這位“毒藥”的網友根本不值一駁。他說的“解讀都比較牽強”只不過是仁者見仁﹐智者見智的問題。有關于“還有常識上的一些錯誤”就更無從說起﹐他既沒有說明這個常識是誰論定的﹐更沒有引出權威專著來支持他的論點。這在寫論文上是大忌﹐英文上叫groundless。實際上﹐我的影評改寫自我的一篇學期論文﹐原文是英文。有關中國傳統的偶戲的論述是參考了幾本英文版的偶戲專著。 1. Stalberg, Roberta H.. China’s Puppets. San Francisco: China Books, 1984. 2. Tillis, Steve. Toward An Aesthetics Of The Puppet: Puppetry As A Theatrical Art. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. 3. Shershow, Scott C.. Puppets And “Popular” Culture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1995 我在改寫成中文時﹐特地刪去了參考書目。現在看來還是有先見之明的。
The link seems to be broken now. It's a shame to the Taiwan University. I doubt if the professor could have distiguished the dishonest behavior among the students. Somewhat feel like to apologize to 浮生 for such ungraceful piracy coming from my hometown.