I seldom appreciate a piece of work first the movie, then the book. I usually insist to read before watch because I hate the intrusion of images in my reading. The Reader is an exception. The reason is simple: a Chinese teacher told me that the book was exceptionally well-written, after I watched the movie and loved it. How fortunate that I can get hold of the actual book – the story itself is subtle and yet profound; plus, everything becomes particularly touching when printed on paper.

The Reader concerns a reader Michael Berg who read aloud to a 35-year-old woman Hanna Schmitz when he was 15, and into later days when Hanna spent her life in the cell. They did the reading and listening before making love in bed. This relationship had been kept for a few years until one day Hanna disappeared as if she never existed in Michael’s world. Many years later, the grown-up student of legal studies came across Hanna again in the court, hearing a trial on what Hanna did as one of the female guards who ‘safeguarded’ some Jewish prisoners in a priest’s house and did not unlock the door for escape when the house was ablaze. The truth was revealed slowly by the author – Hanna was actually illiterate and this was a fact she felt most ashamed of. She accepted the witness of writing reports at the price of being exposed as an illiterate.

I like best when the ideas in the book get complicated: if someone has to be exposed in certain aspect he/she finds shameful but it helps him/her to get rid of a charge, should he/she accept the charge or expose him/herself? What would we have done if we were in Hanna’s situation: be faithful to the Third Reich and her duty or let the Jews escape even though they might not survive in the end? Who are we to judge the ones who made some unreasonable decisions in the war and say that they are guilty? How should the older generation explain to the new generation about what they had or had not done in the war? What is righteousness? What is moral and immoral?

The book is definitely arresting in two senses. One is I can’t help reflecting on the above questions though they will seek no answer. They will keep haunting me I am sure. The other is I suddenly find reading aloud a very suggestive practice. I have loved reading aloud since I was small, but I never find it so sexy until now. Reading aloud can indeed bring emotions behind the words straight to the heart. I wish I can enjoy it delightfully more often from now on.

 

大力灰狗：

 

我們應該有三年沒有聯絡了吧？不知道你還有沒有不時路過這裡呢？今次我就碰碰運氣，看我們有沒有緣。

 

再萌生與你聯繫的念頭，閃耀在我於台灣由南一路騎單車北上的腦海。或許你忘了，你曾經告訴我當年你怎樣與那個她在中大互生愛意，最後她在中大的斜路上遇上單車意外——面容被毀了，半張臉從此見不得人，於是你倆說來可為兩小無猜的感情，也一併消逝了。原因不是你拋棄她，而是她故意跑到遠遠去，你甚至不知道她過得好不好。這個故事我聽罷也沒很用心去裝載，然而當我在台灣騎著單車、冒著雨，在濕滑的斜坡上出力地捏著「break」時，我便記起你說的這個故事。最深刻的是你說，其實那時你對她的感覺並沒有因為這意外而改變，倒是她自己太傷心太自卑，走開了。

 

老實說，你這番話可能是騙我的，因為你想表現為「好男人」，又其實我們都無從證明，時光倒流而她沒跑開的話，你又是否真的會這樣繼續與她相好。不過，我在自行車上，往下衝的時候，想起你這番話，就不期然地感動起來。跟我同行的旅伴中，也有曾在中大遇上意外的，同樣是斜坡，同樣的傷了面容，幸好只是瘀傷，三個星期便痊癒了。這也就促使我在旅途上加以想像：假如我出了意外，情況將會是怎樣的呢？假如現在我毀容了，人生將如何過？

 

十一天在台灣的我，見到臉書上的人都在討論《盛女愛作戰》這個節目，使我不得不在回程後第二天，馬上一口氣追回過去五集內容。我看到很多的虛偽，看到女性「被慘化」，然後「被商品化」，同時看到許多「對身體的摧殘」。把那種因意外而受的皮肉傷，去對比這種甘願掏錢去「受傷」、「被割損」，以換取以為是真的尊嚴與愛護，我心生了無限感嘆。你說故事時提到的那份感情，究竟在現實中還存在嗎？此外，傳媒出身的你，有沒有覺得製作這樣的節目的傳媒人，品味低劣又同時分散了人對真正重要事情的關注？

 

回憶匣一旦打開，我們關於政治的對話，對人生/人性所作的反思/批評，統統都跑出來了。狼上場後，不知道會有甚麼變局？又其實，你已為人父了沒有？是否還在薄扶林？有時間，相約見面聊天吧！盼能見到你在此留言。

 

M