瓦爾登湖
Susan著 小哭譯
今年的ELA課，威爾基女士說我們要讀許多哲學書，很難的哲學書。還說其實這麼多的哲學書會讓我們在學年末厭倦哲學的。我不相信她說的話。我喜歡哲學，我喜歡思考。我相當地確信，不管我們在初中讀什麼，我都能理解。可是我錯了。
我們讀的第一本書是亨利.大衛.梭羅寫的《瓦爾登湖》。《瓦爾登湖》是相當著名的一本書。現在很多人讀它，並且他們覺得這本書是本世紀人們應該讀的最重要的書之一。從根本上來說，《瓦爾登湖》是關於梭羅進行的人生體驗的一本書。梭羅是19世紀早期到中期的一個哲學家。他相信生活的真諦和意義存在於自然之中，大自然是關於我們這個世界的唯一的純粹的事情。因此，他進行了兩年的體驗，想去看看住在瓦爾登湖旁邊的瓦爾登森林裡會如何。住在那裡的時候，他寫了流水賬日記，然後用這些記錄寫了一本有關他的這些體驗的書。
威爾基女士沒有讓我們把全本書都讀完，只讓我們讀最重要的章節（有差不多半本書吧）。開始，我相當激動地去讀這本書。但是當我讀得越來越多後，就越來越覺得無聊。剛開始讀這本書時，我非常地喜歡梭羅，但是隨着時間的推移，我對他的評價掉到了谷底。有獨特的思想很好，但是他的想法也有點太特別了。
就算是他的觀點和我的非常不同，讀起來也是有趣兒的。然而，聽他無數次地重複着自己的觀點就完全地無趣了。他的寫作風格非常地複雜，這就使得讀者很辛苦。他說着“簡單，簡單，簡單”。然而，他的寫作卻一點也不簡單，甚至他用的句子也是複雜的。“因為希望生活得從容不迫，我去了森林，去面對僅僅是生活所絕對必需的真相，去看看是否我不能學會它不得不教導的部分，如果不能的話，當我瀕臨死亡時，發現我並沒有活過”。為什麼他不能把這句話分成兩到三個小句子，使人更容易理解呢？而這還是其中最簡單的句子之一。
除了他措辭的風格外，我也還有一個關於這本書的真正內容的問題。他所寫的大部分東西要麼是對他已經寫過內容的重複、對一個並不需要更多支持的觀點的支持、對他早期寫作的否定，要麼是和我根本沒有任何關係的東西。對於最後一點我沒有太多的問題，因為我知道他並不是為我寫的這本書，並且我確信別人可能會非常有興趣去讀那二十頁關於湖的內容：梭羅在湖邊做了什麼、梭羅喜歡哪種湖、誰到了湖邊、湖看來象什麼、湖聞起來怎麼樣、湖聽起來怎麼樣，以及這個湖有多麼地美妙等等。
然而，我沒有興趣去讀上面所列那些。當他寫這本書時，主要是為他自己寫的。如果他知道全世界的人們將要像讀一本宗教課本一樣地讀這本書的話，他將會極為震驚的。大概那就是為什麼他的寫作風格如此地複雜和枯燥吧。他寫的思想非常地有趣兒，但是別的所有內容，比如那些關於他在森林裡做了什麼的章節，或者那些有着過多關於他的所見/所聽/所嗅/等等細節的章節，就枯燥無聊了。他的寫作風格提醒了我托爾金的《指環王》三部曲，托爾金在書中把一個有趣的故事弄得聽起來很乏味，就差更糟了。
《瓦爾登湖》除去難以理解、囉嗦、讓我不只一次地想睡覺這一事實之外，這本書還是有許多有趣的想法的。我能理解為什麼當代有這麼多的人認為這本書非常重要。《瓦爾登湖》不只是梭羅在森林裡體驗的一本日記。它也承載了許多梭羅的思想。即使它把那幾個思想重複了幾百次，也沒有讓那些思想有任何貶值。《瓦爾登湖》提醒了我們的一件事情是我們這個社會的危險性。它提到我們這個社會總是為着毫無用處和毫無意義的事情忙得團團轉。事業、工作、新聞、玩具、金錢、財富…….它們在最後都毫無價值。我們都會死，那些東西將一文不值。然而，找到生活的真正意義則有價值得多，所以，我們應該找出生命的真正意義，不要對小事情關注太多。
我同意這部分內容。然而，接下來的我就不同意了。梭羅認為社會本身是邪惡的。他認為我們從社會中什麼也學不到，我們能做的最好的事情是拋棄它，然後象他一樣地住在森林裡。他認為大部人所過的生活毫無意義並且庸俗，而為了過一種最充實的生活，我們必須回歸自然，必須斷絕與其它所有事情的關係。他認為那種被庸俗地接受的“正常”
的生活裡面沒有調料，而任何一個認為他們目前生活很精彩的人都是被邪惡所蒙蔽了。然而對此我有着完全相反的看法。
我認為我們可以從其它的人身上學習很多。我確實承認我們的社會有點失控於所有的這些技術和政治辯論，也承認世界充滿了邪惡。然而，我也認為世界充滿了許多好東西。我們可以從中學習很多。還有，我不認為我現在的生活毫無意義。我認為很有意義。我不認為過一種寫實的生活的唯一辦法就是讓我自己被大自然所包圍。我相當地喜歡我的生活。梭羅是一個被矇騙的人。他是一個眼睛失明的人，因為他不能看到我們現在這個世界上的精華和美好。我同意自然是精彩的，不時地，我們需要在森林裡散散步。然而，我認為社會和人們也是好的。
梭羅絕對是一個很怪誕的人，精神不太好。我同情他。他沒有學會欣賞這個世界和享受生活。因為他不能，所以他錯過了很多。他錯過了生活的一個本質部分，他甚至根本都不知道！他實際上是一個孤獨者。通過將他自己從社會中分離，他在精神上得到了一種多數人無法獲得的東西，但是他也錯過了生活中非常快樂的一部分。
總體上來講，《瓦爾登湖》是一個非常有趣的體驗。它讓我想到了一些否則我可能絕不會想到的事情，將我置於一種新的思想之中。不僅如此，它也超乎想像地做到了讓我感到厭煩。書的一半像是梭羅的個人日記或什麼，而我並不想讀他所做的每一件細小的事情。我喜歡《瓦爾登湖》中提到的一些思想，可我也不同意一些其它的。儘管如此去讀讀也是有趣的。如果你不介意結構複雜的書，就去讀它；但是如果你介意，我建議你去網上查一下書評，跳過那些枯燥的部分。
【小哭介紹背景】自從Susan八年級開學，我就一天到晚地都在聽她講這本書。基本上沒有什么正面的評價，主要就是說難讀，不愛讀，讀不懂，讀不快。不過她們關於這本書的大作業，她的分數不低，聽說別的同學也是如此。仔細一問，老師考核的方式，類似於開卷，事先已經將問題擺出來了，同學可以早早地就思考，但是要現場寫出來。比如說書中提到了幾個**方面的問題，同學們就要將這些方面在試卷上列出來。那這樣給書的內容歸歸類，基本上還是能夠明了梭羅在書中都講了什麼的。只是，了解書的主題，並不等於是能夠理解，更不等於是會認同作者的觀點。看看Susan的評論吧，相當地負面！
除了同意梭羅的類似於應該“淡泊名利”的一些觀點之外，Susan發表的都是對這本書的批評。先是批評句型太長，措辭複雜，還和梭羅所倡導的“簡約”進行了對照，“以子以矛攻子之盾”，可見對梭羅的不滿不是一星半點；接着又批評書中內容過於羅嗦，寫了太多她所不關心的細節；最後又批評作者的觀點其實也不正確。不但說作者是一個孤獨者，還說作者精神有問題！
以Susan目前的信仰和生活狀態來講，她不贊同梭羅是正常的。在我眼裡，她整篇文章中可貴的部分真的有不少。首先是她獨立思考；其次是她不畏權威；再有她不偏執，她提到了最大的收穫並不是看到了不同的看法，而是這本書讓她置身於一個從來不曾有過的思考角度之中，這一點應該算是對作者的讚美。她已經盡她所能去評價了一本她其實並不感興趣的書。
我和她說，也許高中或大學期間，她就會有不同的評價。她說她毫無懷疑這一點，並說很有可能高中的老師還會要求他們重讀此書。我說那到時候再寫個書評吧，寫完再回頭看看你當年曾經寫過了什麼吧。她同意了。
這本書，或說這類書，我覺得它們來到Susan的生活中正是時候！Susan說梭羅住的房子、體驗的森林都是愛默生提供的，他們馬上就要開始讀愛默生的書了。而我，才把《Walden》借回來，不知道跟着她的腳步，還能跟上多少了。不管怎麼樣，想和孩子一起成長，想和他們交流思想，也只能這樣了，盡力而為吧。深深地為自己沒有讀過多少書而遺憾……
另：椰子，我現在有點自己的時間了，但還是全職主婦。你曾經說過，希望全職的媽媽們寫寫她們的生活，現在小寶上學了，我終於可以動筆了：）
附上英文原文：
Walden
For ELA class this year, Ms. Wilkie said we would be reading a lot
of philosophy, hard philosophy. In fact, so much philosophy that we would be sick
of it by the end of the year. I didn’t believe her. I like philosophy, and I
like thinking. I was pretty sure that whatever we will read in middle I will be
able to understand. I was wrong.
The first book we read was Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Walden
is a pretty famous book. Many people nowadays love it, and they feel that it is
one of the most important books people need to read in the century. Basically,
Walden is about an experiment Thoreau conducted. Thoreau was a philosopher from
the early to mid 1800’s. He believed that the truth and purpose of life lies in
nature, and that nature is the only thing that is pure about our world.
Therefore, he conducted an experiment to see what it would be like to spend two
year living in the Walden woods, beside Walden pond.
He wrote journal entries while he was there, and later used those entries to
write a book about his experiences.
Ms. Wilkie didn’t make us read the whole book, just the most
important chapters (that’s about half the book). At first, I was pretty excited
about reading it. But as I read more and more of the book, I got more and more
bored. When I first started reading the book, I liked Thoreau a lot, but as
time wore on, my opinion on him dropped a notch. It’s good to have unique
thoughts, but his thoughts are a bit too
special.
It was interesting to read about his opinions, even though they were
very different from mine. However, it was definitely not interesting to hear
him repeat his opinion a million times. His writing style is very complicated,
making it hard for the reader to read. He said “Simplicity, simplicity,
simplicity.” Yet his writing was anything but simple. Even his sentences were
complicated. “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to
front only the essential facts of life, and to see if I could not learn what it
had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” Why
couldn’t he have split this up into two or three smaller sentences that would
be way easier to understand? And this was one of the easier sentences.
Apart from the way he phrased his words, I’ve also got a problem
with the actual content of the book. Most of the things he wrote about were
either repeating what he had already written, supporting an idea that does not
need any more supports, contradicting his earlier writings, or were about
things that are not related to me at all. I don’t have too many problems with
that last one, because I know he did not write the book for me to read, and I’m
sure others will be very interested to read twenty pages about ponds, what
Thoreau did at the pond, what kind of ponds Thoreau liked, who goes to ponds,
what ponds look like, what ponds smell like, what ponds sound like, and how
wonderful ponds are.
However, I have no interest in reading about all of that above. When
he wrote this book, it was mainly for himself. If he knew that people all over
the world would be reading it like a religious textbook, he would be extremely
shocked. Maybe that was why his writing style was so complicated and boring.
The ideas he wrote about were very interesting, but all the other stuff, like
those chapters about what he did at the woods, or those chapters that had
super-detailed descriptions of what he saw/heard/smelled/etc., were boring. His
writing style reminded me of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, where
Tolkien made an interesting story sound boring, except worse.
Aside from the fact that Walden was confusing, repetitive,
and made my mind go to sleep more than once, it also held many interesting
ideas. I can understand why so many people in this time period would think this
book is very important. Walden wasn’t all a diary of Thoreau’s
experiences at the woods. It also held many of Thoreau’s ideas. And even though
it repeated those few ideas hundreds of times, that doesn’t make those ideas
any less valuable. One thing Walden reminds us of is the dangers of our
society. It talked about how our society is always busy and buzzing with
useless and meaningless things. Work, jobs, news, toys, money, wealth… they’re
all worthless in the end. We’re all going to die, and those won’t be worth
anything. However, finding out the true meaning of life is worth a lot, so we
should seek out the true meaning of life, and not care too much about the
little things.
I agree with that part. However, what came next I did not agree on.
Thoreau thought that society itself is evil. He thought that there is nothing
we can learn from society, and the best thing we can do is abandon it and go
live in the woods like him. He thought that the life that most people lead are
meaningless and tasteless, and that in order to live life out of its fullest,
we must turn to nature, and disown everything else. He thought that the sort of
life commonly accepted as “normal” has no flavor to it, and that anyone who
thinks their current life is wonderful has been decieved by the devil. I have
the exact opposite thought.
I think there is a lot we can learn from other people. I do agree
that our society has gotten a bit out of hand with all the technology and
political arguments, and that the world is full of evil. However, I also think
that it is also full of a lot of good things. We can learn a lot from it. Also,
I don’t think my current life is meaningless. There’s a lot of meaning. And I don't
think that the only way to live a true life is to surround myself in nature. I
like my life perfectly fine. Thoreau’s the one who’s decieved. He’s the one who’s
eyes are blinded, because he cannot see the wonder and goodness of our world
right now. I agree that nature is wonderful, and that now and then, we need to
take a walk in the woods. However, I also think that society and people is good
too.
Thoreau is definitely sort of weird, and in a bad way. I pity him.
He did not learn to enjoy the world and enjoy people, and by not being able to
do that, he has missed out on a lot. He has missed an essential part of life,
and he didn’t even know! He really was a loner. By separating himself from
society, he has gained a spiritual something that most people would never achieve,
but he has also missed out on some very pleasurable parts of life.
Walden was overall an interesting
experience. It made me think of things I otherwise would not have thought of,
and exposed me to new ideas. Not only that, it also managed to bore me out of
my mind. Half of it was like Thoreau’s personal diary or something, and I have
no desire to read about every little thing he did. I like some of the ideas
mentioned in Walden, and I disapproved with others. But it was
interesting to read all the same. If you don’t mind complicated books, go ahead
and read it, but if you do, I suggest you just go online and search up an
analysis of the book and skip the boring parts.
