À la recherche du temps perdu

news from nowhere

我是何東人,關於舍堂文化我想說的是⋯⋯

一條在港大開放日舉行的Interhall Cheering Competition 中的「入宿Cheer」片升起了全城熱議,在眾聲喧嘩中,我發現反應不外乎兩種:嘲弄狠批舍堂文化on9 的,和挺身維護深感自豪的傳統的。首先莫說單看那條片就下論是完全out of context,另外兩邊論述出發點根基完全不同,結果只是兩個不同宗教的人各自表述自家的才是真理,鷄同鴨講,自顧自High,根本沒有達成任何有意義的深度討論和了解。本來都是花生一件,過兩日善忘的香港人又會找到其他娛樂,正所謂認真就輸了,但我見身邊有少數朋友對舍堂文化感好奇並認真想了解,而不是一見即屌,那我作為一個何東人,也來認真但簡單地說明我所認識的何東和港大舍堂文化,或許不是一個理想的系統,但也並不如外人所見那麼on9 的。

首先利申:我於2001年入讀港大,同年入宿何東夫人紀念堂,過O 成為何東人,任宿生會成員(即上Hall 莊)。2004年畢業,住足三年Hall。2006年曾寫了一本書記錄在何東生活的點滴,但只是很表面的描述舍堂生活,沒有太多討論舍堂文化。

Dem Cheer 是手段不是目的

Cheers 只是舍堂文化一個小部份,但既然事件由Cheers 開始,就由此解說吧。首先在港大那叫Dem Cheer 不叫Dem Beat,名字和稱號在任何大小文化裡都有重要的象徵意義,不能亂叫也不能搞錯。沒有前文後理,外人看到堂堂大學生Dem Cheer 覺得震驚是可以理解的。但正如庫斯克在他的臉書上指出,每一個族群都有自家的儀式,如果你當它是一個部落在跳求雨舞,那就不那麼奇怪了。我想補充的是,每間舍堂都有很多不同種類的Songs & Cheers 在不同的場合使用,很多都流傳已久,是以那種與時代脫節的Kai 味。Songs & Cheers 本身只是手段,在學習的過程堂友鍛煉毅力和膽量、追求整齊度時其實也讓堂友學會彼此協調同步、比賽時為出賽的堂友支援打氣、對外Dem Cheer 時表現團結和自豪。雖然每一首Songs & Cheers 都蘊含及宣揚一些該舍堂代表的精神,彰顯團結和齊一性很多時比內容更重要(像是War Cry 未必有內容,氣勢嚇到敵人就得了),所以被說像軍訓也有道理的。但如果扯到去說到這是一種極權意識及大學生反智的反映,那是有點說太過了。當然,這些Songs & Cheers 以及其宣揚的精神是否需要更與時並進,是一個值得討論的課題。

所謂傳統和神話塑造

有人說,《玻璃之城》裡面舒琪都唔係咁嘅!不消說舒琪並不是真的何東人,電影裡也有很多虛構的場景,導演張婉婷大仙經歷的七十年代的港大舍堂跟現在已經大不同,更不用說陳方安生年代了。因為社會大環境、大學及舍堂架構的不同,孕育出來的大學生和其建立的舍堂文化也自然不同。現今的舍堂文化面貌(甚至舍堂文化這個詞),粗略估計由九十年代開始。雖然持份者維護舍堂文化的理據經常離不開「這是傳統」,但這個傳統其實一直在變化,而且是一個由每一代的何東人共同塑造的神話。傳統和神話的塑造是每一個族群建立身份象徵的指定動作,是增加自身合法性和歸屬感的工具。另外一個常遭引用的神話,是這種舍堂文化(Hall Culture)源自英國Oxbridge 的College Culture。在這裡通常會引來很多在英國唸書的朋友的抗議:英國都唔係咁嘅!在這方面我也不知誰是誰非,但我傾向相信兩種可能性:(一)就像港式奶茶和湯通粉,在借用來路貨時我們也根據本地口味自己添油添醋,變成連英國佬見到都唔認得的Hall Culture。(二)或者舍堂文化本來就是本地產物,但在殖民時期的精英教育下,大家都覺得所有有文化的事物必然源於大英帝國,跟人說有自己如斯傳統,聽上去也有型兼合理好多。

大學生和集體/浪漫主義

一種批評說現今大學生應懂得追求獨立自主思考,為甚麼會淪落到這種上世紀的集體主義?但另一方面,為甚麼一定要過一些放任狂野的生活才算擁有自主,而住Hall 過集體生活就一定沒有獨立思考能力?有人說喊口號這些東西都是中學情懷,我覺得可以算是一種延伸,但就是一個更加嚴肅認真的版本,超越了單純在群體找尋身份認同。在我的經驗裡,一部份的大學生是因為希冀懷愐一種已失落於(或他們想像已失落於)現代社會的浪漫理想而主動選擇並傳承這種舍堂生活的。這種浪漫的希冀可從舍堂生活裡一些不斷重複的字眼看到:團結、博盡無悔、堅持、堅強、glory、honour、brotherhood…… 其中(我所認識的)利馬竇宿舍(Ricci Hall)尤其追求一種中世紀騎士精神(Chivalry),Riccians 講Boys Become Men,而這種浪漫情懷主要藉由舍際運動比賽中呈現。港大十多間舍堂風格雖不盡相同,但宣揚的精神大同小異。但當然,一間舍堂的精神和理想未必等同所有人的理想,集體主義在一些人身上可以帶出他們的潛能,但在另一些人身上卻會變成壓迫。不管如何浪漫理想,集體主義仍然是集體主義,是具有排他性的,這在一些奉行「仙制」的傳統舍堂(包括何東和Ricci Hall)就更明顯。參與舍堂生活的三年經歷雖讓我個人成長獲益良多,但最讓我久久不能釋懷的,也正是這集體精英主義和排他性。

舍堂文化和舍堂教育

這就來到一個基本的理解差異。在港大,我們叫舍堂,不叫宿舍。宿舍只是住人的地方,但舍堂是實行舍堂文化和舍堂教育的地方。要指出的是,舍堂教育(這個詞比舍堂文化更遲出現,大約於千禧年前後,說明舍堂文化的嚴肅性開始受到重視)並不是一種由上而下的威權式教育。港大舍堂有趣的地方,是宿生的自主權,舍堂裡的事全由宿生自決,除非出了大事故,大學那邊是不管的。所謂舍堂教育,就是大學生們思索在大學教育以外另一種教育的可能性,是一場由大學生自發的自我研習(這一點要多謝鹽叔提醒)。舍堂裡雖然實行一種階級制度,高年級的「大仙」有責任傳承傳統及教育「細仙」,但那種教育主要以一種共同實踐的方式,透過大仙鼓勵細仙參與舍堂事務,大家一同從中學習的體驗式教育。是以何東人常強調「付出越多,獲得越多」、「勝負不重要,重點在過程」。那麼舍堂教育教些甚麼呢?每所舍堂都不同,但都不外乎個人的磨鍊、正面價值觀和群體意識的建立等。當然一體兩面,如果拿捏不好,教育就會變成洗腦和壓迫。所以我認同一說是舍堂文化/教育本身沒有問題,只是(直到近年為止)港大除了舍堂沒有純住宿的學生宿舍,所以要住宿的學生們基本上沒有選擇,不喜歡也被逼接受舍堂文化,這就成了一個問題了。

是社會營造也是烏托邦實驗

剛才推翻了大眾認為舍堂生活就是欠缺自主的假定,反過來更是大學生自主的結果(如果不是這樣的話也該一早被取替了)。除了滿足了一小撮青年的小眾浪漫情懷,這個行走多年也未被淘汰的奇異大學文化還有甚麼值得留低的價值?上過Hall 莊的我發現,舍堂不單是社會營造,更是一項烏托邦實驗。作為宿生會成員,要組織四百多位堂友和她們日常生活的空間,不單單只是建立一套管理系統,更重要的是如何使之成為一個理想的社群。這個社群珍重的價值、目標和意義是甚麼?如何在一個階級系統裡實踐民主?或者一個有人民代表但主要靠義務和關愛支撐的無政府主義社會?如何讓傳統精神流傳而避免流於形式主義?如何平衡集體主義和個人意志和私隱?如何跟不認同舍堂文化的堂友共處?女Hall 在這個時代的意義是甚麼,我們如何理解女性的角色?除了Dem Cheer 和打波,我們跟社會的關係為何?舍堂文化是由所有在場的堂友共同營造的,包括傳統的確立、理解、演釋和傳承,以及對一個完美社群的想像。每一代的堂友並不只是被動地流傳一個僵化傳統形式,而是積極的參與其重新演釋和轉化。於外人來看可能仍是感覺過時,覺得所謂的轉化和革新也不夠快,但是都是每一屆的堂友們嚴肅認真面對和處理的命題。到最後,這個實驗終將失敗,因為烏托邦不可能存在,而且每個人心中的烏托邦也不可能一樣。在過程中我們會重複犯錯,傷害自己和身邊的人。但是這個實踐和經驗失敗的過程才是最重要的。每一個何東人就是在不斷的嘗試和失敗中成長學習,變得堅強。你話我on9 咩,我話你永遠都不明白我們的浪漫。

Advertisements

A Little Princess (1995)

突然記起要做的電影觀後感。也許逼自己也無用,以我看電影的頻率和寫字的速度,那只是不設實際的痴心妄想。又不是要寫給誰看的專業影評,只是為自己備忘的筆記,想寫便寫好了。不寫的話,也就代表那電影沒有值得記的事情(應該係,除非唔係)。

常為了長知識讓自己看很多「經典」或本身不太好的戲種,像科幻(之前逼自己看了Johnny Mnemonic,很辛苦,不知是為了甚麼要花整個晚上忍受如此一齣爛片),又或者要政治正確,迎合最近的政治氛圍,於是看了Ken Loach 的The Wind That Shakes the Barley (要澄清:這齣跟今早看的David Lynch Blue Velvet 我都非常喜歡,有機會再寫)。但發覺最終自己最鍾愛的還是那些老土文學改篇經典,在所有事情,包括看電影,都讓人感到極疲累之時,就會想重回文學電影裡的美好時光。

沒留意到1995年的The Little PrincessGravity 的Alfonso Cuarón 的長片處女作,而且風評不俗。維基說他改篇了Frances Hodgson Burnett 的原著,但其實除了把故事由倫敦移師到紐約,及加上了第一次世界大戰的背景,這個故事基本上跟1985年日本富士電視台製作的世界名作劇場系列動畫《莎拉物語》並無二致,很多原著裡沒有的角色和描寫都是照抄過來的,有點奇怪沒有人提出,而電影本身也沒有credit 日本電視動畫的版本。原著故事其實十分平板沉悶,《莎拉物語》把人物角色豐富了不少,也加入了更多的劇情和主題,令主角的成長故事更加立體和具說服力,純真夢幻而不失現實的痛切與深刻,探討的人性光輝和醜惡毫不片面膚淺,能同時感動大人小孩。

雖然電影整體處理不俗,一小時三十分鐘看得非常舒服滿足,若硬要說不喜歡的地方,大概是地點改了在紐約,就失去了一種魅力。沒有了老倫敦的石板路和紅磚屋、Edwardian England 上流社會的虛偽冷漠刻板和英國口音,就無法彰顯女主角來自遠東的人性和活潑。最後的驚險跳牆情節也不是必需,比較像是遵從某些荷李活電影公式。還有故事最後還是讓女主角跟原來沒有死去的父親重逢,又讓「惡人」校長落得掃煙囪的下場,又未免太過童話式結尾。不過我倒很喜歡電影的色調處理:在寄宿學校那一段基調全是綠色,像學生和教員的衣飾甚至室外內的背景;而女主角的幻想和印度鄰居的魔法則是偏重橙紅色的七彩繽紛,除了畫面吸引也起了很明顯的視覺反差。另外一點有趣的小發現:飾演女主角父親的Liam Cunningham ,我之前都不認識的演員,最近卻竟然在不只一部作品裡遇到:Game of Thrones 和 The Wind That Shakes the Barley 都有他的踪影,巧得令我有點覺得是Sir Davos 引領我去看這兩部電影的。而這類型的事情其實常發生在我身上,就像《四疊半神話大系》裡提到的古書神的引領的樣子。

然而在我童年回憶中的《莎拉物語》永遠無法被取替,那個束及肩藍黑髮的莎拉才是我心中永遠的小公主,在那段幼嫩的formative years 裡為我樹立了真正淑女的模型。

Quotes from Testaments Betrayed

Try to reconstruct a dialogue from your own life, the dialogue of a quarrel or a dialogue of love. The most precious, the most important situations are utterly gone. Their abstract sense remains (I took this point of view, he took that one, I was aggressive, he was defensive), perhaps a detail or two, but the acousticovisual concreteness of the situation in all its continuity is lost.

And not only is it lost but we do not even wonder at this loss. We are resigned to losing the concreteness of the present. We immediately transform the present moment into its abstraction. We need only recount an episode we experienced a few hours ago: the dialogue contracts to a brief summary, the setting to a few general features. This applies to even the strongest memories, which affect the mind deeply, like a trauma: we are so dazzled by their potency that we don’t realize how schematic and meager their content is.

When we study, discuss, analyze a reality, we analyze it as it appears in our mind, in our memory. We know reality only in the past tense. We do not know it as it is in the present, in the moment when it’s happening, when it is. The present moment is unlike the memory of it. Remembering is not the negative of forgetting. Remembering is a form of forgetting.

We can assiduously keep a diary and note every event. Rereading the entries one day, we will see that they cannot evoke a single concrete image. And still worse: that the imagination is unable to help our memory along and reconstruct what has been forgotten. The present – the concreteness of the present – as a phenomenon to consider, as a structure, is for us an unknown planet; so we can neither hold on to it in our memory nor reconstruct it through imagination. We die without knowing what have lived.

—- Testaments Betrayed: An Essay in Nine Parts, Milan Kundera

Karenin’s Smile

Was reading the passage about Tereza and Karenin, where Milan Kundera wrote that our love for animals was our link to paradise, where everything was pure, including love. Then I was suddenly reminded of an early episode in my life and was seized by an enormous remorse. The remorse was so great I could not believe I had buried it in my heart among all the other insignificant memories. It concerned the first guinea pig we had. I was probably seven or eight. We were so excited by this little creature we kept grabbing it and throwing the poor thing about with our gloved hands, laughing and screaming all the while. The same evening it was dead. My mother just dumped it together with the other household garbage, its lifeless body out-stretched and half visible through the white garbage bag. We could have at least given it a decent burial, but instead it was just there, cramped together with the leftover of our dinner, its white belly pressed against the plastic film. The worst part of the remorse was that I could not recall my feeling remorse for killing a life. The next guinea pig lived a long life with us, if that was any kind of consolation.

Maxims, La Rochefoucald

We have no more say in the duration of our passions than in that of our lives.

Our self-esteem is more inclined to resent criticism of our tastes than of our opinions.

The steadfastness of the wise is but the art of keeping their agitation locked in their hearts.

Greater virtues are needed to bear good fortune than bad.

We have more strength than will-power, and when we imagine things are impossible we are trying to make excuses to ourselves.

If we had no faults we should not find so much enjoyment in seeing faults in others.

Pride plays a greater part than kindness in the reprimands we address to wrongdoers; we reprove them not so much to reform them as to make them believe that we are free from their faults.

People too much taken up with little things usually become incapable of big ones.

We are never as fortunate or as unfortunate as we suppose.

People with a high opinion of their own merit make it a point of honour to be unhappy so as to convince others as well as themselves that they are worthy victims of the buffetings of fate.

The scorn for riches displayed by the philosophers was a secret desire to recompense their own merit for the injustice of Fortune by scorning those very benefits she had denied them; it was a private way of remaining unsullied by poverty, a devious path towards the high respect they could not command by wealth.

Sincerity is openness of heart. It is found in very few, and what is usually seen is subtle dissimulation designed to draw the confidence of others.

There are few people who, when their love for each other is dead, are not ashamed of that love.

Reconciliation with our enemies is nothing more than the desire to improve our position, war-weariness, or fear of some unlucky turn of events.

What men have called friendship is merely association, respect for each other’s interests, and exchange of good offices, in fact nothing more than a business arrangement from which self-love is always out to draw some profit.

Our self-esteem magnifies or minimises the good qualities of our friends according to how pleased we are with them, and we measure their worth by the way they get on with us.

Old people are fond of giving good advice; it consoles them for no longer being capable of setting a bad example.

A man’s ingratitude may be less reprehensible than the motives of his benefactor.

Nothing is less sincere that the way people ask and give advice. The asker appears to have deferential respect for his friend’s sentiments, although his sole object is to get his own approved and transfer responsibility for his conduct; whereas the giver repays with tireless and disinterested energy that confidence that has been placed in him, although most often the advice he gives is calculated to further his own interests or reputation alone.

We often do good so that we can do evil with impunity.

When we resist passions it is more on account of their weakness than our strength.

One of the reasons why so few people are to be found who seem sensible and pleasant in conversation is that almost everybody is thinking about what he wants to say himself rather than answering clearly what is being said to him. The more clever and polite think it enough simply to put on an attentive expression, while all the time you can see in their eyes and train of thought that they are far removed from what you are saying and anxious to get back to what they want to say. They ought, on the contrary, to reflect that such keenness to please oneself is a bad way of pleasing or persuading others, and that to listen well and answer to the point is one of the most perfect qualities one can have in conversation.

The glory of great men must always be measured against the means they have used to acquire it.

Our real worth earns the respect of knowledgeable people, luck that of the public.

We are held to our duty by laziness and timidity, but often our virtue gets all the credit.

Repentance is not so much regret for the evil we have done as fear of the evil that may befall us as a result.

We own up to our failings so that our honesty may repair the damage those failings do us in other men’s eyes.

We do not despise all those with vices, but we do despise all those without a single virtue.

Our misdeeds are easily forgotten when they are known only to ourselves.

Virtue would not go so far without vanity to bear it company.

Gratitude is like commercial good faith; it keeps trade going, and we pay up, not because it is right to settle our account but so that people will be more willing to extend us credit.

The deficit in the amount of gratitude we expect for kindnesses done is due to the pride of both giver and receiver, for they fail to agree upon the value of the kindness.

Over-eagerness to repay a debt is in itself a kind of ingratitude.

Afflictions give rise to various kinds of hypocrisy: in one, pretending to weep over the loss of someone dear to us we really weep for ourselves, since we miss that person’s good opinion of us or deplore some curtailment of our wealth, pleasure, or position. The dead, therefore, are honoured by tears shed for the living alone. I call this a kind of hypocrisy because in afflictions of this sort we deceive ourselves. There is another hypocrisy, less innocent because aimed at the world at large: the affliction of certain persons who aspire to the glory of a beautiful, immortal sorrow. Time, the universal destroyer, has taken away the grief they really felt, but still they obstinately go on weeping, wailing, and sighing; they are acting a mournful part and striving to make all their actions prove that their distress will only end with their lives. This miserable and tiresome vanity is usually found in ambitious women, for as their sex precludes them from all the roads to glory they seek celebrity by a display of inconsolable affliction. There is yet another kind of tears that rise from shallow springs and flow or dry up at will: people shed them so as to have a reputation for being tender-hearted, so as to be pitied or wept over, or, finally, to avoid the disgrace of not weeping.

Those who obstinately oppose the most widely-held opinions more often do so because of pride than lack of intelligence. They find the best places in the right set already taken, and they do not want back seats.

In every walk of life each man puts on a personality and outward appearance so as to look what he wants to be thought: in fact you might say that society is entirely made up of assumed personalities.

Civility is a desire to be repaid with civility, and also to be considered well bred.

Pity is often feeling our own sufferings in those of others, a shrewd precaution against misfortunes that may befall us. We give help to others so that they have to do the same for us on similar occasions, and these kindnesses we do them are, to put it plainly, gifts we bestow on ourselves in advance.

Readiness to believe the worst without adequate examination comes from pride and laziness: we want to find culprits but cannot be bothered to investigate the crimes.

Absence lessens moderate passions and intensifies great ones, as the wind blows out a candle but fans up a fire.

We own up to minor failings, but only so as to convince others that we have no major ones.

Commonplace minds usually condemn whatever is beyond their powers.

Most friends give one a distaste for friendship, and most of the pious a distaste for piety.

Decorum is the least important of all laws, but the best observed.

The very pride that makes us condemn failings from which we think we are exempt leads us to despise good qualities we do not possess.

Those who have known great passions remain all through their lives both glad and sorry they have recovered.

Moderation in times of good fortune is merely dread of the humiliating aftermath of excess, or fear of losing what one has.

Each one of us finds in others the very faults other finds in us.

When you cannot find your peace in yourself it is useless to look for it elsewhere.

As man is never free to love or cease loving, a lover has no right to complain of his mistress’s inconstancy, nor she of his fickleness.

We do not always regret the loss of our friends because of their worth, but because of our own needs and the flattering opinion they had of us.

2016: 我的 turtledove

開始失去時間感,直至臉書開始出現年尾回顧:有人寫年度電影年度書籍,號外四十週年特刊有以社會時事藝術文學等界別整合一種集體回憶,這才想起自己每年總要做一次,卻又有感這年彷彿無事可記,未免有點悵惘。昨夜無眠翻看Home Alone 2,竟見到Donald Trump 驀忽間在螢幕上閃現,背上一陣涼意,馬上想起那天在Things 忙着準備傍晚一個演出時接到下任美國總統選舉結果的日月天地錯置的感覺,世上最驚慄荒誕的黑色喜劇。2016年又怎麼會沒事可記,每天我們都被數以百計的突發事件新聞資訊轟炸感官記憶,為了盛載更多我們只有把錄影帶回帶又回帶,新舊記憶彼此重疊到失去輪廓和温度。片尾麥哥里高堅送了一只鴿子裝飾給公園裡的餵鴿女人,說他永不會忘記她時,我竟然哭了:因為我已經跟那久經人情世故的餵鴿女人一樣,不再相信永恆的記憶和思念了(畢竟我連這一年發生的事都記不起)。但又浪漫的想:只要我仍手持那一只turtledove ,就仍能跟我的回憶接軌吧。

承接2015年尾的棚仔花生騷,2016年迎來了很多的思想衝擊。那種派對高潮後的失落、無法避免的熱情冷卻或前路茫茫之感,加上開始質疑自己的私慾和動機、對社會運動的本質的缺乏經驗和理解,無力感和精神肉體上的疲憊等等,導致了一段長時間的低潮。二月中發生了一件事,受到了一些刺激和傷害,自此好幾個月沒有再踏足棚仔,也沒有再參與任何事務。花了很久調整心態,從新定位自己的角色,也算是從某種創傷復原。其間,隊友們也各自經歷人生上的重大事件,叫我明白在拯救世界前我們都應學會照顧自己和身邊的人。一方面又怕被人覺得自己半途而廢或根本只是抽水,在種種自責和愧疚下,誠遑誠恐的來到了12月27日--棚仔花生騷的一週年。太多的愧疚讓我完全忘記一年前的熱血澎湃,也忘了要叫當時的朋友們一同出來聚舊,只是靜悄悄的來到了關注組搞的市集,當是支持一下。結果遇上幾個花生騷的朋友們,跟布販們和關注組再度接觸,我覺得我終於也可以放下了,甚麼不滿不平也已沒所謂了,我已經找到了心安的歸處。這麼一看,這一年也算是來了一個full circle了。

這一年繼續思考很多關於社區和藝術的問題。最爆的莫過於阿珏跟HKWalls 的罵戰,直接間接令我也得失了朋友,但又因此認識了一些新人新事,都是長知識的過程。身份的曖昧和矛盾隨着這種種討論、團隊價值觀的分歧和落差和突然出現的身份讓人尷尬的鄰居變得越益舉步為艱。縱使腦裡有很多計劃實驗很想試行,但總因各種阻力未能成行,為此我又學會了等待和接受,但也因為種種無力和無所事事,令我開始覺得這個地方根本是個咩事都做唔到的地方,並重新祈盼遠行。

也是因為旅行的問題,跟認識很久的朋友鬧翻。這只是一再證明了我跟她們的價值取向很不同,是次事件只是一個引爆的導火線。然而我們都確切感受到很深的震憾與傷害,我有點驚訝冷漠如我竟然仍能如此失戀。最近的我對朋友有了另一番理解:朋友不再是一群固定的約會班底,而是周期性的,隨着個人的成長和生活圈子移動而不斷交替的。當中不涉及忠誠的問題--又或者是比較傾向忠於自己,找一些不一定要經常見面、不需要永遠在身邊,但在一起的時候彼此都是完完全全的為對方而存在並相互理解尊重學習的那種可遇不可求的知己。又或者我只是進一步把自己邊沿化了--經過一年間跟不同「界別」(其實咪又係文化界,文化界是最鍾意搞小圈子的界別)人士的接觸,各種不明文的界定各種圈子的規條和作法令我感到很累很狹隘,也發現了自己從來不願從屬任何圈子的本性。不願埋堆又懶得爭,心血來潮可以很用心去做,轉頭卻又可以放下一切從新上路,這樣一個人還是做一個浪子比較好吧。

撇除那不愉快事件,那一趟沖繩之旅實在太美好,讓我有一種近乎思鄉的感覺。我覺得我可以日本為家,但又不甘為一朵花放棄整個森林。同樣的花心本性基本上應用於旅居以外的所有的人生領域。

如是想起擱了兩年多的日本遊記;在下一趟旅程之前,實在需要好好整理一下。另外寫了兩年多的小說仍是膠着狀態,我自覺自己沒有那個才能,說不好真的如多年前也斯老師所說的我是比較適合做編輯?只是不理會出版與否、是否選擇寫作一途,也覺得有必要將之完成,算是對自己一個交代,也是在記憶喪失之前的一場寧靜的抵抗。一只麥哥里高堅的turtledove。(雖然都不敢把它當New Year’s Resolution,因為不能保證它不會成為之後每一年的New Year’s Resolution⋯⋯)

正如記憶的喪失,情感的喪失(差點想寫缺失)也讓我很苦惱。或者我需要的不是一個人(其實我要喜歡一個人很容易,今年也出現了幾個感覺不錯的人,但那不也說明了其實是誰也沒所謂,於我而言愛情再沒有非誰不可?愛情所產生的依存症很讓人生畏,而我非常喜歡這個自由自主的自己),而是一種狀態。私人的感情如是,對於這城市和世情也開始變得麻木的話,可以在哪找出路,到現在仍是未知。快樂的源頭在於自己,究竟是獨善其身,還是積極回應抗衝崩壞中的世界?現在想到的只是在英國正式脫歐前快點出發,而每週二晚的法文課也是現時唯一令我感到一種純綷的快樂的時刻,縱使現今這個世代,不論逃到哪兒都是問題一大堆,而我們永遠無法迴避生而為人的原罪和責任。我只希望接觸世界能讓我消除自身的偏隘與無知,令自己更加認識理解這些責任。

展望明年的我,應該也是順從我一貫任由命運和機遇主宰的放任政策,相信自己一路走來所種下的種子結下的緣,隨遇而安,見步行步吧。

關於聖誕、婚姻、愛和自由等的事

馬上想起那些忘掉了聖誕的真締是愛的荷李活聖誕檔期爛片橋段(始作俑者應該是Charles Dickens的A Christmas Carol,不過此文非藝評,暫此作罷)。

朋友選在平安夜那天結婚,收到邀請時驚喜交集,因為自覺我們不算深交,只是因為一年多前的棚仔強拆事件而認識,他獨立的精神讓我欽佩、他對人文的關懷讓我知道他不是另一個自我膨脹的學者神棍。但最讓人驚訝的還是這個何時何刻都以言論以行動以生活方式反對任何形式的建制、不用八達通不用智能電話、主張獨立自主的程度到每次出臉書post都要得罪人的,怎麼想都不可能結婚的人竟然會結婚?

剛剛又看到了他的新臉書post,解釋了為何他這個應該不會結婚的人還是選擇了這條路。早前他和他的伴侶前往倫敦唸書生活,伴侶因為其華裔單身女性身份被當地官員無埋扣留留難了五句鐘,全因世間對於婚姻、年齡和性別的偏見和歧視。他因為希望保護所愛的人,便決定結婚了。就是那麼簡單,卻那麼簡潔有力擲地有聲。對我而言,世上沒有一個更好的結婚的理由了。不是時間到了、要生小孩、要抽居屋等等我們常聽到的不是理由的理由。就只是因為愛,和要保護所愛的人。

他說他知道此舉會讓一些朋友很失望並拒絕出席他的婚禮,而他也非常明白。我相信他依然追求爭取一個更公平自由的世界,包括讓無法結婚的人和選擇單身的人免受歧視,活得自由自主。他這一個舉動更讓我為之感動:一個能為愛而放棄原則的人,他所說的愛、自由與平等是有血有肉的,不是紙上談兵。

除此以外,為了貫徹他的理念,婚禮一切從簡:不幫趁財團、支持環保、禮服是價值幾英鎊的二手貨、酒水食物拍片影相化妝整頭司儀全由朋友親手包辦不用wedding planner、人情全數捐給深水埗明哥的北河同行等等等等,都不用多講了。

就因為這一個快閃婚禮,我過了一個很久沒有過的快樂聖誕,並(很老套很荷李活聖誕檔爛片的)重新發現了關於聖誕、婚姻、愛和自由等的真締。祝賀的話不多說了,因為懂得愛和婚姻為何物的人,一定會過得很幸福。

陌生人

最近常常想着一個人。這事情很讓人苦惱:因為我根本不認識那個人,這思念究竟從何而來,又有甚麼真實可言呢?由是你想起那些莫明奇妙的法國電影,那些忽然戀上陌生人的故事。於是你明白這事從來都無法解說,但也因為無可憑藉,所以也會隨時煙消雲散,餘下半個未完的夢。而能夠成真的,都不浪漫。

邊沿

我發現自己總是靠在邊沿,即使身在事件中央,我仍然維持着一個若即若離的距離,從不輕易讓自己屬於任何一方。距離讓我安心,使我冷眼看清一切,免於掉進狹獈,讓我明白何謂真正的獨立和自由,還有孤獨。

不要太努力讓事情發生

當我明明安坐家中也爬起來更衣外出,當我在人群中找尋某個面孔,當我故意迴避接觸,而晚上回到家後又輾轉難眠,我開始明白自己。但我還是不停跟自己說,不要太努力讓事情發生。