duo

From here..

今天跟朋友聊起三毛。聊起三毛就让我想到彻夜躺在被窝里偷着看书的那段日子。一把手电筒，一床棉被，一扇紧闭的门，跟小心翼翼却不可自拔的书虫一条。

三毛对那个时代的我来说，是个读不懂的项目。我认为我在很早的时候就对文字跟图画有着莫名其妙的共鸣。我会看着看着就入了迷，然而为了什么我却丝毫不知晓。很多东西我都是吞下去的，并不是我不想要慢慢咀嚼，而是因为牙齿还没长齐。等过了两三年再去回顾三毛，感触着实加深了许多。

我认为三毛是一位内心很复杂的女性。究竟复杂到什么程度我不知道，也不可能知道。也许很多女人内心的世界都是很复杂的，但只有一些懂得如何将复杂的那一面展现在文字、音乐、绘画当中。三毛郁郁而终的结果是不难料到的，因为回了家的她失去了翱翔的自由，也失去了翱翔的意义。荷西的死亡对于她来说不仅仅是爱情的枯萎，更是无可弥补的遗憾。也许她还有时间，然而失去的那些经历却再也无法重现。她是悲观的，的确是的，然而她迷恋于这种极端的感受。我想我是可以理解她的。我认为一个人活着就应该要对自己的所有感觉忠诚，应该去挖掘自己的感觉、挑战自己的感觉，不应该去忽略、去压抑、去掩杀。这自然是很难去做到的。但是三毛将此发挥到了极致，这从她的文字中频频隐隐约约地透露出来。

写文字如像三毛，何不是一种交心呢？然而又有多少人可以读出来呢？三毛的书不知道多少人读过了，每个人都有着不同的读后感，然而哪一种会让三毛感到舒心呢？我觉得对三毛来说，无人可以替代荷西，其一是因为他们共同走过的路再也不可能有其他人陪同她再度走一次，其二就是因为她不可能再次找到一个可以洞悉她心灵的人了。我觉得拥有复杂内心世界的女性虽然极有可能能言善辩，但是却很难找到读得懂她们的人。拥有共同语言并不是很难的事情，难就难在可以接纳她的复杂并且调理她的复杂。荷西做到了。他的性格温柔、内心细腻、做事仔细，这些似乎都跟三毛互补。我想，最重要的一点仍然是荷西的执着，为了她而执着。三毛有着一副桀骜不驯的面孔跟一颗漂泊不定的心，她需要荷西的执着牢牢地拴着她、紧紧地拥着她。

一个女人究竟有多少柔情似水的日子呢？也许三毛是聪明的，她知道她不会再有一个荷西了，因为就算另一个荷西出现在她的生命中，她也不可能再成为Echo与其相爱了。当荷西走后，她就将她的柔、她的情，统统陪葬了。交心，是一件很漫长很费时间的事情。一个女人，尤其是一个复杂的女人，是没有那么多时间跟精力去完成多次的交心的。也许三毛累了，又或许厌倦了，甚至是失望更甚是绝望了，我都无从得知。

然而无论如何，三毛是一个传奇人物，而荷西则是她的灵魂人物，他们的故事在淡黄色的华章中演绎着，吸引着一代代的人们。

I went across this blog entry from Lynn’s blog - “Are Women Vampires?” I believe it’s written by one of her friends.

I find it sad how after so many freaking centuries, it seems like men still feel women evolve around them. Despite whether he’s stating the truth or not, despite whether women are or are not vampires, despite if women go for personalities or wealth, the bottom line is, women go for men. It’s not the fact that he feels “women are money-grubbing, blood-sucking, materialistic vampires that use sex as a weapon and turn men into zombies” that ticks me off, it’s the fact that he feels women seem to have this unbearable need to be with men that ticks me off. He’s under an invisible assumption that women need to be with men. This leads me to think, do women need men more so than men need women? I couldn’t help but to wonder, why are men so full of themselves? Don’t even try to deny it, the concept of men > women is pretty much embedded in our society. I don’t even want to discuss that topic because it seems useless to talk about it. (It’d be an interesting topic, but I just don’t feel like writing about it.)

I don’t want to and will not comment on whether I agree with his statement of women target men who are wealthy more so than men with personalities. I just want to say that if women do go for men who are more successful than they are in every other way, the relationship simply won’t work out. Despite you are a man or a woman, you’d still have some degree of dignity, so how would you feel if you are under a roof with someone who does everything better than you? There has to be some balance, the woman has to be better in some aspects that the man simply cannot match. I also don’t believe that successful women only go for even more successful men because if they are already superior in that aspect, they’d view being successful as something that’s trivial. For example, I don’t think I’d be very attracted to some guy who’s good at painting, I’d see him as a threat, because it’d make me want to draw something that’s even better. Whereas if he excels in music, I’d probably feel he’s very talented and thus attractive. This works the same way in making money in my opinion. Just take a look at the successful women in the TV series “Cashmere Mafia“. I feel the reason women go for successful men is because the ones who do go for them are the ones who aren’t good at being successful themselves! I can only imagine myself going after a man simply because he makes a lot of money if I am bad at keeping up with a lifestyle that I cannot afford. Thus I will need to rely on marrying rich to satisfy my urges. I believe this is true for every woman. I also believe that with the rise of equalities in work fields and study fields (even more encouraging for women in many fields) that this will soon be changed! Women with ideas will soon realize that they no longer need to rely on men for such urges, thus will not see that as a primary criteria for mate selection. This also indicates that my opinion on his statement relies on whether I believe all women have urges for a lifestyle they cannot afford. (You can judge whether I believe that’s true or not.)

On the ride back to Toronto, Mark mentioned that if a guy does not watch TV and does not play games, then he must be awesome. I then mentioned that Jim was like that but he’s not awesome. (I’m very bitter, yes I know.) This sort of relate to “successful men”, which is why I’m bringing it up. I told Mark that Jim focuses on school and work to keep himself busy. When he’s in school, he tries hard to keep his grades up and goes to the gym regularily when he’s not busy with course load. During coop terms, since he is very career driven, he’s chosen to work on the trading floor thus getting very little time for himself. 12 hours of work was fairly typical. He simply has no time to watch neither TV shows nor being addicted to some online game. If he keeps this up, by this, I mean being determined and being career driven, he’d be pretty successful, right? (In terms of making money strictly.) I guess the chance of him being making top cash is questionable, but I’d say there’s no way in hell that he’d be making below average salary. (He has a supportive family, both emotionally and financially.) But our relationship didn’t work out and it’s pretty much because he is so keen on being successful in the future. Well, not quite, but I feel it has something to do with it. Perhaps it’s because that he feels the need to excel in that area more so than relationship that brought an end to us. Ultimately, there wasn’t enough care devoted strictly to our relationship compared with the rest. I think that there will be a woman out there to drive him crazy though, it just wasn’t me. When a guy can still deduce logical statements to argue that you are wrong, even when you are crying, you know he’s not the one. I guess I learned that the hard way. But I did learn to counter argue while I’m in emotional distress, so I guess it’s true that you do learn something in everything.

So now, as I revisit my first paragraph, I realize that I’m a bit carried away as I encountered the Jim topic. (It’s the first time I wrote about it after the breakup. I find the very fact that we can still casually chat on MSN an indication of weak bond while dating.) I guess the bottom line is - I believe in common interest and opposite attract, but I don’t believe that women are vampires. Because based on my belief, if women are vampires, then so are men. When women are desperate for love, there will always be more men desperate to get laid (with or without love). The need is mutual and the attraction is mutual. QED.