my discovery of england-第32部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


rs　up　his　hat；　coat；　and　umbrella　very　deliberately；　rises　with　great　calm；　and　walks　firmly　away。　His　air　is　that　of　a　man　who　has　stood　all　that　he　can　and　can　bear　no　more。　Till　one　knows　about　this　man；　and　the　others　who　rise　after　him；　it　is　very　disconcerting；　at　first　I　thought　I　must　have　said　something　to　reflect　upon　the　royal　family。　But　presently　the　lecturer　gets　to　understand　that　it　is　only　the　nine…o'clock　train　and　that　all　the　audience　know　about　it。　Then　it's　all　right。　It's　just　like　the　people　rising　and　stretching　themselves　after　the　seventh　innings　in　baseball。

In　all　that　goes　above　I　have　been　emphasising　the　fact　that　the　British　and　the　American　sense　of　humour　are　essentially　the　same　thing。　But　there　are；　of　course；　peculiar　differences　of　form　and　peculiar　preferences　of　material　that　often　make　them　seem　to　diverge　widely。

By　this　I　mean　that　each　community　has；　within　limits；　its　own　particular　ways　of　being　funny　and　its　own　particular　conception　of　a　joke。　Thus；　a　Scotchman　likes　best　a　joke　which　he　has　all　to　himself　or　which　he　shares　reluctantly　with　a　few；　the　thing　is　too　rich　to　distribute。　The　American　loves　particularly　as　his　line　of　joke　an　anecdote　with　the　point　all　concentrated　at　the　end　and　exploding　in　a　phrase。　The　Englishman　loves　best　as　his　joke　the　narration　of　something　that　actually　did　happen　and　that　depends；　of　course；　for　its　point　on　its　reality。

There　are　plenty　of　minor　differences；　too；　in　point　of　mere　form；　and　very　naturally　each　community　finds　the　particular　form　used　by　the　others　less　pleasing　than　its　own。　In　fact；　for　this　very　reason　each　people　is　apt　to　think　its　own　humour　the　best。

Thus；　on　our　side　of　the　Atlantic；　to　cite　our　own　faults　first；　we　still　cling　to　the　supposed　humour　of　bad　spelling。　We　have；　indeed；　told　ourselves　a　thousand　times　over　that　bad　spelling　is　not　funny；　but　is　very　tiresome。　Yet　it　is　no　sooner　laid　aside　and　buried　than　it　gets　resurrected。　I　suppose　the　real　reason　is　that　it　is　funny；　at　least　to　our　eyes。　When　Bill　Nye　spells　wife　with　〃yph〃　we　can't　help　being　amused。　Now　Bill　Nye's　bad　spelling　had　absolutely　no　point　to　it　except　its　oddity。　At　times　it　was　extremely　funny；　but　as　a　mode　it　led　easily　to　widespread　and　pointless　imitation。　It　was　the　kind　of　thinglike　poetrythat　anybody　can　do　badly。　It　was　most　deservedly　abandoned　with　execration。　No　American　editor　would　print　it　to…day。　But　witness　the　new　and　excellent　effect　produced　with　bad　spelling　by　Mr。　Ring　W。　Lardner。　　Here；　however；　the　case　is　altered；　it　is　not　the　falseness　of　Mr。　　Lardner's　spelling　that　is　the　amusing　feature　of　it；　but　the　truth　of　it。　When　he　writes；　〃dear　friend；　Al；　I　would　of　rote　sooner；〃　etc。；　he　is　truer　to　actual　sound　and　intonation　than　the　lexicon。　　The　mode　is　excellent。　But　the　imitations　will　soon　debase　it　into　such　bad　coin　that　it　will　fail　to　pass　current。　In　England；　however；　the　humour　of　bad　spelling　does　not　and　has　never；　I　believe；　flourished。　Bad　spelling　is　only　used　in　England　as　an　attempt　to　reproduce　phonetically　a　dialect；　it　is　not　intended　that　the　spelling　itself　should　be　thought　funny；　but　the　dialect　that　it　represents。　But　the　effect；　on　the　whole；　is　tiresome。　A　little　dose　of　the　humour　of　Lancashire　or　Somerset　or　Yorkshire　pronunciation　may　be　all　right；　but　a　whole　page　of　it　looks　like　the　gibbering　of　chimpanzees　set　down　on　paper。

In　America　also　we　run　perpetually　to　the　（supposed）　humour　of　slang；　a　form　not　used　in　England。　If　we　were　to　analyse　what　we　mean　by　slang　I　think　it　would　be　found　to　consist　of　the　introduction　of　new　metaphors　or　new　forms　of　language　of　a　metaphorical　character；　strained　almost　to　the　breaking　point。　Sometimes　we　do　it　with　a　single　word。　When　some　genius　discovers　that　a　〃hat〃　is　really　only　〃a　lid〃　placed　on　top　of　a　human　being；　straightway　the　word　〃lid〃　goes　rippling　over　the　continent。　Similarly　a　woman　becomes　a　〃skirt；〃　and　so　on　ad　infinitum。

These　words　presently　either　disappear　or　else　retain　a　permanent　place；　being　slang　no　longer。　No　doubt　half　our　words；　if　not　all　of　them；　were　once　slang。　Even　within　our　own　memory　we　can　see　the　whole　process　carried　through；　〃cinch〃　once　sounded　funny；　it　is　now　standard　American…English。　But　other　slang　is　made　up　of　descriptive　phrases。　At　the　best；　these　slang　phrases　areat　least　we　think　they　areextremely　funny。　But　they　are　funniest　when　newly　coined；　and　it　takes　a　master　hand　to　coin　them　well。　For　a　supreme　example　of　wild　vagaries　of　language　used　for　humour；　one　might　take　O。　Henry's　〃Gentle　Grafter。〃　But　here　the　imitation　is　as　easy　as　it　is　tiresome。　The　invention　of　pointless　slang　phrases　without　real　suggestion　or　merit　is　one　of　our　most　familiar　forms　of　factory…made　humour。　Now　the　English　people　are　apt　to　turn　away　from　the　whole　field　of　slang。　In　the　first　place　it　puzzles　themthey　don't　know　whether　each　particular　word　or　phrase　is　a　sort　of　idiom　already　known　to　Americans；　or　something　（as　with　O。　　Henry）　never　said　before　and　to　be　analysed　for　its　own　sake。　The　result　is　that　with　the　English　public　the　great　mass　of　American　slang　writing　（genius　apart）　doesn't　go。　I　have　even　found　English　people　of　undoubted　literary　taste　repelled　from　such　a　master　as　O。　Henry　（now　read　by　millions　in　England）　because　at　first　sight　they　get　the　impression　that　it　is　〃all　American　slang。〃

Another　point　in　which　American　humour；　or　at　least　the　form　which　it　takes；　differs　notably　from　British；　is　in　the　matter　of　story　telling。　It　was　a　great　surprise　to　me　the　first　time　I　went　out　to　a　dinner　party　in　London　to　find　that　my　host　did　not　open　the　dinner　by　telling　a　funny　story；　that　the　guests　did　not　then　sit　silent　trying　to　〃think　of　another〃；　that　some　one　did　not　presently　break　silence　by　saying；　〃I　heard　a　good　one　the　other　day；〃and　so　forth。　And　I　realised　that　in　this　respect　English　society　is　luckier　than　ours。

It　is　my　candid　opinion　that　no　man　ought　to　be　allowed　to　tell　a　funny　story　or　anecdote　without　a　license。　We　insist　rightly　enough　that　every　taxi…driver　must　have　a　license；　and　the　same　principle　should　apply　to　anybody　who　proposes　to　act　as　a　raconteur。　Telling　a　story　is　a　difficult　thingquite　as　difficult　as　driving　a　taxi。　And　the　risks　of　failure　and　accident　and　the　unfortunate　consequences　of　such　to　the　public；　if　not　exactly　identical；　are；　at　any　rate；　analogous。

This　is　a　point　of　view　not　generally　appreciated。　A　man　is　apt　to　think　that　just　because　he　has　heard　a　good　story　he　is　able　and　entitled　to　repeat　it。　He　might　as　well　undertake　to　do　a　snake　dance　merely　because　he　has　seen　Madame　Pavlowa　do　one。　The　point　of　a　story　is　apt　to　lie　in　the　telling；　or　at　least　to　depend　upon　it　in　a；　high　degree。　Certain　stories；　it　is　true；　depend　so　much　on　the　final　point；　or　〃nub；〃　as　we　Americans　call　it；　that　they　are　almost　fool…proof。　But　even　these　can　be　made　so　prolix　and　tiresome；　can　be　so　messed　up　with　irrelevant　detail；　that　the　general　effect　is　utter　weariness　relieved　by　a　kind　of　shock　at　the　end。　Let　me　illustrate　what　I　mean　by　a　story　with　a　〃nub〃　or　point。　I　will　take　one　of　the　best　known；　so　as