To the Three-Eight Woman who can do magic,

The content of this letter can apply only to the Three-Eight Woman who can do magic. I will reject anyone who tries to turn out to be my “ally” or “friend” by taking advantage of the following passages or by making friends with you. My No.2 enemy 陳╳姿 has turned out to be my No.1 enemy. Be careful.

The following comments or arguments require evidence from my allies that I’ve already recognized (To realize what I mean by “my allies,” see as reference the latest edition of my article “嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象” made known on my blog) to prove what I’ve said is right or true. Some of the comments or arguments may lack sufficient evidence. Therefore, you have to make judgment on your own and take the responsibility for the results by yourself if you wrongly think that I am lying to you but I’m not.

The content of this letter, including this paragraph can apply to the Three-Eight Woman who can do magic only. It is important for me to place stress on my feeling of 顧念 on you one more time, for it is this feeling that makes you entirely different from others in my mind. This is also the reason why I still cherish the kindness up to now that you had showed to me before you changed your attitude and became not so friendly to me. Another reason why I cherish the kindness is that I like to audit your class. Somehow I feel that I will have to seek out something interesting else to substitute for this inspiring class; otherwise, I will be very lonely next semester when you don’t instruct the same course. The only problem is that you seem to have over-interpreted my feeling of 顧念 on you and taken it for feeling of love, which has obviously led to some communicative problems between you and me, hasn’t it? Accordingly, there is one thing that I must explicate: I will definitely not reject you if my feeling of 顧念 on you turns out to be feeling of love for you when it is governed under the rules of nature. I mean, it may be an extreme bliss to me if our professor-student relationship “naturally” changes into friendship and further “naturally” alters into lover relationship, since I don’t dislike you, as I have mentioned. However, I feel a little uncomfortable when our professor-student relationship has not changed a bit, but you claim that we are friends, on which I don’t feel the same way as you do. For example, we are absolutely not allies, let alone friends, if you are so close to my enemies as to make the situations inconvenient to me. Moreover, you act as if you don’t like to talk with me personally every time I try to communicate with you. For these reasons, I never feel that we are friends, not to mention lovers. If you really care for me, you should change your attitude first. Say yes loudly and talk with me with smile when I ask if you will communicate with me face-to-face. Then, be a person of virtue and separate from the influential powers of my enemies by degrees. In doing so, you will be the person that is most likely to win my heart, but I cannot guarantee that you are sure to be my lover. It still has to depend on various kinds of situation, because it is partly up to whether we are doomed to become friends, to become lovers and further to be happily together with each other, not totally up to me. On the other hand, don’t bother me any more if you don’t really care for me. It is my birthday tomorrow. Give me a peaceful birthday and from now on give me peaceful life, so that I can continue to look for my Ms. Right, will you? (This paragraph was written on December 3, 2007)

The content of this letter, including this paragraph can apply to the Three-Eight Woman who can do magic only. On December 5, 2007, I went visit you at noon and tried to communicate with you face-to-face. Yet it is a pity that you were in a hurry, so I didn’t seize any chance to fully convey what I wanted to express. Therefore, I have no choice but to write you this letter after I came back to the apartment where I live. It is important for me to place stress on my feeling of 顧念 on you one more time, for it is this feeling that makes you entirely different from others in my mind. But it is apparent that we are no allies, nor friends, not to speak of any further relationships such as lovers. You know why I say so? I will tell you why. You claimed that you and I are “麻吉” and at the same time launched attacks on me, didn’t you? Don’t you think it strange to act like that? For instance, is that you that spread the false rumor the other day that I was raped? What made you wrongly think that way? Stupid woman! You have been fooled! For this reason, I have to make it clear that we are no allies now. We may be allies someday till you revise all the false statements on me when you do believe what I say, but it seems to be a long way to go. I just wanted to ask you these questions: Do we have to be enemies, even though we are not doomed to be friends nor lovers? Why did you launch so many attacks on me if we don’t have to be enemies? Think of that. Above all, I hope that you can pay more attention to the terms with which you try to channel messages to me, if they are your signals. But if they’re not, things will be totally different. I tried many times to ask you face-to-face whether they symbolized you, but in vain. If it was no more than a coincidence, then forget about it. Let me take “麻吉” for example. At first sight of this term, I consider it to be a signal that may signpost two kinds of possible relationship. One is a “match (相配),” which implies that two persons are very suitable for each other. The other is “intimacy,” which implies that two persons are very close to each other. Strangely enough, however, we are neither suitable for nor close to each other, so I cannot figure out why you constantly use this term. Or you say so just because you want to tell me that you expect to build that kind of relationship with me? Furthermore, I got an email about the Tiffany products last night. The sender was not you, but was it sent as a message that you were asking me whether I would be your lover? No sooner had I seen its title than I deleted it. Do you know why? This is because I never have ever used that sort of email as a tool to show approval or objection when asked if I would be someone’s lover or not. It doesn’t mean yes if I transfer it to my Outlook Express and keep it. Nor does it mean no if I delete it. I may keep the letter with the ad simply because I think it possible to buy the products someday. I may delete it just because I don’t need the products at all. There are other possibilities as such. I hope that you will stop communicating with me in that way. It is a too “casual” (大而化之) way for me to bear. In other words, the kinds of casual way arouse my resentment. Can you decide whether you would be someone’s lover by merely taking a letter of an unknown sender? How ridiculous! I have to let you know that I am just tolerating you now, but sooner or later I will lose my patience. You are a person with deep sensibility. Make good use of your strength and boost your brain power and then talk about love in far more delicate and precise ways, if you still insist making efforts to build friendship and lover relationship with me. But leave me alone from now on, if you don’t really care for me.

The content of this letter, including this paragraph can apply to the Three-Eight Woman who can do magic only. This letter was returned shortly after it was emailed you on December 5, 2007. What’s wrong? No matter how, it is great that the term “麻吉” has vanished. To pay back your kindness in return that you showed me on my birthday, I will give you a gift by telling you frankly one thing that has been in my mind for long. I once wrote you a letter in which I addressed one passage to your daughter. Do you remember? You would have asked her to say something sweet or interesting back to me to comfort me, if you had felt like shortening the distance between you and me. But you didn’t do that. After that, I talked about her again on my blog soon after I departed from the party showing thanks to the teachers (謝師宴) on June 22, 2007, saying that she was very lovely. You would have asked her to make friendly response to me, if your spontaneous overflow feelings of love for me were strong enough for you to show how much you cared for me in that way. I mean, you should have asked her to directly answer my letter or phone me. But you didn’t do that. For these reasons, I don’t believe that you really care so much about me. Instead, I have been often thinking that there might be just some communicative problems between you and me. I will not be moved by what you say, because I will test you in many ways by how you act to realize if you do love me. As I have already indicated, my Ms. Right and I must be a couple that love each other truly and deeply; otherwise we can scarcely bring true happiness to each other and the marriage could even be a disaster. A woman who wants to be my lover must be a person that I don’t dislike. This is the first necessary, but not sufficient condition. Then she has to pass various kinds of tests of mine, and even has to pass the ordeals imposed on by the tough environments. On December 15, 2007, I made clearer statements as follows. If you still feel like doing your best to shorten distance between us, I will not reject you. But this is because I don’t dislike you, who seem much better in my eyes than those who are so shameless as to make me feel sick, not because I particularly like you. It seems to me that you are too close to some groups and wicked “beasts” on which I have had negative judgment for long. For this reason, I would rather keep some distance from you than build friendship or any further relationship with you. Do you really think that I will ever fall in love with a woman who has too intimate relationship with those whom I am very hostile to? Before my Ms. Right shows up, however, you still have chance to improve our present situations. Whether you can make it or not is up to you to some degree and up to my sense and sensibility to other degree, and up to destiny to still other degree. Do you agree? When you find it too difficult and almost impossible to be my lover, you can give up your efforts to reach the aim. No one forces you to do that, does he/she? Besides, I will not easily believe what you say, for you change your attitude toward me too frequently.

Below are the comments I added to the article “嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象” (No.154) made known on my blog on January 4, 2008. “民國九十六年十二月卅一日，在剛開始上課的時候，吳雅鳳教授問及前一個禮拜她所提出的問題：“How do you interpret the last couplet of the ‘Ode to the West Wind’”﹖在其他同學發表意見之後，吳教授認為意有未盡之處而做了一些補充，本人覺得還可以有發揮的空間，於是進一步提出自己的看法。我說：“The last couplet implies Shelley’s expectation. I mean, he expected himself to serve as a prophet that would leave his words and poetic inspirations behind as if ashes and sparks from an extinguished hearth were scattered. The last couplet also implies a hopeful ending that his spirit will revive like the breath of Autumn’s being does when spring comes.”(上課時我把最後一句說成：“when spring comes, his spirit, like the breath of Autumn’s being, will revive.”後來發現說得不夠完整，在此做一點修改)。接著，吳教授提及John Keats墓誌銘上面的一句：“Here lies a poet whose name writ in water.”然後問大家這裡所謂的“in water”做何解釋﹖其他同學猜了一陣子，似乎未能切中核心，因此，我問道：“Can the word ‘water’ here be interpreted as ‘purity’?” 吳教授聽了之後略略點了一下頭，然後針對這一點解釋說，“in water”指的是“the quality of water”。由此觀之，我在文學方面具有相當程度的直覺和敏銳(我只說在「文學方面」，可沒說自己在「感情方面」也這麼行哦)。再來，吳教授談及“On Seeing the Elgin Marbles”這首詩的時候，由於第八行寫著“the opening of the morning’s eye”而引用聖經的一段話。但是，我認為此二者之間的關聯太遠，做此連結不甚恰當，因此，在上課時向吳教授提出這一點意見，而吳教授並不反對我的說法。哈﹗哈﹗哈﹗吳雅鳳﹗這次踢到鐵板了吧﹗當天本人的貢獻不多，即使是這樣，雖無功勞，還是有點苦勞。不知吳雅鳳教授是否同意我的說法﹖”

I added some comments to the article “嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象” (No.148) made known on my blog on December 24, 2007, as follows. “民國九十六年十二月廿三日，吳雅鳳教授問及前一個禮拜的兩個問題時，由於我上星期比較忙，無暇準備，只得把大好的發表意見的機會拱手讓給其他同學，深感遺憾。接著，吳教授繼續講解Percy Bysshe Shelley的詩作。當天側重的焦點是Ode to West Wind和Prometheus Unbound。吳教授在一開始談到前者的押韻形式terza rima的時候，先問大家一個問題：比Shelley更早的文學作品當中，哪一部也是使用相同的押韻形式﹖由於被吳教授點名回答這個問題的同學，沒提出正確的解答，說時遲，那時快，我立即適時適度回答：“The Divine Comedy”，誠然如此。接著，吳教授問及第二個詩節有哪些字，跟multitudes呈現類似或相同的意象，大家還在搜尋之際，我回答說：“Mænad”。雖說這不是吳教授心目中的標準答案，但是，如果從fierce和frenzy的角度來看，二者還是頗有雷同之處。經過吳教授的提示，我說了一個正確答案“commotion”，另一個則由其他同學補充。談到本詩的最後，吳教授突然問及：Shelley寫這首詩的時候大概幾歲﹖然後她自己算了一下，用1819扣掉1791的結果，說是28歲。我一看到黑板上寫著1819這個數字時，連忙低頭看了教科書一眼，發現該詩的右下角寫的是1820而不是1819，而我的書上因寫滿重點的緣故，左下角寫的1819被遮住了，結果，當時我以為該詩就像Mary Wollstonecraft的作品“A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”或是像大部份William Blake的作品一樣，只在右下角註明書寫年代而已，於是，用英文問吳教授：「可是，怎麼書上寫的是1820」﹖後來，經過吳教授的說明，我仔細一瞧，才發現原來是這麼回事。下次我要提問之前，最好先看清楚再說，要不然，像這樣未經思索就馬上發問，然後又被吳教授糾正，真的有點難為情。誠如吳教授所言，1819這個書寫年代的重要性絕對不可忽視，原因在於，該詩和Shelley的另一篇作品“England in 1819”皆是以反映時代背景、呼應同年8月發生的Peterloo Massacre的觀點做為出發書寫而成的。只不過，本人在此提出一項建議，希望吳教授有機會能夠向Norton Anthology的編者反映：「既然這首詩的書寫年代如此重要，左下角僅標示1819似乎還不夠精確，是否可以像標示Samuel Taylor Coleridge的“Frost at Midnight”或其他某些詩人的作品那樣，在左下角也一併註明月份，如果月份不明，最起碼能夠標示一下季節，如此一來，才能更方便讀者參考」。這是題外話。然後吳教授進入Shelley的另一篇作品Prometheus Unbound的說明。在開頭的時候，吳教授問及高加索山位於哪裡﹖我回答說“In Russia”。這是正確的答案，所以，詩人在他的作品裡面，把這座山搬到印度去，這種說法顯然有待商榷。其次是吳教授在解釋課文的過程當中，我一方面附和她的說法，一方面也適時提出些許零星的補充，比方說，當她提及Prometheus認為自己是跟Zeus平起平坐的，我就加了一句：“Because he is a Titan”，諸如此類。如就整體而言，當天雖然稱不上有什麼斗大貢獻，但也不無小補，沒有功勞，也有苦勞。不知吳雅鳳教授是否同意我的說法﹖”

Did I hurt you this morning when I wrote down the following passage in the article “嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象” (No.135) made known on my blog on December 16, 2007? “民國九十六年十二月十六日上午八時左右，我終於明白那羣跟陳╳姿嚴密掛勾、硬是要把「動作很慢」的標籤貼到我身上的金光黨到底是怎麼回事了。追根究底，原來就是因為牠們缺乏真正洞悉事理的能力而又習慣動輒對人噴灑黑漆的緣故。我把觀察到的事件或現象事先記錄在紙上或腦海裡，過一段時間(時間可長可短)才寫入本文，這樣就叫做「動作很慢」嗎﹖只要一想到或一看到值得注意的事項，就必須在那個當下立即記上一筆而不能在我方便使用電腦的時候才記錄下來的話，那我豈不是一天到晚都得守在電腦螢幕前面，或是緊抱著一部電腦四處行腳﹖像那羣金光黨那麼不明事理的「腳色」，居然位高權重、富可敵國，握有國家重器而假以為所欲為，肆無忌憚，毫無節制，要是繼續縱容下去，社會安能不亂，社稷焉能不亡﹖” I was not talking about you, but if you are among them, you should reflect yourself on what you have done to me, instead of launching hurtful words on me. As I have indicated, I will not easily believe what you say, for you change your attitude toward me too frequently. Do I have to make response to you every time I get the messages that are obviously signaled by you, but I have some doubt about whether or not you really want to “搏感情” with me? Do I need to make reaction to you soon after I receive the “ambiguous messages” that are hard for me to discern who have channeled them to me? It might be you, but there were other possibilities. You shouldn’t have jumped to the conclusion that my speed was “very slow” just because I didn’t respond as soon as you expected.

Perhaps it is nothing but a coincidence, but maybe it’s not. Now tell me, is that you that mentioned something about The Bridge of Madison on December 30, 2007 and again on January 3, 2008? Let me suppose that it was you. Three-Eight Woman! You cannot seduce me that way. That kind of seductive action will stimulate my sexual impulse. Don’t you remember you are a married woman who has lovely children? It seemed rather reckless of you to ask me whether I would do “the things that you love to do” on your bed at this stage when I know so little about you. Ask me first whether or not I would be your “boyfriend” next time. Maybe I will nod. Maybe I won’t. It depends on how I feel at the moment you ask. One thing is for certain: It will be more probable that I act as you expect when we are lovers who have publicly dated for a long period of time, at least when we begin to happily exchange gifts on every Valentine’s Day, but it is very impossible for me to act like that when we are not lovers. If the relationship between you and your husband is not bad enough for you to take divorce into account, you should neither consider asking me to be your secret lover nor get me involved in your marriage. You know very well that I am looking for my Ms. Right, who is able to bring me true love and real happiness in my whole life based on mutual love, respect and understanding, don’t you? I don’t want one-night love affairs. Don’t say that kind of words again. How is it possible that I should do “the things that you love to do” on your bed without considering the slightest conventional social codes? If you don’t mean to be my life-long partner, you had better stop here, lest you have a big loss someday. But it is all right for you to continue to show me the picture of the cute little baby with widely open eyes and mouth. Just remember to delete the seductive words. The little baby is so cute that I feel very cheerful whenever I see it. I think I like the picture much more than I like you. Besides, why did you start to talk nonsense again? I mean, why did you get so agitated when you heard about the false rumor that I once slept with the shameless 蕭╳舒? I never have ever slept with anyone! I even don’t know how to kiss! Were you jealous when you wrongly thought that I had sexual relationship with her? If so, you may have fallen in love with me. If you launched the attacks on me, not because you were jealous, but because you hated me, then you don’t love me at all. Don’t pretend that you love me if you don’t really love me, or you will hurt yourself and hurt me bitterly as well. Immature attitudes toward love can easily do harm to others. That’s what I have learned from the pains that 蕭╳舒 led to me. Could you stop helping the shameless beast (蕭╳舒) claim that she should have the right to own me? The shameless beast is lying and sexually harassing me! A big liar!

Following are the contents I added to the article “嚴格定義盟友的類型與對象” (No.122) that was made known on my blog on December 9, 2007. 民國九十六年十二月三日，吳雅鳳教授的主要授課內容是Byron的詩作。在那之前，先討論前一個禮拜她提出的兩個跟William Blake的作品“The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”和“The Book of Thel”有關的問題。由於吳教授點名叫幾位同學回答，因此，我未在課堂上針對這兩個問題作答，只在吳教授補充說明「我們沒辦法真正了解別人的意圖，無法充分了解別人傳遞的訊息」時，我才加以反駁說：“We can tell the information by experience”。其次，在“The Book of Thel”的最後，Thel一邊驚聲尖叫一邊跑回Valleys of Har，吳教授的解釋是“Thel refuses to accept the reality and is unable to fulfill her desire.”然則，我跟吳教授英雌所見略有不同，在下課時向吳教授提出以下的看法，Thel的反應顯然是一種受到驚嚇之後不自覺的反射動作，而“refuse”這個字聽起來彷彿有「意志」的成分蘊涵其中，所以，倒不如解釋為“Thel doesn’t have the courage to face the possible future.”吳教授聽了之後點頭同意我的看法。(註：我針對“The Book of Thel”的最後部份提出的解釋，完全只是針對文本內容加以討論而已，並非用來影射自己個人的私事，如想進一步了解本人對情欲的看法，只要細讀本文同時搭配閱讀部落格上其他專欄的文章，即可一目瞭然)。再者，吳教授問及improvisatory和satiety字義時，本人提供正確的答案，雖然稱不上重大貢獻，仍然不無小補。另外，吳教授介紹Byron的經歷、談到在Geneva跟Shelley夫婦等人聚在一起講鬼故事的一段插曲，我順便補充了一句：“That’s how Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.”吳教授聽到這句話之後應該要為有我這樣的好學生兼好朋友(可能是因為前面這句話有語病，上傳之後造成嚴重的情勢大翻轉，不得已只好將它刪除。本人之前認為，凡是提到吳雅鳳教授的部份，自然只適用於她一人而無任何類推或延伸的性質與效果，然而，既然各方並不以我長久以來一貫的立場及態度來對此進行解讀，因此，我必須再次強調，吳教授既然沒有能力讓她自己成為我的盟友，就更不可能成為我的「好」朋友，特此聲明)感到無比欣慰高興才是，因為那是我之前在「小說選讀」課堂上從她那裡學來的。即使這是我從教授那裡習得而不是我個人的創見，我的學習能力與知識水平仍然應該受到相當程度的肯定，不是嗎﹖接著，當吳教授問及：Where is Waterloo﹖我回答道：“the place where Napoleon was defeated in 1815”。吳教授又問：反對Napoleon的陣營怎麼稱呼﹖由於沒有其他同學回答，因此，就輪到我好好表現一番，我適時提供了標準答案：“Holy Alliance”。最後，當她提到Napoleon的得失之際，我補充了一句Napoleon最令人詬病的舉措：“He ascended to throne as an emperor.”本人對於拿破崙提出的許多具有前瞻性和獨創性的構想與見解，一向感到非常佩服，認為他一生當中最大的敗筆在於登基稱帝，開時代的倒車。如就整體而言，本人當天對該門課程的貢獻度仍然維持一定的高水平，不知吳教授是否同意我的說法﹖

I wrote the passage in the article made known on my blog on December 9, 2007. “民國九十六年十二月十日，吳雅鳳教授的主要授課內容仍是Byron詩作，不過，上次的重點放在Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage的賞析，而本週則是側重在Manfred的講解。當吳教授問及