Reprinting

I really like this poem and hope it can reside in the public domain. I'm not sure of its status, because it's been posted online, as well as printed in a literary magazine. If this is not allowed, please e-mail me and I'll take it down.

歸來

陳義芝

是風問還是人在問
你好不好？
夜來坐看跨岸的橋影
迅速落過妳脖頸的一抹月光
驀然聞到甘蔗香的蓮霧
我說好，不是風
是心底的聲音

你好不好？沒有答案
我問或是妳問都是一樣
一樣在水邊
夏日轟轟的聲音已沈寂
微光透過窗 枝葉因風而猶疑
帶上門，長廊在窺看
電梯不等人

你好就是我
我好也會是你
不管季節有情無
風如何來來去去
灌滿警示水深的巷弄
不管應桃紅了，或唇冷了
記憶總在白花花的縐摺裡翻湧

沒有人像你
也沒有人像我
當日曆一天天的換裝，一年又過
鮮麗的容顏用小陰的雨挲染
日常的語言用小晴的雲勾描
手指梳理發燙的身體
亂髮飄盪頑皮的呼吸

一千零一夜的故事
一千零一個晚上怎說的完
除非夜夜向蒼穹的盡頭張望
銀河的車窗全開著
祈願的香頭全部點燃
越過重山後我們又歸來
水岸的燈火仍搖晃著

Homecoming
I-Chih CHEN
translated by Chris Wen-Chao Li

Was it the wind or was it someone
asking, How have you been?
As night dawns, sitting there watching the bridge's reflection cast across the river,
a sliver of moonlight dashing across your neck,
then suddenly the scent of bellapple mixed with sweet sugarcane.
Fine, I said. That was no wind,
but a voice deep from the heart.


How have you been? Then no answer
coming from you or me.
At the water's edge also,
the din of summer had died down,
a glimmer of light shining through; the leaves were wavering, swayed by the wind,
which shut the door behind it. As if the corridors were spying;
like an elevator which waits for no one.


I'm fine if you are
and you're fine if I am,
whether or not the seasons show mercy,
as storms come and go,
flooding the back alleys to alert level,
whether it's cherries bright red or lips turned cold,
memories of you will forever toss and turn, dancing between those shimmering white
folds.


No one's quite like you
and no one's quite like me.
Pages torn from the calendar each day tell of another year gone by:
your glamorous face wet-brushed by the drizzle of weather overcast,
our daily exchanges set against the bright clouds of sunny skies,
fingers combing through the warmth of your body,
frazzled hair dancing to your playful breathing.


Are a thousand and one nights sufficient
to tell the tales of nights a thousand and one?
Not unless we gaze nightly towards the sky's edge,
roll down the windows to the universe
and set every prayer candle ablaze.
Over the hills and through the woods, we've come back full circle,
the lights across the shore still flickering.

---

Originally published/原載於民國九十五年二月十六日《聯合報》副刊。
Translation published in the Chinese PEN (Summer 2007).

QIXI 七喜

Isn't that some kind of soft drink? 嘻嘻夕~

Just kidding. Happy Chinese Valentine's Day everybody. ♥

Oh, and while you're still feeling sappy, did anyone notice that Qi-Xi would be pronounced like "chee - zee" in English? Just sayin' ... =P

Tea Party wha?

It's so cute... I just realized that the British press have to explain what the "Tea Party" is and explain its historical roots, because it's not an automatically understood phrase there. From an article in The Daily Telegraph, a UK newspaper.

Objecting first to Mr Obama's $800 billion stimulus bill and $1 trillion health care reform, the tea party movement took its name from the 1773 protest in Boston against taxes imposed by George III.

Colonial history, huh? Of course, there is a certain POV associated with the newspaper and this article in particular, which may be why they chose to describe Obama's plans and the Tea Party Movement in those terms. Background info, yes, but also a rhetorical device.

Maybe I should also check what The Guardian, The Times and The Independent say. (And is it in news stories or just columns?)

Our Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3. Joyful nostalgia looking back; a sense of new adventure looking forward. Being taken care of, played with, loved. The power and the sheer delight of imagination. The whole gang is back together again! And the circle is now complete. Plus a Totoro cameo, declamation on popular sovereignty, and a thespian hedgehog. ★★★★★

This movie outing was so long delayed, but I'm glad that we finally saw Toy Story 3!

Last night, we almost thought we couldn't find a movie theater in Beijing that was still playing the film, but I persisted in searching, and finally turned up a couple places that still had showings, including one in 中关村. While we were on the subway (a looong subway ride from 永安里) one of our friends who arrived first thought that there weren't any good seats left and suggested we go to another nearby theater. (He neglected to mention that the new place was not playing Toy Story 3). But when the rest of us got to the subway station, we returned to the first theater to double-check the arrangements. It turns out that there were seats -- and in a theater seating only 88 people, the view from the "back row" was actually quite good.

I'm surprised that the movie theater experience in China isn't easier, more popular, grander. Yes, DVDs are available cheaply on the sidewalks, but for an experience that transports you into another world? One could imagine really doing a good job at it, and the whole theater industry being extremely well received as it is elsewhere in the developing world. Too bad the cinema is so controlled -- instead of being about delivering the best possible experience to the audience, or showcasing and sharing the best films in the world, it has become another national tool of propaganda and protectionism. The limited selection of films, plus the stunted state of Chinese film-making both contribute to an apathetic feeling. It's just like the sad state of (CC)TV here -- not all that pleasant; not well-produced; patronizing, propagandizing, and not very original. And still it holds a monopoly. So I don't really watch TV when in Beijing.

Anyhow, back to Toy Story 3:

As Phil noted, this really was a movie for us – for kids of our generation, who watched the very first Toy Story while we were growing up. We were the ones who were introduced to Woody the Sheriff and Buzz Lightyear; who laughed at the antics of Rex, Hamm, and Mr. Potato Head, a stalwart toy we actually owned; who cheered on the Army Men's bravado and Slinky's optimism and good cheer. A few years later (wow, was it 1999? That's over a decade ago...) we were the posse who excitedly showed up at the theater for the sequel, where those characters appeared alongside new ones. We feigned nonchalance at this old cartoon for younger children, but simultaneously bore grins of happy memory.

And now, in 2010, comes this new film. It was like seeing a bunch of old friends and finding out where they are now, a decade later. We're rounding up the gang again! A sense of nostalgia permeates the film, even as the audience's attention is caught by new adventure -- and some novel dangers. Part of it is because Andy is going to college, a time of transition that any adult can identify with, and his toys are facing the prospect of life-after-adolescence. (A note of empty-nest syndrome is also struck near the end of the movie). Part of it is because the colors and scenes of childhood play are particularly evocative, recalling that time in all viewers' lives. But for a particular age of viewer, Toy Story 3 recaptures childhood in a way that 40-year-old critics can't imagine -- it's not only a childhood that is called up, but our childhood that came at the same time as these movies. This was one of our cultural touchstones, and for some of these children, the memories of playtime might even have involved the same toys as featured on-screen. (Thanks, Disney juggernaut! Luckily I didn't have that meta level of nostalgia to deal with.)

It’s hard to think of something we grew up with as a “classic” as opposed to something contemporary and new and simply “us.” Toy Story has always been the “new” cartoon—not exactly Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny caliber, but certainly very beloved. But I suppose in the Pantheon of Cartoon Classics, Toy Story (1, 2 and 3) will assume their place -- not only because of their historical role as the first CGI movie to be released, but because of their cultural resonance and their plainly-good story-telling.

One thing I particularly enjoyed were the numerous references to past movies: familiar traits or incidents or characters that brought a knowing chuckle. This was done in a subtle and natural way, unlike the heavy-handed "references" that George Lucas tried to pound into the Star Wars "prequels." (In those movies, the attempt to evoke nostalgia completely flopped, because the milieu, the setting, the very *sense* of the movies was different, and the spark of recognition was too contrived and too forced. Not to mention that it flew in the face of established canon, a universe that fans had read about and populated and created by their participation. Lucas displayed such utter disregard for the fan universe, which is regrettable. Once a concept is out there in the public sphere, it also partly belongs to the users who nurture and expand and grow it, and the releases that you make to support that growth cannot be so easily swept aside for convenience.)

Yet despite the familiar feeling of the Toy Story characters and our delight at seeing old friends once again, there were still surprising new things about characters uncovered in the course of the film. Por ejemplo, Buzz tiene una modalidad española!

Now if we shed the nostalgia for a moment and take it as a movie on its own terms, it was still by all means an excellent movie. Gripping storyline, with scenes of great emotive force. The audience's horror at the toddlers bashing and smashing the toys in the playroom was great; and there was the right kind of magic in Woody's rescue by a new girl and his interaction with a new posse. Alert: Totoro sighting!)

The movie overall is quite a feel-good piece, and while a couple of friends claimed that they almost bawled during the film, I can't say that I was really close to tears. It was just ... very pleasant, very delightful, and emotionally evocative. It's not only a goodbye as the toy chest closes and everyone is sent to the attic, but leaves you with something new, too, as a different child begins the cycle of play again.

Toy Story is pretty complete now—we've really come full circle, with Andy playing, then growing up, then back to play, but handing off the duties and the new years of fun to another fellow traveler.

Play ... In this world, "play" is best expressed when the sense of imagination is alive. He had it. And she has it. That idea of play, beyond just the physical, to mental worlds of creativity, is very much a theme in this film, too.

So now that the circle is complete, I think we can happily end the saga of Toy Story. The tale of Andy's toys does not really need any more telling. Sure, new adventures are always nice, but the life mission of these toys has been fulfilled, and anything new will simply be an interim adventure, the next in a series of adventures. The contours of a toys' life are known -- the potential and the possibilities, explored.

Eventually, the universe might be expanded, if Pixar feels there's another story to tell (or another wave to capitalize on). But at least for now, the frame of a toy's life has been laid out, and we can take our leave from Toy Story with a sense of joy. Thanks to this last film in the trilogy, we can step away from that world, too -- at least until we hand it over to our children.

However, if the franchise were to continue, I suppose they could refresh things by creating new stories of toys somewhere else in the world, like China, with an array of East Asian toys -- some kind of distinct toy experience. Or perhaps an immigrant or refugee story, as a lone toy in a war-torn country is separated, and then seeks to be reunited with his owner in America. So yes, I suppose other stories can be told. But that is for a time in the future.

It's gotta be an ensemble cast!

Olympic Coping

For the 2008 Olympics, Beijing issued guides instructing its own citizens how to behave -- presumably to avoid presenting an embarrassing image to the world. Now, in anticipation of the 2012 Games, a UK tourism body has issued its own cultural guide. It is ostensibly meant to help Britons be better hosts, but it comes across more like a survival guide detailing how to cope with an onslaught of uncouth overseas visitors. (They're not tryingto be oafs! Such behavior isn't rude where these colonials are from. Ah, the burden of noblesse oblige. LOL.)

Or as the Associated Press put it, "Seeking to improve the sometimes frosty welcome on offer to tourists, VisitBritain issued advice Wednesday on how best to handle foreign visitors."

Some gems quoted in the Daily Mail:

INDIA
Avoid physical contact when first meeting someone. Be tolerant if Indians at first seem impolite, noisy and impatient. This is partly the result of living in chaotic cities and environments.

ARGENTINA
Don’t be offended by Argentinian humour, which may mildly attack your clothing or weight

JAPAN
A smiling Japanese person is not necessarily happy. They tend to smile when angry, embarrassed, sad or disappointed.

And the AP:

Brush off coarse jokes from Australians or Argentines.

Canadian tourists are likely to be upset if mistaken for U.S. citizens

Americans won't hesitate to complain when things go wrong.

According to the Daily Mail, the guide (called "Delivering a First Class Welcome") was actually "written by natives of the countries featured who work for VisitBritain." So this isn't necessarily the British perspective of foreigners, per se. In any case, I'm sure the staff had a field day with the caricatures.

Tendrils extend outward

In response to an article on CNET that says that the "long-rumored geolocation 'check-in' feature at Facebook is slated to debut within weeks" -- i.e. Facebook can tell where you are.

>> The takeover is coming.

Facebook's tendrils extend outward

First it's the 户口 household registration system, and then it's the grain rations. Your 单位 work unit will keep track of your housing and benefits -- and don't even think about trying to evade the neighborhood committees. Eventually, The Facebook will eat all public space.

Meanwhile, private space will be continuously converted into public space. Privacy is not allowed you see -- too much risk of plotting by the black classes. After all, why wouldn't you want everything to be public? Where's your revolutionary spirit, don't you want The Facebook to have access to and monitor everything? That way, the internet will be a good experience, on the whole, for the great majority of the people, you see.

What, too much room for abuse? Don't be such a rightist! "Privacy" is just a feudal concept used to oppress the masses. "User rights" are so bourgeois. Resistance is futile, so get with the program, folks.

The Facebook: Vanguard of the Revolution

 

拆！Tear it down!

It is frustrating to be a witness to this ongoing tragedy. What will we say to our children -- that we never cared enough? That we were too short-sighted to realize what we were doing?

China heritage chief says building boom is destroying country's heritage

Heritage boss Shan Jixiang says frenetic development is wasting resources and razing valuable city centre districts to make way for 'superficial' skyscrapers

为什么中国不好好地保护中华民族的传统文化？很多城市以为拆掉「旧」的建筑来盖摩天大楼，就是现代化。其实，他们只是在破坏和不断淡化自己的文化。这种行为非但不重视市民的利益，反而带来了很多现代化的弊端。这不是「以人为本」——目的显然不是让市民的生活更方便，否则按照城市规划的原则会选比较 "人本化"的构造——也不重视文化，只重视金钱。

这不只损害到现在生活的人，也对我们的后代很不负责任。破坏文化遗址是一种很严重的罪过，古建筑是整个社会的遗产，我们应该极力保存它。虽然现在有人觉得文化遗址是可以被忽略的，以为自己的行为叫做「现代化」，其实只是一种很烂的「西方化」（不模仿西方好的，只模仿外表而已 ...... 造成一种最低级的同化、也许可以称「水泥化」）。

现在的我们如果肆无忌惮地破坏这些遗产，后代必定后悔莫及。西方的城市（如巴黎、伦敦等等）都极力保护他们城市的老建筑、为什么所谓“历史最悠久”的国家不能采取适当的措施？那么爱提“五千年的历史”的中国人应该更在意这些，不是吗？

Sigh. Why does China do this to its own culture? Why must it destroy what is unique about the country -- the very things that ought to be cherished and protected and celebrated -- and replace them with poorly-made imitations of "modernity"? What the Chinese currently think is "modern" will ultimately not stand the test of time -- just ask the folks from other major cities.

As relics, historic sites, and people's homes are torn down with gusto, fueled by dreams of cash (for the developers and for the officials who aid them), such short-sightedness and greed seem not only highly irresponsible, but also a bit selfish. It'd be nice if a culture that loves to cite "five thousand years of continuous civilization" took some pride in the past, and acted as a better custodian of its inheritance.

Future generations will not forgive us if we participate in the destruction of our common heritage -- for it not only belongs to those presently alive, but to our children and their children as well. It's just sad that in this of all places, history and tradition are so easily tossed aside. But I suppose one should not be too surprised, as reverence for the past, for tradition, for anything other than "Money money money!" "Mine mine mine!" have been blotted out.

One day we will realize that, in the end, culture may be the thing that persists and that actually matters.

● ● ●

I understand that people deserve better living conditions -- but I think accommodations can be found that not only improve people's circumstances, but simultaneously give the proper respect to our history and preserve our heritage, while also keeping communities -- living, breathing, thriving social networks -- intact. For instance, shipping people off into isolated, far-flung apartment blocks, past the fifth ring road on the outskirts of town, is not an appropriate strategy.

We just have to be creative and a little more thoughtful in coming up with solutions that privilege the things we may value aside from money, such as "a connection to the past" or "a sense of community" or "harmony and ecological balance." The main fear is that things in China are moving so rapidly that we won't have time to give due consideration to these other things, and what you end up with is "growth for growth's sake" simply to enrich a few people.

The projects are couched in the language of "development and improving people's lives", but if they actually were intended to "help the people," then shouldn't we see more human-centered projects instead of massive-but-sterile office buildings and extravagant shopping malls? In this dynamic, developers and local officials set up a false dichotomy, denying that alternatives exist to their plans for construction and "development", when in fact there is a rich and diverse set of possibilities -- we just have use human ingenuity to search for them.

URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/04/china-culture-cities-heritage

TUSO 夢

Tsinghua University Symphony Orchestra concert last night at the National Library of China. The program included:

Roman Carnival Overture by Berlioz
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5G6hi1KzCeQ/

御风万里 "Riding the Wind"
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/JlLJF4YcTxs/

Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5
(III) http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/rXYo4zgIqR0/
(IV) http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/3a1nfkGdDFM/

This past week has seemed like a dream, and it's hard to believe it is over. For now at least, there no more rehearsals, no more cheerful banter in 118室, no more moments with newfound friends and all our smiles and glances. Ah well, I am simply happy knowing that a group like TUSO exists, and glad that I could be part of the family, even if it was only for a short while.

I'll eventually post more on what TUSO is like -- what I saw there and what it was like to play with such an ensemble. In the meantime, 誰要陪我禦風? Who wants to ride the wind with me?

Facebook is Revolutionary

Are you Revolutionary, too? Get with the program, don't be a laggard! Join the movement now! Quiet back there, no questions!

Is it just me, or is Facebook getting kind of big for its britches -- and also kind of mean?

For instance, will it continue to delete references to Quora? Several people liked my "answer" to a "question" regarding the issue of "Quora vs. Facebook Questions", in which I conjectured how the sites could differ because of distinct user behaviors, but then Facebook just removed the whole thing. ("the item no longer exists ...")

In fact, a day after that, all my Facebook Updates that said, "Person X likes your answer" were also wiped clean from the updates bar.

This seems very Microsoft-authoritarian: "We just expunge (和諧, har har) whatever we don't like." What happened to the freedom-of-speech ethos?

It's sad, because people are starting to become suspicious of Facebook and its intentions, and thinking of it as a bully like Microsoft -- quite an accomplishment for a company that hasn't even gone public. Facebook is swaggering around because it think it's become indispensable, and can thus be careless with user-generated content. (For example, in the last round of changes, it forcibly grabbed our profiles and changed everything written in them into the "group page" format. This felt really rude and inappropriate -- it treated our writings like data points to be shoved into categorical boxes, rather than expressions of ourselves. It would be like taking someone's blog and saying, "Ah, this is a blog about cooking!" And then cutting out the content and replacing it with a cooking tag. Perhaps the example is a little hyperbolic, because Facebook profiles don't have as much text as blogs, but the text that was there was carefully crafted and chosen to represent ourselves.)

Maybe Facebook thinks users are an uneducated, stupid mob that need to be told what to do and how to behave. But sometimes, the company's actions feel not only patronizing, but a bit controlling, too. Facebook has pretensions of being a "popular" or "grassroots" movement, but in fact, it's somewhat elitist. It feels like the company looks down on the user, who is presumed to be incapable of choosing properly, because we're ignorant bumpkins.

Now, there's nothing wrong with "elitist" per se -- after all, they are the software experts/programmers (and our fellow classmates from Stanford =P), and have a better idea for what might improve the user experience. (Still, asking consumers what they want is not a bad start, though obviously not always definitive.) Apple keeps tight reins over its products to assure quality, for example. But something feels a little bit off with Facebook these days.

At least with Google, we have "Don't be evil." In contrast, it seems that Facebook doesn't think it's capable of being evil, so it doesn't have even this normative safeguard. So dangerous ...

Ironically, I am typing this from behind the Great Firewall.

Theory: For now, maybe Facebook allows most content online, except for things that threaten its "core interests." Like, for instance, its decision to enter the social question & answer space. Once it's done that, then we have to nix all references to Quora. Innocuous, right? "Q&A is something Facebook is now taking care of -- sorry, no one else is allowed to get involved. After all, who better than Facebook itself to provide the right service, choose the right features, create the right atmosphere, for the user?" A very harmonious atmosphere indeed.

But I suspect those "core interests" will expand over time, to include not only Xinjiang and Tibet, but the Spratly Isl... oops, I mean ... whatever else Facebook fancies itself becoming. Eventually, the site will subsume all public space, and all "public" activities will have to be conducted through the Party ... erm ... through the Facebook platform.