居然真的从五月底伤春悲秋的那篇之后就再也没来更新过了。。。
其实好像有一篇观后感来着。因为好歹也是看了四场，每一场环境都不一样，想着做做比较，写些感想。我记得当时动笔的时候刚好是看完第一场一个月，当时还想着是个绝好的时机，不致于忘掉，但也从最初的激动里沉淀下来了。但是就这么写了个开头，然后放下了。
过去这大半年不是没有在抒发生活感想，只是更多时候写在了别的地方。这就像当年ChinaRen的校友录无比流行，但现在已经完全转战到人人、开心，很少再想起校友录了。我写东西的地方也发生了变化。去年这里的周年纪念，都是过了以后才猛然想起，而朋友们的Spaces，在分别变成WordPress和新浪博客以后，也完全失了联系。
不是没有弃过博客，但从来没想过再也不打理这里。
最后的阵地一样的地方，怎么可以随随便便就放弃。
所以，在传说是世界末日的这一年的第一天，我来除草。
刚刚看到房东女儿转发的Tweet: Chapter 2012, Page 1 of 365. Let’s begin. 大感动。
老套的话还是要说：2012年也会是美好的一年。
新年快乐。一起加油。
先说一句题外话，WordPress这个draft功能对我这种懒人来说，不知道是好还是不好。刚刚发现5月9日存了一篇draft到现在都没有写完……
然后，来写一些希望记录下来的片断。
一、家附近的露天地铁站台两侧有很高的墙，墙头上长着一种不知名的灌木，有柳树一样的枝条。开满粉色的小花时，会以一种倾泻的姿态大片大片地垂下来。
二、本来想照下来，一天拖一天，竟是错过了。只能等到下一个春天，如果那时我还住在这里。
三、往市中心开的Piccadilly线每次开出South Kensington之后都会有一段车轮与铁轨磨擦得很厉害。站在车厢尽头打开的窗边，会听到尖锐的声响，还有风呼啸着灌进车厢撞在身上。这个时候如果闭上眼，会产生一种整条列车正坠入无边黑暗的错觉。
四、下了一天雨。下班时坐在西向行驶的列车上，看到天边放晴的地方露出夕阳的光，感觉像是正在逃离阴霾奔向明亮的新世界。
五、地铁司机罢工的第一天，早晨车站上的人异常多。边说着’Excuse me’边挤进一个看起来很满的车门里，不出意外听到一位女士低声的哀鸣。车门关上以后才发现，其实人与人之间还是有缝隙的。想起北京的地铁，心里暗想：今天是比往常挤，但其实根本不算什么。这比北京那种人贴人不需要扶的境界还差得远呢~
六、早晨去车站买周票，却不知银行卡里连£10都没有了，刷了两次都不成功，郁闷至极。第二天早上在同一窗口，见到了同一个工作人员，居然还记得我，主动跟我打招呼开玩笑，好像意外多了一个朋友的感觉，心情好了一整天。
七、送朋友上了回考文垂的大巴后，一个人在回家的地铁上。看着夕阳，耳机里忽然传来《BJ》的前奏。虽然有瞬间觉得应景得很伤感，但是熟悉的旋律和声音带来的更多是安心和温暖。
话说，这种张嘴就想说英文的情况是肿么回事？
还有这个iPad App没有自动保存功能，所以要记得随时保存啊齐可修！
现在在英国的“国家大剧院”，为了看一个展览而来。这个名为’Postcards From the Future’的展览展出了两位对环境问题十分关心的艺术家用科技手段制作的14张明信片（图片），内容是随着环境不断恶化，伦敦将来可能成为的样子。
凭心而论，有几幅图非常漂亮，但是决不能像看到其他好看的图那样想：“如果这是真的风景就好了。”我只是感叹了一下好漂亮都觉得罪过，这景象如果成真，我们一定会被子孙后代骂死。
（一会儿回家补几张照片）
来NT之前心里其实有点没底，因为从网上看，这个建筑什分不规则，我甚至不知道正门在哪儿。不过为了这个展览，还有Frankenstein的票的事，终于还是下定决心来一趟。
刚到的时候确实被郁闷了，于是决定先绕着外面走一圈，意外看到了stage door。想起油管里那些视频，一下子觉得亲切起来。
进了正门直奔售票处。好消息是有站票，坏消息是站票一大早就卖完了。那些早上5点就来排队的说法果然是真的（泪）。这是要闹哪样啊喂。
售票处的姑娘相当贴心，我还没开口问，她就主动建议我早上7点以前一定要到，这样才有可能买到当天的票。于是我有两种选择：或者从明天开始，早上卡7点来，如果买不到就转天再来；或者最后两天赶第一班地铁来，一定要买到票，不过这取决于我们那里第一班地铁几点开。
无论如何，一会儿回去路上掐一下时间，争取能搞定最后两场。
刚刚看完展览在楼里闲逛，发现正门方向每一层都有露天平台，从上面看下去逐渐宽敞，所以显得错落有致。每一层平台都有露天桌椅，甚至还有布置得很漂亮的花坛。无论是捧一杯咖啡坐在阳光里看书，还是举着相机捕捉风景，每个人都在悠闲地坐着自己的事情。
没错，就是“悠闲”。这个氛围让我心情一下就放松下来了。
说到悠闲，就在我打字的当口，一楼大厅里正在举行一场小型爵士音乐会。不知道是每天都会有音乐演出还是让我赶上了，不过这种大家拿着酒水小吃随意散坐在大厅沙发上享受音乐的赶脚，真是美好啊~
下午的时候，也是在这个大厅，看到有人坐在沙发区谈公事，在他们身后是个正在看小说的年轻人。瞬间觉得其实“居場所”不一定非得是地理上的某个地方，任何一个“有事情可做”的地方都可以是一个人的“居場所”。
之后看到NT的工作人员为演出作准备拉来了一些椅子，瞬间想到了在NWMS的时候，有一天因为天气原因，露天的The Tempest挪到室内演出，我们也是这样拉了椅子摆在我们的大厅里。好怀念~
不论是博物馆还是剧院，都应该是这样被包围在文化氛围里的，不是么？
然后来说两句关于Twitter的事。其实也没什么，就是想感叹一下。
看完展览在Twitter上更新，说现在在NT，看了什么展览。故意没有@NT也没有#展览名称或者作者，但是就在我发完那条之后没几分钟，就被展览的艺术家之一转发了，吓了我一大跳。
然后觉得Twitter这东西是好用，特别是用于宣传推广，因为它很容易就消除了人与人在时间和空间上的距离。虽然我还是没有面对面接触过那位艺术家，但是我知道帐号的那一端是一个活生生的人在和我沟通。而且说实话，在这个网络时代，真正的面对面并不是时时刻刻都很重要的。虽然我是为了看生BC而来NT，但对于一个让我有些共鸣又不至于相见恨晚到非见上一面不可的艺术家，Twitter上的交流已经让我觉得很亲切真实了。
起因虽然是BC，但是不得不说我被这个故事吸引了，中了毒似的投入。
在BBC看到这两篇，收了存个档。
By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News Magazine
A global cinema audience will this week watch Danny Boyle’s stage production of Frankenstein. It’s the latest take on Mary Shelley’s famous Gothic novel. But what’s the book really about?
The idea emerged from a summer that didn’t happen.
Due to the largest volcanic eruption for more than 1,600 years, in Indonesia in late 1815, the northern hemisphere was plunged into a freakishly cool and sunless summer the following year.
On the shores of Lake Geneva, the miserable weather kept five British tourists cooped up inside a villa for days, where they passed the time in a horror story-writing competition. The 19-year-old Mary Godwin, in Switzerland with poet Percy Shelley, envisioned “the hideous phantasm of a man” and turned her contribution into a novel published anonymously in 1818.
It told the story of a Swiss scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who is so horrified by the ugly creature he brings to life from assembled body parts that he abandons him, with terrible consequences.
Within a few years, the novel was being adapted for the stage, and in the 20th Century there were many memorable film versions that took the work in different directions. This week, a production by Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle at London’s National Theatre is being screened live to 400 venues in 22 countries.
Nearly 200 years after that sunless summer, the novel is considered a landmark work and every decade brings a new interpretation. Here is a selection – some include plot details.
The term “Frankenstein foods” – applied to genetically modified products – suggests the name of the novel has become a byword for bad science. But this metaphor is unfair, says Angela Wright, a lecturer in Romantic literature at the University of Sheffield.
“There’s evidence that she was very conversant with the scientists of her day. But she believed in the sanctity of human life and knew the work of Lawrence and Abernethy, who were working in Edinburgh in the 1810s in dissection theatres, on the re-animation of corpses. [Her husband] Percy Shelley was also very interested in that.”
She thought these people had crossed a line, says Wright, but she had a lot of admiration for scientific thought in general.
It’s not just the responsibility of creating life that Shelley wants to emphasise, says Wright, and this is clear in the letters of Robert Walton that frame the Frankenstein story – the wider narrative that is often overlooked.
Walton is the seafarer who rescues Frankenstein from an ice float deep in the Arctic, as the scientist pursues the monster. Encouraged by Frankenstein, the captain ignores the pleas of his crew to to turn back, actions that Shelley appears to condemn.
“Walton doesn’t take responsibility for the safety of his men and that is criticised within the novel. He comes round but regretfully, simply because the atmospheric conditions are against him, not out of concern for his men.
“He seems to be a very shadowy double of Victor Frankenstein in many ways, because he pants for tales of romance and adventure in the same way.”
“As suggested by the novel’s subtitle, The Modern Prometheus, Victor Frankenstein is an example of the Romantic over-reacher, who transgresses boundaries between the human and the divine,” says Marie Mulvey-Roberts, author of Dangerous Bodies: Corporeality and the Gothic.
According to Greek myth, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man, and suffered eternal punishment. The sense that Frankenstein has pursued forbidden knowledge is further underlined by the references to Milton’s Paradise Lost, a work the creature reads and recites. His rejection by his creator can be seen as a second Fall of Man.
Shelley was writing the novel a mere 10 years after the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, and she did so in Bath, not far from the port of Bristol, where many of the slaving ships departed the country. There are references to it in the novel, says Mulvey-Roberts.
“Frankenstein says he is enslaved to his work, and the creature escapes like a refugee slave, pursued by his master. But then there’s a power shift, so you get a hegemonic master-slave dialectic where the slave is a master and the master is a slave to his work and to his obsession.
“Mary Shelley was certainly no supporter of slavery but she did not protest when [Foreign Secretary George] Canning used the analogy of the Frankenstein as a spectre warning of the danger of slaves being emancipated too quickly. In the novel when the creature assumes mastery, he causes mayhem leading to the loss of life.”
Many critics think the novel is shaped by the tragic events in Shelley’s own life. Her mother died days after she was born and Shelley herself lost her first child, born prematurely.
The first feminist interpretation of Frankenstein was by Ellen Moers, who read Shelley’s novel as a sublimated afterbirth, says Diane Hoeveler, from Marquette University in Wisconsin, US.
“The author expels her own guilt both for having caused her mother’s death and for having failed to produce a healthy son for Percy, as his legal wife Harriet had done three months earlier.
“For Moers, the novel’s strength was to present the ‘abnormal, or monstrous, manifestations of the child-parent tie’ and in so doing, ‘to transform the standard Romantic matter of incest, infanticide, and patricide into a phantasmagoria of the nursery’.”
The feminist movement has championed the elevation of Mary Shelley to canonical rank, says Prof John Sutherland, former Booker Prize judge and an expert on Victorian fiction. And there are moments when the creation appears to be presented as a birth and Victor Frankenstein as a stricken mother.
“It was on a dreary night of November, that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils… It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs. How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form?” (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Chapter five)
Is this, asks Sutherland, inventor’s remorse or post-natal depression?
The novel can be read as a critique of the family as much as a longing for one. The monster can be seen as a way of coping with the loss of her mother shortly after Mary Shelley’s birth as well as the loss of her own babies. It deals with the rejection, the lack of nurture – Victor’s solitary male propagation.
Marie Mulvey-Roberts
The creature’s initial innocence suggests you are not born a monster, says Vic Sage, a professor at the University of East Anglia who has written extensively on the Gothic tradition.
“When he looks into the pool and sees himself, you want to shout out at him ‘You’re not a monster, you’re OK.’”
Many of the Hammer films didn’t even give the monster a voice, he says, only capable of grunting the odd word.
“Even with [director] James Whale, it doesn’t ever feel like history could ever be on Boris Karloff’s side. They are thought to be great films but they missed the point of the book.
“Mary Shelley gave him a voice. It’s great that he talks like an 18th Century philosopher because then you have this disparity between his appearance and his speech, which tests the viewer.”
Boyle’s production suggests the scientist is the real monster
Today’s society has a greater understanding of the notion of difference, says Dr Sage, so the scene where Frankenstein rejects his creation, so repulsed is he by his disfigurement, has a wider resonance.
“Everyone reading it now knows that she’s dramatising difference in the most absolute way possible. Differences in race and class. That’s why it’s very important to think that the creature is a creature and not a monster, and that he has a voice.”
Frankenstein’s creature has been interpreted as symbolic of the revolutionary thought which had swept through Europe in the 1790s, but had largely petered out by the time Shelley wrote the novel.
Critics said the creature’s failure to prosper and the havoc unleashed was evidence that Shelley was anti-revolution, unlike her radical parents and husband, and supportive of the old order.
But by applying modern values to the narrative, it is clear that the failings lie with man, the creator, and not the creature, says Dr Sage.
“That’s the notorious riddle: Who is the ‘new Prometheus’ of the title – Victor or his creature? You can read into it that it’s a failure of the revolution that he represents, but only if you don’t have the psychological and social attitudes of today.”
Within decades of the book’s publication, the central theme was picked up by cartoonists and used satirically, says Chris Baldick, author of In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity and Nineteenth-Century Writing.
In 1843, a cartoon entitled The Irish Frankenstein appeared in Punch, and depicted Irish political leader Daniel O’Connell being threatened by a thuggish Irish peasant.
Forty years later, Charles Parnell appeared in the same magazine after the Phoenix Park murders, cowering from a simian-looking creature.
The inference in both cartoons was that the politicians had helped to create a monster.
The book is really a dialogue between reactionary and progressive points of view, says Sage, and this applies to the question of the presence of Milton and the Christian story – the treatment of the Fall – which it puts under the glass.
“The creature has read Milton but, as he says, he feels more like the fallen angel than Adam in that story, because he has to play the part of the outcast. Mary Shelley dramatises the conflict between the Romantic view of Satan as a Promethean hero, out to take God’s place, which was the projection of a set of male poets – Blake, Shelley, Byron and Goethe, for example – and the havoc that such idealistic projects wreak domestically, in people’s actual lives.”
The Magazine feature about the hidden meanings of Frankenstein provoked a huge response from readers, who weighed in with some of their own.
So it’s a book about a mad scientist who creates a monster, right?
Not entirely. Since Mary Shelley wrote her novel 200 years ago, it has variously been interpreted as a comment on, among other things, slavery, race and post-natal depression.
In response to the Magazine feature about these different takes on the novel, readers have been having their say.
Here is a selection of their contributions.
1. I tend to read the novel as more of a warning of the dangers of failing to raise our children properly. As parents we all play the role of creator. If we abandon our creations, and fail to raise them adequately, we the creators, will ultimately pay the price.
Max Thomas, Barnsley
2. The title subtitle of the novel being “The Modern Prometheus” brings it well into the realms of the over-reaching and, crucially, male creative force. The novel is Milton’s fall without the female temptation, and with any women in the novel consigned to the sidelines. Instead we are left with the three central, male characters – Victor, Walton and the Monster – who all strive for greatness and ultimately fail. It is what critic Anne K Mellor calls what happens when a man tries to have a baby without a woman.
Adam McCulloch, Chesterfield, England
3. The book is also about the change from a metaphysical world view to a scientific world view. Remember how the young Frankenstein was gripped by reading the works of Paracelsus the alchemist until told that it was “sad trash” and out of date. The contrast is between a view of the world as manipulative (what is it possible to do), as opposed to moral (what ought we to do). This goes to the core of the modern existential dilemma, and one which has not yet been fully resolved. The book remains highly relevant to the modern world.
Paul Lockwood, Cambridge, UK
4. The story could also be read as a division within man himself. Victor is a driven scientist determined to breach the protocols of life and death itself. The creation quotes philosophy and is shunned by Victor because of its horrific image. In many ways this tale shares similarities between Dorian Gray and his painting and Gyge’s ring in Plato’s Republic. The real monster in this tale is Victor his deeds reflected on the dark mirror of his creation. Ironically the monster has the nobler soul whilst Victor’s is the corrupt one. His desire to destroy his creation is driven by the same desire which leads Dorian to destroy his painting.
Amos Greig, Belfast
5. Frankenstein can definitely be read in a feminist context, as the direct consequences of circumventing maternity in the birth process. That is, to remove the feminine from the creation of life leads to a horrific imbalance in nature. Therefore the notion of “monstrosity” in the novel can be applied to the circumstances surrounding the creation of the creature, rather than aimed squarely at the innocent, child-like creature himself. Look also at the incestuous overtones of Victor’s relationship with Elizabeth to see another example of how feminine aspects of Victor’s family life are imbalanced, and out of tune with nature.
Dan Haynes, Bristol
6. The story also deals with sexual repression. Victor is both impotent and plagued by incestuous thoughts about his half sister. The monster thus functions as an externalisation of Victor’s sexuality – its deformity and monstrous appearance demonstrating his own self loathing. It’s also heavily implicit that the monster rapes Elizabeth on Victor’s wedding night (the monster does what Victor cannot, ie consecrate his marriage) which means the story also illustrates the fear of an unreleased, primal sexuality – giving it a reactionary bent.
Yasser Rahman, London
7. I studied Frankenstein at university when I read English. My own interpretation, then, was Frankenstein represented the English ruling class and one that tried to play God regarding Ireland and the Irish: They created their monster, the Anglicisation of Ireland. They were indifferent to the feelings and what went on in the monster’s heart. Their callousness forced the thing to show them through very reluctantly taking a life to preserve its own. Frankenstein (England) not only continually refused to take the responsibility for the monster, the murder, and his own obvious main part in the dreadful affair, he hypocritically persecuted the monster. No good could come out of the situation and it didn’t. That’s still pretty much what I believe Mary Shelley was aiming at in this most excellent Gothic novel.
Martin Horan, Perth, Scotland
8. I see it as an allegory for the way disabled people are treated in this society. We didn’t ask to be born the way we were, but we aren’t ashamed of it – and society should accept us as we are, not shun us or discriminate against us because we’re different.
Chris Page, Letchworth, UK
9. Taking Frankenstein back to its origins as part of the Romantic movement, it can be read as a key text in the ‘Reason vs Imagination‘ debate that was a typical concern, both of the older generation such as Wordsworth, and the younger poets such as Byron. In essence, this debated the relative merits of intelligent yet soulless scientific knowledge, against the transformative power of the imagination. With this in mind, Victor can be seen as being skilled in Reason, but severely deficient in Imagination. While he has the technical skills to create the creature, he lacks any ability to nurture it – when the creature is ‘born’ it comes towards him like a needy child, but he shuns it. He also fails to fulfill the creature’s spiritual needs, leaving it to pick up its own understanding of Paradise Lost, for example, and ultimately aligning itself to Satan.
David Hopkins, London, UK
10. Mary Shelley was an intensely political writer and person and, along with her husband, was persecuted and hounded by the government. I am sure Mary Shelley was also attempting to show that her society created “monsters” which ultimately would lead to the destruction of the society itself. In this way she predates Marx in his description of the exploited and oppressed working people of the world as the gravediggers of bourgeois society.
Bruce Austen, Ludlow, Shropshire
11. Frankenstein can be read as a contrast between what is “seen” as normal and that which is not, and how underlying lives and experiences are similar for us all. There are many comparisons between the two polar characters in the novel, Walton and the Monster (Walton is about as real as the novel gets, while the Monster is, of course, pure fantasy). Walton, like the Monster is self educated and has a skewed picture of reality. They both long for companionship – but live close to other people (Walton’s cabin on board his ship and the Monster’s hideaway at the DeLacey’s home). Walton’s journey and quest are extreme, his environment, harsh and inhospitable. Like the monster, who is driven to solitude, and who thrives in the freezing conditions of the north, Walton, it seems, has been compelled to a similar fate. Ultimately, self interest dominates both their lives and the result for each is different. However, by linking the Monster’s life to that of Walton, Mary Shelley is able to show the fundamental influences that dictates our behaviour.
Simon Murphy, St Albans
12. For me, Frankenstein is a commentary on the danger of Victorian ambition. In Frankenstein, the Monster exists as a product of Frankenstein’s ambition and intelligence – two things to which the Victorian male was supposed to aspire. That the Monster was a product of such admirable traits in Frankenstein makes the reader question the true merits of ambition, intelligence and knowledge. Shelley explicitly states that ambition corrupts when Frankenstein says to Walton: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least my by example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow”. Shelley is warning against being too ambitious, which makes Frankenstein terrifying because all males in Victorian society aspire to be intelligent and ambitious and so cannot separate themselves from Shelley’s character. Shelley deliberately makes Frankenstein recognisable and relatable so that he acts as a reflection of middle-class males, which allows them to identify with her character. The reader identifies qualities in himself that are in Frankenstein and if Frankenstein could create something as horrific as the Monster, the fear is that they too could bring such horrors upon themselves.
Laura Grant, Glasgow
13. Influenced greatly by the Victorian paradigm of homosexuality, Lord Byron, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein to explore the inability to ignore or destroy one’s sexuality. Victor Frankenstein creates a large, masculine being in order to complement his own effeminacy and to fulfill his repressed homosexual desires. The creature acts also as a symbol of Frankenstein’s sexuality. The creature pursues Frankenstein and Frankenstein pursues the creature – they have eyes for none but each other, and women act only as intermediaries between the two. Frankenstein’s passion clearly overshadows his affection for Elizabeth, and a similar situation arises between the creature and his woman counterpart. Frankenstein’s relationships with Walton and Clerval also emphasise effeminacy and are undoubtedly sexual in nature. Throughout the novel, Frankenstein remains unable to escape from the creature’s grasp – from his homosexuality – until at last he dies. The creature dies only after Frankenstein’s death, finalising Shelley’s idea that homosexuality is a natural, inextinguishable trait.
Emily Puleo, Saint Louis, US
14. I just finished re-reading this novel last week, for the first time since school days. What struck me the most about it is that there is a recurring theme of what happens when parental responsibilities are neglected. Of course the most extreme example and the centre of the book is the neglect of Victor of his creation. However the theme occurs again and again. First, in the narrative by Walton at the beginning, before he meets with Frankenstein – he complains in a letter to his sister of his lack of education, with the implication that this need of his was neglected by his parents. Victor himself, although he grows up in a loving family, is imperfectly guided and becomes a disciple of discredited alchemists – the implication being that his considerable mental gifts have been imperfectly formed, which ultimately leads to his inappropriate use of them to create his imperfect “child”. Even the incident with Justine is rife with this theme – she is neglected and rejected by her natural mother, and then in her hour of need rejected by her adopted family, the Frankensteins. I am reminded of a bit of Jane Austen’s juvenilia, which was written (but not published) only a few years before Shelley’s work – “Lady Susan” tells the story of a young girl whose education and formation is sadly neglected by her guardian, and deals with the consequences that result. When reading “Frankenstein”, I found that I had a lot of sympathy for the “monster” – the poor thing with a loving heart, turned to evil deeds by neglect from him who should have been its protector.
Tamara Petroff, Maidenhead
15. I think you can also see Victor’s apparent usurpation of the female role, which in itself links to the motifs of sexuality, which (although not explicitly) seem to pervade the novel; Victor’s relationship with his once-sister-turned-wife Elizabeth is fragmented, stagnant and there is little which suggests at consumation of their brief marriage – a point which is explored in Danny Boyle’s production. Creating his monster a-sexually, the woman’s role is superfluous, a point which corresponds too with conflicting discussion surrounding the gothic-woman: a subservient, passive mother-figure featured in Shelley or Stoker’s sexual, desirous aesthetic?
Katie Angus, Slough
16. The creature represents idealism – the realisation of man’s dream – to be the master of life AND death, that is the taking away any fear of death. But of course, this is against all the natural laws and the dream becomes a nightmare, as it rampages out of control, not governed by and of the “nurture” that allows man to be great. The creature represents nature, rampant, wild and frightening. It is a force to be afraid of and representing mankind, Viktor still pursues his dream, trying in some final way, to get it under his control or destroy it in the process.
Jackie, Edinburgh
终于潜下心来加上了音乐。
只是WordPress的播放器不能自动播放，也不能隐藏。所以如果想听背景音乐，一定要按下播放键。
开始觉得有点不方便，毕竟我的本意是加背景音乐。
不过再想一想，这样的话，背景音乐和每一篇日志里的音乐就不会冲突了。
无论如何，这是目前可以找到的解决方法。
而且因为可以添加多首音乐，以后更新也不需要一直删除了，可以留一些很喜欢的，或者找一组应景的音乐什么的。
然后，今年酒窖的生日，我完全忘记得干干净净了！天！
09年晚了一天，10年晚了一周还是两周，11年晚了一个月有余……
不过也不是不能原谅，今年生日那天是来到伦敦的第二天，一切都还在乱套的状态里……
过去这一年，把大家集结起来的Spaces彻底退出了历史舞台。我搬家到这里，有的朋友搬家到sina，过去的那些链接很久没有检查，怕是已经都失效了。就好像……一下子丢了一大群朋友……
Anyway, 亲爱的酒窖，谢谢你为我遮风挡雨这些年，也谢谢相伴多年的朋友们。
赤西仁首张solo single的同名曲——Eternal
这次终于可以把这首歌放上来，算是补给自己一份生日礼物，也希望上升中的A. J.一切都好。
歌词如下：
好きとか嫌いとか 简単な言葉じゃ伝えることができない
一年に一度の特別なこの日を 何度でも いつまでも 一番近くて
無邪気な笑顔 変わらない仕草 ひとつひとつ全てが宝物
あなたが笑って生きてる ただそれだけで
嬉しくて 暖かくて 優しくなれる
僕の未来を照らしてる
母がくれた温もり 大きな爱に包まれて いつだって 歩んでる
友達のたくさんの優しさを胸に ふさげては喧嘩して 分かち合う喜び
数え切れないほどの思い出 これからも共に描くの
例えばいつか違う世界で 生まれ変わっても
僕らはそれぞれ 同じように出会い
同じようにあなたを爱すでしょう
乗り越えなきゃならないこともあるでしょう
負けないで 何があっても そばにいるから
例えば願いが叶うなら 悲しみの涙が
もう二度とあなたにこぼれないように
魔法をかけてくれますか
あなたと共に生きてる 素敵な笑顔で
胸張って 手を繋いで 寄り添って歩いて行く
そんな未来を待ってる
今日もありがとう
