<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.inmediahk.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>香港獨立媒體 - Comments for &quot;[曾瑞明]冷言冷語論情色（上）&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.inmediahk.net/node/220713</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;[曾瑞明]冷言冷語論情色（上）&quot;</description>
 <language>zh-hant</language>
<item>
 <title>A Very Good Article</title>
 <link>http://www.inmediahk.net/node/220713#comment-221467</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A very good article indeed. &quot;曾經辦過學生報，當然知道當中的苦樂不一定是參半的。但也許抱著這種經驗，再看別人艱苦經營的學生報，會顯得格外包容，格外懂得欣賞別人的好處，而忘記別人的壞處&quot;: in this gentle tone, 曾瑞明 tried to look at the whole thing as a one-time insider: insider, so that he may tell us a little more understandingly why the editors did what they did; but one-time, so that the critical distance needed for a broader view is not lost. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;我們是批判者，&quot; he reminisced of his editorship, &quot;我們不屑坊間那些的風月版︰那些嫖妓指南應該用類似密實袋之類的東西緊緊地包藏著。我們再一次肯定了學生報的優良傳統，對社會不公義的事情要嚴加批判，這方是中文大學的好學生，起碼比火紅年代的大學生不要差太遠。&quot; But times have changed. The good old ways of the good old days are gone; for good or for bad, the university readership has now a different demand, to which the editors must needs respond. &quot;不過，一旦你知道了他們要這樣做去貼近「基層」時——才能終於明白，他們確是不能解釋太多自己做的東西，不能太過學術，也不能太過正經，亦不能太過煞有介事，文筆亦不宜通暢，否則便又走回大學生做義正嚴辭站在翠綠草地青蔥的中大校園書寫社會批判世界的角色了。&quot; But what exactly has changed? And why that change? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the good old days meant &quot;學術&quot;, &quot;正經&quot;, &quot;煞有介事&quot;, &quot;文筆通暢&quot;; and the days being mean &quot;不能太過學術,&quot; &quot;不能太過正經, &quot;亦不能太過煞有介事, &quot;文筆亦不宜通暢&quot;: something significant is indeed happening. Shall we not say, that while the former mental universe points to some sort of &quot;aspiring,&quot; the latter one urges some sort of &quot;levelling&quot;? But &quot;levelling&quot; can be the new norm for the editors only because, as 曾瑞明 intimated, that norm is already widely accepted by the readers themselves. Do not call this straightway the intrusion of Central Values: Central Values can scarecely be found to promote &quot;文筆亦不宜通暢,&quot; at the very least. The sense that it is bad to be serious, to be correct, to be rule-observing, appears to have something to do with the conjunction of some form of popular culture and that which approves of attitudes and vulgarities of the said kind. That, I mean, which in the name of subversion has long advocated many sorts of justification for levelling, and determined all &quot;aspiring&quot; to be &quot;elitism,&quot; to be identified and condemned. That, of course, is but a small force compared with the great flood of popular culture; but that, nonetheless, has attracted not a small following among students and teachers. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether that is guilty of something, time shall by and by tell; 曾瑞明&#039;s wonderful article has above all pointed out the ice-berg under water.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 13:06:45 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Y.T.</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 221467 at http://www.inmediahk.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

