裂縫與毯子：賀淑芳的小說迷宮

Fissure and Carpet: Ho Sok Fong's Fictional Labyrinth

從《迷宮毯子》開始，賀淑芳的小說所走的是似乎一條「非典型」的馬華小說路線：過多的謎面，曲折的隱喻，以及那隨著詞語的腳步而愈發潰散的敘事。而小說語言所指涉的各種現實，則刻意被遮蔽在故事背面，彷彿僅是「毯子的反面」。這條路線顯然隱含一種遮掩、隱蔽的欲望，將現實遮蓋、以詞語的美麗花紋示人。在最具隱喻性的同名小說〈迷宮毯子〉中，可以看見這樣的技術顯然不只是停留在修辭層次，而別有一種作者自身存有論的隱喻，它經常被和作者的世界觀、寫作觀進行鏈結。有意思的是，毯子的正面與背面並非完全不相干，而是仰賴同一條織線紡織而成的同一張布疋。究竟這些毯子的正面、美麗的詞語之臉，所欲掩蓋或表達的，是甚麼樣的現實？而這樣的一種紡織術之於作者的現實、或之於馬華的政治現實，又具有甚麼意義？本文嘗試分為幾個層面來討論《迷宮毯子》：其一是幻想性的語言修辭為何支撐著作者的寫作？為何需要織就那美麗的文字外衣？其中是否隱含一種深層的、屬於作者本身的晦暗癥狀或創傷？其二，由此癥狀或傷害出發，作者勢必面對的是處理現實的方法──如何發展出一套詞語技術，將現實收進詞語背面？這種面對現實的策略，當然也能外擴指涉為對任一種現實的詞語化。它所導致的結果，往往是去地域性的、地點的自我內化。

Sinophone Malaysian writer Ho Sok Fong's stories, collected in Labyrinthian Carpets and The Lake is Like a Mirror, appear to be untypical: an excess of riddles, the use of labyrinthian metaphors, and a narration that collapses progressively as words are piled up. Realities seem to be concealed on “the backside of a carpet.” With various rhetorical devices, the narrative itself desires to enclose the reality. However, Ho does more than embellishing the words in Labyrinthian Carpets. Riddles, metaphors and enclosed reality seem to be used to symbolize her own existence; they are closely related to her world view and her theory of writing. Interestingly, both sides of the carpet are of the same textile fibers and from the same thread. Such a relationship may lead us to question the nature of reality, and how Ho uses rhetorical devices to mask them behind the embellished words. What is the significance of this technique may contribute to the bio-political reality of Ho as a Chinese Malaysian? This paper hence attempts to discuss Ho's Labyrinthian Carpets from several aspects. First, why did the author employ these images and rhetorical devices in her writing? Why should she bother to weave such a beautiful carpet out of words? Is it possible that some kind of authorial gloomy and deeply-rooted symptoms or traumas are hidden underneath? Secondly, by choosing such symptoms or wounds as a point of departure, she, unavoidably, has to face the reality: how did Ho develop such a technique that conceals reality through manipulating words? Furthermore, can her approach to reality be taken as a verbalized representation of reality, a deterritorialized yet localized self-internalization?