深蓝鲸语

西厨伊厨,主食APH亲子分,好船,伊比利亚兄弟,恶友夫夫和西比

【TED原文】Behind the lies of Holocaust denial

来自TED演讲
中文版见评论链接

Behind the lies of Holocaust denial
Discourse/ Deborah Lipstadt  Translate/ Akki Whale

0:12 I come to you today to speak of liars, lawsuits and laughter. The first time I heard about Holocaust denial, I laughed. Holocaust denial? The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction of being the best-documented genocide in the world? Who could believe it didn't happen?
0:39 Think about it. For deniers to be right, who would have to be wrong? Well, first of all, the victims — the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories. Who else would have to be wrong? The bystanders. The people who lived in the myriads of towns and villages and cities on the Eastern front, who watched their neighbors be rounded up — men, women, children, young, old — and be marched to the outskirts of the town to be shot and left dead in ditches. Or the Poles, who lived in towns and villages around the death camps, who watched day after day as the trains went in filled with people and came out empty.

1:30 But above all, who would have to be wrong? The perpetrators. The people who say, "We did it. I did it." Now, maybe they add a caveat. They say, "I didn't have a choice; I was forced to do it." But nonetheless, they say, "I did it." Think about it. In not one war crimes trial since the end of World War II has a perpetrator of any nationality ever said, "It didn't happen." Again, they may have said, "I was forced," but never that it didn't happen. Having thought that through, I decided denial was not going to be on my agenda; I had bigger things to worry about, to write about, to research, and I moved on.

2:23 Fast-forward a little over a decade, and two senior scholars — two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust — approached me and said, "Deborah, let's have coffee. We have a research idea that we think is perfect for you." Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea and thought me worthy of it, I asked, "What is it?" And they said, "Holocaust denial." And for the second time, I laughed. Holocaust denial? The Flat Earth folks? The Elvis-is-alive people? I should study them? And these two guys said, "Yeah, we're intrigued. What are they about? What's their objective? How do they manage to get people to believe what they say?"
3:13 So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile, I would take a momentary diversion — maybe a year, maybe two, three, maybe even four — in academic terms, that's momentary.
3:25 (Laughter)
3:27 We work very slowly.
3:29 (Laughter)

3:31 And I would look at them. So I did. I did my research, and I came up with a number of things, two of which I'd like to share with you today.
3:39 One: deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are the same: Nazis, neo-Nazis — you can decide whether you want to put a "neo" there or not. But when I looked at them, I didn't see any SS-like uniforms, swastika-like symbols on the wall, Sieg Heil salutes — none of that. What I found instead were people parading as respectable academics.
4:15 What did they have? They had an institute. An "Institute for Historical Review." They had a journal — a slick journal — a "Journal of Historical Review." One filled with papers — footnote-laden papers. And they had a new name. Not neo-Nazis, not anti-Semites — revisionists. They said, "We are revisionists. We are out to do one thing: to revise mistakes in history." But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface, and what did you find there? The same adulation of Hitler, praise of the Third Reich, anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice. This is what intrigued me. It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse.

5:19 The other thing I found — many of us have been taught to think there are facts and there are opinions — after studying deniers, I think differently. There are facts, there are opinions, and there are lies. And what deniers want to do is take their lies, dress them up as opinions — maybe edgy opinions, maybe sort of out-of-the-box opinions — but then if they're opinions, they should be part of the conversation. And then they encroach on the facts.
5:54 I published my work — the book was published, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory," it came out in many different countries, including here in Penguin UK, and I was done with those folks and ready to move on. Then came the letter from Penguin UK. And for the third time, I laughed ... mistakenly. I opened the letter, and it informed me that David Irving was bringing a libel suit against me in the United Kingdom for calling him a Holocaust denier.

6:32 David Irving suing me? Who was David Irving? David Irving was a writer of historical works, most of them about World War II, and virtually all of those works took the position that the Nazis were really not so bad, and the Allies were really not so good. And the Jews, whatever happened to them, they sort of deserved it. He knew the documents, he knew the facts, but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion. He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier, but in the late '80s, he embraced it with great vigor.
7:10 The reason I laughed also was this was a man who not only was a Holocaust denier, but seemed quite proud of it. Here was a man — and I quote — who said, "I'm going to sink the battleship Auschwitz." Here was a man who pointed to the number tattooed on a survivor's arm and said, "How much money have you made from having that number tattooed on your arm?" Here was a man who said, "More people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz." That's an American reference, but you can look it up. This was not a man who seemed at all ashamed or reticent about being a Holocaust denier.

7:56 Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me — "Eh, Deborah, just ignore it." When I explained you can't just ignore a libel suit, they said, "Who's going to believe him anyway?" But here was the problem: British law put the onus, put the burden of proof on me to prove the truth of what I said, in contrast to as it would have been in the United States and in many other countries: on him to prove the falsehood.
8:26 What did that mean? That meant if I didn't fight, he would win by default. And if he won by default, he could then legitimately say, "My David Irving version of the Holocaust is a legitimate version. Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me when she called me a Holocaust denier. Ipso facto, I, David Irving, am not a Holocaust denier." And what is that version? There was no plan to murder the Jews, there were no gas chambers, there were no mass shootings, Hitler had nothing to do with any suffering that went on, and the Jews have made this all up to get money from Germany and to get a state, and they've done it with the aid and abettance of the Allies — they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.

9:21 I couldn't let that stand and ever face a survivor or a child of survivors. I couldn't let that stand and consider myself a responsible historian. So we fought. And for those of you who haven't seen "Denial," spoiler alert: we won.
9:42 (Laughter)
9:44 (Applause)
9:50 The judge found David Irving to be a liar, a racist, an anti-Semite. His view of history was tendentious, he lied, he distorted — and most importantly, he did it deliberately. We showed a pattern, in over 25 different major instances. Not small things — many of us in this audience write books, are writing books; we always make mistakes, that's why we're glad to have second editions: correct the mistakes.
10:23 (Laughter)
10:25 But these always moved in the same direction: blame the Jews, exonerate the Nazis.

10:34 But how did we win? What we did is follow his footnotes back to his sources. And what did we find? Not in most cases, and not in the preponderance of cases, but in every single instance where he made some reference to the Holocaust, that his supposed evidence was distorted, half-truth, date-changed, sequence-changed, someone put at a meeting who wasn't there. In other words, he didn't have the evidence. His evidence didn't prove it. We didn't prove what happened. We proved that what he said happened — and by extension, all deniers, because he either quotes them or they get their arguments from him — is not true. What they claim — they don't have the evidence to prove it.
11:27 So why is my story more than just the story of a quirky, long, six-year, difficult lawsuit, an American professor being dragged into a courtroom by a man that the court declared in its judgment was a neo-Nazi polemicist? What message does it have? I think in the context of the question of truth, it has a very significant message. Because today, as we well know, truth and facts are under assault. Social media, for all the gifts it has given us, has also allowed the difference between facts — established facts — and lies to be flattened.

12:15 Third of all: extremism. You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes, you may not see burning crosses, you may not even hear outright white supremacist language. It may go by names: "alt-right," "National Front" — pick your names. But underneath, it's that same extremism that I found in Holocaust denial parading as rational discourse.
12:46 We live in an age where truth is on the defensive. I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon. A quiz show recently appeared in "The New Yorker" where the host of the quiz show is saying to one of the contestants, "Yes, ma'am, you had the right answer. But your opponent yelled more loudly than you did, so he gets the point."

13:07 What can we do? First of all, we cannot be beguiled by rational appearances. We've got to look underneath, and we will find there the extremism. Second of all, we must understand that truth is not relative. Number three, we must go on the offensive, not the defensive. When someone makes an outrageous claim, even though they may hold one of the highest offices in the land, if not the world — we must say to them, "Where's the proof? Where's the evidence?" We must hold their feet to the fire. We must not treat it as if their lies are the same as the facts.
14:02 And as I said earlier, truth is not relative. Many of us have grown up in the world of the academy and enlightened liberal thought, where we're taught everything is open to debate. But that's not the case. There are certain things that are true. There are indisputable facts — objective truths. Galileo taught it to us centuries ago. Even after being forced to recant by the Vatican that the Earth moved around the Sun, he came out, and what is he reported to have said? "And yet, it still moves."

14:46 The Earth is not flat. The climate is changing. Elvis is not alive.
14:54 (Laughter)
14:56 (Applause)
14:58 And most importantly, truth and fact are under assault. The job ahead of us, the task ahead of us, the challenge ahead of us is great. The time to fight is short. We must act now. Later will be too late.
15:23 Thank you very much.
15:24 (Applause)
 END

『阿鲸原创』《局外人》书评

用一个星期读完了这本书,大概想写点什么。
文/Akki鲸
2017.3.21

        其实个人感觉书名里的“局外人”三个字在文章中有两处体现,一是主人公默尔索对于这个世界钝化的情感,对于大事小事均不在意的疏离态度,这种性格以至于让同处文明社会的人对他产生不理解与反感的情绪;二是默尔索在法院无权发言,他感觉自己这个被告被排除在定法之外很是不解厌恶。不过后者只是默尔索在犯罪之后才被揭示出来的,而贯穿全文的还是默尔索与世不和的性格。
        首先这源于加缪的写作背景与人物原型。当时正处于二战时期,时局混乱不堪、掌权者明着宣扬人性大旗暗地却无限压迫人民、司法很“公正”;所以这样的社会无非只能滋生出两种存在:内心明了的反抗者和绝望者。作者深知反抗者的个人色彩定会相当浓烈,孕育出这样的形象来批判警醒、社会很是老套,不能觉醒人们,所以刻画了这样一个平淡的、与世界格格不入的小角色来反衬。
        再说主人公。默尔索其实并不像表面表现出来那样麻木,他的“朋友”雷蒙评价他“从不说废话”——这体现的是默尔索所怀有的清醒而带有激情的、对这个荒诞社会的深刻的了解与蔑视。他的激动隐藏在对于思想受蒙蔽的世人无奈的不解与愤怒中,隐藏在那双早已看穿在社会上空喊自由平等不过是一场戏的眼睛里。他率直,不论是给朋友、恋人的回答还是法庭上的辩词他都不曾说谎,也许也是因为没有机会。这种率真的性格使他困惑被告没有发言权一事,同时使他对于神甫道貌岸然的虚伪大感恶心。而他的确也是冷漠的——不知道母亲的年龄(可他又是爱她的)、没有在她的葬礼上哭、从不反抗(雷蒙的交友邀请和玛丽的结婚提议)等等。默尔索仿佛对世间所发生的事情并不在意,这让他成了这个肮脏社会的局外人;可以想见这种人是完全不符合“文明社会公民”的标准,因此很难被世人接受的。他在结尾说道“为了善始善终,功德圆满,为了不感到自己属于另类,我期望处决我的那天有很多人前来看热闹,他们都向我发出仇恨的叫喊声”,可以想见他十分了解官僚人员和普通百姓的心理活动——最终他成了社会的献祭品,因自己异类的性格被这个社会抹杀。
        再者就是文中的司法体系了,表面光明正大的判决其实纯属本末倒置。这个审判从时间安排上不光给默尔索厌烦,更是让读者感到时间漫长。法官和检察官来回审问着主人公几乎相同的问题,把大把的时间花费在询问关于默尔索冷漠的人性方面,可以看出他们真正在意的不是案子本身的过程,而是这个奇怪的人。法院的工作者和记者团亲如一家,针对默尔索看似逆来顺受的性格大肆压迫,他们乐意看到的是这个“没有血性的人”崩溃求饶的场景。他的命运本来就不取决于命案的客观事实,纵使他的律师再如何申辩他杀人纯属过失也无济于事——有罪的是他的灵魂而不是肉体。这表现出的是渗入了司法领域的是非观念与意识形态,这种精神专政使“公正”与“感性正确”概念混淆,从而导致了悲剧的发生。

『阿鲸原创』Faded(1)

Faded
文/Akki鲸
TIPS:
-Bond-mate设定
-TFP背景
-BGM: Alan Walker
-参考诗歌: Pablo Neruda
Emily Dickinson

Feel so lost.
I am faded.
如此迷茫
我在消逝

***
“哒,哒,哒。”
绚美的霞光铺满了整片天空,由远方清冽的蓝粉色逐渐叠加到温暖的金黄;淡紫色与浅玫瑰色交替渲染的云霞带着温柔与眷恋虔虔低语,深浅变幻得如同精美油画般细腻巧妙。最后的夕阳洒下一片金色光轨,次第照亮了暮光中的片片景色。深空像是镜面的海,被肆意点燃后立即渲染上了火色系;从熟褐到赭红,再到明明灭灭闪耀的金,这最后一抹带有寒气的热度被勾勒到极尽。就连铅灰云翳也被层层浸染,成为了这个黄昏十袭而藏的记忆;无处可寻的风喃优雅地在每个人的心中回响,波动着脑海深处不知名的记忆。
落日如同水彩画一般进行着,如此和谐,不带一丝罅隙。
声波难得在报应号的某个地方驻足,尽管逻辑面板告诉他这样的风景在接下来的几百万循环里面要多少有多少,耽误时间欣赏它们是不应该的,他也暂时没有移动脚步。
好像有点美?他歪歪头雕,一如既往地沉默着。玻璃外面映过来的景观让他有些欣喜。
无声地把这一画面记录下来,声波忽然感到应该去趟某个地方。

震荡波的实验室一般是不让其他TF参观的,即使是威震天来督察进度也需要提前告知,但出乎意料的是他这个循环收到了一个访客。
——是声波啊。在自动门开启后震荡波在内芯感叹,不由自主地放松了一下。他邀声波进来,然后不引TF注意地将实验室的铁门合拢。
“询问:目的?”
“……实验室,暮光。”
“?”震荡波头一次不是很明白声波的意思,抬起头雕一看才发现实验室的窗外正朝着夕阳下落的方向,霞光万丈。
意思是暮光很好看,想到实验室里欣赏?震荡波疑惑着,把自己的理解抛给读芯者。
“正确。”声波上前一步和震荡波并排站好,之后便又没了声响。震荡波那已经僵化的情绪扇区顿时传来哭笑不得的细微感觉,他甚至怀疑这还是不是正牌的情报官了。
寂静的观赏继续进行着,声波不发声,震荡波亦是。
——你芯里在想什么呢?
——真的是在享受这日光吗?还是在眷恋呢?
震荡波把一瞬间看向声波的目光重新移到那管刚刚配好的药水上面,清浅的淡蓝色溶剂在绚丽到有些繁缛殷厚的夕阳照耀下熠熠生辉,愈加透明梦幻。
他觉得能成为科学家真是一件不错的事。
声波在同片落日下也显得有些不真实了。震荡波眨了眨红色单镜,确保自己没沾过高纯。那自然松垂的机翼划落着浅香槟色的光芒,偶尔闪过一丝反光亮得耀眼。黑色屏幕四周仿佛也飘着什么砂金浮尘,美好得如身置童话。
震荡波依然没有出声,或许他也不知道该说些什么。只是静静地用单臂搂住身旁的捕食者侦察机,然后往那边凑近了一点。
是挺美的,他在芯里肯定。
声波没有反对,黑色屏罩下也无TF知晓是什么表情;他把头雕仰得更高,好让那片金黄照亮自己的上半部机体。大概是为了迎合那暖洋洋的错觉,震荡波也半合着光学镜舒展机身。
然后就那样,自然而然地,他们拥抱在一起,在那片霞光下。

***
“咔。”
视频就在这里被掐断,时间显示是几千个循环之前的某个黄昏。
声波浅浅地叹息了一声,仿佛早已熟悉也戛然而止的片段。仅仅几秒的短暂停歇没有让光学镜撤出残阳的画面,那片火烧云依旧在放空的视线里滞留。他无法以为那片晚霞,那个再熟悉不过的TF的身影是虚假的。
这是第几遍播放这个视频了?是第350次?还是第360次?他不是没有别的关于震荡波的录像,可是唯有这个如此安宁,如此逼真,如此……勾人回忆。
时间对于暗影空间形如虚设,白天便是黑夜,黑夜便是白天。没有工作,四周寂静得可怕。他还能怎样呢?即使曾经一度是霸天虎荣耀至极的情报官,他现在也已经和陨落没有什么区别了。
Where are you now?
Did you feel us?
Another star
You fade away
……
CPU有些恍惚。震荡波的消失对他的影响比他想象得要严重得多,声波一直以为自己除了情报和自身利益什么都不曾在意;可是现实就那样一巴掌扇过来,让无形的面甲破碎,火辣辣地疼。在战争年代悄然升起的爱情是不会让任何一个TF喜悦的,相反,他们只能惊恐地压抑火种里绝不能被TF发现的流恋。而现在,火种的另一端堪称毫无声息,他无法得知自己的火伴在干什么,在想什么,过得好不好。那是从未有过的感觉,不受控制,不明真相。
能量几乎散尽的机体忽然腾起不真实的热度,声波有些难耐地轻颤了一下。这次观看好像给他带来了些不一样的感触,除了比往常更激烈的沉迷还有……他有些不确定,情欲?他反复分析着机身,最终只能得出这个结论。
普神啊,那段影像后面好像真的发生了什么,只不过因为自己的记录器不太受控制了所以没有继续录下去。
那到底是……
声波的光学镜有些涣散了。
九百万年的机生里他从未有过这种感觉,除了在震荡波逻辑式的挑拨下机体给出的诚实反应,他从未自己有过拆卸的欲望。
但现在似乎成为了一个例外。
他勉强拼凑着接下来发生的事情。
他好像是主动凑过去了,然后立即被那个大个子压在墙壁上。自己连反抗都懒得反抗,只是伸手轻轻拂过那张灯泡面甲。对方的红色光镜闪动了一下,不动声色地禁锢住身下的情报官;仅剩的右手用指尖轻触着深蓝色机体的尾翼,从较大的翼展平面到极致敏感的尖部一一拂过。他有些不安地动了动——没有一架飞机愿意让其他TF触碰他的机翼,那是感测气流的绝佳地域,却也是整个机身称得上最为敏感的地方。翼部的材质通常不是很厚,他迷迷糊糊地想起了红蜘蛛,如果威震天大人想在上面轰出个窟窿来也是没有问题的。只是震荡波的抚摸太过于小芯,每每划过一个地方都会带起一阵不可自持的颤抖。
他感到对方的手在继续向下触碰着,在翼部与机身连接的部分摩挲。其实他大可以打开读芯功能,知晓震荡波的下一个动作是什么——但那太无趣了不是吗?惟有不明不白才能享到最激烈的欢乐。
带起的静电不由分说地传入传感器,麻痹的感觉瞬间窜入CPU。变化的电流被导入,频率忽大忽小不很稳定;声波反射性地绷紧后翼,黑色的面罩上划过一丝波纹,被震荡波细芯捕捉到。
而后震荡波的右手顺着线条姣好的背脊往下刺探,勾勒着变化起伏的魅蓝色亮线;接着他把手移到声波胸前的位置。
小磁带们早就跑得一干二净,他们仿佛知道这两位怪TF下一步要干什么似的。大大的X形缺口看上去空荡荡的,看起来需要什么东西填满才能完整。地面作战指挥官的天线晃动了一下,随后把手伸进了那满布感应节点的胸舱。滑动的手指改为按压,他兴趣十分地把想整个手掌铺满X形缝隙。离火种舱很近的凹槽敏感得连声波都不自知,他惊讶地发现自己的机体在感受到大面积的摁压后几乎弹起,难过又愉悦地震颤着。那种被除了磁带们的其他东西填满的感觉在几百万年里从未出现过,过大的刺激和欢愉让他挺起胸甲。
离那里远点儿,他喘息着在内线里说,而震荡波的动作无声地回应他我偏不。五指继续在磁带舱内搜寻着乐趣,偶尔拨弄着一根敏感的管线给予对方身体强烈的快感。然后他又转移阵地开始轻抚内壁,五指并进地划过凹槽内全部暴露的面板。
“唔……”让双方都难以置信地,声波终于泄出一声呜咽。
夕阳正在缓缓下落,火红的光亮即将落入地平线,几十赛分前的煊赫辉煌被悄然收敛。黑夜即将来临,其前奏的暗蓝逐渐隐入那一片温暖之中;不久之后繁星将缀满广阔深空,推动时间,斗转星移。
Where are you now?
Under the bright but faded lights
……
声音无法在茫茫宇宙中传播,但是源自火种的呐喊却不会不被听到。他好似还看到那个机影闪烁在昏黄的灯光下,再一次放弃正在进行的实验凝视自己。
记忆片段在淙淙时间长河里流淌,那些美好的忆点倏忽明灭、弯弯折折,构成相当奇妙的梦境曲线。可是TF不会有梦境,也不会有幻觉。他只是在无意识地抽取记忆扇区保存的影像罢了,他想。
但是拜托继续啊。继续让我沉迷啊。
轻巧的无人机无意识地释放了触手,可是他不愿再控制它们了——太累了,他尝试来一次彻彻底底的放松;把自己交给直觉吧,不管它想做什么都好。温热的、留恋的、模仿回忆的、污秽的,什么都好。
纤细的手指毫不费力地就找到了解放前置挡板的暗扣,轻按后成功卸下那块碍事的板子。
……——
他感到自己的输出管在未经移开的前置挡板内搏动,相当活跃,甚至顶得难受。在磁带舱里游移着释放弱电流的手指没有停止动作,还在进行着预热准备。但是够了,震荡波,他尝试呼唤,你听不到散热器逐渐加速的运转声吗?后置挡板里的软金属管道不明显地酝酿着润滑液,仿佛一口敲定它的主人将会进行一次精彩的拆卸活动。
科学家在预热的过程中同时分析着声波的机体信息:换气频率加大、装甲和内部线路升温、信号略微混乱——一切都表明身下的TF在享受。他主动贴合上情报官的机身,摩擦起双方的腹部装甲;这行为无疑给双方都带来了不小的刺激,他能感觉到对方前置挡板内滚烫的欲望被残忍地压制在里部,缱绻着希望得到抚慰。
“Soundwave......”震荡波凑近副官的音@频接收器低语,“卸下你的腹部装甲和后置挡板。”
低频音波让身下的无人机轻颤了一下,那种湿润的气流见缝插针地钻进了他的音频接收器里,痒得难受。他向外后退,但墙壁的硬度一下警醒了他——故意的,震荡波在制造无处可逃。
他扬起头雕,面罩后的金红色光镜蒙上了些水雾;机体炽热的反应可不是开玩笑的,也许他现在真的有点想要了。这么想着,他决定试着回应一下。
声波伸出触手,它们缠绵地裹上震荡波的机体缓缓挑逗。从头顶的天线到装甲缝隙,他用摩挲的方式蹭过那些称得上情趣的外置节点。科学家的机身有那么一瞬间颤动了一下,然后红色光镜闪了闪,兴趣十分。
火伴偶尔主动一下不是挺好的吗?

【梦中街巷】 文/AKKI鲸
片段1

薰衣草紫与紫丁香蓝之间其实只多了一层薄薄的雾气;
威尼斯赭红与圣袍褐之间少的却是那漂洗过后的沧桑。

***
他的生命在梦里等待
一间全新的房子在一处熟悉的街巷
摆设着没有预料到的家具 还有
更多的空间 更多的了解
更多的爱

***
他醒来后就在这个地方了,一间陌生的房屋,一扇木质的门。门上挂着一个白蓝相接的泳圈,印着可爱的小鱼图案;把手上是个蜜蜂形状的风铃,随着令树叶摇摆的风叮当作响。
一切都很安静。
他注意到自己躺在一张纯白的床上,手腕处扎着输液的针管;很明显装在药包里的液体已经流尽,只剩一个空空的袋子悬在衣架上。
他怎么了吗?身体明明没有一点异样。
耳边除了风声什么也听不到,他怀疑自己是不是被人抛弃在了一个荒凉的小镇,平淡冷静地准备死亡。
看向微启的百叶窗,风灵巧地从缝隙中传过来,拂在他的脸上、身子上,意外地凉爽;与之相随的还有刺眼的阳光,让他不禁用手挡住眼睛。
温暖。他想,他需要温暖。
随意拔掉手腕上的针头,他穿上拖鞋走出房间,开始打量这个屋子。
并不很大的房子,有2个房间,一张双人床,一张单人床;精致极简的餐厅,餐桌上面摆好了两个人的餐具;暖黄色的墙壁,有些地方贴着可爱的贴纸,一只蜜蜂一个路桩地排列下去;亮度较暗的客厅,四周各摆着一盏落地彩灯,混淆着意义不明的光线。
很普通。参观完整个屋子后他得出了这个结论;有些设计风格很符合自己的喜好标准,有些则是与其完全相反的风格,被另一个人喜爱着。
这是自己的房子?还是和谁同居着呢?
钟表滴滴答答地走着,他闻声看去,是一个要经过计算才能解出几点的钟。真拿他没办法,他想,明知道自己不喜欢数学。
……明知道?

***
在客厅一角他找到了一个壁炉,里面还有些许柴木,点着后应该可以用。他想点着它暖暖身子,意外地发现打火机就在一旁。
他知道他怕冷?他很了解他?
火星噼里啪啦地燃烧作响,地上铺着一条黄黑色条纹的垫子,位置刚刚好,火星既不会扑到身上又能感受到其热度。
好贴心。他们经常坐在这里聊天吗?
肚子叫嚣着饥饿,他权衡了取暖和吃早饭的重要性后选择了后者。走到美式风格的餐厅中,他看到冰箱上贴着一张黄色字条。
“Bee:
冰箱里有你喜欢的蜂蜜蛋卷,可以在饭前吃点,但不要多吃。电饭煲里是南瓜粥,碗和勺子都放在旁边了,盛的时候小心烫手。面包片我帮你烤好了,巧克力酱就放在餐桌上。早上起来不要看电视,出去走走,也许能认识几个新朋友。我去办点事,中午左右就可以回来了,下午我们可以一起去看鲸鱼。爱你。”
谁写的?没有名字?
他翻来覆去看了看,又仔细扫了眼背面,没有发现落款。
也就是说他们保持这样的沟通方式好久了?为什么呢?他们在吵架吗?对方现在在哪里呢?为什么这么关心自己?
他有些头疼,这么多问题一下出现的感觉可真糟糕。不过既然有食物可吃就先不管这些了,他想。
打开冰箱,一入眼就是那人所说的蜂蜜蛋卷。他打开包装咬了一口,意外地好吃,好像他喜欢了很久的味道。把包装盒翻过来一看,原来是路蜂牌子的,怪不得自己这么喜欢。
真好。他嚼着蛋卷,打开一旁的电饭煲。盖子掀起的一瞬间香味扑鼻,南瓜粥的味道是温暖的甜蜜。他拿起放在桌上的铁勺,勺柄细长,能被烫到的人绝对是笨蛋。
“啊。”
……他是笨蛋。
无奈地走到洗手池边冲洗,抬眼便见到了另一张字条:
“都说了小心点了吧?冲洗完自己吹吹,要是还是觉得疼橱柜里有膏药。下次注意。”
……他究竟有多了解他?

***
用勺子舀着粥一点点放入口中,不得不说南瓜粥的味道真是好极了,甜丝丝的,是他最喜欢的味道。巧克力酱面包配上南瓜粥真的是满满的违和感,虽然意外地好吃。他把烤好的面包从面包机上取下来时还是温温热热的,看起来那人像是刚走不久。
有些懊恼地捶了捶头,他想着如果自己早起一点是不是就可以见到他了。
那到底是怎样一个人呢?对自己这样体贴温柔。
吃完早餐后他收拾好碗筷,不自觉地向电视那边走去。像是突然想起有哪个人说了“早上起来不要看电视,出去走走”这样的话,他停住了脚步。
又或许是看见了一旁的铁艺楼梯。
好奇地走上楼梯后才发现原来这是一个精小的LOFT别墅,二楼和一楼的格局几乎完全一样,只是多了一个露天阳台。阳光没有阻拦地洒进家里,感觉格外地温馨。阳台上有一个直立画板,上面印的像是某人信手涂鸦的风景画。他似乎能看见那个人坐在这里随随便便地勾勒几笔,而他就这样看着对方。
倒也不错,他想。
转身进入的隔间很明显是一个人的卧室,但他肯定不是他的。卧室的格调是偏黑的暗色系,整个屋子显得清冷十分;一张床、一个书桌、一个书柜。如果不是墙壁上那几张他的照片的话,他怀疑这个屋子是不是每时每刻都是黑夜。
床铺得整整齐齐,没有什么多余的东西。倒是书柜里满当当的都是书,有散文诗歌集也有各色各类的文学作品。书桌上也没有杂物,只有一个黑色的笔记本电脑和一个同色的本子。
他尝试打开电脑,不意外地发现要输入密码。但是他不知道,他连这个电脑的主人都不知道是谁,更何况他的密码?
整个页面是清一色的灰,如果他没有仔细看的话必然发现不了左下角的小字提示:“我的名字&他的名字。”
他的名字?他是谁?他一瞬间有些懵。
讶异地张着嘴沉默了一会儿,他平静地把电脑合上。肯定是个对他很重要的人吧,他想,不知道为什么有些不高兴。
还是这个黑色的笔记本好些,他翻开电脑旁的本子,至少没有密码。本子第一页的正中央是一个人的名字,字迹潦草得他几乎看不清,似乎是这个笔记本的所有者。右上角不知是谁用荧光黄色的笔写了一句“最喜欢BEE”,字体歪扭得可笑,但那人好像并不在意,就任它留在那儿。
是一个工作手帐本,翻了几页他得出这样的结论,无趣。
他走到窗子旁边,低头看街上的行人。这个地方好像人很少,半天过去了也就七八个人出现;窗户正底下是一颗柠檬树,现在还不到结果的时候,只有一片青翠。
就这样吧,下去看看。