香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "「文要有學，學要有館」支持於西九文化區創設香港文學館聯署書"

我不是來玩罵戰的

我看不了那麼多互罵的內容，也無意加入，只想提供多一個角度思考文學館。

很多人反對文學館時，都說因為是「小眾玩意」，政府如建文學館則是「浪費納稅人的金錢」。但政府資助的九大藝團，單是今年度的總撥款也有2.63億元，大家看看那九大藝團的性質，其實又算不算「小眾」？全香港有多少人是小交的fans？閒時會購票去看一場香港芭蕾舞團演出的又有幾人？不說不知，香港芭蕾舞團剛從瑞典請來一位名叫Madeleine Onne的人出任三年的藝術總監(他們解釋是本地沒有合適人選)，剛加盟的首席舞蹈員Margarita Demjanoka則來自俄羅斯，而觀看他們的舞蹈員，乃有來自中國、台灣、新加坡、南非、烏克蘭、美國、日本、韓國、澳洲及菲律賓的，本地香港人，反而只有兩人。

此例子反映了兩個問題。
一, 如果大家都在針對「浪費納稅人的錢」來反對文學館，那我認為香港芭蕾舞團拿千多萬納稅人的錢去僱用那麼多「外援」，才更浪費。撥款要用得適宜，應該培養更多本地舞蹈員。只用兩個本地人的「香港芭蕾舞團」還算是是「香港芭蕾舞團」嗎？如果大家反對文學館，那也請聲討撥款予香港芭蕾舞團了。

二, 又，正正是因為「小眾」，才更需要支持。政府資助九大藝團及很多小型藝團亦是出於這理念。如果已成為了主流，那無須爭取，它自然會生存，或商家自會將它變成賺錢的工具。香港因為殖民關係，一直是資本主義主導。回歸後分別不大，學校亦不重點提倡藝術，單是新高中課程的音樂科只有不到一成學校會開辦便知道(而開辦的很多是幾間學校合辦，名額共二十人)。

可能上面已有仁兄提及類似例子。包涵。

想不出標題

有進入我提供的第三個連結嗎?有看日期嗎?

November 3, 2008

有進入我提供的第一個連結嗎?有看日期嗎?

June 26, 2009

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Canadian-Heritage-1009831.html

你的第二篇文章在September 24, 2008,有團體抗議削減資金政策.加拿大這麼大,你總有辦法找到例子慰藉,我不在乎,可本人第三個連結是CCA07-08全年報告.你的第一篇文章在March 31, 2009 ,除了開頭說哈珀為削減45million資金政策辯護,其餘完全無關.

原來你心儀執政黨的確有意削減資金,結果怎樣呀?

繼續浪費此帖空間,真的很抱歉.

更新:我上網翻新聞,大致明白來龍去脈.保守黨推動削減45million藝術資金政策,對象主要是資助藝術家出國交流,宣傳加拿大等計劃,不是什麼「垃圾文學藝術」,但遭各方抨擊.Candian Heritage部長James Moore出來「補鑊」,表明保守黨支持藝術,承諾不會削減任何資金,45million只是轉移到其他方面.後來更說要加碼,就是我找到的近聞.

我是香港人,在google找到最新消息.h在加拿大,居然拿舊聞來說我out?

深以為恥,夜不能寐,再次道歉.我得承認此前不知有45million過節,若我清楚,多會料到這種人會博懵利用此事圓謊.現已經清楚其為人,我不會再給他機會抽水.

朝雲你好out呀。

The arts cut comes after the second election earlier this year. You are citing the old number. Conservative barely get into power in the last election, and have a minority government, so they can't really do much. In the second election, although they are still a minority government but gain more seats and Liberal decline further, so they can push more "conservative" policy.

Global and Mail, Mar 31, 2009
Harper plays populist tune on arts cuts
No point funding programs 'people actually don't wan't'

n his first detailed defence of $45-million in controversial cuts to arts and culture funding, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called his party's decisions good governance and said the government must walk “a fine line” between providing financial stability and “funding things that people actually don't want.”

In an exclusive telephone interview with The Globe and Mail during a campaign stop at a winery in St-Eustache, Que., Mr. Harper, who many have called a Philistine, also spoke at length about his life-long passion for music and the piano as he denied the cuts were ideologically motivated.

Harper on the arts and his piano-playing past

He said the government should play “a fundamental role” in encouraging growth and excellence in arts and culture, but added that the marketplace, consumers and benefactors must also help shape the cultural landscape.

“You don't get to the point where you're just abandoning it, because I think cultural life is too fragile for that. And on the other hand, you don't get to the point where, to be blunt, you have creators or producers who are entirely cut off from public need or public demand.”

Such remarks are sure to stoke the ire of arts supporters who have cautioned that the Tories wish to dictate taste and censor artists who don't conform, a fear that has its roots in the debate over Bill C-10.

But Mr. Harper flatly denied any ideological underpinnings, saying the cuts were made through a series of analyses, the bulk of which “the Department [of Canadian Heritage] itself” carried out.

He also disputed the characterization that his government has broadly “cut the arts,” saying that net spending on arts and culture has increased. But he said he is willing to accept criticism for deciding that $45-million in programs deemed not to be priorities be reduced or eliminated, launching a veiled barb at his political opponents.

“There are some people who say, ‘Well, it isn't good enough to increase funding for the arts, you have to increase funding for every single program.' My simple response is that no responsible government can manage the government that way. You have to select priorities and you have to make choices,” he said.

Several members of the arts community contacted by The Globe in recent weeks attested to Mr. Harper's past forays into the arts, which included periods of intense musical endeavour. It is part of a picture the Tories are working to bring to the fore during the campaign – a more sophisticated and artistic Stephen Harper – that is not easily reconciled with the cold calculations behind the funding reductions.

Mr. Harper spoke at length about his lifelong affair with music. Although his parents “had no particular musical skill or aptitude,” his father, Joseph, was an avid jazz fan who idolized Duke Ellington, collecting every piece of music he ever recorded or wrote.

He took the piano “very seriously” and eventually passed the Royal Conservatory of Music's Grade 9 examinations, demonstrating considerable proficiency at the keyboard, and said that although he “had a bit of talent,” he was held back because his hands shook when he was nervous, a trait he later outgrew.

For most of his adult life, he didn't own a piano and rarely played, leaving him “a shadow of my former self.” But since moving to 24 Sussex Dr., which boasts an impressive instrument, he has taken it up once more. He said the greatest satisfaction is playing with his son, Ben, who is teaching himself piano and guitar – although he acknowledged his thoroughly formal training and Ben's freewheeling approach don't always mesh well.

And he occasionally performs at parties with his informal band of friends and staff, Stephen and the Firewalls, a delightfully ironic name given his government's reputation for secrecy.

“They aren't too bad (they aren't too good either),” a source close to the Mr. Harper wrote in an e-mail.

The source confirmed that the Tory Leader plays regularly, something Mr. Harper himself called a dangerous attraction.

“I've always been torn on music and piano in a way because I actually get a great deal of satisfaction out of when I do it, but I get so wrapped up in it. I've always had that problem with the artistic things I've enjoyed doing – I've played piano, I've sung a bit, I used to write poetry – I've always found with these kinds of things that they draw me in and I can't let them go. I find it difficult to do it just on the side, a little bit here and now,” he said.

This fascination manifested itself early in Mr. Harper's childhood, although he can't remember how he came to choose the piano.

“For the first half year I was in lessons, we didn't have a piano and I would actually practice for my lessons on a cardboard keyboard, so I would only hear it for the first time when I actually sat down and had the lessons,” he said.

The conservatory's president, Peter Simon, has seen the focus that compels a young boy to play a silent keyboard firsthand. When he met Mr. Harper at a fundraiser, he said the Conservative Leader quickly launched into a discussion of his studies and his frustration with the results of a Grade 3 musical theory exam on which he scored poorly, despite studying hard.

“It obviously meant a lot to him. It was the intensity of his feelings [that struck me], that to someone who is in effect a stranger he would be that intense about it,” Mr. Simon said.

The conservatory's board chair, Florence Minz, has also met Mr. Harper and said flatly, “This is no Philistine.”

For those wondering why a man of such long-standing artistic interest and curiosity seems so comfortable axing substantial funding from Canada's cultural milieu, Mr. Harper's answers continue to be rooted not in an ideology about the arts, but a philosophy that stresses the need to trim government spending.

“If you don't do that, what you have over time, and frankly what we inherited, was growth of government spending without any resulting improvement in government programming overall. It's just a discipline you have to maintain and it doesn't mean you're slashing some artist or you're slashing farmers or whatever. It simply means that you are constantly reviewing your spending,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article708298.ece

More on Harper's arts cut

Arts cuts 'niche issue': Harper

SASKATOON - Stephen Harper took a swipe yesterday at members of the arts community in Quebec who have opposed his party's funding cuts, arguing that ordinary Canadians aren't impressed by artists who complain about government funding at swanky galas.
By The Ottawa Citizen, September 24, 2008

SASKATOON - Stephen Harper took a swipe yesterday at members of the arts community in Quebec who have opposed his party's funding cuts, arguing that ordinary Canadians aren't impressed by artists who complain about government funding at swanky galas.

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see ... a bunch of people at a rich gala ... all subsidized by the taxpayers -- claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have gone up -- I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people," Mr. Harper told reporters.

The Conservative leader's comments appeared to be aimed at Quebec TV stars who railed at the government's arts and funding cuts at the annual Gémeaux awards over the weekend in Montreal. The Gémeaux are essentially the French version of the Gemini Awards.

The Conservatives are facing increasing heat in Quebec from arts and culture groups because of more than $40 million in program cuts implemented before the election.

Mr. Harper defended his party's record yesterday, noting once again that overall funding for the Department of Canadian Heritage and associated agencies increased under his watch.

Calling the cuts a "niche issue for some," he argued that most Canadians, including Quebecers, understand some cuts are necessary in a slumping economy.

Mr. Harper also had choice words for an attack ad released yesterday by the NDP that labels the Conservatives "culture killers."

"When the NDP runs an ad like that, it just shows the extreme side of the NDP, a side of the NDP that has no serious economic program at all for the country, just a whole bunch of promises without limit, without any idea of how they're going to pay for them," Mr. Harper said.

On the policy side, Mr. Harper announced that a Conservative government would reintroduce restrictions on house arrest, a move the opposition parties opposed in the last Parliament.

The Conservatives say they would designate 30 criminal offences as ineligible for conditional sentencing, better known as "house arrest."

The list would include robbery, possession of a dangerous weapon, home invasion, drug trafficking and kidnapping.

In the last Parliament, opposition parties blocked provisions in Bill C-9 that would have eliminated house arrest for such offences.

The Liberals introduced conditional sentences in 1996, partly to deal with the problem of overcrowding in prisons.

As of 2006, more than 11,150 criminals were serving conditional sentences, including 2,791 convicted of violent crimes, according to Statistics Canada.

It was the second crime measure announced by Mr. Harper this week, after promising Monday to impose adult sentences on youth offenders and to reverse Canada's long-standing policy of not identifying youths who commit crimes.

Mr. Harper remained defiant about his government's tough-on-crime policies yesterday and said they were supported by the "vast majority of police and law enforcement officials," as well as by most Canadians.

"Obviously, some people don't agree with our approach to criminal justice. Those are the people who have advised soft-on-crime policies for 30 or 40 years. And yes, we believe they are wrong."

Mr. Harper once again suggested he would tolerate no changes or delays from the opposition to his legislative package on crime.

A senior Conservative source said the restrictions on house arrest would be considered confidence measures, meaning their defeat in Parliament would send Canadians back to the polls.

居然信h...

「看來你要惡補國際時事常識才行了。加拿大現在保守黨執政(我有份投票選佢)﹐開始慢慢修正當年自由黨政策左傾的錯誤。保守黨上台﹐便立即削減某些垃圾文學藝術的資助。那些自命高人一等﹐因失去飯碗的人自然嘈到拆天﹐一般國民則支持政府決定﹐不應在有財政赤字的情況下﹐還把稅收浪費在那些垃圾上。」

還要澄清.我居然會(一度)信他,不去查證...

保守黨06年執政.

Canadian Heritage:

"The cultural sector needs stability in this time of economic uncertainty. With ongoing investments by our Government, artists and arts organizations can plan their activities for the longer term and continue to create, produce, and present innovative works that will make Canadians proud," said Minister Moore.

These renewed investments in the arts represent $504 million in support over five years and are in addition to measures announced in Canada's Economic Action Plan. These measures include a 41-percent increase in the budget for the Canada Arts Training Fund(i) and additional funding of $60 million over two years for the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund,(i) doubling the budget for the program this year and extending it to 2010-2011.

This brings total Government of Canada investment to $1.51 billion for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015. Of the funding announced today, $25 million per year will go to the Canada Council for the Arts, maintaining its yearly funding at its highest level ever-$181 million.

"Our Government is spending more on arts and culture, and we're spending more efficiently," added Minister Moore. "Each of our arts programs has undergone an evaluation process and can now be more effective in our efforts to support the arts community."

"Today's announcement is excellent news for artists and arts organizations throughout our country, as well as all Canadians whose lives are enriched by the arts," said Alain Pineau, National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts. "A five-year financial commitment provides exactly the kind of stability that the sector needs to be able to continue making an important contribution to our society and economy."

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Canadian-Heritage-1009831.html

The Canada Council for the Arts:

Annual Report 06-07

In 2006-07, the Canada Council awarded more than $152 million in funding to individual artists and arts organizations in Canada. This constitutes the largest amount of funding awarded by the Council in its 50‑year history.

News Releases

Nearly $140 million was awarded in the form of grants, as well as $3.5 million in prizes and fellowships and $9.1 million in payments to writers, translators and illustrators under the Public Lending Right program, which compensates authors for the availability of their books in Canadian public libraries.

More than 15,400 Canadian authors received payments through the Public Lending Right Commission.

http://www.canadacouncil.ca/aboutus/organization/annualreports/rd1283755...

Annual Report 07-08

In 2007–2008, the Canada Council awarded more than $164 million in funding to individual artists and arts organizations in some 680 communities across Canada, the largest amount in its history.

News release

Over $151 million was awarded in the form of grants, as well as $3.5 million in prizes and fellowships and $9.1 million in payments to writers, translators and illustrators under the Public Lending Right program, which compensates authors for the availability of their books in Canadian public libraries.

More than 15,993 Canadian authors received payments through the Public Lending Right Commission – an increase of 500 authors over last year.

http://www.canadacouncil.ca/aboutus/organization/annualreports/51AnnualR...

Canadian Heritage和The Canada Council for the Arts應該就是加拿大全國最高文藝管理機構.無論h如何操弄文學,藝術定義,範疇來混賴,若聲稱什麼文學,什麼藝術九成(半)是垃圾,怎麼資助金額和人數都不跌反升?抑或什麼地方機構「削減某些垃圾文學藝術的資助」可以讓h精神勝利?但怎樣也不等於「開始慢慢修正當年自由黨政策左傾的錯誤」,「一般國民則支持政府決定﹐不應在有財政赤字的情況下﹐還把稅收浪費在那些垃圾上。」h欺騙我們.

最後想說,雖已修訂多次,但重看前文還是有一兩錯字.為免頂帖不再編輯,望見諒.

入咗 facebook 算唔算聯署咗呢？

我一直以為是呢。。。若不是，請加名：）

不認識事實是無知,不承認事實是無恥

「不過他是既得利益者﹐說話自然有偏私不公正。」

人身攻擊謬誤.看來h常嚷自己受人身攻擊,卻不清楚人身攻擊意思.

「藝術可以有分安全與不安全﹐平庸與不平庸嗎﹖應該由誰去決定﹖是政府宮員﹐他們委位的藝術專家﹐還是出錢的納稅人﹖文化管理人﹐有什麼公平公正的標準﹐去分辨誰是天才誰不是天少﹐要知道大部份天才最初也是不被世人認同的。他言下之意﹐是說他那些文人雅士才懂得什麼叫藝術﹐一般無知大眾乖乖付錢受教﹐」

我笑了,看你在問什麼?是誰在嚷九成(半)藝術是垃圾?我已經說過,人民尊重不同藝術,通過民主機制競逐資源去資助什麼,這就是規範和修養.在網上看不到《香港有文化》,請自己找,不要胡扯陳「言下之意」,你是否屬無知大眾之一與我無關.

「我就是看不過眼這種高高在上不可一世﹐自以為很懂文學可以獨霸文學的解釋權。」

留給你自己.

「我當然明白這點。這點正正是為什麼要反對起文學館的理由。文學館政府出錢﹐外判給一幫文人喂喂圍圍﹐搞行好不好市民完全無權過問﹐亦沒有其他選擇。若用美國的退稅政策﹐捐款人是老闆﹐若搞行不好可以不捐錢﹐或改為捐錢給其他目標相同的組織﹐用市場力量去逃選最價值的文學。政府出錢設立文學館﹐便是讓文化小圈子襲斷文學﹐把他們不認同的文學排斥其外。應該要市民大眾﹐通過市場機制去決定﹐什麼是有價值的文學﹐什麼是沒有價值的文學。而不是一個文人小圈子﹐自以為很了不起﹐還要把他們所謂的文學來教化市民﹐藉推廣簡接把市民洗腦認同他們那套思想和價值觀。」

我當然明白這點。這點正正是為什麼要反對美國的理由。政府出錢﹐外判給國家藝術基金會,史密林學會一幫文人喂喂圍圍﹐搞行好不好市民完全無權過問﹐亦沒有其他選擇。

「倡导自由经济的美国没有专设管理文化机构的部门，主要是依靠法律政策和市场经济的相互协调来资助文化艺术的发展，并通过设立国家艺术基金会、国家人文基金会和国家博物馆图书馆学会等政府代理机构，形成了比较完善的资助机制。比如，成立于1966年的美国国家艺术基金会是政府拨款直接资助艺术的重要中介。它是专门负责对国内重要艺术团体和重要文化艺术项目所需资金进行审核和拨款机构之一。基金会成立之初，年度经费不到300万美元。到2004年布什政府通过财政预算案增加了对国家艺术基金会的拨款额，达到1．21亿美元，这是多年以来分得预算最多的一次。在布什总统宣布预算方案后不久，总统夫人劳拉又对文艺界许诺，总统会提请国会同意从2005年起连续3年，每年为国家艺术基金会增拨1800万美元的经费。支持力度之大，政府重视文化艺术发展可见一斑。」

http://youth.ccnt.com.cn/magazine.php?col=79&file=1695

你又在隨自已心意胡說八道.我明明已經說過美國私公共資助與捐獻機制並行(其實多數國家亦然).即使美國直接公共資助所佔比例的確很低,但在美國,一成數額已經不菲.你支持美式自主機制,與我無干.但你不要滑坡地區利用美國攻擊文學館,美國有幾多國立博物館?除非你貫徹始終否定美國.

「小思和李梵歐也是我喜愛的作者。梁秉鈞我未看過不作評論。他們是出名的文人﹐但他們不是專業的文人。看來你把全職(full-time)和專業(professional)兩個慨念混淆了。只有客觀標準的硬知識﹐可能制定出專業的笵圍。我們可以說專業律師﹐醫生﹐工程司﹐水喉匠﹐游水教練﹐但不可能說有專業的政客﹐藝術家﹐畫家﹐文學家。你說文人有專業﹐是對所有博業人士的侮辱。我相信小思和李梵歐﹐也不會厚顏無恥地說自己是專業文人。你那文學和藝術有專業的心態﹐專業比普通老百姓更理解藝術﹐正正是違反文學和藝術(廣義)的霸權心態啊﹗」

國語辭典:

專業

主要研究某種學業或從事某種事業。

Dictionary.com:

professional

a person who belongs to one of the professions, esp. one of the learned professions.

a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: a golf professional.

an expert player, as of golf or tennis, serving as a teacher, consultant, performer, or contestant; pro.

a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professional

h對專業的理解真是匪夷所思,幾時發揚光大?若其他字典跟隨,我再向你俯首稱臣.

我不覺得他們會自稱為專業,是有人否認,我才說他們可以形容為專業.

若我的品格可以和h等同視之,我就會說「啊~ 說了咁耐﹐還沒有人肯為h辯護。」,「可以去香港任何一間大學問下大學生﹐看看有沒有認為小思幾位不專業﹖」可惜寫不出.

你居然識得「厚顏無恥」這四個字.

「簡單一點說﹐就是所有(自稱)專業藝術家也是垃圾。」

古龍常在小說裡說最危險的地方最安全之類的話.當有人存首飾到銀行保險箱,你會不會以古龍的話為根據,告訴他最危險的地方最安全,應該將首飾放到森林或其他地方?

托爾斯泰是偉大小說家,不等於其藝術理論是衡量藝術唯一標準.亦由於藝術難以定義,即使藝術理論看來有道理,有意思,不等於有驗證意義.你憑什麼認同Tolstoy claims that professionalism causes a lack of sincerity in the artist ,又憑什麼判斷if an artist must earn a living by producing art, then the art which is produced is more likely to be false and insincere?抱歉沒看過《論藝術》,但在網上找節錄,他正認為藝術必為人生而作,為金錢而生藝術也是偽造的藝術.判別標準為何?還不是隨你喜歡利用.

「榴槤我不愛吃﹐但沒有人可以否定榴槤的客觀價值﹐不會因個人喜惡而視為垃圾。不知你有沒有聽過鑽石能量水﹖鑽石能量水是百份百垃圾吧。你用的比喻不當﹐那些文學藝術(窄義)在客觀上沒有任何價值﹐其價值只是如鑽石能量水一樣吹噓出來﹐那不是垃圾是什麼﹖

噢~當日有科學家指出鑽石能量水是騙人的玩意﹐那間能量水公司的反駁指控﹐與你們心態語氣何其相似。」

你的思想真是一塌糊塗.榴槤和文學喜好可以比擬,是因為兩者好惡都很難取得客觀共識,枉論歸納驗證.若從物質角度,也沒有人可以否定文學載體價值,如書本可以作墊,可以寫字,可以生火.你究竟知不知道自己在偷換概念,轉移視線?抑或你真的無恥得不擇手段?

至於鑽石能量水所聲稱的科學作用,可以通過科學驗證.若無其事,是偽科學,但不等於那些水是渠水,有害健康,仍然可供飲用.這樣我不會形容為垃圾,除了是事實,還是修養.

答非所問.你和其他選民投票給保守黨,不反映你(和其他選民)表達對文學藝術資助的看法.

我的疑惑是,你在這裡大放厥辭,難道在加拿大卻偃旗息鼓,隻字不提?保守黨執政前你怎樣在藝術資助上批評自由黨?你聲稱「一般國民則支持政府決定」不等於他們和你一樣視「稅收浪費在那些垃圾上」.

我在問,請問你在加拿大有沒有循任何途徑發表以上高論?如在學校或網上空間?如有可否分享資料或網頁?我很想見識一下你在加拿大痛斥那些「垃圾」,「寄生蟲」英姿,更想看加拿大國民怎樣回應,修養如何.

「澄清一點﹐我並不是依個人喜好反對政府資助藝術。對於一些沒有價值爭議的藝術﹐如交響樂團芭蕾舞團歷史博物館等﹐就算我自己不看(事實也不喜歡看不會看)﹐因為那些東西有客觀的價值﹐政府理應支持。我只是反對政府浪費金錢在一些沒有價值的東西上。」

看到這裡,欲語無言,按鍵維艱.你憑什麼肯定「交響樂團芭蕾舞團歷史博物館」有「客觀的價值」?又憑什麼認定其他藝術是「沒有價值的東西」?「沒有價值爭議」由你決定?兩者都「不喜歡看不會看」,有些就自稱有客觀價值,有些則是垃圾,不是依個人喜好,雙重標準是什麼?

「政府洗錢不可以洗腳唔抹﹐要證明你們口中的文學不是垃圾,burden of proof在你們身上。由始至終﹐你們說是質疑我沒有資格去批評那些垃圾﹐從來沒有任何推論去支持那些垃圾有存在的價值。」

你說話說到這份上.若你的知識沒問題,可能你的精神有問題,若你的精神也沒問題,我只能夠說你的人格很有問題.

是你聲稱什麼文學九成是垃圾,交代,證明是你責任.支持文學館毋須反證文學不是垃圾.而文學的價值支持者已經交代.他們不像你,不會荒謬地聲稱九成文學有價值,不是垃圾,要去證明.

繼續聯署吧

很佩服大家侍候自大狂的能耐，辛苦了。也恭喜H兄成功踩場，破壞了整個連署的活動。

有心支持的朋友，繼續連署吧....
http://www.petitiononline.com/MHKL/petition.html

.

沒意思要狙擊誰。仍然期待h傳說中的相關文章。

早已聯署。

貼文本來是收集聯署

現在已轉移。幾位狙擊h的朋友，都沒有聯署。h活該被狙擊，但出乎我意料的是連在inmedia收集聯署都這麼難。大家隨便。

請問我應否繼續理會h

生命有限,真的很沒意思.若有人留言認同的話繼續回.

還有建議tsw應該廣傳h的留言,我認為可以起葉劉對七一作用.

更新:謝謝回應,我寫.

要理

h要理。等他真正把球拋出來之後。球一直在他手上，不知道是不想拋還是沒有能力拋。

.

在參與者追問hevangle何為垃圾時，他又說了：
要證明你們口中的文學不是垃圾,burden of proof在你們身上。

這很「潑婦」。

hevangle口稱以納稅人為念，然則作為納稅人之一員的我是否比身在加拿大的你更有對運用政府公帑的發言權？

旁觀者迷

一直以來，我對攪文學館一事所知甚少，中學教育的陰影令我對文學有點恐懼，書寫風格亦有點如麥君所言：『很機械的』。慚愧。

其實H的立場一直也有轉換，初時他錯誤定義了文學(功用性書寫、和科技實用書等不同的分類)，其後多了抹黑(甚麼『高高在上、自命清高、自以為很了不起』的。我很奇怪，作為一個經常標榜『客觀理性』討論者，就算對方拿不出令你信服的理據，也用不著這樣著色吧！)其實我也期望H撰文寫出一篇嚴謹、具學術價值的論文，澄清誤會或對對方的誤解(如果這真的存在)。

『看現在搞文學那班人﹐他們搞的與這些好書差幾多皮。』這類發晦氣的說話，出自一名『追求客觀/理性』的人口中，又多少帶點調侃味道。道理，可以慢慢來說，H既然自認為比其他人更執著對『理性客觀』的追求，我相信讀者對君討論修辭的要求也會有所不同。

『文學是垃圾』和『九成文學是垃圾』，他曾經說過想討論前者(他曾在某post將基督教和文學說成『不容被質疑』，當然讀者來來去去，都只見到他在說『垃圾』，不知這算否『質疑』？)，但在這post中他又說自己在強調『九成文學不是垃圾』，甚至幾乎把討論變成是一門統計上的問題。究竟討論的焦點是價值(是否垃圾)，還是統計(是否九成)？當然，討論期間說出一句『文學九成是垃圾』，忽然由價值討論變為統計學上的關懷，這會讓讀者難以跟從(當然在普遍的文化踐行上，說出這一句的用意更可能是想刻意侮辱文學人，這會先讓人質疑討論者的討論誠意)。

又例如H曾言他的碩士朋友論文在他眼中，像一篇『吹水』文：相反，他套用Tolstory的節錄時，其實作為一個認真的讀者，那篇節錄何嘗不是一篇『吹水』文：例如首段的『good』和『great』所指為何？『文評不重要』和『文章能直接傳遞訊息予讀者』如何有因果關係？這文章(或這學說，如果算是的話)又如何面對一百後『文本開放、意義多元』等文學理論的挑戰？更具體的，就是該如何看待H君在獨媒寫的文評，以及被他評論的文章？最後一句更是詭異：『好的文學通靈於文字以外』，簡直是挑戰『吹水』和『理論』的界線。我不是說Tolstory是『垃圾』(拜託！我人比較謙虛的，況且我看不到Toolstory提及那些不好的文學就是垃圾，因為Tolstory沒有介定『好』的內涵)，只是覺得H君quote文時，竟然會quote一些行文不太認真的節錄，這相反會削弱H所持文學理論的說服力。

這類討論焦點不清、標準模糊、東拉西打的討論方式(朝雲和SHF也有相近的觀察)，反而客觀上令認真閱讀的讀者拿捏不準討論焦點(打散討論焦點，反而是對討論的粗暴無禮)，他反而更像在挑動各種拉雜而成主流對文學人的籠統印象(清高、自以為是等)，是典型的民粹操作。當然我也想拜讀H對文學的論文，畢竟作為一個旁觀者，我對文學的了解非常少。

共勉之。

回韋言：

『tsw與朝雲似乎認為, 作者用心寫的就不是垃圾』，我並不理解這觀察。可否分享一下？謝謝！

回麥當勞

你看漏了我之前回應最後嗰句. 我也說高質素文學才是重點. 有幾多文學是垃圾與是否成立文學館無關, 否則隨便也可以製造大量的垃圾文學來否決文學館.

不過, 甚麼是垃圾文學? H君與jackso是定了一條品質線, 在此之下是垃圾; tsw與朝雲似乎認為, 作者用心寫的就不是垃圾.

鄧麗欣創作的, 是不是垃圾文學? (沒看過, 不知道)

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "「文要有學，學要有館」 支持於西九文化區創設香港文學館聯署書"