In Le Temps retrouvé, Proust writes regretfully of how his work has been misunderstood. Even those who were favourable to the Proustian project, he complains, ended up congratulating him for achieving the opposite of what he actually intended. They praised him for discovering certain truths through amicroscope whereas, Proust claims, he had used a telescope. Far from being a ‘fouilleur de détails’, he describes himself as seeking ‘les grandes lois’. Proust remains among themostmisunderstood authors of the last century. Beginning to read Proust, to borrow an analogy from Schopenhauer, is to look at the front-side of a piece of embroidery – it is quite beautiful, but, for the beholder, the dots have not yet quite been connected. Finishing Proust is to consult the back of the embroidery and to see how all the stiches have been worked together to form the images on the other side. But even when one sees the back of the piece of embroidery, numerous questions remain. Yes, Proust’s work undoubtedly lends itself easily to misunderstandings. Changing gears slightly, misunderstanding is a major theme of the work (and life) of E. M. Forster, especially in A Passage to India. He writes that ‘[a] pause in the wrong place, an intonation misunderstood, and a whole conversation went awry’. What about a written conversation, a text? Forster’s comments evidently hold true there as well, but there is one aspect to be added. In a text, misunderstanding can arise, quite unconsciously, from omissions – not on the part of the writer, but the reader. Without lapsing into cliché, what is not said is often more interesting than what is actually said. But also, what is not heard, or mistakenly heard (an inversion of the infamous Freudian slip), is often more interesting that what is actually heard, or accurately heard. It is perhaps fitting, then, that Forster, a maestro of misunderstanding, would find one of his sentences misunderstood by the eminent critic Lionel Trilling – and that, to curious effect. Towards the end of his book titled E.M. Forster, Trilling cites a passage from an essay by Forster that recounts his time in Cairo during the war. Trilling introduces this passage by saying that it displayshow ‘literatureworks to “help”us’.He cites Forster as havingwritten that:

中文翻译：

---

在Huysmans上尝试Forster：一个误解和自动主义的案例

在《时报》的回顾中，普鲁斯特遗憾地写了他的作品被误解了。他抱怨说，即使那些赞成Proustian项目的人最终也祝贺他实现了与他的实际意图相反的目标。他们称赞他通过显微镜发现某些真相，而普鲁斯特声称，他使用了望远镜。他远非“美食家”，而是描述自己在寻求“大路易斯”。普鲁斯特仍然是上个世纪最容易被人误解的作家。开始阅读普鲁斯特（Proust）时，要借鉴叔本华（Schopenhauer）的一个类比，就是看一眼绣花的正面-它很漂亮，但是对于旁观者来说，这些点还不是很紧密。Finishing Proust的工作是咨询绣花的背面，并查看如何将所有针迹一起加工以形成另一面的图像。但是，即使看到绣花的背面，仍然存在许多问题。是的，普鲁斯特的工作无疑很容易引起误解。稍加换档，误解是EM Forster工作（和生活）的主要主题，尤其是在《印度之行》中。他写道：“ [[a]停在错误的位置，语调被误解，整个谈话都出现了问题”。书面对话，文字呢？福斯特的评论显然也适用，但是有一个方面需要补充。在文本中，误解可能是由于疏忽而无意识地引起的-不是作者，而是读者。不用陈词滥调 没有说的话通常比实际说的话更有趣。但是，与实际听到或准确听到的相比，未听到或错误听到的（与臭名昭著的弗洛伊德式滑倒相反）通常更有趣。那么，也许是个误会大师，福斯特可能会发现他的其中一句话被著名评论家莱昂内尔·特里林（Lionel Trilling）误解了，这很合适，这很奇怪。在他名为《 EM Forster》的书结尾处，Trilling引用了Forster的一篇文章中的一段话，其中叙述了他在战争中在开罗的时间。特里林（Trilling）通过说它展示了“文学作品来帮助我们”来介绍这段话。或被误听（臭名昭著的弗洛伊德滑倒），通常比实际听到或准确听到的声音更有趣。那么，也许是个误会大师，福斯特可能会发现他的其中一句话被著名评论家莱昂内尔·特里林（Lionel Trilling）误解了，这很合适，这很奇怪。在他名为《 EM Forster》的书结尾处，Trilling引用了Forster的一篇文章中的一段话，其中叙述了他在战争中在开罗的时间。特里林（Trilling）通过说它展示了“文学作品来帮助我们”来介绍这段话。或被误听（臭名昭著的弗洛伊德滑倒），通常比实际听到或准确听到的声音更有趣。那么，也许是个误会大师，福斯特可能会发现他的其中一句话被著名评论家莱昂内尔·特里林（Lionel Trilling）误解了，这很合适，这很奇怪。在他名为《 EM Forster》的书的结尾处，Trilling引用了Forster的一篇文章的一段话，其中叙述了他在战争中在开罗的时间。特里林（Trilling）通过说它展示了“文学作品来帮助我们”来介绍这段话。他引用福斯特（Forster）的话说：产生奇怪的效果。在他名为《 EM Forster》的书结尾处，Trilling引用了Forster的一篇文章中的一段话，其中叙述了他在战争中在开罗的时间。特里林（Trilling）通过说它展示了“文学作品来帮助我们”来介绍这段话。他引用福斯特（Forster）的话说：产生奇怪的效果。在他名为《 EM Forster》的书的结尾处，Trilling引用了Forster的一篇文章的一段话，其中叙述了他在战争中在开罗的时间。特里林（Trilling）通过说它展示了“文学作品来帮助我们”来介绍这段话。他引用福斯特（Forster）的话说：