Newbery主角们:故作反叛的正统偶像

wrinkle

书评
A Wrinkle in Time》By Madeleine L’Engle

读过几本Newbery,都不喜欢。里面的主角叛逆得很虚伪,很做作,不像自然的儿童,像是造出来的提线木偶,一举一动流露出幕后操纵的痕迹。

在儿童文学里,“反叛”是很常见的主题。但是Newbery主角和我小时候喜欢的叛逆小孩,长袜子皮皮,有很大的不同。长袜子皮皮力大无穷,无法无天,用蛮力把来管教她的成年人一个个都打趴下。相比起叛逆起来简直有点儿无法理喻的皮皮,Newbery主角就温顺得多了,后者的反抗总是很“稳重”,不会“出格”,他们儿童的外表下似乎有着成年人的心。对他们而言,反叛只是化妆,妆面下的他们依然是高度顺服于社会的,只不过他们顺服的往往不是书中的社会,而是读者和作者身处的这个现实社会。

Newbery主角的反叛方式总指向那个现实评价体系里的“正确”,甚至比“正确”更“正确”。比如《A Wrinkle in Time》里面的两个主角Charles和Meg,在作者的设定里,他们在学校被当成傻子,但其实智商非常高,只是不适应学校的评价系统。Charles有着远超五岁小孩的词汇量,Meg则擅长“巧算”数学题,——作者体现他们智商的方式,依然是让他们具有应试体系看重的”才能“,再硬把他们说成”异类“,比如说Meg的解法太巧了老师看不懂,所以她在学校被当成傻瓜。这个反叛设定实在牵强。作者想要设定一个不融于体系的”异类“,却写出了一个现有评价体系下的佼佼者,这说明作者根本就没想过现有体系的缺陷在哪里,也没有设定出冲破界限的反叛。

witchpond

如果说《A Wrinkle in Time》是个在智力上看似超出框架,实际强化框架的例子,那么《The Witch of Blackbird Pond》的主角Kat就是在道德上,看似超出框架,实际上顺应框架的例子。Kat成长在十七世纪的美洲殖民地,社区里清教徒占多数,Kat周围的人普遍歧视Quaker,然而Kat却一眼看出了这种偏见的荒谬之处,主动去和被众人孤立的Quaker老太太成为朋友。

那么,她是如何获得了这个超越时代的道德智慧的呢?作者完全没有解释。NewBery主角总能这样正确地格格不入,他们似乎天生就知道自己生活的时代里什么观念是错误的,什么信仰是荒谬的,怎么做才是在遵守“真正”的正义,这”真正“将由未来的某一代人来定义——也就是读者这一代人来定义。这些人物的脑子里似乎有一条秘密信道连通着读者所在的世界,作者通过这条信道输送给他们现实社会里”正确“的观念,命令他们以此行动。一方面,虚拟人物超前正确的三观让读者难以相信这些人是虚构世界的土著,一方面他们总能按照”正确“的正义行动,反而给人一种虚伪、飘浮的感觉。

Newbery主角看似超出框架,实则无时不在框架之中,甚至比普通人把框架的准则推行的更远。他们做出反叛的姿态,但他们反叛的方式、反叛的结果,正是框架极力推崇、喜闻乐见的,可以说他们是叛逆了个寂寞。

拒绝遵守制度的人会付出相应的代价。叛出体系的人会失去体系带来的利益,还可能遭受体系对反叛者的打压、报复和惩罚。正因为反叛一定会付出代价,反叛主题经常会和自我牺牲、侠义精神联系起来。反叛者通过反叛想要得到了什么,又付出了什么样的代价,这对理解反叛的意义至关重要。

Newbery主角看似有着侠义精神,Meg为了找到丢失的爹,冒着危险进行时间旅行;Kat为了保护Quaker老妇人,宁可被全镇当成怪胎。但是细想一下,就会发现,这些侠义儿童要保护的,总是成年人,按理来说,权力、力量都高于他们的成年人。把儿童保护成年人,说成是值得赞扬的“侠义”,背后的鸡贼之心昭然若揭。不论如何美化,让儿童去守卫成人的“义举”也不能打动我,只让我觉得厌烦。成年人的问题请自己解决,不要拖小孩下水,让小孩解决成人的问题不能体现小孩的“仁义”,只能体现成人的卑劣。

能触动我的,让我觉得有意义的反叛,是儿童去发扬天性,做力所能及的事,一步步拓宽自己的世界。让儿童保护成年人来体现儿童侠义,说实在的很恶心,也悖逆自然天理;让儿童展现小动物的保护欲来体现儿童的侠义心,读着就很舒服,感觉很自然。

midnightswan

《The Midnight Swan》有个情节很触动我,就在于它少有地表现出了儿童对小动物的侠义心。Tylwyth Teg(威尔士妖精)偷了午夜天鹅的蛋,午夜天鹅说要她解除她下在发条乌鸦身上的咒语,就必须用被偷走的蛋来交换。主角Seren想要救她的朋友发条乌鸦,克服重重困难,只身来到森林深处,对Tylwyth Teg说,你不是想要小孩子吗?给我蛋,作为交换我可以跟你走。

做出牺牲自己、拯救朋友的承诺对于成年人来讲,需要很多的铺垫和解释,但对于儿童来讲,就有种自然而然的感觉。Seren知道被妖精带走就再也回不到现实世界了,但比起对现实世界的留恋,她把朋友的幸福看得更加重要。

天然儿童就是这样,不觉得人比其它生灵更高贵。儿童往往会冒着生命危险,去救一只鸟、一只猫,但是对人的生命,包括自己的生命反而没那么看重,比如我小学的时候,有个同学爬到很高的树上去救猫,完全没想过要害怕从那么高的地方摔下来的危险。我自己小时候,在报纸、电视看到残害野生动物、破坏雨林植被的新闻都气得吃不下饭,恨不得把罪犯五马分尸,我觉得伤害动物、伤害树木的人就是该以死抵罪,甚至死不足惜,他们即使死了,也只赔了一条命,而被他们伤害的大象、老虎、藏羚羊再也回不来了。

Newbery主角像个假小孩,这类小孩的特点是他们最看重与人的关系,特别是与成年人的关系,同时完全无视和其它有灵生物的关系。成年人写儿童文学,最喜欢YY的一个情节,就是让虚构小孩把与成年人的关系放在高于一切的位置上。女人写儿童探险就安排小孩救妈,男人写儿童探险就安排小孩找爹,让孩子救妈找爹完全是成年女男在自恋地代入巨婴家长角色。比起救妈找爹,救狗找猫更符合小孩的天性。妈爹请自己救自己,放过小孩吧,小孩也是,你的精力,用来和小狗小猫小兔大树一起玩儿不好吗?别再浪费在找爹救妈上了。

Gap Between Fiction and Reality of Authoritarian Regimes

A Book Review of
“The Bone Shard Daughter”, by Andrea Stewart

The story is not without potential, but can use some good editing. In several places where tension needs to be built, the author digresses into too many irrelevant, distracting details. For example, when Lin goes to the locksmith Numeen for the second time, she is in deep fear of being found out by her father and that should be what occupies her thought. That is not a time for her attention to wander to the activities of street vendors. In other places where opportunities are posed for richer plots and characterization, the author just brushes them off. Why is the governor’s heir Phalue so quick to accept her lover Ranami’s involvement in the “Shardless” and agree to watch the subversive activity to overthrow her father? Because Ranami shows her some poor people’s food and housing? Were it in human nature that a wealth gap could so easily vex the rich, any wealth gap would have stopped existing a long time ago.

The story is set in an authoritarian regime where people are forced to surrender their bone shards to the empire, which are necessary to power the magical constructs to guard and rule, but the magic would also drain the donors’ life and cause premature deaths. The regime coerces and coaxes its people into submission. Soldiers and spy constructs watch them and keep them in line, and the empire promulgates the belief that shard donation is essential to protect the people from the external hostile force Alanga.

Despite the fictional setting of an authoritarian regime, it seems to me the author lacks experience or knowledge of what life under an authoritarian regime truly is like, and makes no attempt to mirror the history or the reality of authoritarianism in her plot devising. Generally, two types of things feel very out of context in the storyline: how authoritarian leaders treat plebeians and how plebeians think of themselves under such regimes.

The interaction between aristocrats and commoners is described in a way overly egalitarian. Lin makes a promise to Numeen that would risk her life and feels guilty for not keeping it. The governor’s heir Phalue jumps instantly at the opportunity to join subversive activities. The plot gives me an impression that the aristocrats do not feel entitled to their status and are eager to get rid of any unearned privileges. It is hard to believe any person in power will be so ready to give up power, just to feel “good”. The mindset has many similarities with the shout-outs of college SJWs —— “check your privilege! ”, and seems implausible to be held by real-life political figures. It is not only idealistic but also contemporary, and does not fit in the story background.

The author depicts a life in fear of the people under authoritarian regimes, when in fact it is only the people not living under such regimes who would observe from the outside with fear. The people who actually live in the regime would just have to live with it. As people learn to adapt, they tune out fear. They normalize and rationalize their state of living, no matter how oppressive and suffocating it is, and they stop thinking about their oppression entirely, as a form of self-preservation. In a real authoritarian regime, to feel fear means there is a risk of showing the fear, which means showing dissatisfaction and resentment, and that will warrant severe punishment by the regime. When the emperor’s daughter Lin reveals her identity inadvertently at the dinner with the Numeen’s, the author says the family shows fear and Lin leaves in guilt and shame, while in a real-life context, most commoners’ family under such situations would only show and feel a deep sense of gratitude to the regime and believe it is a rare honor to treat a member of royalty.

The beginning of the book raised much of my hope, but further into reading, I could not help being upset by the inadequate execution. It’s OK to have abnormalities in a story. But they require justification. Justifications of abnormalities give the characters depth and complexity. Sadly, the characters in this book are all behaving out of the norm, without the author giving any proper justification from their experience, backgrounds and internal struggles. It disappoints me more especially because the story is full of creative ideas and has the potential to be great. For a debut novel the author may not be aware of all the holes in her writing but a good editor should step in and offer proper advice.

读“和风小说”随感

 书评
RDG レッドデータガール》,作者荻原規子


近两年读过的和风小说,包括这一本,还有之前读过的《京都寺町三条のホームズ》、《つくもがみ貸します》、《霧のむこうのふしぎな町》,都是日亚上评价超高,但是我特别无感,甚至厌烦的。这几本书的叙事风格也有些相似之处,推荐语里也常常提到它们的“和风”特色。我在想这些“和风”明显的日本小说一直触动不了我,是不是因为我把期待放错了?我总试图在日语里面找英语或者中文的典型风格,然后又抱怨它没有,就像抱怨为什么粤菜不够辣一样。我喜欢的几个日本作家,不是因为他们的日本风格,而是因为他们不够日本。比如齐藤洋,写小说的时候也逻辑致密,上下句总有着逻辑清晰的链接,他本人是学德语文学出身的;另一个我喜欢的作家貴志祐介,常用简洁明快的短句,短句多得不像日本小说,倒有种中文的利落感。审美如同照镜,人看的并非原景原物,而是镜中之景。可能欣赏和风美需要照一面不同的镜子,也就是说,用一种既不同于中式、也不同于西式的审美体系对照着它来看,才能发现它的美来。

先说我对中式和西式(英美)文学语言的理解吧。中文要声音清脆铿锵,如珠玉落盘,一断一空,留未尽之言,表无尽之意。罗素有篇文章讲如何写作,其中一条建议是,句子前后逻辑要一致,不能让前半段暗示一件事,然后后半段又否认这一件事。在我看来,这条建议其实不适用于中文审美,如果以中文为标准,读者看了前一句就能猜出后一句要说什么,那说明后一句多余,应该删掉。英文追求细致绵密,适合说理,中文则是一部分意思在言说里,还有一部分意思在不言中。英文事无巨细都要言明,翻译成中文常读着赘余啰嗦,中文处处留白,翻译成英文后往往显得前言不搭后语。

把文学美推广到普遍的艺术审美,也能看出类似的地方。中式审美要求的留空,如同山水留白、琵琶声停,是要一把将读者推出物质世界,在无尽虚空中自由坠落,同时,这个坠落只持续一眨眼的时间,下一瞬读者又被从虚空拉回现世,中式美学就在从有到无,从无到有的反复急变之间。这样的“有”态和“无”态之间的交错,实现了以“有“为中心的无限延展,会让“有”的这一部分特别地凸显,同时,对“无”的体验也会自然地导向无条件的谦卑,因为人在“无”中会意识到自己的思维之有限,远远不能填满虚空。

与中式审美不同,西式审美要精细致密,上下延连,所以不但“无”处要填上“有”,而且处处要合乎逻辑,又要求从已知中推见前人所未见,言说前人所未言,一步步引导读者,推演出新知的同时,它对完美论述的追求也会自然地召唤来不停歇的辩论。在关于如何完善人的创造的事情上,西式哲学要实用得多。但是论及情绪上的传递出来的玄妙感,一旦表达出来就被定型了的”有“,当然永远也不可能超过能够无限延展的“无”。

和风虽说受汉风很大影响,乍看之下也有些相似,但是稍微接触多一点,即使说不出哪里有差,也能感觉出“中式”与“和式“存在着显著区别。比如家装风格,虽然都是原木色,但“中式”以深色基调为主,桌椅都是细杆搭在一起,一看就鹤骨仙风,高冷得很,“和式”就给人感觉比较温暖,全屋都会铺浅色的榻榻米,透光的障子把整间屋子柔柔地包裹了一层。延伸到文学上也有点儿类似,当然我只读过几十本日语原著,肯定不能说多了解日语,只能说说对这门语言粗浅的印象:日本并不追求中国的“无”,但也不追求西式那种可见的“有”,而是要营造一种不可见的“有”,如同风过竹林,沙沙作响,目力虽不可见,但风把世间所有物事都包裹其中。而且,和风艺术的目的在“乘风”而不是“御风”,它不试图改变风向,而是随八面天风而起,游行自在,把自身交托到无处不在、流动不息的风流之中。夏日凉风习习,拂过头发,拂过脸颊,这一刻的风好像是从侧面扫来,下一阵的风又好像是迎面吹来,过一会儿远处又飘来烤鸡的香气。说不上风从哪个方向吹来,也没法预测它下一步的行动,只能感受到它无处不在,在宇宙间任意穿行,把心放在风里,心随风而动,文字从心里流淌出来,也乘着风自由流动,可能这就是和风美吧。

以上对”和风“的想法最近才产生,还很初步,需要更多的阅读来验证和细化。如果不是日语水平太拉跨,我是很想读读古典日语作品的,我觉得古典作品中的“和风”会更纯粹吧,也能更好地验证我的想法,但是受限于目前的阅读理解水平,只能从当代作品开始一步一步来了。

The Wild Rusalka and the City Priest

bear_and_nightingaleA Book Review of
The Bear and the Nightingale“, by Kathrine Arden

In the form of a medieval Russian folklore, the book tells a story about the clash between Christianity from Moscow and idolatry in the woods of northern Russia. Moscow is civilized, political, sublime, and publicly right; the forest of Lesnaya Zemlya is untamed, earthly, natural, and privately wrong.

One place that exemplifies this theme of antagonism is the murderous dynamics between the rusalka (water sprite), a magical creature living in the lake, sustained on the meat of her killing, and the priest Konstantin, who is exiled to the woods from Moscow because his rising influence among the locals has threatened the crown. The rusalka sees through the priest’s masquerading of piety and stoicism, and drools over his power-thirsty soul hidden underneath. For a rusalka, the flesh of men full of desire and fear provides the best nourishment. Without any knowledge of being targeted as a prey, the priest dreams about expanding his fame and glory in front of the village people, by exorcising demons and specters bred by the wild land. Despite their different interests and motivations, death is the wish they make upon each other.

Although animosity is felt by both parties, fear is incurred on only one side. Father Konstantin is scared of the wild, but the wild creatures are not deterred by him and his preach, even after they foresee the disastrous consequences his action is going to bring to the village. Rusalka tries to drown him, but her desire to kill is driven purely by a biological impulse.

The psychology of Father Konstantin is more complicated than simple fear. His attitude towards Vasya is always internally contradictory to the point of self-deception. He is attracted to and frightened by Vasya’s daring and vividness. He vilifies Vasya for her feral energy and defiant manners, calling her a devil, a beast, a witch, but cannot help falling for her charms. He is deeply entrenched in patriarchal beliefs, expecting women to please and breed under male orders, and he, as a member of the male class, feels morally entitled to punish any non-conforming members of the female class. He conspires with Vasya’s stepmother in sending Vasya to a convent, despite knowing being locked up in the convent will kill everything in this girl that intrigues him. He pities Vasya for she must lead a life that men like him force her to lead, and calls that fate the women’s fate. What a hypocrite and a coward of him, hidden under a mask of piety.

A centering theme of the book lies in the three-stage prophecy repeatedly told to Vasya, and to the readers: first comes fear, next fire, next famine. Why is fear the start of a series of disasters? I think this passage reveals some clue.

“God, thought Vasya, when the service haltingly renewed. Here? Chyerti cannot come into churches; they are creatures of this world, and church is for the next.”

What does the notion of “God” represent here? As the passage above suggests, God represents the next world, the life after this life. Fear for God is fear for death. Why is fear for death the beginning of self-destruction? In my opinion, it is because this fear is man-made, its origin illusional. When someone starts to see natural ways as sinful and death as punishment for sinning, she or he holds up illusions over the nature’s law.

The magical creatures do not fear death. They have an innate understanding of mortality, which is developed from living a life in accordance to the natural rhythms of growth and decay. —— Everything dies. Despite all his knowledge in Christianity and icon-creation, the priest is ignorant in critical matters — he does not understand life. He tries to subvert the law of nature and replace it with the authority of a man-made God. The reverence to a man-made God, accompanied by the irreverence to nature’s order, fuel the fear among villagers, empower the bear, and bring on destruction. The bear can only be bound by two things: the frost God Morozko in midwinter, when his power is at the peak, or a brave parent who is willing to sacrifice his life for his children. Only nature’s relentless showing of her power, or human’s brave confrontation can stop the foolish behavior of self-destruction.

The story is a beautiful folklore. It swims through magic waters, breathes the quaint air of a long medieval Russian winter. But it is also relevant to contemporary awarenesses and challenges. I see this story as a warning letter to the men’s insolence engendered by their ignorance, a celebration over the triumph of nature, a love song to the magic and glamor of wilderness, and a philosophical contemplation over the meaning of life and mortality.

儿童文学中的探险自由和权力控制

kiri书评
《霧のむこうのふしぎな町》,作者柏葉幸子

最近看了一些日本儿童文学,结果让我心情很抑郁。按理说儿童文学应该是天真烂漫,无忧无虑的,然而只能说表象如此。细看之下,这些故事得以成立的前提所展现出的儿童的处境,与其说是自由无拘束的,不如说是恰恰相反。

儿童被投入这个世界之后,就不得不接受一切迎面而来的东西。成年人不满意现状可以拒绝,可以远离,可以造一个茧房屏蔽外界,可以动用武器保护自己。而儿童对自己的生活是基本上失控的,既不能选择生存环境,也不能选择生活方式,更不能拒绝来自成年人的管束。儿童只有等待的命运,她被人从一个环境带到另一个环境,被安排着做这一件事和下一件事。没有人带走她,她就无法离开,有人要带走她,她就无法留下,这其中的被动感和无力感令人窒息。

即使是在小说里,儿童也没有力量主动选择进入或离开冒险地。冒险故事的主角往往在无意中踏入了一个秘密仙境,她的停留时间通常已被规定好了,但她对此一无所知,她开心地享受探险的快乐,直到在某一刻被突然通知需要离开。比如《霧のむこうのふしぎな町》里,主角Rina追逐被风吹跑的雨伞时,误入了雾中小镇。她被Pipity婆婆安排到镇上的几家魔法商店帮工,和镇上的居民成为了朋友。几个月之后她突然被Pipity婆婆告知已经到了要离开的时间了。她想知道明年能不能回到雾中小镇时,Pipity婆婆并不正面作答,反而故意把雨伞藏起来,让她误以为被拒绝了。在她伤心地打开朋友们的送别礼物时,看到了放在最下面的雨伞,又高兴了起来。可是她的高兴和失落,是多么不由自主啊。情绪的起落成因,与她个人的行动无关,只是受了成年人的逗弄罢了。

baihu

在儿童本身的弱势处境之上,还有日本位阶尊卑文化罩下的阴影。在一类常见故事中,主角一开始就被抛入了陌生地,对此地的规则懵懂无知,这时她遇到了一位前辈,一位向导,帮助她探索适应新环境,教导她这里的生存智慧。这种师徒设定当然并非日本儿童文学独有,但师徒相处模式中的权力色彩确是日本独有的。在《白狐魔記》中,狐狸作为仙人的弟子向仙人求教问题,有时没有听懂仙人的答案,或因为仙人故意语焉不详,或由于理解偏差。然而狐狸却不继续追问,而是自己绞尽脑汁地猜测,仙人则看着狐狸抓耳挠腮的神情或者猜错后做出的傻事以此为乐。类似的相处模式也存在于Rina和Pipity婆婆之间。

如果主角和导师仅是师生授业的关系,学生何必需要闷声揣摩老师的弦外之意,未尽之言?换句话说,在这种权力模式中,徒弟需要花大量的精力去猜测师傅,而师傅却没有义务让自己变得更容易理解。师傅让徒弟猜测自己的心意,并非出于启蒙开智的目的,而是在主张他凌驾于徒弟之上的权力。

只有下位者对上位者,才需要左思右想地揣摩上意。揣摩结果正确与否并不重要,取悦上位者的是下位者努力揣摩本身。或者不如说,上位者最乐见的是,下位者为猜测自己的意图殚精竭虑辗转反侧,最终却依然猜错了。如果总能猜中,反而引来上位者的厌恶和忌惮,就像杨修说破曹操心思之后一样下场悲惨。

上位者不只要用权力强迫你遵循他的意志,他更追求让你从心底里认同他的逻辑。而他并不采用一套固定的逻辑,更遑论公正,他的规则随时可以为适应他的利益而变化。Rina刚到小镇时,Pipity婆婆让她去镇上工作赚钱付生活费。Rina说自己有零用钱,Pipity婆婆问那是你自己赚的吗,Rina说不是,是家长给的,Pipity婆婆说既然这个钱不是你自己赚的,就不能用。于是Rina被说服了,接受了去书店的工作安排。要我说,用“不劳动者不得食”威胁一个小学六年级的孩子,是彻底的流氓行径,强买强卖。她依赖你,所以欠你的吗?她没有在社会上赚钱的能力,被说成是她的缺陷一样。为什么不问问,是谁让她陷入这样不能独立,只能依赖你的境地的呢?是谁不征求她的意见,就用雨伞、大风和雾气把她骗过来了呢?儿童文学里的这些情节,到处流露出成人世界的傲慢。等到成人需要帮助的时候,又闭口不谈独立了。Monday和老婆Kinu在教育孩子Sunday的问题上起了争执,打了老婆一巴掌,把老婆气走了,之后他和Sunday两个人吃糖不知节制,长了蛀牙很痛苦,Kinu从Rina那里听说了之后,放心不下让父子俩独自生活,就又搬回去了,结局母子团聚,皆大欢喜,Pipity婆婆也默然赞许。为什么这个时候Pipity婆婆又不来指责Monday和Sunday不够独立了呢?做不到保持牙齿清洁的成年人理应有人来照顾他的饮食起居,而六年级小学生应该自己劳动赚钱自己花,这不是流氓逻辑,什么能算流氓逻辑呢?

ルドルフとイッパイアッテナ

当儿童文学忠实地描绘儿童的处境时,奇异地产生了一种讽刺的效果。即使在为儿童而写的文学作品里,她也难以被当做是个平等的人来看待,她被引导被保护甚至被宠爱着,但时常不被尊重,永远不会被畏惧。《ルドルフとイッパイアッテナ》里,虎斑猫易白易阿特那为了给徒弟黑猫鲁道夫准备践行宴,愿意放下脸面去求仇人施舍一些牛肉,结果被打成重伤,然而这样宠爱徒弟的易白易阿特那,之前只是因为鲁道夫说错一句话,就狠狠打了他一个巴掌。上位者对下位者的宠爱,也是他霸权控制的一部分。即使再被宠爱,仰仗别人鼻息的生活,整日担心供养人突然死掉或者翻脸,又有什么幸福可言呢?平静安定的生活随时有被意外打断的风险,她无力影响外因,却要承受成年人一切行动的后果。如果没有为儿童权益撑腰的公共机构,她在自己的家庭里,该是多么孤立无援啊。

我好多年没读过儿童文学了,最近集中读了几本之后积累了某种直觉性的憋屈,整理了下思路絮叨成文,主要是为了让自己记住现在的这种感觉吧。我怕后面类似题材读的越来越多,大脑逐渐内化了其中的逻辑,不再有不舒服的感觉,对新鲜接触时眼前很显然的东西反而视而不见了。也希望能读到更多的平等对待儿童,赋予儿童力量的文学故事。