关于这本书和蒋方舟其它作品有多烂的文章已汗牛充栋；我仍想不明白我究竟如此剧烈地恨着蒋方舟什么。我第一次知道蒋方舟的时候十七岁，在微博上读到她写纳博科夫写《洛丽塔》是为了创作一则道德测试，因为他（allegedly）说：

当你认真阅读《洛丽塔》时，请注意，它是非常道德的。

时至今日，在读过各种各样的纳博科夫以及对纳博科夫的评述以及对纳博科夫的评述的评述之后，我仍然不敢相信纳博科夫写过这样一句话。

蒋方舟的注是：《纳博科夫致威尔逊》，1979。这是一个非常奇怪的注，因为威尔逊在1972年就死了。1979年Harper & Colophon出版了一本The Nabokov-Wilson Letters 1940-1971，但这本书届时并没有中文译本，即使有也肯定不会翻成《纳博科夫致威尔逊》，因为它显然还得收录所有的《威尔逊致纳博科夫》。即使在这本英文原书里，最接近这句引用的来自于1956年纳博科夫的去信，但原文也没有“认真”这个词：

When you do read Lolita, please mark that it is a highly moral affair ...

蒋方舟到底是怎么做到把书名、年份和句子含义全都引错的？答案也许也没有那么复杂：在她书评写作几年前（2011年），广西师范大学出版社的《纳博科夫传：美国时期（上）》第251页就有这么一个引注：

“当你果真阅读《洛丽塔》时，请注意，它是非常道德的。”——纳博科夫致威尔逊，1956

(Emphasis mine.) 这里的“果真”就是原文的do；纳博科夫这么说是因为威尔逊从1954年起《洛丽塔》完稿后就一直拖延不读这本书， 所以when you do read = 等你终于阅读。蒋方舟显然觉得“果真”非常突兀，所以直接上手改成了“认真。”传记作者和译者用的年份和标题也是正确的，因为《纳博科夫致威尔逊》那一封信确实是1956年写的；而被蒋方舟从1979年引出来的那个东西，无论这版传记的尾注还是2022年才终于出版的汉化Nabokov-Wilson Letters，都知道应该叫做《纳博科夫-威尔逊通信集》。很明显，蒋方舟直接引用了《纳博科夫传》作者和译者的引用，然后手动把每个细节都改错了。[1]

啊，如果写错脚注（及引用内容）还不足以成为发自内心憎恨一个人的充分理由！那我必须继续说明，如果蒋方舟真的读了纳博科夫的信，她就会发现全文是：

Dear Bunny,

Thanks for my predecessor’s book. I am sure his ghost is appalled by the boners in the dreadful translations you have graced with your preface. You can well imagine how strongly I disapprove of your preface. Do you really think that Chehov is Chehov because he wrote about “social phenomena,” “readjustments of a new industrial middle class,” “kulaks” and “rising serfs” (which sounds like the seas)? I thought he wrote of the kind of things that gentle King Lear proposed to discuss in prison with his daughter. I also think that at a time when American readers are taught from high school on to seek in books “general ideas” a critic’s duty should be to draw their attention to the specific detail, to the unique image, without which—as you know as well as I do—there can be no art, no genius, no Chehov, no terror, no tenderness, and no surprise.

We are going to New York on the 6th of March for two or three days.

A foul little flurry in the London papers concerning LOLITA has been demurely alluded to by Harvey Breit in his column. When you do read LOLITA, please mark that it is a highly moral affair and does not portray American kulaks. In the same issue of the Book Review there is a nice advertisement of Books on Sex, with patients “telling their case histories in their own words.” I am extremely irritated by the turn my nymphet’s destiny is taking, but although I foreglimpsed the situation, I have no inkling how to act, nor do I know even what kind of assistance or defense I can expect in our times when crusades are definitely vieux jeu. Shall we see you and Elena in New York?

Yours,

V

(All emphasis mine.) 根据信件集的编者注，纳博科夫说的predecessor是他珍爱的契诃夫；威尔逊给契诃夫短篇集写的导言 “is almost entirely devoted to sociological analysis of the class origins of Chekhov’s characters,” 全都关于“社会现象”和“富农”，这obvi pissed 纳博科夫off故有此言。然后纳博科夫骂了美国读者被要求找文章“中心思想”的那种阅读法。然后他写到洛丽塔在伦敦引起的争议，根据NYT 1956年2月26日的Harvey Breit的专栏，是John Gordon和大名鼎鼎的Graham Greene在争论洛丽塔是否是值得抵制的色情文学。然后就是那一句：

等你真去读了《洛丽塔》，请注意它是非常道德的，不是在写美国的富农。

——也就是说纳博科夫的highly moral根本不是蒋方舟所想的那个moralist的含义，这句发言也不是他的漫长的写作和文论生涯中的一个outlier，而是和他在其它所有地方所写的、被那些熟悉他、喜爱他、真正阅读过他的人们所反复阅读过的立场所一致的：

I never meant to deny the moral impact of art which is certainly inherent in every genuine work of art. What I do deny and am prepared to fight to the last drop of my ink is the deliberate moralizing which to me kills every vestige of art in a work however skillfully written. (1945)

There are gentle souls who would pronounce Lolita meaningless because it does not teach them anything. I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and, despite John Ray's assertion, Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only in so far as it affords me what I shall bluntly call esthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm. There are not many such books. All the rest is either topical trash or what some call the Literature of Ideas, which very often is topical trash coming in huge blocks of plaster that are carefully transmitted from age to age until somebody comes along with a hammer and takes a good crack at Balzac, at Gorki, at Mann. (1959)

Humbert in his last stage is a moral man because he realizes that he loves Lolita like any woman should be loved. But it is too late; he has destroyed her childhood. There is certainly this kind of morality in it. (1964) (emphasis mine)

No, it is not my sense of the immorality of the Humbert Humbert-Lolita relationship that is strong; it is Humbert’s sense. He cares, I do not. I do not give a damn for public morals, in America or elsewhere. (1967) (emphasis original)

而蒋方舟偏偏彻底把这本书读成了关于一帮子值得批判的美国富农：“《洛丽塔》根本不是想让我们理解一个恋童癖，理解人性的幽暗之处。恰恰相反，纳博科夫是想我们警惕这个变态……纳博科夫提醒我们：不要夸大恶的深度和严肃性，不要把它提高到它配不上的位置……我相信绝大多数读者看到这里[小说的尾声]都被打动了，认为他忏悔了，他的灵魂升华了。但我第二遍看的时候，我才识破了亨伯特不是忏悔，他只是自我感动……纳博科夫自己说：这就是一部道德小说，而且是一部宣扬道德的小说。”

Oh are you fucking kidding me.

蒋方舟说这本书的开头是她“心目中世界上所有的小说里最美的开头。”可是在这篇书评里，她没有提到

Mr. Taxovich, or that class list of Ramsdale School, or Charlotte saying “water proof,” or Lolita in slow motion advancing towards Humbert's gifts, or the pictures decorating the stylised garret of Gaston Godin, or the Kasbeam barber (who cost me a month of work), Lolita playing tennis, or the hospital at Elphinstone, or pale, pregnant, beloved, irretrievable Dolly Schiller dying in Gray Star (the capital town of the book), or the tinkling sounds of the valley town coming up the mountain trail ... (Nabokov, 1959)

蒋方舟的书评里没有任何[2]镀金的蝴蝶、物象缤纷，只有the deliberate moralizing which kills every vestige of art in a work however skillfully written. 如果在纳博科夫的宇宙里有任何“不道德”，那就应该是这种级别的bluntness和insensitivity.（作为一个rage bait, as if我们生活中的rage bait还不够多，我诚邀大家阅读蒋方舟书评第1节，那是我见过对《洛丽塔》这本书最painstaking, agonizing, bare bone，最deprived of absolutely any specific details or unique image at all的情节复述。）蒋方舟读到gentle King Lear discussing in prison with his daughter的时候也会提请各位别忘了李尔王也是个傻逼吗？

当然写得差的书评有的是。蒋方舟超越它们的是她还要再升华一层，给自己稀烂的书评戴上道德的桂冠：“士兵毫无才华，但洛丽塔非常坚决地要生下他的孩子，因为她想证明：所谓才华、所谓话语所编织的那些华丽的谎言，已经彻底无效了。……那些几乎是世界上最专业、最懂文学的人全都失败了，他们接受了亨伯特的辩白，对他网开一面。”如此润滑地融入了现在最流行的“巧言令色”叙事中，真使我感到恶心。我不知道一个人得在文学之外还拥有多少东西，才能这么蔑视文学，在现实生活中有多么地（简直令我作呕地）幸福，才能认为美丽的语言是假的，或者说，比世界上任何其他东西——物质，动作，手势，穿搭，照片，录音，肌肤之亲，“行政行为”，甚至只是，像蒋方舟所一直生产着的，丑陋的语言，以及高傲的沉默——更虚伪。我真心地觉得没有比文学的权力更少，可是更诚实、更telling的东西了，诚恳得像一块泥巴。（你可以从一个脚注看出一个人是否读过一封1956年的信！）你可以从亨伯特亨伯特的辩白里看到所有荆棘球般的场景，即使他不想说的也被吐露了，即使我不想听的我也听到了，不只是“无论他有多么值得同情他还是一个恋童癖”还是“他是个恋童癖可我居然还是几乎要同情他。”哦巧言令色太牛逼了，不可靠的叙述者多么伟大，你简直可以说让读者在道德测试上挂科，是纳博科夫最高贵的成就，was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won? 更何况蒋方舟甚至还胆敢引用房思琪。房思琪提出的是一个问句“文学只是巧言令色吗？”这个问号就含有了全部的痛苦的光辉，因为房思琪把李国华的文学看透了，仍然选择写自己的文学，仍然知道只有（if any）文学能拯救自己。我有多恨蒋方舟我就有多爱房思琪。[3]

十七岁时我读到蒋方舟这篇书评，在一个安卓手机的备忘录里写下反驳，那个时候我写完也不知道该发到哪里，有谁会来看。我几乎确信自己是不太可能写出什么名堂的。都快要十年过去了，我坐在这里在加班的夹缝中翻阅洛丽塔的excerpts（我甚至来不及重读全书），依然震惊于纳博科夫为什么写得这么好，无论任何事情改变，好像只有纳博科夫写得这么好是不会变的。我突然意识到我的复仇似的动机可能只是想回头禀告十七岁的自己——未来的评论家，欢迎你们引作“P&P致P&P, 2026“：

“写得好”这件事，将带给你无穷的乐趣、慰藉与友谊，唯独不会使你获得纳税人的贡赋、闲暇的时间或一个“文化人”的身份，甚至他们会开始说，写得好不好根本就不重要了；文学是巧言令色罢了。Oh would you be furious. In any event to the extent 写得好 is still a thing 请你放心蒋方舟依然是写得最差的。

4.2.2026 at 2

[1] 另一种可能是蒋方舟是借由周丽华（勘误：周翠华）2013年的《洛丽塔：一部高度道德性的小说》作了三手引用。有趣的是维舟在他2018年对蒋方舟书评的反对意见中就引了这篇论文，用于说明蒋方舟的观点缺乏原创性。

[2] To be fair, 蒋方舟提到Kasbeam barber了。但那又是一个她把Richard Rorty观点巧妙降格化用为自己重磅推出的庸俗段落。I am honestly growing a bit tired of this 进退两难 when I do attempt to do a serious critique of 她的出版物which充满着从别人那里拷贝过来的洞见，和纯原创的垃圾

[3] 真有挺多人劝我真挺没有必要写这篇的。奥登也说攻击烂作品是浪费时间而且无益于评论者的品格。但我觉得有这么一种烂作品，细细拆分我对它们的恨让我能意识到自己究竟爱的是什么