馬克·阿西塔基斯 譯/孫美萍 Mark Athitakis

Who made America？ Men made America. Big men. Men like Pecos Bill， who could tame a mountain lion and make a lasso1 out of a rattlesnake. Or Paul Bunyan， who felled entire forests with one mighty swing of his ax and carved the Grand Canyon by dragging his giant pick2 behind him.

Needless to say its false. Folklore， fakelore， tall tales3. Not just the literal facts but the Great Man spirit of Manifest Destiny4. And yet America has never quite shaken its admiration for stories about manly men with the power to conquer and tame a lawless land. Recent polling suggests that about 40% of U.S. registered voters remain keen on the concept of a macho， I-alone-can-fix-it folk hero bringing law and order to a wild country. We can recognize the ridiculousness of folk tales， but they have a way of worming5 into our national narrative infrastructure.

Pete Beattys very funny， rambunctious6 debut novel， “Cuyahoga，” is not a Trump-era allegory. It could be read with pleasure in 2002， or 1950. Or 1837， when most of it is set. Its a satire of tall tales， but not a distant， too-cool treatment. Beatty， a Cleveland-area native， deeply inhabits the tone and style of the form， paying sidelong homage to an essential American genre. He knows that we needed these big guys to rationalize Americans headlong urge to press forward， consequences be damned.

Its also just a hoot7 of a tale about a man who reputedly “drank a barrel of whiskey and belched fire.” Big Son comes straight from tall-tale central casting， possessing “shoulders wide as ox yokes，” according to the narrator， his brother Medium Son， or Meed. “A waist trim8 as a sleek schooner9. Muscles curlicued10 like rich mans furniture.” Big has single-handedly cleared the forest west of the Cuyahoga River and south of Lake Erie， establishing Ohio City as a rival to the budding metrop-olis of Cleveland to the east. Its thankless work. Hed like to be paid for his labors， but money is scarce. And alas， his feats fail to win the heart of Cloe， a woman “as pretty as Big were strong.”

The plot turns on a plan to construct a bridge across the Cuyahoga. Clevelanders see an opportunity for expansion， but Ohio City residents fear the span will siphon off11 business and force the communities to merge. Nativist suspicion of Clevelanders escalates， and the bridge soon becomes a target of sabotage， with Big recruited to repair the damage. Meed reports that some residents would rather the bridge remain half-exploded， using the wisdom of a cockeyed Solomon12. “If half the bridge belonged to Ohio [City]， then Ohio [City] had the right to half-destroy the bridge. Cleveland could do with their half how they liked.”

That folksy tone comes straight out of Twain. Beattys style in the novel is what you might call Modified Huck13： Grammatically concussed14 but knowing and down to earth. Beattys sentences in this mode are homespun15 and lyrical， without coming off as hokum16： “I drank down a gulp of autumn air and looked through my brains for what I ought to do” Or： “The whole assembly went quiet with the work of believing their eyes.” Describing Bigs accomplishments， he rattles a run-on sentence like hes speaking in tongues： “l(fā)ied to the devil—stalked the deepest woods—hogtied17 panthers—drained jugs—got stung by one thousand hornets and only smiled.”

The mytho-rustic tone of “Cuyahoga” is its own pleasure， but its also essential to the story. To remunerate Big and shore up the notion of Ohio Citys greatness， Meed is recruited to write an almanac that will detail Bigs accomplishments， most of them wildly fanciful （“Climbed to heaven and dared Christ to a rastle”）. With Bigs reputation preceding itself， Beatty sets the stage for a climax that requires Big to prove his mettle18—to conquer the river and Cloes affections.

“Cuyahoga” is as fun as any well-told campfire tale， all the more so for19 having few rivals. There is a touch of George Saunders limber satire， and some of the grit20 of other Ohio-bred writers obsessed with folklore and myth—William H. Gass “Omensetters Luck，” Toni Morrisons “Beloved，” Donald Ray Pollocks “The Devil All the Time.” But none of these wrote tall tales， which present a particular challenge to a novelist： They allow the writer to be freewheeling21 but dont leave much room for the readers empathy.

Big is more myth than person， so he becomes hard to get a grip on. Meed suggests that theres a moral in Bigs origin story （he discovered his might after he was kicked in the head by a horse）. “We cannot live without gobbling up the world—taking its trouble into our bones and flesh—a kick will bust22 the trouble loose，” he writes. How should we feel toward a hero whose defining feature is getting kicked in the head？ Admiring？ Pitying？

But theres another suggestion in the line： Perhaps we put a little too much stock in23 heroes who are defined by their kicked-in-the-headed-ness. Meed is an unreliable narrator on behalf of an unbelievable character. He spins a lot of lies in the name of progress， independence and civic pride， and Ohio Citys anxiety over Cleveland is largely a phantom24. Clevelanders， Meed reports， “l(fā)ook the same and generally act the same. The only difference is that Clevelanders are wrong all over.”

“Cuyahoga” covers a particular moment in history as well as a wide swath of Americas historical consciousness. “Every age and place has got its Big Sons，” Beatty writes. “Folks who hang the sky that we shelter under. Stand up the timbers of a place.” A healthy society might stand to be more skeptical of the myth-making that creates such figures. But in the society we have， they endure， and Beatty wrings absurd and serious pleasure from them. “Let us have tenderness but also a dash of cussedness25 and tragedy，” Meed promises early on. He delivers.

誰(shuí)造了美國(guó)？人，巨人。比如佩科斯·比爾，他可以馴服美洲獅，也可以用響尾蛇做出一個(gè)套索。又比如保羅·班揚(yáng)，他用力一揮斧頭就砍倒了整片森林，又拉著巨鎬雕刻出了大峽谷。

不用說(shuō)，這些都不是真的。民間傳說(shuō)、偽傳說(shuō)、荒誕故事，不僅僅是字面上的事實(shí)，天定命運(yùn)論的偉人精神也是假的。然而對(duì)于那些關(guān)于強(qiáng)壯厲害的人征服并馴服不法之地的故事，美國(guó)人從未動(dòng)搖過(guò)他們的欽羨之心。最近的投票顯示，美國(guó)大約40%的登記選民仍然熱衷于具有男子氣概的英雄，那種單憑一己之力就可以給野蠻的國(guó)家?guī)?lái)法律與秩序的民間英雄。我們可以認(rèn)識(shí)到民間故事的荒謬性，但它們往往滲透到我們民族敘事的基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)中。

皮特·貝蒂的處女作小說(shuō)《凱霍加河》非常有趣歡快，它不是對(duì)特朗普時(shí)代的諷喻。在2002年或1950年，或者是1837年（大部分故事發(fā)生在那時(shí)），讀起來(lái)都會(huì)樂(lè)趣無(wú)窮。本書(shū)是對(duì)荒誕故事的諷刺，但并無(wú)孤傲冷酷之感。貝蒂生長(zhǎng)于克利夫蘭地區(qū)，深深地融入了這種文學(xué)形式的基調(diào)和風(fēng)格，間接地向一種重要的美國(guó)流派致敬。他清楚我們需要這些大家伙來(lái)為美國(guó)人輕率冒進(jìn)的沖動(dòng)找尋合理的依據(jù)，后果就見(jiàn)鬼去吧。

這確實(shí)也不過(guò)是一個(gè)滑稽故事：據(jù)說(shuō)一個(gè)男人“喝了一桶威士忌后噴出了火”?！按髢鹤印笔腔恼Q故事的典型角色，根據(jù)敘事者——“大兒子”的兄弟“中兒子”米德所言，“大兒子”擁有“牛軛那樣寬的肩膀，腰部如同造型優(yōu)美的縱帆船那樣修長(zhǎng)，肌肉如同富人家具的雕花般一塊塊鼓起”?！按髢鹤印豹?dú)自清理了凱霍加河以西、伊利湖以南的森林，并建立了俄亥俄城，與東部新興的大都市克利夫蘭相抗衡。這是吃力不討好的活兒。他希望自己的勞動(dòng)換來(lái)錢(qián)，但大家都沒(méi)什么錢(qián)。同時(shí)可惜的是，他的壯舉沒(méi)有贏得克洛的芳心。克洛是一個(gè)“美貌可以和‘大兒子的健壯相匹敵”的女子。

故事情節(jié)圍繞在凱霍加河上架橋的計(jì)劃展開(kāi)?？死蛱m人看到了擴(kuò)張的機(jī)會(huì)，但是俄亥俄城的居民擔(dān)心大橋會(huì)讓生意外流，迫使社區(qū)合并。本土主義者對(duì)克利夫蘭人的懷疑不斷升級(jí)，大橋迅速成為破壞目標(biāo)，“大兒子”受命修補(bǔ)。米德稱，一些居民聽(tīng)取一個(gè)自作聰明之人的愚蠢建議，寧愿大橋保持被炸掉一半的狀態(tài)?！叭绻话氪髽驓w俄亥俄（城）所有，那么俄亥俄（城）有權(quán)損壞一半大橋，克利夫蘭也可以隨意處置他們的那一半?！?/p>

這種鄉(xiāng)土腔直接來(lái)自馬克·吐溫。貝蒂在這部小說(shuō)中的風(fēng)格可以稱之為翻版的哈克：語(yǔ)法上令人不解，但又通透接地氣。貝蒂這種風(fēng)格的遣詞造句簡(jiǎn)單樸素且富有詩(shī)意，絲毫不讓人覺(jué)得是胡扯：“我飲下一大口秋天的空氣，透過(guò)大腦看看我該做什么”或者“所有的人都安靜下來(lái)，相信自己的眼睛”。在描寫(xiě)“大兒子”的成就時(shí)，他如同說(shuō)方言般前言不搭后語(yǔ)地喋喋不休：“向魔鬼撒謊——潛入最深的叢林——捆住黑豹——喝干壺里的水——被一千只大黃蜂刺蟄卻只是傻笑”。

《凱霍加河》的“半神話半鄉(xiāng)土文學(xué)”基調(diào)本身是一種樂(lè)趣，但這對(duì)故事也非常重要。為了回報(bào)“大兒子”并標(biāo)榜俄亥俄城的偉大，米德受命寫(xiě)一部年鑒來(lái)詳述“大兒子”的功績(jī)，其中大多數(shù)都是天馬行空的想象（“爬上天，要跟耶穌打架”）。隨著“大兒子”聲名漸起，貝蒂將故事引向高潮，“大兒子”需要證明自身的魄力——征服凱霍加河，贏得克洛的芳心。

《凱霍加河》和任何一個(gè)引人入勝的篝火故事一樣有趣，尤其是因?yàn)閹缀鯖](méi)有幾個(gè)故事可以與它匹敵。書(shū)中有一點(diǎn)喬治·桑德斯的輕快諷刺，以及癡迷于民間傳說(shuō)和神話的俄亥俄州其他本土作家的那種勇氣——威廉·霍華德·加斯的《奧門(mén)塞特的運(yùn)氣》、托妮·莫里森的《寵兒》、唐納德·雷·波洛克的《神棄之地》。但是這些作家都不創(chuàng)作荒誕故事，因?yàn)槟墙o小說(shuō)家?guī)?lái)一個(gè)特別的挑戰(zhàn)：荒誕故事允許作者自由發(fā)揮，但不給讀者留下太多的共鳴空間。

與人性相比，“大兒子”具備更多的神性，所以他很難把握。米德認(rèn)為“大兒子”的起源故事具有寓意（他被馬踢中頭部后發(fā)現(xiàn)了自己的威力）。他寫(xiě)道：“我們要想活命就得吞噬這個(gè)世界——把它的麻煩融入我們的骨肉中——踢一腳就能解決問(wèn)題?！蔽覀?cè)撊绾慰创@樣一個(gè)以腦袋被踢為典型特征的英雄呢？崇敬抑或惋惜？

但是這句話又有另外一層含義：也許我們過(guò)于相信因?yàn)槟X袋被踢而出名的英雄。米德是一個(gè)不可靠敘述者，代表著一個(gè)不可信的角色。他以進(jìn)步、獨(dú)立和居民自豪感為名編造了許多謊言，俄亥俄城對(duì)克利夫蘭的緊張感在很大程度上是幻影而已。米德稱，克利夫蘭人“看起來(lái)和我們一樣，行動(dòng)上也大體一樣。唯一的區(qū)別就是克利夫蘭人從頭到腳都是錯(cuò)的”。

《凱霍加河》涵蓋了歷史上的一個(gè)特殊時(shí)期，體現(xiàn)了美國(guó)廣泛的歷史意識(shí)?！懊總€(gè)時(shí)代、每個(gè)地方都有它的‘大兒子?！必惖賹?xiě)道，“這些人筑起庇護(hù)之所?！睂?duì)于創(chuàng)造此類(lèi)人物形象的神話創(chuàng)作，一個(gè)健全的社會(huì)或許應(yīng)該抱持更加懷疑的態(tài)度。但他們?cè)谖覀兯幍纳鐣?huì)中長(zhǎng)久不衰，貝蒂?gòu)闹刑釤挸鲆嗲f亦諧的樂(lè)趣。“我們要擁有柔情，但也要來(lái)點(diǎn)兒乖僻和悲劇?！泵椎潞茉缇妥龀隽顺兄Z。他實(shí)現(xiàn)了承諾。

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)?單位：北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)）