同志文學在二十世紀末台灣蔚然成風。這篇文章主張，這個現象除了可以 歸諸於八○年代末期的解嚴，更可以歸諸於八○年代初期愛滋的翻譯與公共。 本文提出「翻譯的公共」，指出翻譯（例如AIDS 的翻譯）與公共（也就是公共 場域，例如議論AIDS 的報紙副刊）的互相生成：翻譯提供公共議論的契機（例 如，隨著AIDS 出現應運而生的各種座談），但是翻譯被公共化的過程也改寫了 翻譯（例如，台灣人採用「愛死」、「愛滋」等譯文，賦予原文並沒有的「愛」、 「死」聯想）。「翻譯的公共」在愛滋危機之前的台灣就有跡可循（例如，白先 勇編輯的文學刊物就是一種「翻譯同性戀／公共化同性戀」的體現），但是「翻 譯的公共」在愛滋出現後才傾巢而出。「愛滋」、「同志」、「酷兒」這三個翻譯詞 在台被公共化的過程，也就是外國觀念被本土化的過程：這三個詞激勵了本土 文壇，同時也被同志文學的作者與讀者加以正讀、誤讀、歪讀。本文也要挑戰 「認祖歸宗」迷思：「挪用同志的做法，始於香港林奕華」、「革命尚未成功、同 志仍需努力」——這些流行說法以訛傳訛，鞏固了對於所謂「原創者」的崇拜。 「愛滋」、「同志」、「酷兒」這三個關鍵詞的定義，與其說取決於原創者，不如 說取決於日新又新的土俗實踐。

Taiwan distinguishes itself in Asia with its vibrant LGBT culture, including its abundant LGBT literature, locally known as “tongzhi literature.” Traceable to the early 1960s, tongzhi literature suddenly became a widely discussed phenomenon by the end of the twentieth century. This article contends that the tongzhi literature boom was enabled by the local reception of such foreign words as AIDS, “tongzhi” and “ku’er,” the latter two being local renditions of “LGBT” and “queer.” While many scholars consider that the tongzhi literature boom has resulted from the 1987 lifting of Martial Law, I emphasize that this boom also resulted from the emergence of AIDS in the early 1980s, which spawned a number of what I call “translation/ public.” By “translation/ public,” I refer to the mutual constitution of translation and the Habermasian public: as translation gives birth to publics (such as the conferences in response to AIDS as a novelty), it is also constantly revised in the process of being publicized or localized. Whereas “AIDS,” “tongzhi,” and “ku’er” help give birth to a public sphere where a new wave of tongzhi literature takes place, these three new words are also creatively misread by locals in Taiwan. The assumed superiority of the original to the translation – a subject common in translation studies – also dominates the local uses of AIDS, “tongzhi,” and “ku’er.” One aim of this article is to critically examine the myth that idolizes what and who are respected as seminal. Two beliefs are widely assumed in Taiwan and abroad: that the word “tongzhi” originates from the Hongkongese writer Edward Lam’s queer reading of “comrade” as habitually solemn in modern Chinese politics; that Lam’s “tongzhi” originates from a patriotic slogan created by Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of modern China. A major effect of these beliefs is to consolidate the authority of the reputedly seminal. The meanings of “AIDS,” “tongzhi,” and “ku’er” are decided less by the idolized originators and more by local writers who consistently redefine the words that are resistant to being written in stone.