we are a decent people

andy ross bids farewell to cody's on telegraph avenue. mrs. cody 和 andy ross.

微涼，自盹睡。喘溜窗縫到來問候家常的秋風，由晏午留泊至深宵還說不完東北的見聞，賠道得打搞再多一會。

如此慵懶，日落已，夜鶯歌和。網上讀報說柏克萊南大門電報街的cody's book 剛慶五十周年，慶禮中，七七年始接第二手的老闆andy ross 卻宣佈小書店結業。andy ross 道盡蒼涼之餘，還是怒嘆美國書市以至美國社區的生態：

...Today in our Internet-based culture, can we say that we are wiser or even smarter? Does the Internet teach us the meaning of life? We have instantaneous information, but is it better information? Is it information with a cultural context? With all the emphasis on computers in schools, are our children better educated? Do they understand the world better? Are they better equipped to cope with the future? Are they better citizens? Do they have a stronger sense of virtue?

Information can be retrieved faster, but do any of us have more time? Do we have time to savor a great work, such as War and Peace? Do we have time to push ourselves through something as complex as Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain? Do we have time to consider the timeless truths of Aeschylus' Oresteia?

We also know that American consumers have come to value uniformity and predictability over diversity. The transformation of communities and market places into formulaic Potemkin villages has ruined the cultural landscape of cities. The marketplace has been the center of community life since the time of the Greek Agora....

怒言是伏櫪而欲千里的指摘，我未盡認同但是十分般的體諒，未來派的alvin toffler 在三十幾年前已告訴我們third wave 和future shock：七十年代internet 的前身arpanet 預言今天thomas friedman 口中的the democratization of information，正如歐美的農產品傾銷是科技令勞工密集的阡陌、變成佔百分之二至三的美國農業人口幾乎可餵飽全球人口。資訊傳送變得又快又便宜，得益可以是剛果山區村子，不用鋪線也可接通全球，卻不用只側目於先進大城市地鐵車廂內人人一機在手、都像死不斷氣話不休。

加州地方報《東岸快訊》以大篇幅道出"what killed cody's?"，我卻一下子想出一份名單：我們要一年四季吃便宜的草莓和桃駁李，所以才有基因改造把百蟲愛啖的野草莓"cultivated"(移植）馴化成天南地北也可種植的品種；吃豬排不夠意思換來豬頸肉拼拉麵，結果要打藥多養幾頭肥大長肉才夠你造一碗；lust 的人們京川滬美法日同在一碟，日日fusion，你就不能怪傳統小餐館道地家常消失於橫街窄巷；薄餅店的胡椒黑白不分，連鎖的中文書店有電腦資料庫卻無職員會打中文，中文的維基自稱百科卻沒有橫跨歐亞蒙古四大汗國的資料，報章不登訃文，prosumer 的單鏡反光數碼相機測光對焦功能仿如視網膜失效。

誰殺掉cody's? 誰滿以為個人化和多元化是一種民主進步，卻令我們值得選擇的越來越少？ikea 的蔗渣木造的billy 書架？抑或同一色系的良品無印？十年祭的音像崇拜？如此，我們只會發現原來大家的回憶都很集體，我們悉心佈置的小家窩，陳宅張宅李宅皆出自同一本catalog。（仿北京奧運口號：同一本catalog, 同一個家。）

Are they better equipped to cope with the future?
Are they better citizens?
do any of us have more time?

我們得其門而不能入，網絡變得更荒蕪；還信de Certeau 的tactic乎？抑或邊下載別人mp3 之餘邊捍衛自己的版權？是我們刻意的把倫理價值觀「多元化」？還是把個人的價值觀公共化、集體化？

話分兩頭。同報下開一窗，寫台灣學術重鎮桂冠書店，八月中也結業了，文中提及桂冠出版的楊國樞編著《心理學》，我想起其與張春興主編的《發展心理學》，曾是十年前我初入大學，修發展心理學一課的用書之一。

你不能怪罪社會在變、人在變、科技在變，正如台灣那眩目聒耳的誠品書店，你總不能怪罪他們的董事長吳清友為何與總統的女婿一樣獨愛乒乓球，一出手是千萬台幣的捐款給乒乓球會，然後無獨有偶的台大舊醫療大樓改建地下街項目誠品中標得舖。賣書到底是一本生意，這個圈子就是要胡拉混扯攀上關係，才可生意如雪球滾大。

董橋說過、「雖萬般不是，畢竟是體面的正派人，那是decency 。」若果辦書店也要如此左送一手、右託一手，那不如關門大吉去看滿山的黃搖紅擺，we are a decent people, we are.