【彩蛋】《权力的游戏》与莎士比亚2： “为王者无安宁”

Episode 2 - The Wooden O and the Iron Throne

第2集 — 环形剧场与铁王座

2. “Uneasy Lies the Head that Wears the Crown”

2. “为王者无安宁”

Welcome back to “The Wooden O and the Iron Throne: Game of Thrones and Shakespeare.” In episode one, we discussed how Shakespeare and George R.R. Martin use history. Martin draws on real-world history to inspire his plots. But he also creates a rich fictional history for the world of Westeros, along with detailed individual histories for each character. We see those histories intersect in this scene between Jamie Lannister and Brienne of Tarth, when Jamie describes how his father besieged King’s Landing while he was serving as guard to the king.

欢迎回到“环形剧场与铁王座：《权力的游戏》与莎士比亚”。在上集节目中，我们探讨了莎士比亚和乔治.R.R.马丁对历史的运用。马丁以真实的历史为素材，创作出了精彩的故事情节。同时，他还为维斯特洛虚构了一段丰富的历史，为故事中的每位角色书写了详尽的个人历史。在下面詹姆·兰尼斯特和塔斯的布蕾妮之间的这场戏中，我们可以感受到那些历史的交织。这里詹姆正在向布蕾妮讲述他父亲围攻君临城时的情形，当时他是被围困的国王的守卫。

Jaime: Once again, I came to the King, begging him to surrender. He told me to bring him my father’s head. Then he turned to his pyromancer. “Burn them all,” he said. “Burn them in their homes. Burn them in their beds. ” Tell me, if your precious Renly commanded you to kill your own father and stand by while thousands of men, women, and children burned alive, would you have done it? Would you have kept your oath then? First, I killed the pyromancer. And then, when the King turned to flee, I drove my sword into his back.

Brienne: If this is true… Why didn’t you tell anyone? Why didn’t you tell Lord Stark?

Jaime: Stark? You think the honorable Ned Stark wanted to hear my side? He judged me guilty the moment he set eyes on me.

詹姆：我再次走到国王面前，请求他投降。但他却让我去取我父亲的头颅来献给他。接着他还对火术士说“把他们全烧死。把他们烧死在家里。把他们烧死在床上。”如果你敬重的蓝礼命令你去杀死自己的父亲，并要求你站在一旁眼睁睁看着成千上万的男女和孩子被活活烧死，你会怎么做？你还会坚持自己的效忠誓言吗？所以，我先杀了那个火术士。然后，在国王转身逃跑时，我把剑刺进了他的背。

布蕾妮：如果这都是真的......你为什么不告诉大家？为什么不把这一切告诉史塔克大人？

詹姆：史塔克？你认为堂堂正正的奈德·史塔克会愿意听我的辩解吗？他一见到我就判我有罪了。

What this scene reveals so powerfully is how history shapes character. Past events shape the present culture and circumstance in which characters find themselves, and that shapes the choices they face and the people they must become. Jaime Lannister didn’t choose to be a King’s guard in a time of rebellion. Nor did he choose the king he served. But those circumstances determined the choices he had and the identity he acquired.

从这场戏中，我们可以清晰感受到历史对于人物性格的塑造。曾经的事件造就了今天的文化，让人物角色以当前的姿态出现在我们面前。同时这些人物所面临的选择，以及他们将会变成的模样，也都是由过往的经历所决定的。詹姆·兰尼斯特在叛乱中，没有选择尽一位御林铁卫的职责，也没有选择效忠于自己的国王。但这都是他由他当时所处的环境决定，这种环境也定义了之后他在人们心目中的形象。

Jaime: There it is. There’s the look. I’ve seen it for years, on face after face. You all despise me. King-slayer. Oath-breaker. A man without honor.

詹姆：就是那样，就是那样的表情，这些年来我在一张又一张脸上看到过那样的表情。你们个个都鄙视我，称我是“弑君者”，是“破誓者”，说我是“毁誉之人”。

We noted in episode one that Jaime Lannister can seem like an evil character at first. But he shows a keen sense of how good and evil operate in a place like Westeros -- or like Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies. These are worlds where moral agents operate under constraint, and circumstances may render everyoption morally compromised. This point was made starkly in “The Broken Man,” the episode in which we see Sandor Clegane, “The Hound,” nursed back to life by Brother Ray, an assassin-turned-religious leader. A group of men has just threatened to invade Ray’s tiny pacifist community. The Hound urges Ray to fight back. But Ray refuses.

在上集节目中，我们提到詹姆·兰尼斯特在一开始似乎就是一个十足的恶人。但从他身上，我们可以清晰感受到在维斯特洛，以及在莎士比亚的历史剧和悲剧中，善恶的那种运作方式。在他们笔下的这些世界中，道德主体都受到了制约，当下的环境也导致每一个选择都存在道德缺陷。这一点在《破碎之人》那一集中尤其明显。在这一集，我们见到了被曾经当过刺客的雷主教救起的“猎狗”桑铎·克里冈。当时，一群人威胁要入侵雷主教生活的那个主张和平的小村落。“猎狗”催促雷进行反击，但雷拒绝了。

Ray: I'm done with fighting.

The Hound: Even if it's to protect yourself?

Ray: Violence is a disease. You don't cure disease by spreading it to more people.

The Hound: You don't cure it by dying, either.

雷：我不会再打仗了。

“猎狗”：就算是为了保护自己也不打吗？

雷：暴力是一种疾病。把它传播给给多的人，是无法治愈它的。

“猎狗”：但是死亡也无法治愈它。

You are morally opposed to violence. But you are also responsible for protecting people who are threatened by violence. Is there any morally pure option to pursue? This is a dilemma that Jaime Lannister understands--as he articulates to Catelyn Stark.

从道义上，你反对暴力。但同时你也需要负责保护那些受暴力威胁的人们。所以，真的有可能做出完全符合道德标准的选择吗？从下面詹姆·兰尼斯特和凯特琳·史塔克的这段对话中，我们可以看出，詹姆其实十分了解这种道德上的两难抉择。

Catelyn: You are no Knight. You have forsaken every vow you ever took.

Jaime: o many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the king, obey the king, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the King massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another.

凯特琳：你不再是骑士了。你已经背弃了自己的曾经的誓言。

詹姆：噢，那些誓言。他们让你不断地发一个又一个誓言。保护国王、服从国王、服从你的父亲、保护无辜的人、保护弱者。但如果你的父亲藐视国王，你该怎么办？如果你的国王屠杀无辜百姓，你该怎么办？这种事太多了。不论你怎么做，你都是在背弃誓言。

In this episode, we talk about character, culture, and choice in Shakespeare and in Game of Thrones--and about how those choices become all the more difficult when you’re a leader in power trying to play the great game. Welcome to Episode Two of “The Wooden O and the Iron Throne: Uneasy Lies the Head that Wears the Crown.”

本集节目，我们将探讨莎士比亚戏剧和《权力的游戏》中的角色、文化和选择。同时我们还会设想一旦你成为了这场伟大游戏中的一位掌权者，作出那些选择将会变得有多么困难。欢迎来到此次特别节目的第二集——“环形剧场与铁王座之为王者无安宁”。

In our last episode, we heard from Anton Lesser, who plays the character of Qyburn in Game of Thrones. Qyburn was studying to be a Maester when he was expelled from his order for his experiments on living humans. He uses his knowledge of medicine to heal Jamie Lannister’s arm and to save the injured Ser Gregor. As Hand to Queen Cersei, he also uses his knowledge to blow up the Sept of Baelor, to build the Scorpions that kill one of Daenerys Targaryen’s dragons, and to poison a young girl from Dorne. But in spite of all that, Lesser says, he didn’t find his character simply evil--partly because of Qyburn’s backstory and the place he started from.

上集节目中，我们采访了安东·莱瑟，他在《权力的游戏》中饰演科本一角。最开始的时候，科本因为用活人做实验，而被剥夺了学士的头衔。后来，他运用自己的医术治疗了詹姆的断手，并救回了受伤的格雷果爵士。之后，他当上了瑟曦的“女王之手”，他利用自己的知识炸毁了贝勒大圣堂，发明了毒蝎神弩杀死了丹妮莉丝·坦格利安的一条龙，还毒杀了多恩家族的一个女孩。但莱瑟表示，即便如此，他依旧认为科本这个角色也并非绝对的邪恶，他认为这一切有一部分是由于科本的背景和他最初的那些遭遇造成的。

Qyburn: Water …

Robb: What’s your name, friend?

Qyburn: Qyburn.

科本：水......[咳嗽声]

罗柏：[递水]我的朋友，你叫什么名字？

科本：科本。

Lesser: He's a survivor. The first time we see him, he's on a wheel of a cart, he’s stretched out, on his last breath, basically. He starts out having survived clearly in the context of that sort of world -- we can't really imagine what that's like.

莱瑟：他是一名幸存者。第一次出场时，他四肢伸展着，躺在马车的车轮下，奄奄一息。一开始，他只是希望能在那样的环境下生存下来，那是一种我们无法想象的环境。

In such extreme situations, few of us could perfectly uphold our idealistic moral codes.

在那种情况下，几乎没有人能够完全坚持自己理想的道德准则。

Lesser: Your child hasn't got enough food. What happens to your morality, your fancy philosophies, and your intellectual complexity, when all that you have to do is find something to put in the mouth of the child that’s in your arms -- it's just unbearable. But I suspect that -- you would just do what you needed to do.

莱瑟：你的孩子没有足够的食物。你要为手中的孩子找吃的，这时候你的道德、你那花哨的哲学思想、你那复杂的智慧又有什么用呢？这一切都令人难以忍受。我认为，在这样的情形下，你自然会去做你必须做的那些事情。

You won’t understand characters and their choices unless you understand their circumstances. That’s a central tenet for Shakespeare and for George R.R. Martin. Here’s Dr. Jeff Wilson, preceptor of expository writing at Harvard University and author of Shakespeare and Game of Thrones.

如果不了解这些角色当时所处的环境，你就无法理解这些人物本身，无法理解他们所做出的那些选择。这是莎士比亚和乔治.R.R.马丁在创作过程所坚持的一个中心准则。下面这位接受采访的是哈佛大学说明文写作导师、《莎士比亚与<权力的游戏>》一书的作者杰夫·威尔逊博士。

Wilson: For both Shakespeare and Martin, character doesn't exist outside of situation, which means that someone has character, but that is conditioned by the circumstances into which one was born. And so that A.C. Bradley, his great line about inShakespearean Tragedy, “Character is destiny,” but at the same time, culture creates character. And so in a lot of Shakespeare's plays, culture is destiny. And I think Shakespeare was extremely interested in the ways that certain social formations, certain social dynamics, have a fate to them. And so I suppose both Shakespeare and Martin knew that good stories come from characters who have had their personality fashioned by the circumstances into which they were born, being put into situations in which their personality isn't well suited for that situation.

威尔逊：莎士比亚和马丁笔下的角色都不能脱离环境而存在，也就是说这些角色的性格是由他们生长的环境塑造而成的，就像莎士比亚研究学者A.C.布雷德利在《莎士比亚悲剧》一书中那句著名的话“性格是命中注定的”所表达的意思一样。不过，还有一点要注意的就是，其实文化也会影响人物性格。所以在很多莎剧中，我们会发现文化也是命中注定的。我觉得莎士比亚对于特定的社会形态和社会动态影响人物的方式尤为感兴趣。我认为莎士比亚和马丁都明白好的故事来自于那些被成长环境所塑造，但却置身于那种与他们个性格格不入的环境中的角色。

Some of Shakespeare’s and Martin’s most powerful stories evolve out of this dynamic that Wilson describes. Imagine, for example, a man whose family and culture instill in him ideals of nobility, honor, and duty. These ideals make him want to serve his country - but equally, make it almost unbearable when public service calls for actions he sees as dishonorable. This is the story of Ned Stark and Jon Snow in Game of Thrones, and of Brutus in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar.

莎士比亚和马丁所创作的最为震撼的一些故事就是围绕威尔逊所描述的这种动态而展开的。比如，我们可以想象一下，一个人的家庭和文化培养了他高尚、荣誉和责任的理想。这些理想让他想要去效忠国家，但是国家却要求他去做一些他认为是可耻的事情，这时，这些理想就会让他觉得那种事情令他无法容忍。我们从《权利的游戏》中的奈德·史塔克和琼恩·雪诺，以及《裘力斯·凯撒》中的布鲁图斯身上都可以感受到这一点。

Brutus is a Senator of the Roman Republic who watches as the military general Julius Caesar gets closer and closer, it seems, to seizing absolute power - which would destroy the Republic and its equitable ideals. Brutus feels bound by duty to defend the Republic, even if that means killing Caesar -- who is also his dear friend. Ned Stark, too, feels bound by duty to serve the realm, even at personal cost. Ned’s father and brother were murdered when they rode South to King’s Landing, and Ned fears that the King’s Hand, Jon Arryn, was murdered as well. Nevertheless, when King Robert asks him to serve as the next Hand, Ned agrees and rides South - leaving behind his sons and his wife Catelyn in Winterfell.

布鲁图斯是罗马共和国的一位元老院议员，他目睹裘力斯·凯撒将军一步步走向绝对权力，也意识到这将会毁灭罗马共和国，以及国家的公平理想。布鲁图斯明白自己到有义务维护罗马共和国，即便这意味着要杀死凯撒，这位自己的好朋友。奈德·史塔克同样也意识到自己有义务为国家效力，即便他个人需要付出一定的代价。奈德的父亲和兄弟在往南前往君临城的途中被谋杀，奈德还担心“国王之手”琼恩·艾林当时也被谋杀了。但是，当劳勃国王任命他为新的国王之手时，奈德答应了，并出发前往南方，把儿子们和妻子凯特琳留在了临冬城。

Ned: I have no choice.

Catelyn: That’s what men always say when honor calls.

奈德：我别无选择。

凯特琳：男人们在接受正义召唤时，都这么说。

Honoris the defining word for both Ned Stark and Brutus. As Brutus says, “I love the name of honor more than I fear death.” For Brutus, honor means doing his public duty. But in both stories, we see how notions of honor might also conflict with public duty and the public good. That’s the tension between Ned and Robert when they clash over whether to assassinate the pregnant Dothraki queen Daenerys Targaryen -- whose son could invade Westeros with an army.

荣誉这个词形象地描绘出了奈德和布鲁图斯的人物形象。就像布鲁图斯所说，“我对荣誉的热爱远胜过我对死亡的恐惧。”对他而言，荣誉意味着承担自己的社会责任。但是在布鲁图斯和奈德身上，我们也感受到了荣誉观念与社会责任和公共利益之间的冲突。这种冲突就体现在奈德和劳勃对是否要刺杀怀孕的多斯拉克王后丹妮莉丝·坦格利安的激烈争论上，因为丹妮莉丝的孩子，将来会举兵入侵维斯特洛。

Robert: I want them both dead.

Ned: You'll dishonor yourself forever if you do this.

Robert: Honor?! I've got Seven Kingdoms to rule! One King, Seven Kingdoms. Do you think honor keeps them in line? Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear -- fear and blood.

Ned: Then we're no better than the Mad King.

Robert: Careful, Ned, careful now.

Varys: I understand your misgivings, my lord, truly, I do. It is a terrible thing we must consider, a vile thing, yet we who presume to rule must sometimes do vile things for the good of the realm. Should the gods grant Daenerys a son, the realm will bleed.

劳勃：我要他们两个全都死。

奈德：如果你这么做，你就会让自己永远蒙受耻辱。

劳勃：荣誉？！我要统治七大王国！一个国王，七大王国！你难道认为是荣誉让他们都遵守规矩的吗？你真的认为荣誉能维持和平吗？我们要的是恐惧——恐惧和血腥。

奈德：那我们就和“疯王”就没区别了。

劳勃：要当心啊，奈德，现在得当心。

瓦里斯：我明白您的担忧，大人，真的，我明白。这的确是一件可怕的事情，卑鄙无耻。但是，统治者有时候必须为国家做一些卑鄙无耻的事情。一旦丹妮莉丝生下一个儿子，我们的整个国度就将血流成河。

Brutus, like Ned, is given a choice to kill a potentially dangerous enemy. As they plan the assassination of Caesar, Brutus’s fellow conspirators want Caesar’s supporter Mark Antony to be killed as well. If he lives, he might ruin the success of their cause. Brutus refuses, saying that killing Antony will make their “course ... seem too bloody.” Brutus’s character has been shaped by Roman cultural notions of honor. But those notions don’t serve him well during a political coup that demands decisive, pragmatic, and sometimes ruthless action. Brutus’s honor makes him want to save the Republic from Caesar’s ambition. But it also makes him hate the thought of the “vile things” required to do so. He agrees to kill Caesar, but he refuses to kill Antony - he even permits Antony to make a speech at Caesar’s funeral.

和奈德一样，布鲁图斯也需要决定是否要刺杀一位潜在的危险敌人。他们在计划刺杀凯撒时，布鲁图斯的共谋者还想杀死凯撒的支持者马克·安东尼。他们认为，如果让马克·安东尼活着，他就会毁了他们所取得的成功。但布鲁图斯没有答应，他说杀死安东尼会让他们“在做的这件事情......看起来过于血腥”。布鲁图斯的性格深受罗马文化中的荣誉观念的影响。但是，政变需要果断和务实，有时甚至还需要冷酷无情，而这都是那些荣誉观念无法做到的。布鲁图斯的荣誉观念让他想把罗马共和国从凯撒的野心中拯救出来。但也正是这样的荣誉观念让他极度反感去做那些不得不做的“卑鄙无耻的事情”。他同意刺杀凯撒，但是他不同意再去杀死安东尼，他甚至允许安东尼在凯撒的葬礼上发表讲话。

Antony: When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept; /Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. / Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man. / You all did see that on the Lupercal / I thrice presented him a kingly crown, / Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition? / Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, / And sure he is an honorable man.

安东尼：每当听到贫民的哀嚎，凯撒也流下同情的泪水；有野心的人，能有如此慈悲的心肠吗？遗憾的是，布鲁图斯一定坚持说他有野心，而布鲁图斯又是一位堂堂正正的君子，我有什么办法呢？那天露泊卡雨节的时候，你们亲眼看到过，当时我三次以皇冠劝他登基，他三次拒绝，这能算是有野心吗？遗憾的是，布鲁图斯一定坚持说他有野心，而他又是一位堂堂正正的君子。

McNair: Antony, in his funeral oration for Caesar, keeps repeating, “Brutus is an honorable man. Brutus is an honorable man.” And the more he repeats it, the more it becomes ionized, where you understand that Antony is really trying to make the point that Brutus is the opposite of an honorable man. And Ned Stark, this is how everybody sees him, and they see that he's a man of honor. But often the word gets applied to him in contexts that similarly ionize it.

麦克奈尔：在凯撒葬礼的演说致辞中，安东尼不断重复说“布鲁图斯是一个堂堂正正的君子。布鲁图斯是一个堂堂正正的君子。”他越这样强调，听起来就越有讽刺意味，因为大家都明白安东尼真正想表达的意思其实是与“堂堂正正的君子”这样正向的意思相反。对于奈德·史塔克，大家也都这么看他，人人都认为他是一个堂堂正正的人。但是很多时候，“堂堂正正”这个词却是带着讽刺的意味。

Hi, I’m Dr. Maria Devlin McNair. I’m the creator of Shakespeare For All, and a fan of Game of Thrones.

嗨，我是玛丽亚·德夫林·麦克奈尔博士，是这档节目的英文制作人，我也是《权力的游戏》的粉丝。

Robert Baratheon calls Ned an “honorable fool.” Jaime Lannister, in our earlier scene, derides the “honorable Ned Stark” as a man who cannot see when he is wrong. Later in the show, Stannis Baratheon encounters Ned’s bastard son Jon Snow.

劳勃·拜拉席恩称奈德是一个“堂堂正正的傻瓜”。詹姆·兰尼斯特在我们之前听到的那个片段中也嘲讽地说“堂堂正正的奈德·史塔克”看不到自己所犯的错。再后来，史坦尼斯·拜拉席恩遇到了奈德的私生子琼恩·雪诺。

Stannis: You're as stubborn as your father and as honorable.

Jon: I can imagine no higher praise.

Stannis: I didn't mean it as praise. Honor got your father killed.

史坦尼斯：你就像你父亲一样固执，一样堂堂正正。

琼恩：这是对我最高的夸奖了。

史坦尼斯：我没有在夸奖你。正是堂堂正正导致你父亲被杀。

McNair: There's a similar application of the term “honor” to Ned as to Brutus, but with an irony of it. And why is that? It's because Brutus and Ned make the kind of similar mistakes. So they're both upright men driven by what they think is their sense of duty. But what they consider that sense to be ends up compromising, ruining everything that they hoped to achieve in the public realm and ultimately destroying themselves.

麦克奈尔：奈德和布鲁图斯一样，都被称为是“堂堂正正”的人，但这个表达其实都带着一种嘲讽的意味。为什么会这样呢？那是因为布鲁图斯和奈德都犯了类似的错误。他们都是受责任感驱使的正直的人。但他们认为的正义却威胁、摧毁了他们想要为国家实现的那些目标，并最终毁灭了他们本人。

Brutus, striving to keep the conspirators’ actions as morally pure as possible, allows Antony to live and to speak at Caesar’s funeral--a decision that allows Antony to turn the Roman people against the conspirators, drive Brutus out of Rome, defeat his forces in battle, and push Brutus to commit suicide. Ultimately, Brutus’s choices help destroy the Republic he was trying to protect.

布鲁图斯希望尽可能让共谋者们的行为符合道德规范，于是他放了安东尼一条生路，并让他在凯撒的葬礼上发表演讲，然而这个举措却让安东尼成功地挑起了罗马民众对共谋者们的反对，接着安东尼将布鲁图斯驱逐出了罗马，并在战场上打败了他的军队武装，迫使布鲁图斯自杀身亡。最终，布鲁图斯的选择摧毁了他试图保护的罗马共和国。

McNair: So it's because Brutus took that step of killing Caesar, but didn't go far enough, doing everything politically necessary to make the cause successful, that he ultimately ended up ruining it and Ned does something similar in the wake of another leader's death, when Robert Baratheon dies.

麦克奈尔：布鲁图斯选择刺杀凯撒，但却没有采取进一步行动，他只做了政治上必须做的事情，但最终却毁了一切。同样地，奈德在另一位领导者，劳勃·拜拉席恩死后，也做了类似的事情。

King Robert is wounded by a boar and his counselors know his death is near. Ned also knows that the children of Robert’s wife, Cersei Lannister, aren’t Robert’s true heirs: the children’s father is Jaime Lannister. Ned feels bound by honor to preserve the legal integrity of the succession by seating the proper heir, Robert’s oldest brother Stannis, on the throne, rather than Cersei’s son Joffrey.

劳勃国王遭到野猪袭击，受了重伤，他的大臣们都知道他快要不行了。奈德也知道劳勃的妻子瑟曦·兰尼斯特所生的那些孩子，并不是劳勃的孩子，这些孩子的父亲其实是詹姆·兰尼斯特。在正直荣誉的驱使下，奈德认为要确保王位继承的合法完整，就必须让劳勃的长兄史坦尼斯继承王位，而不是瑟曦的儿子乔佛里。

McNair: But what he does is, he supports Stannis’s claim. But like Brutus, he won't go far enough. He won't throw all possible political power behind Stannis.

麦克奈尔：但他只是支持史坦尼斯对王位的主张。和布鲁图斯一样，他也没有采取进一步的行动，没有给予史坦尼斯一切可能的政治权力。

Ned’s character makes him unwilling to use force or violence, even to secure the throne for Stannis. Renly Baratheon begs him to act before Cersei can seize the throne for Joffrey.

奈德的个性使得他不愿意使用武力和暴力，即便是为了稳固史坦尼斯的王位，他也不愿意这样做。蓝礼·拜拉席恩祈求他在瑟曦有能力为乔佛里争夺王位之前赶快采取行动。

Renly: Strike tonight while the castle sleeps. We must get Joffrey away from his mother and into our custody. Protector of the Realm or no, he who holds the king holds the kingdom. Every moment you delay gives Cersei another moment to prepare.

Ned: I will not dishonor Robert’s last hours by shedding blood in his halls and dragging frightened children from their beds.

蓝礼：趁城堡中大家都在沉睡时，今晚就出击。我们必须让乔佛里离开他的母亲，我们要把他握在手里。没什么摄政王不摄政王的，国王在谁手里，谁就控制了整个王国。你每一次的拖延，都是在给瑟曦时间做准备。

奈德：我不想在劳勃生命的最后几个小时里让他的宫殿沾染鲜血，我不想把惊恐的孩子们从床上拖下来，这对劳勃是一种侮辱。

McNair: There is that term “dishonor,” he won't do anything dishonorable and he doesn't want to shed blood. There's this moment in the speech where Brutus refuses to kill Antony when he says, “We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar and in the spirit of men, there is no blood -- O, that we could come by Caesar’s spirit and not dismember Caesar. But alas, Caesar must bleed for it.” He, too, is deeply uncomfortable with the political reality of shedding blood.

麦克奈尔：他提到了“侮辱”这个词，他不想做任何有损名誉的事情，他不想让流血事件发生。布鲁图斯在拒绝杀死安东尼时也说“我们一起奋起反对凯撒的精神，我们的目的并不是要他流血；啊，要是我们能够直接战胜凯撒的精神，我们就可以不必戕害他的身体。可是唉。凯撒必须因此而流血。”布鲁图斯对于流血杀人也一样深感不适。

So Joffrey ends up being the king instead of Stannis, and Ned loses his head for it. So Ned and Brutus are both kind of ultimately compromised and undone by this commitment to a sense of honor that can't stomach uncomfortable political realities.

最终乔佛里取代史坦尼斯当上了国王，奈德自己也因此掉了脑袋。由此可以看出，奈德和布鲁图斯的荣誉观念让他们无法忍受残酷的政治现实，从某种程度上说，他们最终都因为自己的荣誉观念而陷入危险之中，并最终因此丢了性命。

The noble ideals of honor. The uncomfortable demands of politics. This is the central tension for Brutus, for Ned Stark, and for the world of Game of Thrones.The series actually ends by replaying Brutus’s dilemma once again -- this time through Jon Snow. Jon became a figure of Julius Caesar in Season Five, when the men of the Night’s Watch stabbed him as a traitor. In Season Eight, he switches roles and becomes another figure of Brutus. In Julius Caesar, Brutus’s friend Cassius warns him that Caesar will become a tyrant. In the last episode of Game of Thrones, Jon’s friend Tyrion warns him about Daenerys Targaryen. We’ve just seen Daenerys make King’s Landing bleed - as Varys warned Ned that she would.

这些崇高的荣誉观念，这些残酷的政治需求是布鲁图斯所面临的核心矛盾，是奈德·史塔克所面临的核心矛盾，是整个《权力的游戏》世界的核心矛盾。在电视剧中，布鲁图斯式的两难选择在不断反复上演。下面这一幕发生在琼恩·雪诺身上，琼恩也面临着这种两难选择。在《权力的游戏》第五季中，琼恩被当做叛徒而被守夜人军团的成员刺杀。此时，琼恩就成为了裘力斯·凯撒那样的人物。而到了第八季，他的角色又发生了变化，他变成了布鲁图斯式的人物。在《裘力斯·凯撒》这部戏剧中，布鲁图斯的朋友卡西乌斯警告他说凯撒将变成一位专制暴君。而在《权力的游戏》最终季里，琼恩的朋友提利昂也警告他要提防丹妮莉丝·坦格利安。就像我们看到的那样，丹妮莉丝的确让君临城血流成河，这和当初瓦里斯对奈德的警告一模一样。

Tyrion: And she grows more powerful and more sure that she is good and right. She believes her destiny is to build a better world for everyone. If you believed that - if you truly believed it -wouldn't you kill whoever stood between you and paradise? I know you love her.

Jon: Love is the death of duty.

Tyrion: You just came up with that?

Jon: Maester Aemon said it a long time ago.

Tyrion: Sometimes duty is the death of love.

提利昂：她越来越强大了，越来越相信自己是善良正义的一方。她认为自己的使命是为所有人建立一个更好的世界。如果你相信，如果你真的相信的话，你难道不去杀死任何挡在你和天堂之间的人吗？我知道你爱她。

琼恩：爱是责任的大忌。

提利昂：你刚刚想出这句话的？

琼恩：这是很久以前伊蒙学士说的。

提利昂：有时候，责任就意味着爱的终结。

McNair: And so now Jon Snow, like Brutus, has to decide what to do about it, because Brutus loves Caesar. When he is explaining why he kills him, he says, “I slew my best lover. I slew my best lover for the good of Rome.” Jon Snow talks with Tyrion in this dialogue, but he loves Daenerys. But he makes the same decision that Brutus does ultimately

麦克奈尔：于是，琼恩·雪诺不得不像布鲁图斯一样，决定接下来要怎么做，因为我们都知道凯撒是布鲁图斯的朋友。布鲁图斯在解释为什么要杀死凯撒时说“我杀了我最好的朋友。我为了罗马，杀死了我最好的朋友”。琼恩·雪诺在对提利昂说那段话时，他还爱着丹妮莉丝。但他做出了和布鲁图斯一样的决定。

Daenerys: We break the wheel together. 

Jon: You are my queen. Now and always.

丹妮莉丝：我们一起打碎车轮。

琼恩：你是我的女王，一直都是。

McNair: Now, I think this is actually a really perfect end to the show. I think seeing that parallel between him and Brutus makes you realize that the show hasn't given up and its incredible moral complexity and ambiguity, even more so because of the analogy internally with another problematic figure in the show. Right. Who else was famous for stabbing a Targaryen in the throne room: Jaime Lannister. And he's been reviled for it through the entire show, known as Oath Breaker and King Slayer, the person who betrayed the king he was sworn to defend. Jon Snow did the same thing. But he's the man with honor. He is the person who wanted to be Ned Stark, and yet he was brought to do the same thing Jaime did. So I think ending the show there was kind of a beautiful way of bringing it to a conclusion without wrapping anything up neatly while still demanding that we wrestle with difficult moral questions.

麦克奈尔：我认为，这里实际上是这部电视剧最好的结局。看到琼恩和布鲁图斯之间的相似之处，可以让你意识到电视剧没有放弃某种令人不可思议的道德复杂性和不确定性，尤其是在把他与剧中另一个复杂人物进行内在的类比后，这一点体现得更为明显。就是这样。另一位因为在铁王座大殿中刺杀坦格利安而出名的角色是詹姆·兰尼斯特。詹姆在这整部剧里，从始至终都背负着骂名，被称作是破誓者，是弑君者，他背叛了自己宣誓效忠的国王。但琼恩·雪诺也做了同样的事情。琼恩是一个堂堂正正的人，他想成为奈德·史塔克那样的人，但是他却被迫做了詹姆曾做过的那些事情。所以我认为，如果故事到此结束的话，这其实是一个美好的结局，而不需要把所有事情都交代清楚，同时又需要观众们绞尽脑汁去理解那些艰难的道德问题。

What does it take to be a good political leader? Does it mean being willing to do things that a good person would hate to do? Time and again Shakespeare and Martin force us to confront this question. In Game of Thrones, a misguided political choice can feelright. This is Ned Stark in Season 1, when he hears that Ser Gregor Clegane, the Mountain, has been burning land and terrorizing farmers in the Riverlands.

成为一个优秀的政治领导者需要什么？这是不是意味着要去做善良正直的人憎恨的那些事情呢？莎士比亚和马丁再次强迫我们直面这样的问题。在《权力的游戏》中，一个被错误引导的政治选择，在人们眼中看起来可能是正确的。这种情况在第一季就出现过，当时奈德·史塔克听说“魔山”格雷果·克里冈爵士在河间地焚烧土地、恐吓农民。

Ned: I charge you to bring the King's justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane and all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him and attaint him. I strip him of all ranks and titles, of all lands and holdings, and sentence him to death.

Pycelle: My Lord. This is a drastic action. It would be better to wait for King Robert's return.

Ned: Grand Maester Pycelle. 

Pycelle: My Lord.

Ned: Send a raven to Casterly Rock. Inform Tywin Lannister that he has been summoned to Court to answer for the crimes of his bannermen. He will arrive within the fortnight or be branded an enemy of the crown and a traitor to the realm. 

奈德：我命令你实施国王的正义，处置虚伪的骑士格雷果·克里冈，以及所有与他合谋的共犯。我谴责他的恶行，取消他的权利。我褫夺他一切官阶及头衔、一切封地及财产，并判处他死刑。

派席尔：大人。这是一项重大的举措。最好先等劳勃国王回来再定夺。

奈德：派席尔大学士。

派席尔：臣在。

奈德：送一只渡鸦去凯岩城。通知泰温·兰尼斯特前来宫廷对他的封臣的罪行作出解释。他必须在两周内赶到，否则将被视为王室的敌人、国家的叛徒。

Lucier: Ned Stark, he attaints and kind of casts out the Mountain, which seems good -- the Mountain is hurting the common people. And so this feels like justice. At the same time, while it may be popular with common folks, the way that Caesar was common with popular folks, was a popularae, certainly doesn't help him with the elite. It certainly alienates him from the Lannisters. And we're in a pre-war stage. So alienating allies when a transition of power is about to happen doesn't seem like a great political answer.

卢西尔：奈德·史塔克取消了“魔山”的权利，并在某种意义上将他驱逐出境。这似乎是合情合理的，因为“魔山”在伤害平民百姓。奈德的决定看起来似乎是正义的。但是，虽然他的这个决定也许得到了平民们的欢迎，但就像凯撒那样，他们受普通民众喜爱的那种所谓的“平民派”做法，注定无法让自己获得精英阶级的认可。就这样，这个决定使得奈德与兰尼斯特家族有了隔阂。战争一触即发。在即将开始权力交替的阶段，与盟友们疏远并不是明智的政治决策。

Hi, my name's Pete Lucier. I'm a fan ofGame of Thrones.I'm also a writer who writes on military culture and foreign policy. And my work's been in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and in Foreign Policy magazine.

大家好，我叫皮特·卢西尔，是《权力的游戏》的粉丝，我写过一系列有关军事文化和外交政策的文章，发表在《纽约时报》《华盛顿邮报》和《外交政策》等杂志上。

In Shakespeare’s tragedies, too, there’s often a split between what feels right and what works well politically. By the end, there’s a tragic hero who has our sympathy or admiration but who is dead--and a politician who alienates us, but who is undeniably effective, and alive. Henry V is Shakespeare’s most heroic political victor. But the actions that alienate audiences most are often the very things that help Henry secure his victories. In this play, King Henry claims an ancient right to the kingdom of France and invades with an English army. The French city of Harfleur surrenders to Henry, and he orders his men to treat the citizens mercifully. But this happens after he makes this speech calling on them to surrender--a speech that audiences and performers can find intensely uncomfortable.

同样地，在莎士比亚的悲剧中，经常会出现这种正义之事与政治上正确之事之间的割裂。于是，总是有这么一个悲剧性人物，他虽然赢得了我们的同情与尊敬，但最终还是死去了。也总有这么一个政治人物，虽然不被我们接受，但又不可否认他的决策行之有效，并且他本人活到了最后。亨利五世就是莎士比亚笔下最具英雄色彩的一位成功政治家。亨利那些不为观众们所接受的行为，恰恰成就了他的成功。在戏剧中，亨利国王宣告了对法国行使一项古老的权力，率领英国军队入侵了法国。法国的哈弗勒尔市向亨利投降，于是他命令手下仁慈地对待城中的市民们。但这是在他演讲号召市民们投降之后的事。这段演讲让观众和演员们都产生了一种强烈的不适感。

Henry V: Look to see / The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand / Defile the locks of your shrill shrieking daughters, / Your fathers taken by the silver beards / And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls, / Your naked infants spitted upon pikes / Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused / Do break the clouds. / What say you? Will you yield and this avoid?

亨利五世：无法无天的兵丁不管满手血污，不管耳边的一阵阵尖声惨叫，一把拖住了你们家闺女的秀发往外跑。你们的父老尊长有多么可敬，却给一把揪住了银白的胡须——他们高贵的额头，被对准墙脚撞！你们赤裸的婴孩，被高高地挑在枪尖子上，底下，发疯的母亲们在没命嘶号，那惨叫声直冲云霄。你们怎么回答？你们愿意投降、避免这场惨剧呢，还是执迷不悟、自取杀身之祸？

Lucier: Ultimately, Hal’s ability to take this city without bloodshed rests upon his ability to make a credible threat. And for that threat to be credible, there has to be this latent threat of violence. There's a theorist named Thomas Schelling who writes about this in nuclear strategy, that in order for a kind of peace in détente between nuclear powers, it's as if we have to hold pistols to each other's head. Strategic communication has to in some ways be fundamentally amoral. It has to be backed by these latent threats of violence. And that's actually a measure towards peace.

卢西尔：最终，亨利能兵不血刃地拿下这座城市，取决于他能让这段威胁听起来真的可能发生。而为了让这段威胁听起来极可能发生，他必须掌握潜在的暴力威慑。这就像著名理论家托马斯·谢林对于核战略的论述中写到的那样，为了维持核大国之间的和平状态，我们就要用手枪指着对方的脑袋。从某种程度上说，战略沟通在根本上就是不道德的，因为它需要一定的潜在暴力威慑力。但实际上，也是实现和平的一种方式。

But, you know, I think as humans,  that's a difficult proposition. Like we naturally kind of reel at the language that Hal uses in front of Harfleur. Our moral imaginations have a level of revulsion at the idea of large-spread war or even worse, nuclear war. So these questions of morality, specifically the morality of leaders, it makes it difficult for us, I think, to create moral frameworks with which we can really judge, whether it's a Shakespeare character or aGame of Thronescharacter. It's almost as if we have to separate out what is right for leaders versus what's right for, say, us sitting in our living rooms.

不过大家也可以感受到，作为人类，我们很难接受这样的主张。所以，很自然地，我们对于亨利在哈弗勒尔市民们面前做演讲时用到的那些语言会感到无比震惊。我们的道德让我们强烈反对发动大规模战争，更不用说发动核战争这样的事情了。所以，我认为正是这些道德问题，特别是领导者们的道德问题，让我们很难构建一个我们能够评价的道德框架，对莎士比亚笔下的人物来说是这样，对《权力的游戏》中的人物来说也是如此。于是，我们必须区分领导者们的正义和我们这些日常生活中的普通人的正义。

There is a morality that political leaders have to respect. But it can be difficult to identify what it is -- and it may not align with our instinctive, emotional responses. Sometimes the wrong political choice might feel right; and the right choice may feel wrong. This is Jon Snow after he has made hispolitical choice about Daenerys.

政治领导者们有着他们必须遵从的道德规范。但是这种道德规范就是什么，是很难明确定义的，它不同于我们普通人本能的、情绪上的反应。有时候，错误的政治选择看起来可能会是正确，而正确的政治选择看起来也许又是错误的。下面我们来听一听琼恩·雪诺做好了针对丹妮莉丝的政治选择后说的话。

Jon: What is right? What I did.

Tyrion: What we did.

Jon: It doesn't feel right.

琼恩：什么是正确的？我做的是正确的。

提利昂：我们做的是正确的。

琼恩：但这感觉不像是正确的。

Shakespeare and Martin’s stories suggest that in politics, we can’t have it all. So they force the question, What do you really want? A hero? Or something that works?

莎士比亚和马丁的故事都在提醒我们，在政治中，我们是无法顾及所有方面的。他迫使我们去思考这个问题：你究竟想成为什么样的人？英雄吗？还是某个有用的人？

What made Game of Thronesso unique and so successful, argued one fan, was that it didn’t just give us heroes. In a viral article called “The Real Reason Fans Hate the Last Season of Game of Thrones,” Zeynep Tufekci distinguished between two kinds of storytelling. There’s psycho- logical storytelling, which focuses on heroic protagonists and relies on viewers getting invested in those characters. But there’s also sociological storytelling, which the article defined this way.

就像一位《权力的游戏》的粉丝说的那样，这部电视剧之所以这么特殊，之所以这么成功，是因为它并没有在塑造英雄。泽奈普·图费克奇在《<权力的游戏>最后一季为什么这么难看？》这篇广泛流传的文章中，区分了两种叙事方式的差异。一种是心理学的叙事方式，它关注英雄角色，需要观众认同这些角色并投入其中。但同时，还有一种社会学的叙事方式，文中是这样定义它的。

Lucier: So sociological and institutional storytelling means having characters “evolve in response to the broader institutional settings, incentives and norms that surround them in sociological storytelling … The characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events around them … That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology, but also behavior that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any point.”

卢西尔：社会学和制度化的叙事方式意味着角色的“发展是为了适应周围更广阔的制度环境、动机和规范......在社会学的叙事方式中，虽然每个角色都有自己的故事和动力，但是他们很大程度受到外部制度和周围事件的影响......内心故事和欲望之间的矛盾，心理和外部压力、制度、规范、事件之间的矛盾正是我们可以从《权力的游戏》众多角色身上看到的，这样的矛盾勾勒出了丰富的心理图景，同时也刻画出了那种既不是完全神圣，但也绝对算不上十足邪恶的行为。”

Pete Lucier agrees with Tufekci’s analysis.

皮特·卢西尔十分认同图费克奇的分析。

Lucier: What was so great about the first maybe six seasons and then what was so frustrating about the last two that the first six seasons had this courage to kill off main characters and continue to move, that society kind of moves along. I remember one of my seniors in the Marine Corps told me one time this kind of terrifying thought that stuck with me. And he said, “The graveyards of the world are full of indispensable people.” And he was reminding me that, you know, institutions outlive us, that they move on even past what we assume are the main characters.

卢西尔：我们觉得前六季相当精彩，但后两季却令人大失所望，是因为在前六季中编剧有勇气在杀死主角，但同还可以让故事继续向前发展，这其实就是我们现实社会发展的方式。我记得我在海军陆战队时，一位上级曾对我说起过一种令人毛骨悚然的想法，他的话深深震撼了我。他说：“墓园里到处都是那些不可或缺的重要人物。”他的话提醒着我，制度在我们死后是会继续存在的，甚至在我们认为的那些主角死后，制度也将继续存在。

Lesser: When we watch something likeGame of Thrones, I think the device that he uses to subvert the safety of the way we watch theater or film, the way he just willfully just decides to kill the person you've identified with for the past three, three weeks or three seasons, and just says, “There, he goes”, and you go, “What? No, you can't do that!” I think it's amazing because what it does, it makes you pay attention in a very specific way.

莱瑟：在《权力的游戏》这类电视剧中，作者和编剧颠覆了传统戏剧或电影的安全套路，他会杀死在过去的三周，或者三季里面让你同情、有共鸣的角色。他会说“好了，他要死了”，而你的反应就是“什么？不，你不能这么做！”我觉得这就是这部电视剧精彩的地方，它从一个非常特殊的角度吸引你的注意力。

You don’t know whether the person you think is the person taking you through the narrative is going to be the person taking you through the narrative. You don't know how long they're going to last.

你不知道你所认为的那个会带领你贯穿全剧的角色，是否真的就是那个能带领你贯穿全剧的角色。你不知道他们能活多久。

This unpredictable mode of storytelling, that can take away anyone at any time, isn’t a common route for films and television shows to take. Most stick with psychological storytelling, concentrating on a few main characters who you know will survive. In Shakespeare’s tragedies, you might know the protagonist will die--but the plays are often still interpreted and performed as psychological stories, with attention and interest focused on that single protagonist.

由于社会学叙事模式的不确定性，某个角色随时都可能死去，这与电影电视惯常的套路很不一样。大多数电影电视采用的是心理学的叙事方式，重点关注少数的主角人物，观众们也都明白，主角人物角色是不会死的。但在莎士比亚的悲剧中，你明白主角也可能会死，但是人们在解读、表演这些戏剧的时候，却经常会采取心理学的叙事方式，把关注的焦点和兴趣放在单一的主角身上。

Lucier: And we become very much caught up in how will this person live or die. And like in some Shakespeare play, when this person dies, the story is over. When Hamlet dies, that is the end of the play. When Macbeth dies, that is the end of the play.

卢西尔：我们非常关心这个角色是能活下来还是会死。在莎士比亚的某些戏剧中，一旦主角死去，故事也就完结了。哈姆莱特死去时，戏剧结束了。麦克白死去时，戏剧也就宣告剧终了。

But Game of Thrones suggests a different approach to Shakespeare. We could treat his plays as sociological stories--and this could make a radical difference to what we see in them. When we focus our attention on the single “main character,” our sympathy tends to follow our attention-- and with our sympathy goes our moral admiration, or approval, or forgiveness. We take this character’s goals as our goals. We root for him to succeed. And when he fails, politically or morally, we respond to his failures with empathy. We ask what motivated him, what constrained him, and whether we would have done any better. Do other characters get this same generous attention? Think about the play Hamlet. Prince Hamlet believes that his uncle Claudius murdered his father and he makes it his mission to kill Claudius for revenge. We tend to identify with Hamlet so strongly that our main concern is why Hamlet takes so long to achieve his goal-- not whether his goal is the right one to have. But what if we saw Hamlet as a sociological story instead of a psychological one? We might not root for Hamlet to kill Claudius. We might end up rooting for Claudius. 

但《权力的游戏》却和莎剧不同。我们也可以从社会学角度去看莎剧，这样的话我们会有完全不一样的体会。如果我们把注意力放在单一的“主角”身上，我们的同理心会跟着我们的注意力一起落在这个“主角”身上，而随着同理心一道而来的还有我们的道德认同，我们的感同身受和我们的宽恕之心。我们会把主角的目标当做是自己的目标。我们会为他的成功叫好。而当他失败时，不论是在政治上的失败还是道德上的失败，我们都会对他表现出同情。我们会思考激励他和限制了他的原因，我们会思考如果换作自己的话，是不是能做的比他更好。那么其他角色能获得同样多的关注吗？我们可以看一下戏剧《哈姆莱特》。哈姆莱特王子相信是他的叔叔克劳狄斯谋害了他的父亲，他必须杀死克劳狄斯，为父亲报仇雪恨。我们往往十分同情哈姆莱特，我们最大的关注点在于哈姆莱特为什么要花这么长的时间去完成自己的目标，我们不会去想他的目标究竟对不对。但是，如果我们不把《哈姆莱特》这部剧看作是一个心理学叙述模式的故事，而是把它当做一个社会学叙述模式的故事来读，这又会怎么样呢？恐怕我们就不会认同哈姆莱特要去刺杀克劳狄斯了。我们可能会转而支持克劳狄斯。

Claudius: Bow, stubborn knees, and heart, with strings of steel / Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe.

克劳狄斯：屈下来，顽强的膝盖；钢丝一样的心弦，变得像新生之婴的筋肉一样柔嫩吧！

McNair: I was watching a production with David Tennant as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart as Claudius, and I was struck by how sympathetic I found Claudius in this production and what an effective ruler. There's a moment when Laertes comes, bursts into the throne room. He's furious that his father has been killed. He blames Claudius. He seems ready to kill him at that moment. And behind him, there's a potential revolt, a rebellion of the Danish people saying, “We want to make Laertes King”. And we often don't pay a lot of attention to this because we're so focused on Hamlet. Right, Laertes is just there to be a foil for Hamlet. But at this moment, it's one of those times when there could be a change in rule potentially. What if this rebellion were successful? And the way that Claudius handles it shows a lot of political astuteness, also personal courage. And he confronts Laertes and manages to win him over to his side. And you think, Claudius isn't such a bad ruler -- would it be so bad for Denmark if he just stayed where he was? Would that be the more politically sound move and thus may be a more moral move for the people of Denmark?Game of Thronesinvites us to see that kind of story as being just as important and compelling as the one about the psychology of this one person.

麦克奈尔：我看过一个版本的《哈姆莱特》，其中哈姆莱特由大卫·田纳特扮演，克劳狄斯是由帕特里克·斯图尔特扮演的。在这一版中，我发现我很喜欢克劳狄斯这个角色，他是一个很有才能的统治者，这种感觉令我自己都很震惊。在其中的一幕剧中，雷欧提斯冲进王位大殿，他对父亲被杀一事而极度愤怒，他指责克劳狄斯，甚至一度要杀死他。他甚至还意欲谋反，叛乱的丹麦人名说“我们要让雷欧提斯当我们的王”。但是我们很少会关注这一点，因为我们总是把大部分的注意力放在哈姆莱特身上。的确，雷欧提斯不过是哈姆莱特的一个陪衬。但在此刻，潜藏着政权更替的危险。如果叛乱真的成功了，会怎么样呢？克劳狄斯应对叛乱的方式体现出了他出众的政治头脑和个人魄力。他直面雷欧提斯，把他争取到了自己这边。由此可见，克劳狄斯并不是一个糟糕的统治者。他继续当国王的话，真的会对丹麦不利吗？对于丹麦人民而言，这是不是就是在政治上更加明智的举措，也是更为道德举措呢？《权力的游戏》让我们看到了，这种社会性叙事的故事其实和那种关注一个角色的心理学叙事方式故事一样重要，一样吸引人。

It’s not hard to see that Shakespeare’s heroes are complex, flawed figures. It’s a more radical step to see his stories as not having heroes at all: to not start off with predeterminations about whose life is important, who warrants our attention, who gets empathy when they fail, and who just gets vilified--who is a “main character” of history and who is someone dispensable on the sidelines. But Game of Thrones can teach us to see stories in a different way. Its narrative style suggests that anyone’s story could be the “main story,” that anyone could step into the spotlight--or suddenly leave the stage. And that’s part of what makes the show so suspenseful, so unpredictable, and so absolutely addictive. In the next episode, we talk more about why we love Game of Thrones and Shakespeare--and how they get us to love things we shouldn’t love.

我们不难发现，莎剧中的英雄其实是复杂的，是有瑕疵和不足的。而更激进的做法是，在看莎剧的时候，我们不去关注里面的英雄人物，不去预设谁的生命更重要、谁更值得我们关注、谁在失败时会得到同情、谁在失败时会得到诋毁、谁是历史的“主角”、谁是可有可无的旁观者。《权力的游戏》给了我们一个看故事的全新视角，它的叙事风格让我们意识到任何人的故事都可以是“主线故事”，任何人都可以是舞台中心的主角，但同时，任何人也都可能随时离开这个舞台。这赋予了戏剧十足的悬念和不确定性，而这部剧，也正因为此而深深吸引着观众，令观众欲罢不能。下集节目，我们将进一步探讨我们喜爱《权力的游戏》和莎剧的原因，以及它们是如何让我们爱上我们不应该喜爱的那些东西的。