Showing posts with label English. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

世界に届く「パロール」

「パロール」とは、哲学的用語で「話し言葉」を意味する。
2月のblogで、村上春樹氏のエルサレム賞受賞講演とその余波について触れた。
そのテクストの中で私は、国際的な文学賞受賞という場で、外交上の利害関係を余り持たない地域での紛争を踏まえて、国境を越えた人間性について文学者として思うことを、母国語ではない言語で訴えかけた、村上氏の「パロール」を支持した。
日本国内には、所謂知識人や文化人はあまた存在するはずなのに、世界に届く「パロール」(=声)が殆ど聞こえてこないことに、私はガッカリさせられる。村上氏がその数少ないパロールの持ち主であったことを、私はあの講演で再認識したのだ。


あの歴史的と評すべき講演の原文を、今一度堪能してみたい。

★ “Jerusalem Prize” Remarks by Haruki Murakami

Good evening. I have come to Jerusalem today as a novelist, which is to say as a professional spinner of lies.
Of course, novelists are not the only ones who tell lies. Politicians do it, too, as we all know. Diplomats and generals tell their own kinds of lies on occasion, as do used car salesmen, butchers and builders. The lies of novelists differ from others, however, in that no one criticizes the novelist as immoral for telling lies. Indeed, the bigger and better his lies and the more ingeniously he creates them, the more he is likely to be praised by the public and the critics. Why should that be?

My answer would be this: namely, that by telling skilful lies--which is to say, by making up fictions that appear to be true--the novelist can bring a truth out to a new place and shine a new light on it. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to grasp a truth in its original form and depict it accurately. This is why we try to grab its tail by luring the truth from its hiding place, transferring it to a fictional location, and replacing it with a fictional form. In order to accomplish this, however, we first have to clarify where the truth-lies within us, within ourselves. This is an important qualification for making up good lies.

Today, however, I have no intention of lying. I will try to be as honest as I can. There are only a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them.
So let me tell you the truth. In Japan a fair number of people advised me not to come here to accept the Jerusalem Prize. Some even warned me they would instigate a boycott of my books if I came. The reason for this, of course, was the fierce fighting that was raging in Gaza. The U.N. reported that more than a thousand people had lost their lives in the blockaded city of Gaza, many of them unarmed citizens--children and old people.

Any number of times after receiving notice of the award, I asked myself whether traveling to Israel at a time like this and accepting a literary prize was the proper thing to do, whether this would create the impression that I supported one side in the conflict, that I endorsed the policies of a nation that chose to unleash its overwhelming military power. Neither, of course, do I wish to see my books subjected to a boycott.
Finally, however, after careful consideration, I made up my mind to come here. One reason for my decision was that all too many people advised me not to do it. Perhaps, like many other novelists, I tend to do the exact opposite of what I am told. If people are telling me-- and especially if they are warning me-- “Don’t go there,” “Don’t do that,” I tend to want to “go there” and “do that”. It’s in my nature, you might say, as a novelist. Novelists are a special breed. They cannot genuinely trust anything they have not seen with their own eyes or touched with their own hands.
And that is why I am here. I chose to come here rather than stay away. I chose to see for myself rather than not to see. I chose to speak to you rather than to say nothing.

Please do allow me to deliver a message, one very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:

“Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.”

Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will do it. But if there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?
What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.

But this is not all. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: it is “The System.” The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others--coldly, efficiently, systematically.

I have only one reason to write novels, and that is to bring the dignity of the individual soul to the surface and shine a light upon it. The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on the System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them. I truly believe it is the novelist’s job to keep trying to clarify the uniqueness of each individual soul by writing stories--stories of life and death, stories of love, stories that make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter. This is why we go on, day after day, concocting fictions with utter seriousness.

My father passed away last year at the age of ninety. He was a retired teacher and a part-time Buddhist priest. When he was in graduate school in Kyoto, he was drafted into the army and sent to fight in China. As a child born after the war, I used to see him every morning before breakfast offering up long, deeply-felt prayers at the small Buddhist altar in our house. One time I asked him why he did this, and he told me he was praying for the people who had died in the battlefield. He was praying for all the people who died, he said, both ally and enemy alike. Staring at his back as he knelt at the altar, I seemed to feel the shadow of death hovering around him.
My father died, and with him he took his memories, memories that I can never know. But the presence of death that lurked about him remains in my own memory. It is one of the few things I carry on from him, and one of the most important.

I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, and we are all fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong--and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others’ souls and from our believing in the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow the System to exploit us. We must not allow the System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: we made the System.
That is all I have to say to you.

I am grateful to have been awarded the Jerusalem Prize. I am grateful that my books are being read by people in many parts of the world. And I would like to express my gratitude to the readers in Israel. You are the biggest reason why I am here. And I hope we are sharing something, something very meaningful. And I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak to you here today. Thank you very much.

やはり、“We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, and we are all fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong--and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others’ souls and from our believing in the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow the System to exploit us. We must not allow the System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: we made the System.”の一節は何度読んでも秀逸である。これこそ、村上氏が一番世界に届けたかった「言葉」、いや、「声」なのだろう。

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

歴史は刻まれた

アメリカ合衆国第44代大統領が就任した。
私はCNNのライヴで、オバマ大統領のInauguration and Addressに耳を傾けた。
彼の口から発せられる言葉、フレーズが、その場に集った数百万の聴衆の熱気と相まって、化学反応を起こしているように感じられた。そして、彼の世界へ向けたメッセージは歴史に刻まれたのだ。

では、その化学反応の全容を振り返ってみよう。

President Barack Obama 2009 Inauguration and Address


彼の選挙キャンペーン当時からのキーワードである、“Yes, we can”、“Unity”、“Change”が就任演説の中には散りばめられていた。
しかし、私が注目したのはキーワードではなく、彼が発したフレーズである。

例えば、
“It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America. ”

“I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”

“The true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

“We will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people.”

などのフレーズが私の中にダイレクトに入ってきた。

彼の力強い演説によって、確実にアメリカはNew Dawnを迎え、歴史は動き、そしてアメリカ自体を一歩前進させた。その一歩は大変困難な一歩かもしれないけれど、いずれにしても前に一歩踏み出さなければ何も変わらない。
お次は、日本が一歩を踏み出す番なのだが。。。。

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Essence of Creatives

I write today's blog in English entirely.
There may be such a day.

I will write about authentic article having having a practised eye power.
It is time to be excited for a creative person, organization, and so forth, very much now.
Clearly there are so many unknowns facing us, so many challenges from social changes to business failings to economic collapse. It is expected that the unemployed people increase almost every day.

Under this situation, how dare anyone look at the world with any optimism?

No one can deny the global pain this is all afflicting. But for better or worse, this is creating a self-editing process of talent, brands, organizations and leaders. What is authentic and more importantly, and what is innovative will survive and grow. It is the foundation for any prominent design or brand without only with an individual to be faithful in this way. The future selection may get narrow; however, what creatives must do is to make sure the choices become better.

The meanings of words called “originality” are evolved by technology and a new generation of youth. But, it became difficult to define a concept called the original. Especially, It may be difficult in Japan which has made it a cultural trait to improve and enhance on previous ideas.
But somehow, there are still advantage on the merits of what we once described as“original.”

In the early morning of tomorrow, we look at the historic moment which the inauguration of first African-American US president becomes reality. A phenomenon doing enable impossibility; in other word, the act of making something has a greater value today than ever before.

Having creative thinking for ascertain essence must be opening up the times!!

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Journalist向けGrammer Test

BBCが自社の記者などに対してGrammer(英文法)のテストを試みた。
なぜ言葉のプロフェッショナルであるジャーナリストに、それもネイティブスピーカーに対してGrammerのテストをするのか?そういう疑問を持つ人もいるかもしれない。
BBCのネイティブの記者が書いた記事に関する苦情のうち、Grammerに関するものがよくあるらしい。そこで、今回のテストという運びとなったようだ。PresenterとCorrespondentの会話に計20個の文法の誤りを見つけ出せというもの。ちなみに、BBC Journalist達のの正解率は60%から95%とばらつきが見られたようだ。私もトライしたが、結構難解な部分もある。
いかに今回の課題を掲載しておきますので、興味のある方は是非チャレンジしてみてください。
さて、あなたは何個間違いを見つけ出せるかな?

<テスト問題>
Presenter: The Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly, said she is leaving her job - the second ministerial resignation in just over a week. Ms Kelly says it's a hard decision but her family are growing up and she wants to spend more time with her children. We'll be joined by her momentarily but first, our political correspondent, Nick Robinson, is here. Nick, is there more to this than meets the eye?

Correspondent: Ruth Kelly asked to leave the cabinet several months ago - so in a way, there's no surprises here. But what is odd is the way the news has been broken: in the early morning, before her conference speech. Between you and I, it looks like No 10 were trying to mitigate against a dramatic departure - in affect, putting out a spoiler.

Presenter: It had been rumoured that Ruth Kelly might be the leader of a mass resignation or at least, partner with one other minister - is that no longer a possibility?

Correspondent: You're right - one minister in particular, inferred to me that he would be off but has since changed his mind. While he'd be loath to admit it, the current financial crisis has effectively done the PM a favour. None of his other ministers are planning to try and move against his or her leader at such a crucial time and so no, I don't think he'll have to face up to a revolt. Meanwhile, he has one less opponent in the cabinet, so Mr Brown's position may even be stronger as a result of this, particularly if his speech receives fulsome praise.

Presenter: Is the subject of the leadership likely to receive less attention, then?

Correspondent: Well, I wouldn't go that far. Ministers sung from the same hymn sheet in public but behind the scenes at conference, it was a different story. There certainly are people who say Mr Brown's not the right man to lead Labour into the next general election - an assertion that No 10 refutes, of course. The public might be bored of speculation but the question of Gordon Brown's leadership is not likely to go away, given the enormity of the subject, no matter how many people are disinterested in it.