《魔术师》是一本黑魔法的书，我被魔咒罩住，那2周，心情停在低点。惊悚小说？悬疑小说？恐怖小说？都不搭，很难界定。从开始的欣赏到困惑，然后不解，尔后挫败沮丧，还有愤怒、鄙夷、不知所措。。。放下书，似有释然，也无释然。可以说，这本小说是迄今为止我读过的最令人费解的书。

一位牛津毕业生尼古拉斯来到希腊福莱克索斯岛当老师，小说以他的爱情关系始，以爱情关系终。希腊狂野的风景和强烈的光照，让人和人之间的关系也变得强烈，非爱即恨。险恶又迷人，希腊独一无二的品质，让英式温和柔美在这里没有立足之地。尼古拉斯经历了波澜壮阔的故事，超越读者想象力，而且一层叠一层，每层都颠覆对前面的理解。魔术师的法力，就是制造幻觉，挑战正统思维。观众/读者不解之余，感觉很刺激。而这本书里的魔术师，不止一人。更奇的是，这场盛大的魔术演变成化妆舞会，唯一的观众也成了演员，不限场地，处处舞台，这第一个舞台就在福莱克索斯岛的一个庄园里。

爱琴海上洒落许多岛屿，不管有否居民，岛上有山有林，面对丝滑湛蓝的海，一种毫不费力不用质疑的美丽。大岛定时有轮渡，没有轮船的时候就是孤岛。夏天有游客，冬天就是空监狱。在这里，浩大空旷，静谧无声，也无交往，让人一目望尽眼前和现在。人们不能不联想前尘往事，过去似乎被拉近了十倍。。。而希腊，有太多的历史可以回顾。

“Greece is like a mirror, it makes you suffer, then you learn.“

希腊像一面镜子，先委以苦，然后了悟。

尼古拉斯历经曲折痛苦，他了悟到啥了？谁是他的敌人？谁是朋友？不得而知。尽管再版时出版社的前言试图解释为尼古拉斯成长的心路历程，我不能完全接受这么简单的解释。没错，教育会灌给我们许多无用甚至误导的知识，我们的性格也有许多锐角尖刺，成长就是心理瘦身 — — 一方面让人害怕甚至鄙视自己的笨拙和无能，而且看似违背自己的心愿，但另一方面却像是甩脂肪一样最终是健康和必然的。也许我太在意公正、自由意志和权利，不能接受假美好意愿的名义侵犯这些公正、自由意志和权利，再冠冕堂皇仍然脱不了骗子的丑恶。魔术师就是高级骗子，只不过门徒和喝彩的观众被魔法罩住而已。这也是我读到半中间愤怒不已的原因之一。几星期后，我的愤愤开始平复。这个世界没有直接了当的真相，谎言之下还是谎言，连眼见都不为实，我们还能相信什么？一个人是否智慧在于是否看穿，并读到背后的真相。如果《魔术师》这书能给我什么启示，这算其一吧。它的本意就是读者各取所需，整本书看起来就是个寓言故事。

另外，写书的年代正是萨特大行其道的年代，作者约翰福尔斯自称这本书有强烈存在主义色彩。存在主义的主要观点是人类存在在先，后有本质，即特性；人有自由意志；我们是孤立的个体，每个人的存在独一无二；世界并没有固定的意义或目的，我们需要创造和发现意义；死亡是我们的生命中不可避免的一部分。听起来没问题，体现在小说里，孤独颓废自我中心充斥几位主角，魔法的荒谬，从头到尾的不确定性。。。你要是理解为约翰福尔斯用710页栩栩如生的故事给我们讲一个哲学道理也不为过，故事中的故事无不震撼，哲理金句遍布，抄到手酸。

这本小说写了近15年，作者不停修改，虽然是处女作，却拖到出版了2本书才于1965年发表，1977年后再次修改。作者本人不看好这本小说，受到读者的狂爱，他很吃惊。这本处女作编制了很多元素，情节复杂，不仅仅主人翁不知所措，读者不知所措，连作者本人也不晓得自己想往那里去。后四分之一我认为是虎头蛇尾，而且和前头铺垫的理念互相矛盾，抑或我没读明白。不管怎样，这本书很有挑战性。想轻松点的话，就不要试图去理解所有细节，更不要推理，而是纯粹体验。有一点我确认无疑：读者也是被实验对象！从这个意义上来说，《魔术师》是本心理小说当仁不让。这本书原名叫《上帝的游戏》。

大部分读者为结局所困，作者蓄意所为，就为了阐述存在主义说的世界不确定性？还有一个可能 — — 咳，作者自己都不知道！这样的书读起来是不是很好玩？

书末有两行拉丁文：

“eras amet qui numquam amavit

quique amavit eras amet”

英文有两个截然相反的译法：

1. Tomorrow he will die who never loved and he who loved will die tomorrow.
2. Tomorrow let him who has loved no one love; whoever loves will tomorrow love.

”爱过的人将永远怀念爱，未曾爱过的人将永远追寻爱。”

男主和女主，究竟是有缘还是终结？《魔术师》里反复提到的莎剧《暴风雨》（The Tempest）是喜剧，里头也有戏中戏，魔法、岛屿、爱和恨。。。最后有情人终成眷属。但我并不乐观，因为我不认为约翰这本书是个爱情故事。他的《法国中尉的女人》有一句话：小说家“一半是学者，一半是魔术师。” 整个英语世界是这位约翰的舞台！

也许我和作者一样，脑子被烧坏了。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix: Reading Questions (Caution, Spoilers)

1. What in the book intrigues you the most?

• Immediately after reading for the first time, I couldn’t shake off the marvel at the complex layers of the experiment so creatively staged and masterfully executed. I also marveled at how Nicholas falls for it so hard. I would have stopped week 2 had I been the subject of the game. Curiosity kills. Boredom destroys. Sex entices. Lily / Julie is introduced at the end of week 2, Conchis does know how to bait a smart cat. Nicholas is very smart and wants to see it through till very end. He gets outsmarted himself this time.
• One month away from reading, I now regard the book as a game of rich people, with too much time and wealth to play with, taking themselves too seriously and wanting to instill wisdom in people they see fit. A noble idea but a bad taste. That’s me, who gives probably too much weight on justice and fairness. From philosophical perspective, there are many grains of truth revealed by the lies. It reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. The antagonist launched lectures on books and knowledge so true and real that I almost thought he is the protagonist in disguise.

2. What perplexes you the most?

• The lies, upon lies upon lies! Second most is the unconsent conduction of experiments and drugs on subjects. Both are for manipulative purpose, abusing and violating human rights. The first is of moral, the second legal in today’s world. They would be locked up if they dare today.
• The role of lies — is to tell the truth, Conchis claims. Seriously? Well, okay. People should be open to sex with other partners as long as there is no lie between them, says Conchis’ sex partner and lover. The twist is visible here from the perspective of moral lies. What’s more — Nicholas falls in love with Alison again and can’t help telling her about his feeling toward Lily / Julie. No sex involved yet, just emotional attachment toward another beautiful woman. At this truth Alison explodes and breaks. Would she prefer Nicholas to keep it to himself? They might have ended the trip with the illusion of getting back together. The very opposite of lying changes the course and contradicts the first type of lies and also the second type. I can’t put the puzzles together.

3. Emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity, which carries more weight in the book?

• On the surface, neither. The real infidelity, by Conchis through his lover, is the one that hides the sextual infidelity. The theory is sex is “in no way a different pleasure than any other.” In a love relationship, the essential part is not sex but truth and trust two people build between their minds. Thus there is no sextual infidelity in a relationship as long as there is trust. A few incidents seem to support this theory: Lily/Julie, Conchis’ lover and Alison intercourse with multiple men without guilt. Alison readily excuses Nicolas’ visits to whore houses. However, this theory won’t stand under close scrutiny. If it is just another pleasure, why has Lily/Julie been holding it off till the last minute and asks Nicholas to promise to remember it forever (according to 1977’s edition)? She grants sex so much weight! Nicholas believes all along that his love for her and hers for him is real. She is acting and finally to Nicholas’ realization it’s a setup. The trust is falsely built and therefore she commits a real infidelity, according to her mentor’s theory. Another detail proves my suspicion is the chastity Nicholas tries very hard to keep while he waits for Alison. Nicholas, after “enlightened”, stays away from sexual conduct and thoughts as if everything is depending on it. The teaching and actions in the book simply do not match. No theory mentioned really on emotional infidelity. Contradictories like this I found plenty. Author John Fowles over-wove that he himself couldn’t connect the ends without knots.

4. What do you like the most?

• The language! John Fowle’s writing is beautiful and witty. He appears a philosopher to me and a scholar. Unless he received pro help, the psychological analysis and verdict paper is so plausible, I was sold! John Fowel’s creativity is bottomless, his other novels are of similar nature, without repeating patterns nor formular like other best seller authors. I look forward to his The French Lieutenant's Woman.

5. If you can ask the author one question except the ending, what would you ask?

• At which point of Nicholas and Alison’s relationship did Conchis gang get involved?
• I believe the school is owned by Conchis, why is he interested only in the English masters to be his subjects? His sudden switch to an American has any significance?
• How do Alison and Lily Montgomery become good friends? I could not imagine the two would ever crossed paths because their paths are not in the same dimension. Relating to the above question, I believe Lily goes out of her way and befriends Alison for a reason.
• What does Alison see in Nicholas that she loves him so much and so soon, after knowing him only for a month or so, given that Alison is a girl of a flying butterfly?
• Can you confirm if Lily / Julie Holms is Conchis’ mistress? I almost hope she is. According to Lily / Julie’s mother, sex is open and beautiful as long as all parties involved give consent. The mother raised her daughters that way and does not have a say of her adult daughter’s choices.
• Who is Kemp?

6. What does freedom mean in the story?

• Free to choose without considering others. Conchis underlines it when he makes a choice against 80 lives. It almost sounds like the absolute freedom promoted by the likes of Sade: moral, legal and religion have no place in the decisions of an individual. That person should choose what’s best for him/her and him/her alone. Nicholas is atheist and anarchist. Conchis is no difference. He shows no respect for religion nor follows the Hippocratic oath. This knocks out two freedom factors from the equation: legal and religion. That leaves moral to limit freedom. Any moral boundary? I found none. The characters are all in for the absolute freedom. Nicholas should not be surprised by the consequence. Or does he ever realize the consequence of the beliefs he subscribes? He and the Conchis gang like the idea of absolute freedom as long as they are the applicant, not the supplicant. Freedom in civilization often has a price and fences. Without fences, freedom, especially of certain groups’ as the privilege, is very destructive.

7. What do you think of Conchis?

• A savior and scarecrow.

8. What existential element do you notice in the book?

• Everyone is everyone’s hazard. The world is uncertain.

9. If you happened to read the book more than once, did you drive to the same conclusion after each reading?

• Not me. I got the opposite conclusion, partly because I noticed more in round 2, partly because I read different editions. The older edition had more clues about the ending, while the second deleted quite some by the author. On this book, love and hate at once.