Favourtism or not

 All these years on I’ve been deceived by the concept that I try to treat my friends equally. I don’t. Favouritism occurs in all relationship networks, be it in a family setting, the workplace or within a group of friends. There’s no point conning yourself that you treat all members in the same manner.

In fact, the only person I can think of who can profess to treat everyone equally, is Jesus Christ, through his agape love for mankind, as long as they are willing to accept salvation. Equal treatment of all is an ideal goal that we strive for in Christian conduct, though in reality due to the issue of preferences and affinity, there will definitely be some whom we favour more than others.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV)

That doesn’t mean I condone favourtism. However when the element of uniqueness enters the fray of "favourtism", we may start to re-think whether how we treat other is indeed favouritism in its most blatant form, or whether it is something else. Actually when we examine the passage above, we notice two points. Firstly, Jesus tells us to love everyone, even our enemies. However He does not mention anything about the quantity.  I’d like to go on to postulate that Jesus was much more concerned with the quality of love we show others. In other parts of the Bible, there are numerous verses mentioning about the uniqueness of each human beings. Maybe God wants us to do it to learn how to love each person in a unique way that gives recognition and respect to that person’s godly characteristics. This may be the true “equal treatment” of mankind in His eyes.

“失控”的惊吓：论《紫禁惊雷》

很少对一部电视剧失望到气愤的地步，但港剧《紫禁惊雷》却是一部看毕后令如此感受的剧集，而讽刺的是，主角之一马国明竟是我非常喜爱的演员！请别误会，其实客观的评估，剧集演员表现都至少中上，只可惜不论他们多努力都无法弥补剧本上过于显眼的鄙陋。那到底这部剧集问题出现在哪里？它正好是一个“编剧失控”的最佳反面教材。（对那些还想观看此剧集的朋友，勤请停止阅读这篇文章，因为我即将透露许多剧情发展。）

我在观看此剧集到中段的时候，还蛮精彩紧凑的，但可能就因为希望越大，结尾时失望也跟着变大了。先讲解“能接受的剧情漏洞”与“不能接受的剧情漏洞”的分别。一个“能接受的剧情漏洞”通常不会影响到我们对剧集整体的流畅性。比方，虽然在“Dark Knight Rises” 里蝙蝠侠竟然能在逃脱后那么短时间从被囚禁的洞穴赶往Gotham City救亡，但我们观众在观赏剧集的当下不会这部份的“不合理性”打扰整体观赏剧情的心情，而往往是在观赏完毕后才发现这“不合理性”的存在，接而觉得好笑。另一个我能想到的例子便是《义海豪情》里，整个广州那么大，为何某几段刘醒寻找九妹的戏，他总好像不费吹灰之力，就能那么快找到她。但毕竟这些小漏洞是无关痛痒的，因为它们未能影响整部剧集的轴心流畅度。用英文说的话，they are not pivotal to the plot.

可惜《紫禁惊雷》里的漏洞却确确实实的pivotal to the plot， 所以是个“不能接受的剧情漏洞”。依照结局男主角聂多宝若真是顺治的四皇子，由御前侍卫与自己的孙儿掉包；那剧集中段里，男主角与御前侍卫儿子的父亲（哑巴施主）相认的部分怎么说得过去？！到底哑巴施主是不是清楚聂多宝是否是自己的儿子？根据结局时的倒叙 flashback 时交待，他好像是非常清楚这点的啊。那为何在剧集中段时，剧集铺排得却是如亲生父子相认？不论我再怎么想替编剧“合理化”这个漏洞，我都做不到，而最糟的是这部分却直接影响了剧情轴心！

我在看完剧集，再回去对比剧集原本的概念，才发现编剧在 flesh out 原本概念时，出了乱子。若想对我所说的更了解的话，请在观赏《紫禁惊雷》也同时去参考它的专署网页。在这里介绍，其实近期每部港剧，都有它自己的网页，简介人物设计与剧情大纲，甚至提供一些制作花絮，而这些网页里所提供的故事大纲，都可以说是剧集的初步概念。当然初步概念是可以经过修饰改进。比如另一些港剧如《铁马寻桥》和《东西攻略》，原本剧情概念或人物设计，都有经过后期修饰，但毕竟整体作品都没有离原本概念太远。相比之下，《紫禁惊雷》的 final product 明显的与之前的概念南辕北撤。想来编剧应该是在写着写着渐渐“失控”，无法自圆其说，最后只好草率了事。单看结局聂多宝突然与相恋的紫凝关系赫然变成兄妹后，编剧安排紫凝的死法，就足以证明这点。看来《紫禁惊雷》的确够“惊”的，只可惜是惊吓，而非惊喜…

我就是involve不起来：不同的观众投入层次

最近除了继续观看一向来所追看的港剧以外，竟然也一时兴起观赏台湾偶像剧《犀利人妻》。说实在的，还真有点适应不来。这并不是剧集不好看，而是自己有点调整不来配合它的节奏。不过这其实是个非常难得的机会，让我在同步观赏两地截然不同的作品时，从而体会到观众投入层次 的概念。

昨天在跟好友聊起《犀利人妻》，我不停向她抱怨一些我个人想法与见解，谁知她一言点醒。顾名思义，偶像剧的编剧在设计剧情时，非得加入一些“童话成真”的元素，所以毕竟“写实性”有限。一部成功的偶像剧，是当观众在观看剧集时，投入到把自己设身为剧集主角，享受一下公主或王子梦的元素。就如那友人所说的，若要看写实性，干脆看纪录片算了！

我也并非在辩驳港剧比台湾偶像剧写实多少。说真的，其实港剧的夸张成份，远超越台湾偶像剧，尤其是在情节铺排，而那往往是为了加强张力，以吸引观众追看。

但通过我观感许多不同类别港剧的经历，不管剧集多“吸睛”，我也无法投入到把自己的思维设身为剧中角色，进而幻想自己所向往的收场。在观看港剧时，我的思维由始至终都原原本本的是一个“观众”。用另个普遍的嗜好当比喻，就如在观看一场足球赛，不管观众多投入，只能够停留在“支持”的层次。这可能因剧情共鸣度所造成，but that’s another topic which I may touch on later. J

所以，不论我多喜爱《义海豪情》里九妹与刘醒的互动交流，我这观众最多只会像个“隐性的拉拉队”，希望他们修成正果。而当我的友人在观看《犀利人妻》时，却是以“若我是谢安真，我也一定选择蓝天蔚”，接而希望剧情往这方面发展。

现阶段还真有点难养成这样观看剧集法，可能再继续观看《犀利人妻》下去会慢慢适应。再说吧。

Forgiveness is not a quota

There’s plenty of mentions in the Bible of the painstaking extent God goes to deal with us. However, personally I feel there’s less in depth elaborate into the dynamics of dealing with others. The most widely quoted one I can think of is the famous “Love thy neighbor as thy self”. Then again, how does one do that, especially in the face of conflict and misunderstanding?
To have a better idea, we may have to turn to look at the concept of forgiveness. God’s love for us is best demonstrated by his act of forgiveness by redeeming us on the cross through death. Not that we literally have to die for others that is, but whenever we are faced with the dilemma of how much do we love others, we are dealing of how much of our own feelings and thoughts are we willing to disregard and write off, in order that the relationship with that other person is preserved.
Then the next question would be how much is the reasonable expectations that one should have of others when dealing with them, to ensure that one both maintain a healthy level of self-love (note this is not selfish love which would then be pride) and love for others? The answer then lies in another famous passage.

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Matthew 18:21-22 (NIV)

 

At first glance, God seems to be demanding the impossible of us disciples. However, that is because we have fallen into the mistake of looking at the numbers collectively as a whole. In this passage Jesus is not so much reprimanding Peter for not being able to forgive. Afterall God is not expecting we match his performance. He is actually scolding Peter for setting a pre-determined quota of how much forgiveness he is willing to dispense towards others. On Peter’s own end, he falls into the sin of sloth, trying to make things easy for himself.
The seven times versus seventy-seven times analogy cannot be examined in its absolute form. Jesus is actually explaining to Peter that forgiveness is to be given once at a time, not to be taken stock of. Since forgiveness is an act of love, this is in line with this other well-known verse.

[Love] keeps no records of wrong

1 Corinthians 13:5 (NIV)

Thus, continue dealing with the people around you one interaction at a time. Through this method of compartmentalizing and isolating each interaction, you’ll strike the right balance of love for self with love for others.

The art of clapping

 

The famous saying goes that it takes two hands to clap. However, I wonder whether anyone has examined the concept between the coordination between the two hands. Maybe I’m just too free today lah.

 

When both hands put in excess effort in the clap, the plus point is that there’s definitely remarkable sound made, but your palms would hurt from the bruises made too. Think of it like two people being very equally over insistent on things to go their way resulting in conflict.

When both hands put in too little effort to clap, the advantage is that there’s no sore palms. However, there may be negligible sound made. In fact in worse situations, the palms may fail to even make contact with each other.

Then there’s the additional element of direction that the palms must be moving. They must move towards each other. It signifies the sincere desire to want to make contact and sound.

What is the optimum performance of clapping such that sound is made while not hurting any palm? In Chinese, there’s the concept of 默契. Seems that coordination is a very technical translation of that concept, but it’ll have to do for now, that is till someone is able to suggest to me a better phrase or word. The amount effort made by one hand must be in synchronization with that of the other hand.

In different relationships with different people and different situations, we want our claps to sound and feel differently. Here, both hands have to take their time and effort to find their optimum harmony. That is unless clapping is not needed or wanted anymore. Then, I’ll go on to answer that other famous question “What is the sound of one hand clapping.” It’s a slap, not clap! And that is a totally different thing altogether. :p

It's love, not time... Stupid! -_-

 

I’d been very concerned about the concept of time recently and very dulan. Not in an exactly suicidal mode but more of wondering what the heck was The One up to with all this lack of activity going on. Going by the pragmatist model I usually operate, if something is not need, it should not be kept. And no matter how I look at how I am faring, I don’t think my peg in the entire cogwork of this universe really matters and I still do retain this view. Felt that God was a very resource-depleting God, wasting precious time and resources. However I hit upon the obstacle that God Himself controls time and it is for Him to waste anyway, so that was a reprieve of sorts from the time continuum rut that I had been stuck in.
Ok, since the concept of time waste is irrelevant to God, then what is relevant to Him. Ah, back to the basic verse of 1 Corinthians 13:4-5. God is concerned with love; His love for us and our love for Him. And so to ensure that this issue is settled, God is more than willing to use all the time in His capacity. So with this, the “voila” moment came. As long as one day God feels that I have not fully grasped and mastered 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 in its entirety, one more day I’ll have to continue my journey of learning. Well, no playing truant with this headmaster I guess… Note that the word "time" never appears in that verse at all.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

 

1 Corinthians 13:4-5 (NIV)

Finished with face off

There’s a certain procrastination and even narcissism in merely facing up to something for too long without taking action. Think of it like staring at the mirror at that much reviled blemish on your face, constantly whining about how it does injustice to you.  Frankly, if you don’t contribute your part of the deal to do some action at facial damage control with the latest creams and gels, I’d think one fully deserves that big spot on one’s face.

Facing up to a problem is merely the initial step of removing one’s self-pity. However, if one just faces it and stares at it, then I’ll really wonder how much progress is made towards the journey out of whining. Sometimes not facing something doesn’t mean denial. It just means you have other things which you know you are capable of attending to, and you’d rather devote time and effort to something which brings about results. Maybe it’s because I’ve become too Singaporean in mindset, and result-oriented.

The difference between the two can be seen from the two Chinese phrases 面对 and 应对. The second suggests an extension of the first, a participatory element, regardless of what the results may be. In a game of monopoly where one gets jailed, 应对 actually means many scenarios. One may make an active move to pay the fine to get out and continue to proceed; or continue trying to throw a double whenever during one’s turn to try getting out free; or in the most extreme case totally withdraw from the game altogether. 面对 merely means sitting there watching the game continue one without making any move at all.

面对 is only one stop short of procrastination and imbecility on one’s part to cope, it is certainly nothing I’d boast about. 应对goes beyond this to suggest a maturity on one’s part to accept whatever happens regardless of the results, as I’d like to decipher “应对”’s “应” comes from the phrase “应该”, meaning what one deserves or what must happen ultimately. I’d much rather taking ownership and responsibility over myself than leave any opportunity to moan. At least it leaves one ultimately with no regrets, ya?