[轉錄] 暴民不讀書?-耐人尋味的倫敦暴動現象
原文在此:
暴民不讀書? 耐人尋味的倫敦暴動現象，裡面還有一系列的討論 : )
部落格文章:
"Bookstores Left Untouched by UK Looters"
* 最近倫敦及其它英國大城市暴動時 , 許多青年暴民搶劫商店, 並縱火搞破壞, 有街頭 所有的店面都受害, 卻只有書店沒被搶 - 這現在是英美媒體,知識份子, 教育界, 在熱烈討論思索的話題:
到底是: 暴民不愛看書 ? 對讀書沒興趣 ? 還是暴民 也尊重書藉與知識 ? (The Huffington Post 提出的假設問題)
* 從下列的新聞報導: "英國最大連鎖書店 Waterstone's 回報警方, 它們在倫敦的所有店面, 都完然無傷, 都沒有受到破壞及搶劫....." , "而另外一家連鎖書店 WH Smith 回報說, 它們只有一家店 有些破壞 (有些書店 暫時關門, 以防萬一). " with the Waterstone's bookstore chain emerging unscathed and the WH Smith chain reporting only one incident (some stores closed as a precaution).
* 英國新聞標題 - "已是個同樣模式 : 倫敦暴民 都沒去動到書店" It's a Pattern : London Rioters Are Leaving Bookstores Untouched
(Photo - from publishingperspective.com 英國最大連鎖書店Waterstone's)
* 英美新聞報導內文: "在本週英國各城市的暴民, 去攻擊搶劫各行各業的商店. 他們搶走 鞋子, 服飾, 電腦產品, 液晶電視 等, 但有趣的是, 暴民們都 置一項商品 於不顧 : 就是 - 書. " While the rioters in England this week have looted shops selling shoes, clothes, computers, and plasma televisions, they've curiously bypassed one particular piece of merchandise: books.
* NBC 新聞報導 (在倫敦某街頭) : 在這購物中心, 所有的店面都被搶劫了, 只有一家沒有, 那是個 書店." Martin Fletcher touched on a similar theme at the end of a report for NBC News. "A final thought that may say a lot about our times," he concluded. "In this shopping center every store had been looted but one, the book store."
* 住在倫敦的英國作家 Patrick French 也有同樣的觀察, 他說: "我住家這條街上, 唯一商店沒有被搶劫的, 就是Waterstones 書店." "The only shop NOT looted down the road from where I live was Waterstones," British author Patrick French tweeted.
--------------------------------------
* 我們來去瞭解 , 探索這耐人尋味, 令人啼笑皆非, 有趣的社會現象 - 在許多英美媒體報導, 及網路文章中 有下列的作者及讀者觀點及論述:
1. "在現今的電腦數位時代, 搶劫的暴民不想要拿書" - " The rioters simply didn't want books, particularly in the digital age."
2. "在暴民要搶劫的目標, 書 已經輸給了 高價位牛仔褲, 及 蘋果數位產品 (iPhone, iPad等) " --- "When it comes to targets for looters, books are losing out to high-end jeans and Apple-made gadgets."
3. " 這些暴民大多是去搶奪 手機店, 流行服飾店, 及HMV 唱片,影片店, 他們主要是尋找可以轉賣的東西." --- "The people who were doing this were mainly going for phone shops, high fashion shops and HMV, looking for stuff that they could sell on,"
4. " 他們都是笨蛋, 不識字, 不會看書的文盲, 但是他們會看大螢幕電視(節目). " --- “Dumb asses [sic] are probably illiterate,” one surmised. “Says a lot about these types of people,” another concluded. “They can’t read, but they sure can watch big screen TVs,” a third sniped.
5. "暴民搶劫時 , 是不會想去搬運書本, 因為書不但厚重, 而且在圖書館 可以免費看." --- " Would you really start stocking up on the hardbacks? Not only are they comparatively heavy, they’re free at the library."
6. " 因為, 很心酸的來說, 書已經不值得去偷了. 你最近有嘗試去轉賣書嗎 ? (不好賣) " --- " It's because, heartbreakingly, books simply aren't worth stealing anymore. Have you tried to resell books lately? "
7. " 現代社會已經退化了, 大眾已經對電子產品成癮了, 同時也減低人民的閱讀能力, 結果就是書已經不受重視了" --- "Modern society has devolved to the point where addiction to gadgets goes hand in hand with functional illiteracy, so books are no longer valued."
8. " 因為這些暴民不讀書, 並是一群笨蛋 , 所以他們認為搶劫商店是可以的, 而他們不看書, 也不會想去搶書. " --- " Rioters don’t read books. They don’t read, therefore they aren’t very bright and not about to get any brighter, therefore they find looting perfectly acceptable, and as a result of all that are not about to loot books because they don’t read. "
9. " 書太花時間了. 若要搶拿書, 必須花時間瀏覽, 看到有喜歡的書才拿. " --- "Books take time. If want to take books, You need to browse to see what you like. "
10. "這就是我們現代社會的指標. 搶劫暴民, 其實跟普通消費者一樣, 要給書店的訊息就是: 在現今社會, 我們對閱讀書是越來越沒有興趣了 ." --- " It says a lot about our times. The "underlying message for bookshops," The Economist adds, is "hardly front-page news: looters, like more conventional consumers, are all too happy to ignore their wares."