Under Review

Claudia Rankine Plays Dead

克劳迪娅·兰金装死
In “Triage,” the writer explores how we should respond—or, perhaps, not respond—to a world in crisis.
在《分诊》中,这位作家探讨我们应当如何回应——或者,也许,不回应——一个危机四伏的世界。
Illustrated collage of a figure and a couch.
Illustration by Tarini Sharma

“Triage,” Claudia Rankine’s new book, opens at a scene of inquisition. At a podium, under a spotlight, a theorist is asked a gloomy question by someone in the audience. How do they feel, given “what’s going on in the world”? The theorist is an estranged friend of the narrator. The setting is a lecture being held on a grand stage. The time is—well, the time is now. But what is “now”? And what is the audience member referring to, exactly, when they gesture toward “what’s going on”?

克劳迪娅·兰金的新书《分诊》开场于一场质询。讲台上,聚光灯下,一位理论家被观众席中的某人问了一个阴郁的问题。鉴于“世界上正在发生的事”,他们作何感受?这位理论家是叙述者一位疏远的朋友。场景是一场在宏大舞台上举行的讲座。时间是——嗯,时间就是现在。但什么是“现在”?那位观众在指向“正在发生的事”时,究竟指的是什么?

“Toomuchness” is the phrase that the theorist deploys onstage to describe life in the present, a phrase that Rankine repeats throughout the book as a shorthand for psychic overwhelm, the knowledge of ongoing violence which precedes emotional and spiritual collapse. “Toomuchness” is endemic to the times: “We were all struggling with varying degrees of powerlessness and capitulation,” Rankine writes. The auditorium is quiet while the theorist decides how to sum up their feelings. “Sometimes,” they reply, “I want to throw myself in front of a speeding car.”

“过多感”是那位理论家在台上用来描述当下生活的词,兰金在全书反复使用这个短语,作为精神不堪重负的简写——那种对持续暴力的认知,它先于情感与精神的崩溃。“过多感”是这个时代的通病:“我们都在与不同程度的无力感和屈服作斗争,”兰金写道。礼堂一片寂静,理论家正在斟酌如何概括自己的感受。“有时候,”他们回答,“我想把自己扔到一辆飞驰的汽车前。”

The narrator, a poet, is about to turn sixty. She watches the lecture from an obscured position in the audience. “Triage” tells the story of how she got there—quiet, middle-aged, and looking up at her former friend, who smiles through the pained confession of their suffering. “Why the drama?” the narrator thinks. “Their very presence at a microphone suggested they wanted to live.” The theorist, unlike the narrator, is inclined toward public speech. This inclination is dispositional (their “need was to raise the volume, a volume already at a screech”), political (the recognition of cruelty “seemed to propel them toward voice”), and professional (their career as an academic would flounder without it). But it’s a survival mechanism, too. The theorist’s propensity for dramatic speech functions as a lifeline: “They thought all the definitive talk would keep them upright.”

叙述者是一位诗人,即将年满六十。她从观众席中一个不显眼的位置注视着这场讲座。《分诊》讲述了她如何走到那里——安静的、中年的,仰望着她曾经的朋友,而那位朋友在痛苦地坦白自己的煎熬时面带微笑。“何必这么戏剧化?”叙述者心想。“他们出现在麦克风前这件事本身就说明他们想活下去。”理论家与叙述者不同,倾向于公开发言。这种倾向既是性情使然(他们“需要提高音量,而音量本已尖利刺耳”),也是政治性的(对残酷的认知“似乎驱使他们发声”),还是职业性的(没有这一点,他们的学术生涯将难以为继)。但它也是一种生存机制。理论家对戏剧性言说的偏好起着生命线的作用:“他们以为所有那些斩钉截铁的话语能让自己保持站立。”

The narrator, though curious to speak herself, is finally repelled. “I’d thought to take one of the floating mics and have the spotlight find me in the back of the auditorium,” Rankine writes. “But I was not brave. If fear was a strength, I was furious with it.” The scene in the auditorium replays throughout the book, its choreography—the theorist at the microphone, the narrator contemplating her position in the audience—dramatizing their estrangement, which has arisen from conflicting responses to personal and planetary distress. They have not spoken to each other in decades. They live on opposite coasts. Between them, there has been no dramatic betrayal, only “a feeling, more or less, of disquiet; a feeling of never being able to live up to the expectations of another.” The theorist values speech, equating it with action; the narrator values quiet, viewing it as “a portal to the mystery of an interior life.”

叙述者虽然自己也有说话的冲动,但最终还是退缩了。“我本想拿一支漂浮的麦克风,让聚光灯在礼堂后排找到我,”兰金写道。“但我不够勇敢。如果恐惧是一种力量,我对它愤怒至极。”礼堂中的这一幕在书中反复重现,其编排——理论家在麦克风前,叙述者思量着自己在观众席中的位置——戏剧化地呈现了她们的疏远,这种疏远源于对个人与全球性苦难截然不同的回应。她们已经几十年没有交谈。她们住在东西两岸。在她们之间,没有戏剧性的背叛,只有“一种感觉,或多或少,是不安;一种永远无法达到对方期望的感觉。”理论家重视言说,将其等同于行动;叙述者珍视安静,视其为“通往内心生活奥秘的门户。”

“Triage” is divided against itself. It is a book whose subject is the failure to act, but whose narrator takes for granted that defeat is an inevitable condition of life. Indeed, the narrator is resigned to death—if not the declamatory death of her friend in the lecture hall, at least the fact of death happening elsewhere, on the global stage. “We are being asked to hold, visually and emotionally, realities we do not yet have a viable system of language or policy for,” the narrator tells the theorist, upon their reunion, over sardines. “I’m not going to pretend there is anything I could or can or will do to reroute the dying.” Reading lines like these, in which the mind consigns the body to a state of fundamental uselessness, you get the sense that you’re in the presence of a dead woman talking.

《分诊》自身就是分裂的。这是一本主题为“未能行动”的书,但叙述者却理所当然地认为失败是生命中不可避免的境况。事实上,叙述者已经向死亡屈服了——如果不是她朋友在演讲厅里那种慷慨激昂的死亡,至少也是死亡正在别处、在全球舞台上发生这一事实。“我们被要求以视觉和情感的方式去承载那些我们尚无可行的语言或政策体系来应对的现实,”叙述者在重逢时对理论家说,一边吃着沙丁鱼。“我不会假装我能、可以或将要做任何事来改变死亡的走向。”读到这样的句子——心智将身体交付于一种根本性的无用状态——你会觉得自己正面对一个死人在说话。

And it’s true: the narrator has been playing at lifelessness since childhood. She enters college “dead on my feet,” and first spots the theorist in the library, surrounded by “tired couches,” tearing down posters of women in bikinis. The couches are important: they are the symbol through which the narrator will go on to process the “toomuchness” of now. But in that first instance they are just couches, and the narrator’s attention is with the theorist, whose actions remind her of Tommie Smith’s and John Carlos’s raised fists at the 1968 Olympics. “The theorist’s hand ripping paper away from the wall reminded me to swing out at life,” she reflects. “One might act despite the impossibility of change or one might act to spite the impossibility of change.”

确实如此:叙述者从童年起就一直在扮演无生命的状态。她“拖着死气沉沉的脚步”进入大学,第一次在图书馆看到理论家,周围是“疲惫的沙发”,正在撕下比基尼女郎的海报。沙发很重要:它们是叙述者此后用来处理当下“过多感”的象征。但在最初那一刻,它们只是沙发,叙述者的注意力在理论家身上,后者的举动让她想起汤米·史密斯和约翰·卡洛斯在1968年奥运会上举起的拳头。“理论家从墙上撕纸的手提醒我要向生活挥拳,”她反思道。“一个人可以尽管改变无望仍然行动,或者一个人可以为了向改变的无望示威而行动。”

Watching the theorist, the narrator begins to believe in resurrection—in a “way of returning to myself, one reconnected emotion at a time.” The pair are bound by language, an erotic pull toward the expression of ideas: they write side by side, memorize the same stanzas, and paraphrase Miles Davis in unison. Together, they enjoy a “fabricated sisterhood” facilitated by a ritual of collapse. Though they spend their days apart—the theorist in student encampments that protest South African apartheid, the narrator mulling over Yeats—whenever they encounter each other on campus, they fall to the ground, two bodies behaving as one. Playing dead helps them come alive, despite their differences.

注视着理论家,叙述者开始相信复活——相信一种“回归自我的方式,一次重新连接一种情感。”两人因语言而联结,一种对表达思想的爱欲般的吸引:她们并排写作,背诵同样的诗节,齐声转述迈尔斯·戴维斯。她们共同享受一种“虚构的姐妹情谊”,由一种倒下的仪式促成。尽管她们白天各奔东西——理论家在抗议南非种族隔离的学生营地中,叙述者则在琢磨叶芝——每当她们在校园里相遇,她们就倒在地上,两具身体如同一体。装死帮助她们活过来,尽管她们如此不同。

The narrator tells the theorist that together they are going to rise up as one, too. But even as she speaks she senses the implausibility of her statement. “Our twinning occurred through our downward motion,” Rankine writes. “But given that both of us had been ravaged by violence, once we regained our footing distrust abounded.” The narrator was born to a mother who blamed her for the joint injuries of the near-fatal experience of giving birth to her, her grandmother’s death, and the rape by a stranger that preceded both. The theorist was born in Ramallah, into occupation. None of this becomes obvious until halfway through the book. Genocide is the weather, but Palestine isn’t named explicitly until it surfaces as a conversational afterthought, like a secret that clarifies the origins of a lifelong argument. The narrator has just suggested, facetiously, that someone should install a billboard-size digital counter in Times Square to keep track of Manhattan’s sinking. The two are walking on the High Line.

叙述者告诉理论家,她们也将一起崛起,合而为一。但就在她说话的同时,她感到自己这句话的不可信。“我们的孪生是通过向下的运动实现的,”兰金写道。“但鉴于我们两人都曾被暴力蹂躏,一旦重新站稳脚跟,不信任便四处蔓延。”叙述者的母亲将生育她时近乎致命的经历造成的关节损伤、外祖母的死亡、以及此前被陌生人强奸的遭遇,都归咎于她。理论家出生在拉马拉,生于占领之下。这些直到全书过半才变得明朗。种族灭绝是天气,但巴勒斯坦直到作为对话中的事后补充才被明确提及,像一个秘密,澄清了一场终生争论的起源。叙述者刚刚半开玩笑地建议,应该有人在时代广场安装一块广告牌大小的数字计数器,来记录曼哈顿的下沉。两人正走在高线公园上。

There exist more urgent places to put your urgency, the theorist added.

有更紧迫的地方可以安放你的紧迫感,理论家补充道。

You mean wherever you are looking, I hazarded.

你是说你所注视的任何地方,我试探着说。

The theorist opened their mouth and then closed it.

理论家张了张嘴,又闭上了。

Shit, I thought. Gaza.

糟了,我想。加沙。

“Triage” is Rankine’s first publication since the conclusion of her “American” trilogy, which comprised “Don’t Let Me Be Lonely” (2004), “Citizen” (2014), and “Just Us” (2020). Like those books, “Triage” is written in the confessional admixture of prose and poetry for which Rankine has become widely known. Her language works by a logic of accumulation. Time is elastic. Her narrators are frequently caught in a flurry of interpersonal encounters, which happen and then achieve new significance as they accrue associations in memory. And yet Rankine’s subject is Rankine. When she writes, she seems always to be checking her own pulse.

《分诊》是兰金自“美国”三部曲完结以来的第一部作品,三部曲包括《别让我孤独》(2004)、《公民》(2014)和《就是我们》(2020)。与那些书一样,《分诊》以兰金广为人知的散文与诗歌的忏悔式混合体写成。她的语言遵循一种累积的逻辑。时间是有弹性的。她的叙述者常常陷入一连串人际遭遇之中,这些遭遇发生之后,随着在记忆中不断累积联想而获得新的意义。然而兰金的主题始终是兰金自己。当她写作时,她似乎总是在摸自己的脉搏。

“I feel like I am already dead,” the narrator of “Don’t Let Me Be Lonely” says. She is witnessing the commencement of the war on terror from the heart of the American empire. “I apologize for not knowing why I am alive. I am sorry. I am sorry. I apologize.” Like the version of Rankine who appears in “Triage,” she is convinced of her fundamental uselessness; she feels like a sack of skin. And yet her resignation isn’t total. Her interior world is animated by an energetic sadness. “The sadness lives in the recognition that a life can not matter,” she writes. “Or, as there are billions of lives, my sadness is alive alongside the recognition that billions of lives never mattered. I write this without breaking my heart, without bursting into anything. Perhaps this is the real source of my sadness . . . I don’t know, I just find when the news comes on I switch the channel.”

“我觉得自己已经死了,”《别让我孤独》的叙述者说。她正在美利坚帝国的腹地目睹反恐战争的开始。“我为不知道我为什么活着而道歉。对不起。对不起。我道歉。”与出现在《分诊》中的兰金版本一样,她确信自己根本无用;她觉得自己像一袋皮囊。然而她的屈服并非彻底。她的内心世界被一种充满活力的悲伤所驱动。“悲伤存在于对一种生命可以无关紧要的认识之中,”她写道。“或者,因为有数十亿生命,我的悲伤与对数十亿生命从未重要过的认识一同活着。我写下这些时没有心碎,没有爆发成任何东西。也许这才是我悲伤的真正来源……我不知道,我只发现新闻一开我就换台。”

In “Don’t Let Me Be Lonely,” Rankine has already deemed resistance a threat. “Resistance will only make matters more difficult,” she writes. “Any resistance will make matters worse.” She evades the imperative to speak by surrendering to her interior, a site of doubt, contradiction, and partial annihilation. In light of this retreat into the underbelly of waking life, it is surprising to encounter, in “Citizen,” Rankine’s ode to public encounters in which racism is made manifest, obvious, and incontrovertible. In “Don’t Let Me Be Lonely,” the narrator is frequently at home, watching TV or else contemplating turning it off. But in “Citizen” she is out and upright, navigating conference rooms and airplane cabins in which she experiences a spate of interpersonal collisions, collisions through which she, as a subject, begins to come alive. In the words of the theorist Louis Althusser, she is interpellated: like a passerby hailed by a police officer yelling, “Hey, you!,” she is drawn into an awareness of the social circumstances that give rise to her existence.

在《别让我孤独》中,兰金已经将抵抗判定为一种威胁。“抵抗只会让事情更困难,”她写道。“任何抵抗都会让事情更糟。”她通过退入内心来逃避言说的命令,那是一个充满怀疑、矛盾与部分湮灭的场所。鉴于这种向清醒生活暗面的退缩,在《公民》中遇到兰金对公共遭遇的颂歌是令人惊讶的——在那些遭遇中,种族主义变得清晰可见、显而易见、不容置疑。在《别让我孤独》中,叙述者常常待在家里,看电视,或者考虑关掉电视。但在《公民》中,她走出家门,挺直站立,穿梭于会议室和机舱之中,经历一连串人际碰撞,正是通过这些碰撞,她作为主体开始活过来。用理论家路易·阿尔都塞的话说,她被询唤了:就像一个被警察喊“嘿,你!”叫住的路人,她被引入对构成她存在的社会境况的意识之中。

“Citizen” deploys the second person, placing the reader in moments of corrosive identification originally experienced by Rankine. There is a knowing disbelief threaded throughout these scenes of negation, in which “your” presence, personhood, and profession are summoned in the same breath that they are called into question. The encounters (with acquaintances, strangers, friends) are always inevitable, usually identical, and yet described as if their cruelty is being experienced anew. Together, they read as something of a shock catalogue. Like a defibrillator, they incite a series of resuscitative gasps: “What did he just say? Did she really just say that? Did I hear what I think I heard? Did that just come out of my mouth, his mouth, your mouth?” Rankine’s follow-up, “Just Us,” adds to the catalogue, but this time she’s dropped the second person, and she’s travelling first class.

《公民》采用第二人称,将读者置于兰金亲身经历的那些具有腐蚀性的认同时刻之中。在这些否定性场景中贯穿着一种知情的难以置信——“你”的存在、人格和职业在同一口气中被召唤,又在同一口气中被质疑。这些遭遇(与熟人、陌生人、朋友)总是不可避免的,通常如出一辙,却被描述得仿佛其残酷性是第一次被体验。合在一起,它们读起来像一份震惊目录。如同除颤器,它们激起一连串复苏性的喘息:“他刚才说了什么?她真的说了那句话吗?我听到的是我以为我听到的吗?那句话刚才是从我嘴里、他嘴里、你嘴里说出来的吗?”兰金的后续作品《就是我们》为这份目录增添了内容,但这一次她放弃了第二人称,而且她坐的是头等舱。

It’s exhausting to experience all those little resurrections only to realize that you are still in the midst of a great, long fall. In “Triage,” Rankine’s narrator has found a temporary landing place: the couch. Couches. In her apartment, she has two. By the book’s beginning, looking up at the theorist, she has already given up their shared ritual of collapse. The couch has entered her life as “an intermediary before a total collapse onto the floor.” She enjoys it as a place of rest and an object of study; the book is punctuated by images of couches as sculptures, symbolic material that has been sanctified as fine art. Most are in a state of disrepair: they look like the refuse of a ravished world. “I wrote about couches because what else is there once one’s fallen away from faith in each other, confidence in the good, trust in ourselves,” Rankine writes.

经历了所有那些微小的复活之后,却发现自己仍处于一场漫长而巨大的坠落之中,这令人精疲力竭。在《分诊》中,兰金的叙述者找到了一个暂时的落脚点:沙发。沙发们。在她的公寓里,她有两张。到书的开头,仰望着理论家时,她已经放弃了她们共同的倒下仪式。沙发进入她的生活,作为“彻底倒向地板之前的过渡物”。她享受它作为休息之所,也将其作为研究对象;书中穿插着沙发作为雕塑的图像,这些象征性材料已被奉为高雅艺术。大多数沙发处于破败状态:它们看起来像一个被蹂躏的世界的残骸。“我写沙发,是因为一旦一个人从对彼此的信念、对善的信心、对我们自己的信任中坠落之后,还能剩下什么呢,”兰金写道。

Rankine would like the theorist to join her in repose. And yet the theorist refuses. They are convinced that Rankine’s fixation is “getting in the way.” After all these years, they are still on their feet, and by the end of the book they have been beaten to the ground. The narrator sees on their face the remnants of two black eyes, a souvenir from police officers who attacked them at a protest in Berlin. While they both discuss the incident, a server interrupts to ask if they would prefer sparkling or still.

兰金希望理论家能和她一起安歇。然而理论家拒绝了。他们确信兰金的执念“在碍事”。这么多年过去了,他们仍然站立着,而到书的结尾,他们被打倒在地。叙述者看到他们脸上残留着两只黑眼圈的痕迹,那是柏林一场抗议中警察袭击他们留下的纪念品。就在她们讨论这件事时,服务员打断她们,问要气泡水还是静水。

From the theorist’s vantage, the narrator’s couches will always be placating. The invitation to rest looks too much like resignation, like capitulation to the reality-denying luxuries of the good life. The narrator doesn’t disagree with this assessment, in theory. In theory, she knows that, although she isn’t doing nothing, there is more than what she is doing to be done. “Though it nagged me that the theorist tended to demand more from others within their quietude and though I remained attracted to forms of stillness, there were arguments to be made against inaction when air strikes, war, starvation keep others on the move,” she writes. There were arguments to be made—but she doesn’t make them. Much of the book is written in the queasy tone of self-defense. “The name-calling diminishes each of us a little more each day,” she tells the theorist, while in the same breath acknowledging “how close complacency is to complicity.” The theorist’s condemnations are repetitive, formal, and, occasionally, unbelievably cruel. “The time is not easy,” the narrator texts the theorist, relaying the news of her mother’s death. “Nothing is easy,” the theorist responds, as if their capacity for empathy has been overtaken completely by the impulse toward repudiation. They are “war-torn” and “assaulted by settler forces,” still suffering a broken rib. They appear at once physically diminished and wildly resistant, their self-expression operating always as a mode of public speech. The swirling mysteries of their inner world have been hardened by the harsh conditions in which they are trying to live.

从理论家的角度看,叙述者的沙发永远是一种安抚。休息的邀请看起来太像屈服,太像对美好生活中否认现实的奢侈品的投降。叙述者在理论上并不反对这种评价。在理论上,她知道,尽管她并非什么都没做,但除了她正在做的之外,还有更多的事要做。“尽管理论家倾向于在他人的安静中向他人索取更多这一点让我不安,尽管我仍然被各种静止的形式所吸引,但当空袭、战争、饥荒迫使他人不断迁徙时,反对不作为是有论据可言的,”她写道。有论据可言——但她没有提出这些论据。书中大部分内容以一种令人不安的自我辩护口吻写成。“谩骂每天都在让我们每个人变得更渺小一点,”她对理论家说,同时在同一口气中承认“自满与共谋有多接近。”理论家的谴责是重复的、正式的,偶尔还令人难以置信地残酷。“这段时间不容易,”叙述者给理论家发短信,告知母亲去世的消息。“没有什么是容易的,”理论家回复道,仿佛他们的共情能力已被彻底否定他人的冲动所取代。他们“饱受战争创伤”,“遭到定居者武装的袭击”,肋骨仍然骨折。他们同时显得身体衰弱又极度顽强,他们的自我表达始终以一种公共言说的方式运作。他们内心世界翻涌的奥秘已被他们试图在其中生存的严酷环境所硬化。

The scholar Kevin Quashie has argued that the Black subject gets read primarily through her capacities for resistance: she is presumed to exist in order to produce social meaning, rather than for herself and in alignment with her humanity. For the narrator, that sacrifice is terrifying. She has survived by keeping quiet, by protecting, in the words of Quashie, “the right to be nothing to anyone but self.” “In what world,” she asks the theorist, “is a Black person existing up against the wishes of the state a small thing?” And yet she also knows that just because something isn’t small doesn’t mean it’s also enough. And, indeed, she is asked to do something more: the theorist, who may be “too bereft for generosity,” has asked the narrator if she will host a couple that has fled Gaza in her spare apartment in Berlin. The narrator decides it is not her “place”; surely, there are other things she can do. There aren’t. This is it. The book concludes on a deflation; her final judgment is no.

学者凯文·夸希认为,黑人主体主要被通过其抵抗能力来解读:她被假定为生产社会意义而存在,而不是为了她自己、为了与她的人性相一致而存在。对叙述者来说,这种牺牲是可怕的。她靠保持安静活了下来,靠保护——用夸希的话说——“对任何人都不算什么、只对自己存在的权利”活了下来。“在哪个世界里,”她问理论家,“一个黑人违背国家意志而存在是一件小事?”然而她也知道,一件事不小并不意味着它就足够了。而且,确实,她被要求做更多的事:理论家——可能“过于悲痛而无力慷慨”——问叙述者是否愿意让一对逃离加沙的夫妇住在她柏林空置的公寓里。叙述者认定这不是她的“位置”;当然,还有其他她能做的事。没有。就是这样。全书以一种泄气的方式收尾;她最终的判断是“不”。

“Triage” has been labelled as nonfiction, and it opens with a disclaimer: “Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. Unless it isn’t.” The statement wouldn’t be so condescendingly winking if the theorist’s contributions to their field weren’t drawn, word for word, from the academic work of the late Lauren Berlant, the first person thanked in the book’s acknowledgments. Quashie is thanked in the first paragraph. Judith Butler, thanked in the same place, has twinned cameos as an anonymous friend, whose name has been “turned over to our government along with 160 others in a McCarthy era-type move,” and as a reference, their name attached to a quote from a lecture on grief they delivered in 2014. One of the pleasures of reading Rankine is reading her through the contemporaries with whom she is clearly in dialogue; “Triage” ’s most compelling story of friendship is told through its citations. And yet this metafictional doubling—in which people appear simultaneously as themselves and with a set of fictional flourishes—has the side effect of undermining the discursive conceit of the text. You feel, while reading, that Rankine is first and foremost in conversation with herself, or else in conversation with the version of herself that she has brought to life through the act of writing, a character who collides with her peers only to determine the outer limits of her own thinking.

《分诊》被标注为非虚构作品,开篇有一则免责声明:“任何与真实人物(在世或已故)或真实事件的相似之处纯属巧合。除非并非如此。”如果理论家对其领域的贡献不是逐字逐句取自已故学者劳伦·伯兰特——该书致谢中第一个被感谢的人——的学术著作,这句话就不会显得如此居高临下地挤眉弄眼。夸希在第一段中被致谢。朱迪斯·巴特勒在同一处被致谢,她以双重身份客串出场:一位匿名朋友,其名字“连同其他160人一起,在一次麦卡锡式的行动中被交给了我们的政府”;以及一个参考文献,其名字附在2014年一场关于哀悼的讲座引文之后。阅读兰金的乐趣之一,是通过那些她显然在与之对话的同代人阅读她;《分诊》最引人入胜的友谊故事是通过其引注讲述的。然而这种元虚构的叠影——人物同时以自身面目和一系列虚构修饰出现——产生了削弱文本话语构思的副作用。阅读时你会感到,兰金首先是在与自己对话,或者是在与那个她通过写作行为赋予生命的自我版本对话,一个与同代人碰撞只为确定自己思想外部边界的角色。

Something similar can be said of the patient who speaks about her life from her position on the couch: by marshalling a cast of characters—her lovers, her family, her friends—and, through the act of speech, bringing them into the room, she becomes convinced that she is a character herself, a person with qualities mirrored in others. The theorist may be a version of Berlant, or else a shadow figure, who either trails behind Rankine’s narrator, marking where she’s already been, or anticipates her footsteps, pointing her toward the unknown places she is likely to go. How convenient, I thought, that this apparition, who seems always to be teetering on the edge of reality, and therefore death, should be figured as Palestinian; and how devastating that even a fictional Palestinian should be figured as a prop. Characters, of course, need not act ethically, or even realistically. But it’s striking to encounter, in the theorist, a character so flat, so devoid of interiority, in a book so invested in mounting a defense of quiet embodiment, and by an author whose previous works compelled writers of fiction and nonfiction alike to take notice when their imaginative sympathies “line up, again and again, with the lines drawn by power.”

对于那位从沙发上讲述自己生活的病人,也可以说类似的话:通过召集一群人物——她的情人、家人、朋友——并通过言说的行为将他们带入房间,她开始相信自己也是一个角色,一个品质在他人身上得到映照的人。理论家可能是伯兰特的一个版本,或者是一个影子般的人物,要么跟在兰金的叙述者身后,标记她已经走过的地方,要么预判她的脚步,指向她可能前往的未知之地。我心想,多么方便啊,这个似乎总是在现实边缘——因而也是在死亡边缘——摇摇欲坠的幻影,竟被设定为巴勒斯坦人;而多么令人痛心的是,即便是一个虚构的巴勒斯坦人,也被塑造成了一个道具。当然,角色不必合乎伦理地行动,甚至不必合乎现实地行动。但在一本如此致力于为安静的具身存在辩护的书中,在一本出自一位其先前作品曾促使虚构和非虚构作家都不得不注意——当他们的想象性共情“一次又一次地与权力划定的界线重合”时——的作者之手的书中,遇到理论家这样一个如此扁平、如此缺乏内在性的角色,是令人震惊的。

Rankine’s narrator wants to do something—anything other than what she is asked to do—in lieu of complete surrender. Surrender to what? “To the hardness of now.” But, as Quashie writes, surrender can also be an act of generosity, as in “the surrender to love: It is a deliberate giving up to another, the simultaneous practice of yielding and falling toward what is deep and largely unknowable.” This is the promise of Rankine’s way of being in the world; it is the divine principle of the retreat into her sovereign kingdom. She makes an interesting, often beautiful, argument. Reading it, you begin to think you might be going somewhere. But, in the end, her kingdom is a vacant rental in Berlin. It houses nothing. Maybe a couch—a place to rest, or else to break the fall. And yet a young couple, fleeing annihilation, is denied access to the interior. ♦

兰金的叙述者想做点什么——除了她被要求做的之外的任何事——来代替彻底的投降。向什么投降?“向当下的坚硬。”但是,正如夸希所写,投降也可以是一种慷慨的行为,比如“向爱投降:那是一种有意的交付于他人,是同时进行的让步与坠向深邃而大体不可知之物。”这就是兰金存在于世的方式所蕴含的承诺;这是她退入自己主权王国的神圣原则。她提出了一个有趣的、常常是美丽的论点。读着读着,你开始觉得自己正在前往某个地方。但最终,她的王国不过是柏林一套空置的出租公寓。里面什么都没有。也许有一张沙发——一个休息的地方,或者用来缓冲坠落。然而一对逃离灭绝的年轻夫妇,却被拒绝进入其中。♦

2 free previews left — register to get 30 translations a month