莉迪婭·米利特　左可飛/譯

In my favorite childhood books， the animals always spoke. But in the books Ive read as an adult， the talking beasts have been replaced by human characters—equally made up， though often less charismatic. Still， I sorely miss those wise， anthropic creatures， so I was delighted to open Nick McDonells novel The Council of Animals and discover some friendly critters engaged in witty banter. Here， I thought， might be a fantastic hybrid of the childlike and the mature—as its publisher once described， a “Roald Dahl meets Animal Farm” classic to be savored by all ages.

在我最喜歡的童年書(shū)籍中，動(dòng)物們總是會(huì)說(shuō)話。但在我成年后讀過(guò)的書(shū)中，會(huì)說(shuō)話的野獸已經(jīng)被人類角色所取代——雖然兩種角色都是虛構(gòu)出來(lái)的，但人類角色往往沒(méi)什么魅力。我還是非常懷念那些睿智的擬人動(dòng)物，因此我很高興地翻開(kāi)尼克·麥克唐奈的小說(shuō)《動(dòng)物公會(huì)》，發(fā)現(xiàn)里面一些友好的小動(dòng)物們風(fēng)趣的調(diào)侃。我想這可能是一個(gè)童趣與成熟的奇妙結(jié)合——正如出版商所描述，這是一部融合了“羅爾德·達(dá)爾與《動(dòng)物農(nóng)場(chǎng)》”的經(jīng)典之作，值得所有年齡段的人品讀。

The setup is this： A small group of familiar mammal species， including a cat， a dog， a horse and a bear—plus one delusional， hyper-religious crow whose intelligence， for a member of the ingenious corvid family， appears distinctly subpar—holds a meeting to decide the fate of humanity. Humans have recently been reduced， it turns out， from billions to a dozen in the wake of an event called “The Calamity”. Maybe that calamity was climate change， maybe a nuclear disaster; its cause is unclear and， at this point in history， hardly needs to be specified， since the disaster possibilities before us are so richly abundant. The animals in the council， well-schooled in the principles of “demoscratchy，” gather to vote on whether to kill and eat the last people or let them live.

故事是這樣的：一小群我們熟悉的哺乳動(dòng)物，包括一只貓、一條狗、一匹馬和一頭熊——外加一只有妄想癥、極度虔誠(chéng)的烏鴉（身為機(jī)靈的鴉科動(dòng)物，它的智商明顯低于一般水平）。動(dòng)物們開(kāi)了一次決定人類命運(yùn)的會(huì)議。在一場(chǎng)名為“大災(zāi)難”的事件之后，人類的數(shù)量從幾十億人銳減到十幾人。那場(chǎng)災(zāi)難可能是氣候劇變，也可能是核事故；具體原因尚不清楚，在這個(gè)時(shí)代也不太需要講清楚，因?yàn)閿[在我們面前的災(zāi)難可能性實(shí)在不少。公會(huì)中的動(dòng)物們受過(guò)“民主爪治”原則的良好教育，它們聚在一起投票表決是要?dú)⒌舨⒊粤俗詈蟮娜祟?，還是留下他們的性命。

“The Council of Animals” is a hybrid tale for sure. It has the feel of a bedtime story spun to entertain， say， a niece or nephew， sprinkled with jokes based on animals bodies and sounds; but there are winks and nods for older readers in Easter eggs of punster humor throughout （“Woof Point，” for instance， is the name of a prestigious military academy for dogs， a reference not tailored to child readers）. The cast of characters relies on animal stereotypes and hierarchies—sly， scheming cats and obedient dogs; fine mammals at the top and unpleasant insects like cockroaches at the bottom—in line with common notions a child might be handed by her elders about wildlife. In its shape， the novel resembles an O. Henry short story or a movie like “Planet of the Apes，” with an ironic， dramatic twist at the end thats not too surprising.

毋庸置疑，“動(dòng)物公會(huì)”是一個(gè)混合故事。它給人們的感覺(jué)就像一個(gè)哄侄女或外甥的睡前故事，寫(xiě)滿了關(guān)于動(dòng)物身形和叫聲的笑料；其中插入的雙關(guān)幽默彩蛋也為年齡稍大讀者們提供了暗示和意會(huì)（例如，“汪點(diǎn)軍?！笔且凰娜愜娛聦W(xué)院，這個(gè)說(shuō)法顯然不是給兒童讀者看的）。小說(shuō)的角色塑造依靠人對(duì)動(dòng)物的刻板印象和等級(jí)劃分——狡猾、有心機(jī)的貓和順從的狗；位于頂端的是討人喜歡的哺乳動(dòng)物，下層是讓人討厭的昆蟲(chóng)，比如蟑螂——這些都與孩子從長(zhǎng)輩那里耳濡目染的、關(guān)于動(dòng)物的一般觀念相一致。從形式上看，該小說(shuō)類似歐·亨利的短篇小說(shuō)或《人猿星球》一類的電影，以諷刺性和戲劇性的轉(zhuǎn)折結(jié)尾，這不太出乎意料。

Notably， in an era of large-scale， human-caused animal extinction， its the question of human salvation， not the destruction of the natural world， thats at the core of the plot. Animal forms and personalities are deployed as proxies for our own social and political factions and tendencies （following precedents from Aesop to Orwell， Richard Adamss Watership Down or even Karel Capeks brilliant War With the Newts）. They are clowns performing a lightweight puppet show with conversational styling but a shockingly heavy subject. That tension is purposeful， of course—this is a satire of manners in which ponderous matters are treated as fodder for the equivalent of dinner-party badinage. （Though its the sort of dinner party where， in the course of an evening， one of the guests may rudely and suddenly gulp down another.）

值得注意的是，在人類造成動(dòng)物大規(guī)模滅絕的時(shí)代，情節(jié)的核心在于拯救人類而不是自然的毀滅。動(dòng)物的形態(tài)和性格特征被拿來(lái)代表我們自己社會(huì)政治派系和傾向（從伊索到奧威爾，到理查德·亞當(dāng)斯的《沃特希普荒原》，甚至卡雷爾·恰佩克的大作《鯢魚(yú)之亂》，都是先例）。這些動(dòng)物就像小丑一樣，演了一場(chǎng)輕松的木偶戲，用日常對(duì)話的形式來(lái)表現(xiàn)異常沉重的主題。當(dāng)然，這種沖突是作者有意為之——這是對(duì)繁冗禮節(jié)的諷刺，枯燥乏味的事被當(dāng)作晚宴上打趣的談資。（盡管在這種晚宴上，一晚之間，一個(gè)客人可能會(huì)突然殘暴地將另一個(gè)囫圇吞下）。

To child readers， this book might seem like all talk and no action， while to adult readers， it may seem too childlike， for The Council of Animals is a replicator， rather than an interrogator， of fixed ideas about animals subservience to people and their roles as human instruments. Its levity of tone can be read as gentle handling or glib reduction， depending on your taste. For some readers， the story may land as a playful pantomime， meant to be received in that spirit of fun and seasoned with a thoughtfulness thats broad but not too deep. But for those readers who may be discomfited by the casual use of animal figures as caricatures， and to those who， like me， are compelled by the subjectivity and uniqueness of other life-forms and are acutely anxious about their imminent peril at our hand， the book resonates more like a joke being told in the wake of an untimely death… and in the fleeting moments before the next death occurs.

對(duì)兒童讀者來(lái)說(shuō)，這本書(shū)像在紙上談兵，而對(duì)成年讀者來(lái)說(shuō)，它又可能過(guò)于幼稚，因?yàn)椤秳?dòng)物公會(huì)》重申而非質(zhì)疑動(dòng)物作為人類服從者和工具的固有觀念。這本書(shū)中輕浮的基調(diào)可以被理解為作者溫和的處理方式，或是油滑的大事化小，一切取決于你的喜好。對(duì)于某些讀者來(lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)故事像一場(chǎng)詼諧的啞劇，用意是讓人以?shī)蕵?lè)精神來(lái)體驗(yàn)，再加入一些廣泛而不太深入的思考。但是，對(duì)于那些因動(dòng)物形象被隨意用于夸張描寫(xiě)而感到不安的讀者，以及像我一樣被其他生命形式的主體性和獨(dú)特性所折服，又對(duì)它們即將面臨的人為危險(xiǎn)深感焦慮的人來(lái)說(shuō)，這本書(shū)引發(fā)的共鳴更像是在一次不期而至的死亡之后……在下一次死亡降臨前的瞬間里講的笑話。

As diversions for young readers， fiction has near-infinite license for silliness—to critique whimsical childrens literature straight-faced and primly feels foolish， like trying to scrutinize a prancing pink unicorn under a microscope. But since The Council of Animals has been likened to Orwell， though， the critical bar is set higher： McDonell—a journalist with a record of reporting on war and its casualties—clearly wishes to offer us more than childs fare alone.

作為年輕讀者的消遣物，小說(shuō)幾乎有無(wú)窮無(wú)盡的理由使自己可笑——嚴(yán)肅正經(jīng)、煞有介事地批判兒童文學(xué)異想天開(kāi)是愚蠢的，就像試圖用顯微鏡仔細(xì)觀察一只奔躍的粉色獨(dú)角獸。但自從《動(dòng)物公會(huì)》和奧威爾相提并論后，批評(píng)的門(mén)檻就設(shè)得更高了：麥克唐奈——作為一名報(bào)道過(guò)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)及戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)傷亡的記者——顯然希望為我們提供除兒童故事以外更多的東西。

But through its inversion of the risks of current human activity—the conceit that human extinction， rather than the mass extinction of others， is the looming specter that haunts our kind—the novel enacts a kind of gamification of the tragedy of loss. This well-intentioned fable returns us once more to the arc of narcissism that has increasingly defined our dominant myths. Other animals and plants are being drastically， swiftly obliterated across the globe and may survive， in many cases， only in captivity or not at all as the coming decades unspool; but still people are the heroes， the villains and the victims in every epic. Why not？ The world belongs to us.

然而通過(guò)對(duì)當(dāng)前人類活動(dòng)產(chǎn)生風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的反轉(zhuǎn)——傲慢地認(rèn)定是人類滅絕，而不是其他物種的大規(guī)模滅絕，像隱隱約約縈繞在我們身邊的幽魂——這部小說(shuō)以某種游戲化的方式演繹了滅絕的悲劇。這個(gè)善意的寓言再次將我們帶回自戀的弧線，而自戀越來(lái)越多地定義了我們的主流神話。其他動(dòng)植物正在全球范圍內(nèi)急速消失。在許多情況下，在未來(lái)幾十年間，它們只能在人工圈養(yǎng)下生存，或是終將滅絕；但在每一部史詩(shī)中，人類仍然扮演著英雄、反派和受害者的形象。為什么不這樣寫(xiě)呢？世界是我們的。

So， as thousands of species hover on the brink of extinction in our own backyard—only 10 little vaquita porpoises， the last of their kind in the world， remain in the Gulf of California， for instance—this story concerns itself with a fictional 12 last humans.

因此，當(dāng)人類后花園中數(shù)以千計(jì)的物種徘徊在滅絕邊緣時(shí)——例如，世界僅存的最后10只小鼠海豚還生活在加利福尼亞灣——這個(gè)故事卻虛構(gòu)世界上只剩下最后12個(gè)人類。

Certainly the threat of human extinction， in The Council of Animals， also serves as a metaphor for the disappearance of others—hence the symbolic role reversal. But if all signs point everywhere， why bother to post those signs at all？

當(dāng)然，在《動(dòng)物公會(huì)》中，人類滅絕的兇兆也是對(duì)其他物種消失的隱喻——因此，這是一種象征性的角色互換。然而，如果所有路標(biāo)都指向四面八方，為什么還要費(fèi)心設(shè)置這些路標(biāo)呢？