mc.eatersofthedead-第29部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　Brondsted；　J。　The　Vikings；　London；　1960；　1965。
　Arbman；　H。　The　Vikings；　London；　1961。
　Jones；　G。　A　History　of　the　Vikings；　Oxford；　1968。
　Sawyer；　P。　The　Age　of　the　Vikings；　London；　1962。
　Foote；　P。　G。；　and　Wilson；　D。　M。　The　Viking　Achievement；　London；　1970。
　Kendrick；　T。　D。　A　History　of　the　Vikings；　London；　1930。
　Azhared；　Abdul。　Necronomicon　＇ed。　H。　P。　Lovecraft＇；　Providence；　Rhode　Island；　1934。
　
　A　FACTUAL　NOTE　ON　EATERS　OF　THE　DEAD

　EATERS　OF　THE　DEAD　WAS　CONCEIVED　ON　A　DARE。　IN　1974；　my　friend　Kurt　Villadsen　proposed　to　teach　a　college　course　he　called　〃The　Great　Bores。〃　The　course　would　include　all　the　texts　that　were　supposed　to　be　crucial　to　Western　civilization　but　which　were；　in　truth；　no　longer　read　willingly　by　anyone；　because　they　were　so　tedious。　Kurt　said　that　the　first　of　the　great　bores　he　would　address　was　the　epic　poem　Beowulf。
　I　disagreed。　I　argued　that　Beowulf　was　a　dramatic；　exciting　story…and　that　I　could　prove　it。　I　went　home　and　immediately　began　making　notes　for　this　novel。
　I　started　from　the　scholarly　tradition　that　examined　epic　poetry　and　mythology　as　if　it　might　have　some　underlying　basis　in　fact。　Heinrich　Schliemann　assumed　the　Iliad　was　true；　and　found　what　he　claimed　was　Troy　and　Mycenae；　Arthur　Evans　believed　there　was　something　to　the　myth　of　the　Minotaur；　and　uncovered　the　Palace　of　Knossos　on　Crete；46　M。　I。　Finley　and　others　had　traced　the　route　of　Ulysses　in　the　Odyssey；47　Lionel　Casson　had　written　about　the　real　journeys　that　might　underlie　the　myth　of　Jason　and　the　Argonauts。48　Thus　it　seemed　reasonable；　within　this　tradition；　to　imagine　that　Beowulf；　too；　had　originally　been　based　on　an　actual　event。
　That　event　had　been　embellished　over　centuries　of　oral　retelling；　producing　the　fantastic　narrative　we　read　today。　But　I　thought　it　might　be　possible　to　reverse　the　process；　peeling　away　the　poetic　invention；　and　returning　to　a　kernel　of　genuine　human　experience…something　that　had　actually　happened。
　This　idea　of　uncovering　the　factual　core　of　the　narrative　was　appealing　but　impractical。　Modern　scholarship　offered　no　objective　procedure　to　separate　poetic　invention　from　underlying　fact。　Even　to　try　would　mean　making　innumerable　subjective　decisions；　large　and　small；　on　every　page…in　the　end；　so　many　decisions　that　the　result　must　inevitably　be　still　another　invention：　a　modern　pseudo…historical　fantasy　about　what　the　original　events　might　have　been。
　The　insoluble　problem　prevented　me　from　proceeding。　Of　course；　in　writing　a　novel；　I　intended　to　create　a　fantasy　of　my　own。　But　fantasies　demand　strict　logic；　and　I　was　troubled　by　the　logic　behind　what　I　wanted　to　write。　Since　a　real　scholar　could　not　do　what　I　intended　to　do；　I　found　I　could　not　pretend；　in　writing；　that　I　had　done　so。　This　was　not　a　failure　of　imagination　or　nerve。　It　was　a　purely　practical　problem。　Like　the　scholar；　I　had　no　basis　for　deciding　which　elements　of　the　Beowulf　narrative　to　keep；　and　which　to　discard。
　Although　the　idea　of　working　backward　seemed　untenable；　I　remained　intrigued。　I　asked　a　different　question：　suppose；　for　a　moment；　that　the　practical　problems　that　troubled　me　did　not　exist；　and　the　process　could　indeed　be　carried　out。　What　would　the　resulting　narrative　look　like？　I　imagined　it　would　probably　be　a　rather　mundane　recounting　of　some　battles　that　occurred　more　than　a　thousand　years　ago。　In　fact；　I　suspected　it　would　probably　resemble　most　eyewitness　accounts　of　famous　events；　as　written　by　people　who　are　unaware　of　the　significance　of　the　events　they　are　seeing。
　This　line　of　thinking　eventually　led　to　the　solution　to　my　problem。　Clearly；　I　wanted　an　eyewitness　account。　I　could　not　extract　it　from　the　existing　Beowulf　narrative；　and　I　did　not　want　to　invent　it。　That　was　my　impasse。　But　at　some　point；　I　realized　I　did　not　have　to　invent　it…I　could　discover　it　instead。
　Suppose；　I　thought；　a　contemporary　observer　had　been　present　at　these　battles；　and　had　written　an　account　of　the　events　that　were　later　transformed　into　a　poem。　Suppose；　too；　that　this　account　already　existed；　but　had　never　been　recognized　for　what　it　was。　if　this　were　so；　then　no　invention　on　my　part　would　be　necessary。　I　could　merely　reproduce　the　eyewitness　narrative；　and　annotate　it　for　the　reader。
　The　concept　of　a　preexisting　manuscript　bypassed　the　logical　problems　which　had　earlier　impeded　me；　because　a　found　manuscript　would　not　be　my　creation…even　though　I　would　create　it。　Of　course　such　thinking　is　absurd；　but　it　happens　all　the　time。　Often　actors　cannot　act　without　a　prop；　or　a　false　moustache；　or　some　other　artifice　to　separate　themselves　from　the　character　they　are　portraying。　I　was　engaged　in　a　similar　process。
　What　sort　of　narrative　would　be　most　desirable？　I　concluded　the　most　useful　account　would　be　written　by　an　outsider…someone　not　part　of　the　culture；　who　could　report　objectively　on　the　events　as　they　occurred。　But　who　would　this　outside　observer　have　been？　Where　would　he　have　e　from？
　On　reflection；　I　realized　I　already　knew　of　such　a　person。　In　the　tenth　century；　an　Arab　named　Ibn　Fadlan　had　traveled　north　from　Baghdad　into　what　is　now　Russia；　where　he　came　in　contact　with　the　Vikings。　His　manuscript；　well…known　to　scholars；　provides　one　of　the　earliest　eyewitness　accounts　of　Viking　life　and　culture。49　As　a　college　undergraduate；　I　had　read　portions　of　the　manuscript。　Ibn　Fadlan　had　a　distinct　voice　and　style。　He　was　imitable。　He　was　believable。　He　was　unexpected。　And　after　a　thousand　years；　I　felt　that　Ibn　Fadlan　would　not　mind　being　revived　in　a　new　role；　as　a　witness　to　the　events　that　led　to　the　epic　poem　of　Beowulf。
　Although　the　full　manuscript　of　Ibn　Fadlan　has　been　translated　into　Russian；　German；　French　and　many　other　languages；　only　portions　had　been　translated　into　English。　I　obtained　the　existing　manuscript　fragments　and　bined　them；　with　only　slight　modifications；　into　the　first　three　chapters　of　Eaters　of　the　Dead。50　I　then　wrote　the　rest　of　the　novel　in　the　style　of　the　manuscript　to　carry　Ibn　Fadlan　on　the　rest　of　his　now…fictional　journey。　I　also　added　mentary　and　some　extremely　pedantic　footnotes。
　I　was　aware　that　Ibn　Fadlan's　actual　journey　in　A。D。　921　had　probably　occurred　too　late　in　history　to　serve　as　the　basis　for　Beowulf；　which　many　authorities　believe　was　posed　a　hundred　and　fifty　years　earlier。　But　the　dating　of　the　poem　is　uncertain；　and　at　some　point　a　novelist　will　insist　on　his　right　to　take　liberties　with　the　facts。　And　Eaters　contains　many　overt　anachronisms；　particularly　when　Ibn　Fadlan　meets　up　with　a　group　of　remnant　Neanderthals。　（One　of　the　oddities　of　this　book　is　that　the　intervening　decades　has　seen　a　scholarly　reevaluation　of　Neanderthal　man；　and　the　notion　that　there　might　have　been　a　few　still　around　a　thousand　years　ago　in　a　remote　location　does　not　seem　quite　so　preposterous　now　as　it　did　then。）
　But　certainly；　the　game　that　the　book　plays　with　its　factual　bases　bees　increasingly　plex　as　it　goes　along；　until　the　text　finally　seems　quite　difficult　to　evaluate。　I　have　a　long…standing　interest　in　verisimilitude；　and　in　the　cues　which　make　us　take　something　as　real　or　understand　it　as　fiction。　But　I　finally　concluded　that　in　Eaters　of　the　Dead；　I　had　played　the　game　too　hard。　While　I　was　writing；　I　felt　that　I　was　drawing　the　line　between　fact　and　fiction　clearly；　for　example；　one　cited　translator；　Per　Fraus…Dolus；　means　in　literal　Latin　〃by　trickery…deceit。〃　But　within　a　few　years；　I　could　no　longer　be　certain　which　passages　were　real；　and　which　were　made　up；　at　one　point　I　found　myself　in　a　research　library　trying　to　locate　certain　references　in　my　bibliography；　and　finally　concluding；　after　hours　of　frustrating　effort；　that　however　convincing　they　appeared；　they　must　be　fictitious。　I　was　furious　to　have　wasted　my　time；　but　I　had　only　myself　to　blame。
　I　mention　this　because　the　tendency　to　blur　the　boundaries　of　fact　and　fiction　has　bee　widespread　in　modern　society。　Fiction　is　now　seamlessly　inserted　in　everything　from　scholarly　histories　to　television　news。　Of　course；　television　is　understood　to　be　venal；　its　transgressions　shrugged　off　by　most　of　us。　But　the　attitude　of　〃post…modern〃　scholars　represents　a　more　fundamental　challenge。　Some　in　academic　life　now　argue　seriously　there　is　no　difference　between　fact　and　fiction；　that　all　ways　of　reading　text　are　arbitrary　and　personal；　and　that　therefore　pure　invention　is　as　valid　as　hard　research。　At　best；　this　attitude　evades　traditional　scholarly　discipline；　at　worst；　it　is　nasty　and　dangerous。51　But　such　academic　views　were　not　prevalent　twenty　years　ago；　when　I　sat　down　to　write　this　novel　in　the　guise　of　a　scholarly　monograph；　and　academic　fashions　may　change　again…particularly　if　scholars　find　themselves　chasing　down　imaginary　footnotes；　as　I　have　done。
　Under　the　circumstances；　I　should　perhaps　say　explicitly　that　the　references　in　this　afterword　are　genuine。　The　rest　of　the　novel；　including　its　introduction；　text；　footnotes；　and　bibliography；　should　properly　be　viewed　as　fiction。
　When　Eaters　of　the　Dead　was　first　published；　this　playful　version　of　Beowulf　received　a　rather　irritable　reception　from　reviewers；　as　if　I　had　desecrated　a　monument。　But　Beowulf　scholars　all