我曾以為，一個(gè)至高的平臺(tái)、一個(gè)奇妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)和一個(gè)勁爆的書(shū)名就能成就一本驚世之作。然而，當(dāng)我將這三點(diǎn)奉為創(chuàng)作的法寶，試圖將我的奇思妙想煉制成一本好書(shū)時(shí)，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)：紛亂的奇思妙想抵不過(guò)實(shí)踐的檢驗(yàn)，空洞的思想熔爐煉不出好的作品……

When I was young I wanted to write a challenging book of ideas. I had in mind the kind of “deep” book that public intellectuals of the 1950s and 1960s wrote: The Lonely Crowd2)， The One-Dimensional Man3)， The End of Ideology4). Intellectuals talked seriously about them in magical places like New York and San Francisco， places I knew nothing about. Unfortunately， I didn’t really have anything deep to say. So I did what most intellectually ambitious young Americans do. I went to graduate school. I found nothing deep to say there. Instead， I learned to do research and write clearly. In the years that followed， I wrote books， but not deep books of ideas. My books were focused， well-documented demonstrations of some minor fact about the world. They added to what we know. That’s something.

Yet I still hungered to write a book of ideas. I knew I wouldn’t ever do so in academia. So after about a decade of teaching at a big university， I left to work in a staff position at a big magazine. In my mind， this magazine stood at the pinnacle5) of American intellectual life.

In 2005， Wikipedia was taking off. I thought its history might be interesting. So I wrote a piece on spec6) about the founding of Wikipedia. The editors at the big magazine liked it， and they published it in 2006. Around the time my Wikipedia article appeared in the big magazine， another Wikipedia piece appeared in another big magazine. Wikipedia was suddenly， as Tina Brown7) says， “v. hot.” This was my chance to write a book of ideas—not that8) I had any good ideas to write about. I sent an e-mail to a literary agent picked at random， asking whether I could write a book about Wikipedia-style collaboration on the Internet. I got a call within minutes. The nice fellow at the other end of the line said he’d read my article. I could get a book deal with a big New York trade publisher.

This is what I had to do. First， I needed to have a platform. A platform is something you stand on. It makes you taller than you are. In trade publishing， a platform is the same， but it’s a prestigious brand. I had two: from a trade editor’s point of view， I had been a “professor” at the big university and a “writer” at the big magazine. Second， I needed a big idea. A big idea is an enthusiastically stated thesis， usually taking the form of “This changes everything and will make you rich， happy， and beautiful.” A big idea must be counterintuitive9): the this that changes everything must be something everyone thinks is trivial， but in fact matters a great deal. In my case， the this had to be Wikipedia， so my big idea was “Wikipedia changes everything.” Third， I needed a catchphrase title like The Wisdom of Crowds10)， The Tipping Point11)， or The Long Tail12). The title had to be the kind of thing that becomes a cliché. And in fact a trade editor suggested a good title—WikiWorld.

My agent is not a cynical man. He never suggested that I misrepresent myself or commit to anything I couldn’t accomplish. He was simply doing his job， explaining to me how this particular game is played. He is also very good at what he does. So when the bidding ended， a New York trade publisher showed us a large number. I should point out that in actuality I had no book. All I had was a shaky platform， a supposedly big idea， and a catchy title. Yet there it was， the big number.

My editor at the New York publisher proclaimed that my book would be important. This was Wikipedia’s moment. My book would capture it. But what was the book going to be about? We weren’t sure. Something to do with mass collaboration and how it changes everything. I’d work it out. There was only one sticking point13)， a sticking point that almost tipped me over14): he wanted the book in six months. I said that was impossible. He told me to do the best I could. I thought of that large number and agreed to try.

I started doing research. This was revealing， as research should be. It forced me to scotch15) the idea that “Wikipedia changes everything，” because it obviously didn’t. The truth about Wikipedia was messy. I couldn’t boil it down16) to catchphrases and anecdotes17). So I did my best to reduce the inherent complexity of the subject， and submitted the manuscript. Was it good? Well， the book did the job as I understood it. Was it done18)? Yes， and that was important. But I was worried. I had strayed from the big-idea template. My book was a convoluted19) story involving evolution， human nature， media technologies， and their effects on human society and thought. Surprisingly， my editor liked it a lot. He compared me to Jared Diamond20). My agent told me that this was the best possible news: Diamond’s books sold like hotcakes.

Then my editor fell ominously21) silent. E-mails went unanswered， phone calls unreturned. What had happened? My agent explained that my big idea—which in fact was no longer my big idea—had a short shelf life22). That’s why my editor had wanted the book in six months. Other Wikipedia books were in the pipeline. Some of their authors had higher platforms， bigger ideas， and pithier titles than mine. The clock was ticking. After six months， my editor finally wrote me. Not surprisingly， he no longer liked my book. Too complicated for the average trade reader. He advised me to speculate. “Unleash your inner Marshall McLuhan23)，” he said， and rewrite the book.

This was excellent advice from a smart man with decades of experience in trade publishing. But I realized that I had no inner Marshall McLuhan. Even more important was my realization that I had no inner James Surowiecki， Malcolm Gladwell， or Chris Anderson. From my editor’s perspective， these were models， and rightly so. They made trade publishers a fortune. From my perspective， however， they were good writers who had spun big ideas into gold. I couldn’t write a big-idea book， because， as it turned out， I didn’t believe in big ideas. By my lights24)， they almost had to be wrong. Years of academic research taught me two things. First， reality is as complicated as it is， not as complicated as we want it to be. Some phenomena have an irreducible complexity that will defeat any big-idea effort at simplification. Second， most of the easy big questions about the way the world works have been answered. The questions that remain are really hard. Big ideas， then， can only reinvent the wheel or make magical claims.

So I forgot about big ideas and did what I was trained to do. I conducted research. I let the facts be my guide. My book contained no down-from-the-mountain revelations. Its conclusions would not make anyone rich， happy， and beautiful. Its rewards were unashamedly intellectual， and moreover not that easily achieved. It was a difficult book. I submitted it to my editor， hoping that he would accept it.

Of course he couldn’t. Wikipedia’s moment had passed， and my big idea had vanished. He killed the book， and the big number disappeared. I don’t blame him. He was just doing his job. I was the one， after all， who had not followed through on a promise. I said I would write a big-idea book， but I had instead written a book of ideas.

年輕時(shí)我就滿(mǎn)懷理想，要寫(xiě)出一本具有挑戰(zhàn)性的、充滿(mǎn)真知灼見(jiàn)的好書(shū)。我滿(mǎn)腦子想的是20世紀(jì)五六十年代公共知識(shí)分子所寫(xiě)出的那種“高深莫測(cè)”的圖書(shū)：《孤獨(dú)的人群》、《單向度的人》、《意識(shí)形態(tài)的終結(jié)》等。知識(shí)分子們鄭重其事地談?wù)撝@些書(shū)籍，他們聚集在像紐約和舊金山這樣充滿(mǎn)魔力的地方，而我當(dāng)時(shí)對(duì)這些地方還一無(wú)所知呢。遺憾的是，我并沒(méi)有什么深刻的話(huà)語(yǔ)好說(shuō)。于是，我就和大多數(shù)在知識(shí)上追求進(jìn)步的美國(guó)年輕人一樣，上了研究生?？墒?，在研究生院，我還是沒(méi)有找到什么深刻的話(huà)語(yǔ)好說(shuō)。相反，我學(xué)會(huì)了做研究，學(xué)會(huì)了怎樣寫(xiě)出條理清晰的文章。在此后的若干年里，我寫(xiě)了幾本書(shū)，但并不是充滿(mǎn)深?yuàn)W思想的那種。我的書(shū)都是對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)世界某些微觀(guān)事實(shí)的展示，中心明確，引文、出處全都羅列得一清二楚。這種書(shū)可以增加人們的知識(shí)。這也很了不起。

然而，我仍然念念不忘要寫(xiě)一本充滿(mǎn)真知灼見(jiàn)的書(shū)。我知道在學(xué)術(shù)界我永遠(yuǎn)也無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)這一夢(mèng)想。于是，在一所名牌大學(xué)教了近十年書(shū)之后，我辭職來(lái)到一家大名鼎鼎的雜志社工作。在我心目中，這家雜志代表著美國(guó)知識(shí)界的頂尖水平。

2005年，維基百科開(kāi)始騰飛。我想人們也許會(huì)對(duì)它的歷史感興趣，于是便抱著試試看的態(tài)度寫(xiě)了一篇關(guān)于維基百科創(chuàng)辦經(jīng)歷的文章。這家大牌雜志的編輯很喜歡，并在2006年發(fā)表了這篇文章。就在我這篇關(guān)于維基百科的文章在這家大牌雜志上發(fā)表之時(shí)，另一篇關(guān)于維基百科的文章也在另一家大牌雜志上發(fā)表。一時(shí)之間，維基百科突然變得——用蒂娜·布朗的話(huà)來(lái)說(shuō)——“非?；鸨?。這可正是我寫(xiě)一本充滿(mǎn)真知灼見(jiàn)之書(shū)的大好時(shí)機(jī)啊——雖然我并沒(méi)有什么真知灼見(jiàn)好寫(xiě)。我隨便找了一位作家代理人，給他發(fā)了一封電子郵件，詢(xún)問(wèn)我是否可以寫(xiě)一本關(guān)于維基百科式的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)合作的書(shū)。幾分鐘之后我就接到了他的電話(huà)。在電話(huà)線(xiàn)的另一端，這位好心人告訴我說(shuō)他已經(jīng)讀過(guò)我的文章。我可以和紐約一家大牌商業(yè)出版社簽訂圖書(shū)出版合同。

我需要做的事如下。首先，我需要有一個(gè)平臺(tái)。所謂平臺(tái)，就是一個(gè)可以立足的地方，它使你顯得更加高大。商業(yè)出版界的平臺(tái)也不例外，但這里的平臺(tái)是一個(gè)名聲顯赫的品牌。這樣的品牌我有兩個(gè)：從商業(yè)編輯的角度來(lái)看，我曾是一所名牌大學(xué)的“教授”，又是一家大牌雜志社的“作者”。其次，我需要一個(gè)奇妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)。一個(gè)奇妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)就是一個(gè)寫(xiě)得激情澎湃的主題，其常見(jiàn)形式是“它能改變一切，將會(huì)讓你變得富裕、幸福和美麗。”一個(gè)奇妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)必須是違反直覺(jué)的：這個(gè)改變了一切的東西必須是人人都認(rèn)為無(wú)關(guān)緊要但實(shí)際上又十分重要的東西。就我的情況而言，這個(gè)東西必須是維基百科，因此我的奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)就是“維基百科改變了一切”。第三，我需要一個(gè)吸引眼球的書(shū)名，諸如《群體智慧》、《引爆流行》、《長(zhǎng)尾》之類(lèi)的。這個(gè)書(shū)名必須是某個(gè)人們經(jīng)常掛在嘴邊的詞語(yǔ)。事實(shí)上，一位商業(yè)編輯給我建議了一個(gè)好名字——《維基世界》。

我的代理并不是一個(gè)憤世嫉俗的人。他從不建議我做違心之事，或者做明知不可為之事。他只是盡自己的職責(zé)，告訴我這個(gè)行業(yè)的游戲規(guī)則。他的工作做得也很出色，投標(biāo)結(jié)束時(shí)，紐約的一家商業(yè)出版社出了一筆很大的數(shù)目。應(yīng)該說(shuō)明的是，事實(shí)上我還沒(méi)有什么書(shū)。我所擁有的只是一個(gè)搖搖晃晃的平臺(tái)、一個(gè)號(hào)稱(chēng)奇妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，還有一個(gè)花哨引人的書(shū)名。可就是這樣，竟然得到了那么一大筆數(shù)目。

紐約那家出版社的編輯宣稱(chēng)我的這本書(shū)十分重要。這是維基百科的時(shí)代。我的書(shū)將抓住這個(gè)契機(jī)。但這本書(shū)到底要怎么寫(xiě)呢？我們誰(shuí)也不清楚。只知道要寫(xiě)群體合作以及這種合作如何改變了一切。這需要我來(lái)挖掘。但只有一點(diǎn)比較棘手，這一點(diǎn)幾乎把我難倒：他要我六個(gè)月交出書(shū)稿。我說(shuō)這不可能。他要我盡力而為?？丛谀枪P不菲的數(shù)目的分上，我答應(yīng)試一試。

我開(kāi)始作研究。結(jié)果收獲還真不小，這也正是研究的意義所在。研究的結(jié)果讓我不得不放棄“維基百科改變一切”的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗@然做不到。關(guān)于維基百科的事實(shí)比較混亂，我無(wú)法將其濃縮成一個(gè)個(gè)閃光的句子和奇聞?shì)W事。于是我使出渾身解數(shù)來(lái)簡(jiǎn)化這個(gè)本質(zhì)上十分復(fù)雜的話(huà)題，并將手稿交了上去。寫(xiě)得夠好嗎？可以說(shuō)，這本書(shū)已按照我的理解完成了自己的使命。寫(xiě)得夠潮嗎？是的，這一點(diǎn)很重要。但我卻很擔(dān)心，因?yàn)槲移x了原定的奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)的模板。我的書(shū)講述的是一個(gè)盤(pán)根錯(cuò)節(jié)的復(fù)雜故事，涉及進(jìn)化、人性、媒體技術(shù)及其對(duì)人類(lèi)社會(huì)和思想的影響。出乎意料的是，我的編輯非常喜歡。他拿我和杰瑞德·戴夢(mèng)德相比。我的代理告訴我說(shuō)，這也許是最好的消息了：戴夢(mèng)德的書(shū)賣(mài)得火著呢。

可隨后我的編輯就杳無(wú)音信了，這讓我隱隱有一種不祥之感。電子郵件沒(méi)有回復(fù)，電話(huà)沒(méi)人接聽(tīng)。到底出了什么事？代理解釋說(shuō)，我的奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)——事實(shí)上已經(jīng)不再是我的奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)——貨架期太短。這也是我的編輯要求我六個(gè)月交稿的原因。其他和維基百科相關(guān)的書(shū)也正待出爐。這些作者有的比我的平臺(tái)更高，觀(guān)點(diǎn)更奇妙，書(shū)名更言簡(jiǎn)意賅。時(shí)間一點(diǎn)一滴地過(guò)去。六個(gè)月之后，我的編輯終于有了音信。不出所料，他已不再喜歡我的書(shū)。對(duì)普通商業(yè)讀者來(lái)說(shuō)這本書(shū)太過(guò)復(fù)雜。他要我再好好想一想。他說(shuō)，“把你內(nèi)心深處的馬歇爾·麥克盧漢釋放出來(lái)”，重寫(xiě)這本書(shū)。

這是一位有著幾十年商業(yè)出版經(jīng)驗(yàn)的聰明人給我提的寶貴建議。可是我卻發(fā)現(xiàn)我的內(nèi)心沒(méi)有馬歇爾·麥克盧漢。更為關(guān)鍵的是，我還發(fā)現(xiàn)我也沒(méi)有什么內(nèi)在的詹姆斯·索羅維基(注：《群體智慧》的作者)、馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾(注：《引爆流行》的作者)或者克里斯·安德森(注：《長(zhǎng)尾》的作者)。在我的編輯看來(lái)，這些都是我的榜樣，事實(shí)上也的確如此。他們?yōu)樯虡I(yè)出版商帶來(lái)了豐厚的利潤(rùn)?？墒?，從我自己的角度來(lái)看，他們都是很優(yōu)秀的作家，善于將絕妙的觀(guān)點(diǎn)變成黃燦燦的金子。我無(wú)法寫(xiě)出這種具有奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)的書(shū)，因?yàn)槲已芯康慕Y(jié)果證明，我已不再相信什么奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)。就我看來(lái)，它們幾乎注定是錯(cuò)誤的。多年的學(xué)術(shù)研究經(jīng)驗(yàn)教會(huì)了我兩件事。其一，現(xiàn)實(shí)從本質(zhì)上來(lái)說(shuō)就是復(fù)雜的，而不是我們想讓它怎么復(fù)雜就怎么復(fù)雜。有些現(xiàn)象就包含著無(wú)可簡(jiǎn)化的復(fù)雜性，任何試圖將其簡(jiǎn)化成某種奇思妙想的努力都會(huì)以失敗而告終。其二，關(guān)于世界運(yùn)行規(guī)律的大多數(shù)容易回答的大問(wèn)題都已經(jīng)有了答案。那些沒(méi)有答案的問(wèn)題確實(shí)都是很難回答的問(wèn)題。因此，所謂的真知灼見(jiàn)，要么是再發(fā)明一次車(chē)輪，要么就是提出魔法般的神奇論斷。

因此，我將奇思妙想扔到一邊，踏踏實(shí)實(shí)地做我受的教育教會(huì)我的事。我開(kāi)始作研究。我讓事實(shí)成為我的向?qū)?。我的?shū)中沒(méi)有揭秘什么驚天大內(nèi)幕，得出的結(jié)論也不會(huì)使人變得富裕、幸福和美麗。但我可以毫不羞愧地說(shuō)，它給讀者帶來(lái)的報(bào)酬是智力上的，而且這種好處確實(shí)是來(lái)之不易的。這是一本難讀的書(shū)。我把它交給了編輯，希望他能夠接受。

當(dāng)然他無(wú)法接受。維基百科的好時(shí)光已經(jīng)過(guò)去，我的奇思妙想也已不見(jiàn)蹤影。他槍斃了這本書(shū)，那筆可觀(guān)的數(shù)目也隨之消失了。我并不責(zé)怪他。他只是履行自己的職責(zé)而已。畢竟，是我自己沒(méi)有信守承諾。我說(shuō)我要寫(xiě)一本具有奇妙觀(guān)點(diǎn)的書(shū)，結(jié)果卻寫(xiě)出了一本融匯各種見(jiàn)解的書(shū)。

1.meme weaver：一種比喻的說(shuō)法，將作家等文化工作者比作文化基因的編織者、創(chuàng)造者。meme：(通過(guò)模仿等傳遞的)文化基因

2.The Lonely Crowd：《孤獨(dú)的人群》，美國(guó)社會(huì)學(xué)家大衛(wèi)·理斯曼在同事的協(xié)助下完成的一部經(jīng)典學(xué)術(shù)著作。該書(shū)的主旨是探討美國(guó)人社會(huì)性格的形成及演變，被譽(yù)為“當(dāng)代最有影響的著作之一”。

3.The One-Dimensional Man：《單向度的人》，德裔美籍哲學(xué)家和社會(huì)理論家赫伯特·馬爾庫(kù)塞最負(fù)盛名的著作，其核心就是批判發(fā)達(dá)資本主義社會(huì)的意識(shí)形態(tài)。該書(shū)在20世紀(jì)60年代為馬爾庫(kù)塞贏得了世界性的聲譽(yù)，他被媒體稱(chēng)頌為“新左派之父”，成為美國(guó)和歐洲最有影響的知識(shí)分子。

4.The End of Ideology：《意識(shí)形態(tài)的終結(jié)》，當(dāng)代美國(guó)學(xué)者丹尼爾·貝爾的著作。該書(shū)的核心觀(guān)點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，發(fā)端于19世紀(jì)人道主義傳統(tǒng)的普遍性意識(shí)形態(tài)已經(jīng)走向衰落，新的地區(qū)性意識(shí)形態(tài)正在興起，在資本主義和社會(huì)主義之間存在的“左”“右”論戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)喪失意義。

5.pinnacle [#712;p#618;n#601;k(#601;)l] n. 頂點(diǎn)，最高點(diǎn)

6.on spec：(=on speculation)碰運(yùn)氣地

7.Tina Brown：蒂娜·布朗(1953～)，美國(guó)媒體界傳奇人物，現(xiàn)任新聞網(wǎng)站《每日野獸網(wǎng)》(The Daily Beast)和雜志《新聞周刊》(Newsweek)總編，曾任《名利場(chǎng)》(Vanity Fair) 、《閑談》(Tatler)、《紐約客》(The New Yorkers)等雜志總編。

8.not that：倒不是

9.counterintuitive [#716;ka#650;nt(#601;)r#618;n#712;tju#720;#618;t#618;v] adj. 違反直覺(jué)的

10.The Wisdom of Crowds：《群體智慧》，《紐約客》專(zhuān)欄作家詹姆斯·索羅維基(James Surowiecki)的著作，于2004年出版。該書(shū)的核心觀(guān)點(diǎn)為，群體做出的決策有時(shí)會(huì)優(yōu)于個(gè)人的決策。

11.The Tipping Point：《引爆流行》，《紐約客》專(zhuān)欄作家馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾(Malcolm Gladwell)的著作，于2000年出版。該書(shū)以社會(huì)上突如其來(lái)的流行風(fēng)潮研究為切入點(diǎn)，從一個(gè)全新的角度探索了控制科學(xué)和營(yíng)銷(xiāo)模式。

12.The Long Tail：《長(zhǎng)尾》，美國(guó)《連線(xiàn)》(Wired)雜志主編克里斯·安德森(Chris Anderson)的著作，于2006年出版。該書(shū)的主要觀(guān)點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，商業(yè)和文化的未來(lái)不在于傳統(tǒng)需求曲線(xiàn)上那個(gè)代表“暢銷(xiāo)商品”的頭部，而是那條代表“冷門(mén)商品”的經(jīng)常被人遺忘的長(zhǎng)尾。

13.sticking point：癥結(jié)(造成或可能造成僵局的要點(diǎn)、問(wèn)題或形勢(shì))

14.tip over：(使)翻倒，(使)傾翻

15.scotch [sk#594;t#643;] vt. 打消，撤銷(xiāo)

16.boil down：濃縮，簡(jiǎn)化

17.anecdote [#712;aelig;n#618;k#716;d#601;#650;t] n. 軼事，奇聞

18.done [d#652;n] adj. 時(shí)髦的，流行的

19.convoluted [#712;k#594;nv#601;#716;lu#720;t#618;d] adj. 錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的

20.Jared Diamond：杰瑞德·戴夢(mèng)德(1937～)，美國(guó)科學(xué)家，暢銷(xiāo)書(shū)作家，現(xiàn)任美國(guó)加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校(UCLA)教授。

21.ominously [#712;#594;m#618;n#601;sli] adv. 惡兆地，不吉利地

22.shelf life：貨架期，保存期限

23.Marshall McLuhan：馬歇爾·麥克盧漢(1911~1980)，20世紀(jì)傳播學(xué)大師，最富有原創(chuàng)性的傳播學(xué)理論家，媒介環(huán)境學(xué)的開(kāi)山祖師

24.by one’s lights：根據(jù)某人的理解