIII granted the favor of being interred in the church of Saint Laurent with better company， there was found among all those hideous carcasses two skeletons， the one clasped in the arms of the other. One of these two skeletons， that of a woman， had still about it some tattered clothes， apparently of a stuff that had once been white. About its neck was a string of beads of adrezarach seeds， together with a small silken bag， ornamented with green glass， which was open and empty. These objects had been of so little value that the hangman， no doubt， had not cared to take them. The other skeleton， which held this one close in its arms， was that of a man. It was noticed that its spine was crooked， the head had compressed between the shoulder blades， and that one leg was shorter than the other. Also， there was no break of the vertebra in the neck， whence it was evident that it had not been hanged. The man to whom it had belonged had therefore come there of himself and died there. When they tried to detach this skeleton from the one it embraced， it crumbled to dust. （Hugo， 2010： 499）

兩具尸骨，一具把另一具緊抱懷中。一具是女，一具是男。從女的隨帶的細小物件可以判斷是她， 吉普賽人。男的脊椎彎曲，頭顱縮在兩個肩胛骨間，一條腿比另一條腿短。讀者可以判斷這是巴黎圣母院的敲鐘駝子，是卡西莫多。氣勢恢弘遼闊的《巴黎圣母院》就以這樣的描寫結(jié)尾：兩人是多么不幸，但他們在化為尸骨之時，緊緊相擁相愛，如此結(jié)尾，令讀者何等刻骨銘心！讀者不禁思考：愛何以擁有如此巨大力量，在人間烙下如此深邃的命運印痕？是誰造成如此悲??？這兩具尸骨的結(jié)尾場景描寫，恰恰呼應(yīng)了小說開篇雨果就教會墻上關(guān)于希臘語中“命運”一詞的相關(guān)說明。

美國著名小說家杰羅姆·大衛(wèi)·塞林格（Jerome David Salinger）的成名作《麥田里的守望者》（The Catcher in the Rye）開頭是這樣寫的：

If you really want to hear about it， the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born， and what my lousy childhood was like， and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me， and all that David Copperfield kind of crap， but I don’t feel like going into it， if you want to know the truth. In the first place， that stuff bores me， and in the second place， my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They’re quite touchy about anything like that， especially my father. They’re nice and all—I’m not saying that—but they’re also touchy as hell. Besides， I’m not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything. I’ll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out and take it easy. I mean that’s all I told D.B. about， and he’s my brother and all. …” （Salinger， 1991：1—2）

結(jié)尾是這樣的：

THAT’S ALL I’m going to tell you about. I could probably tell you what I did after I went home， and how I got sick and all， and what school I’m supposed to go to next fall， after I get out of here， but I don’t feel like it. I really don’t. That stuff doesn’t interest me too much right now…” （Salinger， 1991： 213）

作者告訴讀者，他已經(jīng)講完了成長過程中經(jīng)歷的一段故事。首尾照應(yīng)，給人敘事完整一體的感覺。

最后，我們看《紐約客》刊登的一篇散文《文字工棚》（The Word Shed）。作者在開頭是這樣來描寫當(dāng)作家的父親在“文字工棚”的情景的：

Every afternoon， when my father arrived home from his job as the feature editor at a newspaper in Dublin， he disappeared into his writing shed. To get there， you had to squeeze your way past the coal bin， the lawn-mower， cans of petrol and paint， ancient bicycle parts. The shed always smelled damp inside， as if the rain rose up out of the carpet. The bookshelves sagged. The low-slung roof had a murky skylight with a hat of gray Irish cloud.

From the house， I could hear the tattoo of two-fingered typing. The ping of the bell. The slam of the carriage return. It all sounded like a faint form of applause…

這是一幅父親在“文字工棚”里頭勞作的圖景。

筆者譯：每天下午，當(dāng)都柏林一家報紙專題報道欄目編輯的父親一下班到家，就消失在他的寫作棚子里。要到那兒，你得從煤筐、修理草坪的機器、汽油桶、油漆桶、老舊的自行車零件那里擠著才能過去。工棚里總是散發(fā)著濕氣，似乎雨水從地毯里向上升起一般。書架耷拉著。低矮棚頂露出渾濁的天光，頂著一只灰蒙蒙的愛爾蘭云帽。從屋里，我能聽見叮叮當(dāng)當(dāng)?shù)拇蜃謾C的鈴聲，啪噠啪噠的敲字聲，打字機色帶盒返回的砰砰聲，聽起來像微弱的鼓掌方式……。

后來，父親塑造的人物故事在課堂上令作者的同學(xué)興奮不已，讓他們忘掉了放學(xué)回家，紛紛決心要像作者父親一樣創(chuàng)作故事和人物。文章結(jié)尾是這樣寫的：

A few years on， when I was a teenager， my father sat me in the shed and recited， from memory， Philip Larkin’s “This Be the Verse”： “They Fuck you up， you mum and dad.” Fair enough， and I knew what he was trying to say， but I also knew that sometimes—just sometimes—the father you get is the father you want. （McCann， 2014）

作家最后選擇以父親回憶詩人菲利普·拉金一首題為《這就是詩》中的詩句作為結(jié)尾。乍看這句子無論如何也夠不上詩的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，就是地道的臟話。其實，父親引用拉金的這句話本意是在告誡讀者：寫作是件極其艱辛的苦活累活，要求你必須殫思竭慮構(gòu)思，要求你必須搜腸刮肚，尋找貼切語詞，這會把你折騰得半死不活，甚至丟掉半個性命。這句粗俗臟話道盡了寫作的艱辛本質(zhì)，真是“話粗理不糙”。作者的“Fair enough， and I knew what he was trying to say...”呼應(yīng)了文章開頭描寫父親在“文字工棚”里勞作的情景。作者深深領(lǐng)悟到父親引用這句看似臟話的言外之意。以如此突兀的詩句作為文章結(jié)尾，可謂是作家大膽出奇的構(gòu)思：貌似一句臟話卻勝過無數(shù)言詞說明。首尾呼應(yīng)巧妙自然，毫無造作之跡。

總結(jié)一下：議論文結(jié)尾時，作者通常會扼要總結(jié)前述內(nèi)容，但總結(jié)并不是簡單機械的語言或內(nèi)容重復(fù)，而是要言不煩地凝練前述觀點，并強調(diào)或凸顯作者本人的立場，讓其“不同凡響”的立意和客觀論據(jù)令讀者信服并倍受啟發(fā)。散文結(jié)尾時，作者一般會把個人軼事的描述或議論轉(zhuǎn)而升華到高的哲學(xué)境界或人生宇宙觀，具有獨到的超驗哲學(xué)洞見，給讀者以精神或靈性啟迪。創(chuàng)意小說結(jié)尾時，則偏重出奇新意，希望給人留下特別的印象，讓讀者思考整個故事的意蘊或含義，這正是一個有創(chuàng)意的作家所要追求的特別的閱讀效果。

參考文獻

Hugo， V. 2010. The Hunchback of Notre-Dame [M]. Translated by Walter J. Cobb. New York， NY： Signet Classics.

Kirkpatrick， A. & Xu， Z. 2012. Chinese Rhetoric and Writing： An Introduction for Language Teachers [M]. Colorado： Parlor Press.

McCann， C. 2014. The Word Shed [J]. The New Yorker， Dec 22 & 29：64.

Parker， G. 2021. The Four Americas [J]. The Atlantic， （7/8）：66—97.

Salinger， J. D. 1991. The Catcher in the Rye [M]. New York， NY： Little， Brown and Company.

宇文所安. 2003. 中國文論：英譯與評論[M]. 上海： 上海社會科學(xué)院出版社.

作者簡介

徐海銘 上海外國語大學(xué)英語學(xué)院教授，博士生導(dǎo)師。

陳嬋娟 上海外國語大學(xué)賢達經(jīng)濟人文學(xué)院副教授。

莊甘林 上海外國語大學(xué)上外賢達經(jīng)濟人文學(xué)院講師。