節錄自村上春樹【挪威的森林】：
「有些親戚來探病，跟我一起來這裡吃飯，每個都和你一樣留下一半。見我若無其事地吃光，就說道：『阿綠真好胃口。我呀，胸口堵著吃不下了。』可 是。服侍病人的是我呀。開什麼玩笑。別人只不過偶爾來同情一下罷了。照顧大小便、除痰抹身的是我噢。光是同情就能解決一切的話，我可以比別人多同情五十 倍。可是大家見我把飯全部吃完，卻以責怪的眼光看著我說『阿綠真好胃口』。大概大家都把我當是拉大板車的驢子吧。他們都是上了年紀的人了，為何還不明白人 情世故？光是用嘴巴講有甚麼用？最重要是能不能解決問題。我也會受傷的。我也有筋疲力倦的時候。我也有過想哭的時候噢。」
綠的話，讓我很有同感。古時奔喪，若兒子沒有哭的話，就是不孝，為社會所不恥。不禁要問，大家又不是他，又怎知道他沒有因為父親的過世而傷心？
「當他們談論的時候，都只會看表象，才懶得理這中間的內情。」
這是我曾經寫過的一句話，本來是用來形容一般人談論男女感情時的態度，但放在這個context，好像也能應用。
又令我想起在English 12的時候看過一本書，是Albert Camus的”The Outsider”。書中的主角因為誤會（還是自衛？）而殺了人。陪審團相信主角有心謀殺，不是因為案件本身的證據，而是因為主角被發現在案發前，他的母親過世的時候沒有露出哀傷的神情。就這樣，最後主角被判死刑。
究竟人是看不穿表象，還是明知道別有內情，但還是依然故我，只按自己的道德標準去判斷別人的行為？
Regarding the notion that “古時奔喪，若兒子沒有哭的話，就是不孝”, it applies not only in “古時”, but also in more current times. About 15 years ago, an elderly relative of mine told my mum that she (the elderly relative) knew that Ah Yan (me) is a good kid because she cried really hard at her grandfather’s funeral. I remember thinking how odd it was that the only thing I had to do to convince her that I was a good kid was cry, which was not a difficult thing for a 4 year-old to do. Regarding the case in “The Outsider”, there is a strong argument that the evidence of the accused not having shed any tears at his mnother’s funeral is character evidence that is highly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible unless the accused had taken the stand and put his character in issue… I know, law school just ruins the pleasure one otherwise would get from reading crime novels or watching Law and Order.
very famous book, i heard of it long time ago, does it have a movie version?
oh remember, leo lent me that novel in the summer and it’s still on my bookshelf. I did read a bit of it, but, i’ll try to finish it then.
I don’t think so (re: film). The book’s plot is kind of fizzy, so it won’t make a good movie. What the book does is that it provide strong imagery of certain mood or feelings.