| yeah's profile爱是永不止息。PhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
4/30/2007 严重追捧《哥本哈根》是不是缺了自然科学这根弦？看到科普类的东西，都会触动偶神经。
哥本哈根乜，把量子力学、核物理学和哲学思考杂拌儿在一起，引起偶狂热、严肃、持续的追捧。
自从看过之后，跟有病一样，一遍遍跟着看，满北京城，哪儿演出就哪儿去看。
今晚是百场纪念演出，激动中；最让偶激动滴是，偶滴严重追捧，有了结果，今晚偶得到了一张剧组给偶的赠票。
太太太激动了，终于当了一回特权人士。
而且，今早上班，发现有一画展的请柬。
嘿嘿，长这么大，除了同学朋友死党的婚礼，第一次接到这么正式的、有文化的请柬。特为记。
想了半天，还是选了八卦的tag。今晚看完这一场《哥》，试着写写观后感啥滴……待续待续 4/27/2007 the John Tusa Interviews with Michael Frayn of BBCThe John Tusa Interviews http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/johntusainterview/frayn_transcript.shtml
There's no getting away from it, Michael Frayn is a hard worker. Look at his list, ten novels, fourteen plays, seven translations, three films, a big clutch of TV documentaries and an opera libretto, and we're not just talking about volume, there's international acclaim, award and recognition for plays such as "Noises Off" and " Copenhagen ", novels such as "Headlong" and "Spies", and that's where it gets interesting. What is Michael Frayn about? He's very clever, no one who wasn't would bother to write a play about what might have happened when two of the last century's greatest physicists met to talk about the development of the atomic bomb during the War, or they wouldn't write a novel, "Headlong", about the scholarly intricacies of validating a lost masterpiece by Bruegel.
Frayn is curious, ingenious too, his plays are intricately plotted not least because they often involve complex pieces of equipment as in "Make or Break", about a salesman of building materials, and he restlessly switches his perspective of events and people. Do you think you know what happened? Well now look at it or think about it from another point of view. Did I say funny? Well I hardly need to, this is the writer whose portrayal of heaven involves the do-gooding middle classes helping God to design the Alps . But in all this restlessness intellectual curiosity are there some unifying principles that bind Michael Frayn 's work together? ____________________________________________________
I'm going to start at the beginning, or near enough to the beginning. Was the biggest shock of your life when your mother died of a heart attack when you were just twelve?
Yes I suppose it was, it certainly, I'd had a reasonably happy childhood, very happy childhood up to then, and it cast a very dark shadow for a very long time, but it did mean that emerging from that shadow in late adolescence was a great revelation in itself.
In, in, in what sense?
I suppose it coincided with intense friendship, with discovering literature and music for the first time, and it was like the sun coming out from behind a very black cloud.
But the years between twelve and of that discovery, how did you begin to come to terms with it? I mean nowadays you'd be counselled which is probably a bad thing, but I take it you didn't have anything like that?
No nothing like that and quite to the contrary, my sister and I were not even allowed to go to my mother's funeral. It was thought something would upset us, and because we couldn't think of a, a name for her, how, how to name her to each other we never mentioned her again. So that was, that was the way people came to terms with things in those days, and of course it is rather different now.
You ought to be totally mixed up.
I am totally mixed up, yes, yes.
Well you keep it very well concealed. But absolutely seriously of course, given that your father was deaf did that also make the business of coming to terms with loss more difficult?
I don't think that affected the grief I felt for my mother and I'd always just taken it for granted that my father was deaf. That, that's the funny thing about being a child you take everything for granted, whatever is happening around you that's the way the world is, and it never occurred to me to think how my father coped with his life. He got into this great tangle of wires every day to go off to work, I mean in those days a hearing aid was, was like the, the entire BBC transmission system. You had a, huge batteries in waistcoat pockets and microphones sticking out, you know wires all over the place, and off he went to work and he came back in the evening and slowly disentangled himself for it, from it, and what happened in the between those two events I never thought about, and it's only with hindsight that I realise what an extraordinary life he must have lead and what an extraordinary man he must have been. He was a salesman, sold asbestos, and he found it very difficult to hear what other people were saying to him even with the, even with the hearing aid, and he coped with this by humour, he told a lot of jokes and kept the conversational initiative so that all the other people had to do was smile, laugh, etcetera. Maybe that helped him as a salesman, maybe he couldn't hear when they were saying no we don't want the asbestos roofing, he just went right on selling it to them.
Yes that's probably rule number one of good salesmanship nowadays, ignore the retractions.
Absolutely.
Was your creation of a series of mothers, at least two, maybe more, in your novel "Spies", was that a way of writing about the mother you only had for such a short time?
That's an extremely ingenious question. There are really two mothers in "Spies", the mother of the character who tells the story, Stephen, is a bit like me as a boy, but his mother's not very much like my mother, but the, the friend, Keith, is very much like the friend I did have at the time and his parents are very much like the parents that my friend actually had.
But was there any sense of kind of trying to recreate something which you didn't have?
I certainly didn't see it like that though I certainly was interested in going back to my childhood and trying to think what it had been like at that age, and since I was writing about an age before my mother had died, the question of her death didn't really come into the, into the novel, and I suppose looking back on it, I mean a lot of people have said what a melancholy book it is and what a terrible time the children were having. I think even in a happy childhood children do have to put up with quite a lot. They do have a lot of fears and a lot of very contradictory demands are made upon them. All, all children know they've got, unless they're completely psychotic know that they've got obligations to their parents and their school and so forth, but they also know they've got a lot of obligations to their fellows, like not sneaking, never, never sneaking, never betraying them, which are often at odds with the first set of obligations, and resolving those, those contradictions is sometimes very painful.
You said of yourself as a child that you had no imagination. What do you mean by that?
I mean I had no imagination. I never invented anything, never thought of anything. All the imagination was provided by this great friend of mine on whom the Keith character in my novel is based. He had a very lively imagination. He thought of the games we played and we also kept up a, a running saga to each other of imaginary characters. I mean all these characters in this saga were supplied by him, the whole plot was supplied by him, in fact he told his saga and I told my saga in parallel and I had pathetically imitative characters and imitative situations which were just aping his.
Yes, I mean it strikes me that the phrase, I don't have the imagination, could be said to apply to you, but it hardly matters because, and it doesn't matter, because you create and construct situations, but how you create them is a different process from imagining something totally different. I mean would you recognise that as a description of, of what you do?
Yes, I'm not sure it feels like that, although I do a lot of careful construction, I do a lot of thinking about what I'm writing, most of that thinking is trying to imagine exactly what things will be like for this particular character in this particular situation, and also trying to imagine how things actually work, what will actually make someone do something, why would they do this rather than that. I, whether that's thinking or whether that's imagination I don't know, somewhere on the borders of the two perhaps.
Mm, yeah, but because in, in "Sweet Dreams", your novel about heaven, heaven is just the middle class world of NW1, give or take a bit, so you might say that that is the lack of imagination, it certainly doesn't matter because the idea that heaven might be like NW1 with the middle class behaving as they do is actually much funnier and in the end much more imaginative.
Yes well, well the, the basis of "Sweet Dreams" was kind of debunking the idea that you could have any absolute happiness, any, any continuous piece of paradise, because to make it work you have to actually remove all the logical connectives and in that world of heaven in the book as you say it's like middle class life in London or whatever, except that all the logical connectives have been taken out so people can do, simultaneously do things that are contrary to each other.
And they can do anything they like and in the end doing anything they like is boring?
Absolutely, they have to, they have to have some opposition to what, they have to be trying to do something, that's what makes people happy, trying to do something.
I say that with "Sweet Dreams" you are looking at middle class life and I think I'd like to talk about your role as a social commentator which also gets us back to your first jobs on the Manchester Guardian, as it then was, and your Miscellany column where you created this cast of regular characters all of whom were very shrewdly observed observations on the current social world. What was your stance towards your characters, I mean you were critical of them but you weren't just satirically savage about them?
I don't think I've ever managed much savagery, it was a rather difficult time from that point of view, it was, there was a lot of satire going on and a lot of it got very savage and I didn't really feel I was part of that ethos at all. All those characters in the column were very, very two dimensional. When I first began to write novels with "The Tin Men" it was a kind of interim form with a lot of two dimensional characters, as if in a lot of newspaper columns, it's like end wise. But the, the nice thing about characters, even if they're just two dimensional characters in a newspaper column is they, they do a lot of work, you subcontract a lot of the work to them, they do begin to think of things to say and situations they get involved in.
Because you were writing about in the end your world weren't they, I mean they, they were the, the NW1 world with which rightly or wrongly you will always be associated, you and Mark Boxer, and characters like Christopher and Lavinia Crumble though somebody said I think that's a Mark Boxer character rather than a Frayn character, but it's yours aren't they, Christopher and Lavinia Crumble?
They were absolutely yes yes yes...
Yeah and, and I mean they, they, they entertained you and, and, and you, you entertained them, so you were writing about your own world weren't you?
Well the, the system with the Crumbles is that there was a hierarchy, Christopher and Lavinia Crumble were cleverer than me and my wife in the column and they patronised us, they always knew what was smart and what wasn't smart and so forth and we, made us feel very stupid, but then there was another couple called Horace and Doris Morris who were stupider than we were and we patronised them or I patronised them in my turn. A very simple idea.
If you were writing about now, that sort of column, who are the types who you would be writing about in, I mean there were the PR men and there were the socially knowing everything, who are the people who ought to be exposed like that?
I don't know, I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I suppose I'd be tempted to have a go at the, the world of sort of negative criticism. It seems to me that anything that anyone attempts to do in the world is comprehensively rubbished by commentators who know far more about it than the people who are trying to do it, and there is something so automatic about this negative response that it induces nothing but counter-feelings in me and I can't help sympathising with people who try to do things whether they're politicians or architects or anybody else, and I can't help feeling antagonistic to their, their critics.
And you think this occurs particularly in the field of politics?
Well certainly in the field of politics, no one can do anything in political life and get any credit for it of any sort whatsoever, everything is just comprehensively dismissed whether done by either, either party, I'm not talking about one party in particular.
And that's even worse or different from what it was thirty years ago?
Well it's a change, I think then we were just beginning to change from an atmosphere of, of general respect where people in authority were accorded too much respect to the, the present, absolutely legalistic attitude where no one can do anything without being, without regarded as either a fool or a knave.
Or an interferer, because you know one, one of the themes which I think does come up in, in, in your writing is middle class do-gooders and despite what you've said, I mean a play like "Benefactors" about housing developments, and certainly in, in "Sweet Dreams" this puzzle of how God's planner, the hero Howard, can create the world in such a perfect way that it balances risks and opportunities for, for humanity, you know desperately wanting to create a risk free world but not so risk free that, that, that it's boring and that is the, the ultimate do-gooding fantasy isn't it?
Well it's the ultimate problem of do-gooding, yes I suppose so. I am by no means trying to dismiss people who do good, I admire, intensely admire people who try to do good, but you, you have to balance all the time the intention to do good and to plan against the anarchy and independence and autonomy of the, of people in the world.
Well and I suppose that really is getting very close to what a lot of you is, is, is about is that the unfortunate inconvenient a tension between intentions and, and outcomes which a lot of the time you produce in farce that the inconvenient outcomes are funny rather than tragic?
Yes so that no human intention ever carries through into precisely the results that people expect, always something gets in the way and it's usually just the sheer complexity of the world. Everything is much more complex than we imagine when we're setting out to plan something. That's really what a play running at the moment called "Democracy", which is really about the sheer difficulty of ever getting anything done in the world when more than one person's involved, because everyone's got a different viewpoint and a different interest. Of course somehow we have to find ways of reconciling people's different interests, but it's always extremely difficult, and I think that each of us is very complex within himself or herself, that each of us has many different possibilities, many different ways they could go, and to get those differences reconciled into some workable course of action is often extraordinarily difficult.
And not to end up feeling disillusioned when the gap between what you dreamed you could do and what you end up doing is of course quite large, very large, sometimes total.
Yes I suppose that is the, the secret that every politician should have. First of all to recognise that whatever he hopes he's going to do he's, he's going to fail to do, and in the second place to be philosophical about it.
Thirty years ago again, and I'm not going to be totally stuck in your past, but there's so many key things you said, you divided the world into herbivores, the gentle idealists, and the carnivores, the red in tooth and claw results merchants. Where do you think we are now, what would the division between two great social archetypes be?
Oh carnivores have been in control for a long time with a few natural herbivores who are trying to disguise themselves as carnivores to have some, some limiting effect on their, on their fellow carnivores. I'm just thinking of the, of the present Government trying to pass themselves off as being rather carnivorous when they're naturally herbivorous.
Why do you think it's necessary for not just the Government probably most people in public life to adopt the colouring and the trappings of the carnivore?
I suppose the Left was always associated with the idea that you could see, you could actually use reason to determine human fate rather than just fight it out, and I suppose the whole idea of reasoning or reasoned social development was very severely discredited by the collapse of communism, and I think also we have, looking at it in a more positive way, we have actually recognised the vitality and force of individual human initiative, and I certainly recognise that very strongly. The difficulty is of course that some human beings have more vitality, more skill than other people, and if you allow unrestricted competition between people you end up with grotesque injustice, and somehow there has to be some kind of, of balancing out, some, somehow that the fortunate have to be restrained a little, made to give up a little of their, of their natural advantages.
But in saying all this you've never been overtly political say as a Harold Pinter has been, as a John le Carre has been. Any idea why, why you, you never got more involved in politics in an overt way?
I think it's a good thing if somebody tries to describe the way things actually are, rather than the way things ought to be. All in favour of people trying to change things and trying to improve things, but it's not a bad idea if somebody starts by attempting to give an impression of the way things are at the moment, which is always much more complicated than anyone thinks, and that complexity needs to be respected.
Now you've switched in a way that I can't from the outside see any pattern to, there doesn't have to be, between writing novels and writing plays. Give me an idea of what the interplay, I mean you're very lucky to be able to have two major forms in, in which to work. How does that, that work with you deciding which it's going to be?
Well the great difference between novels and plays is a very simple one. In novels it's very natural for the writer to have access to the heads of his characters, doesn't have to but if you think of all the novels you've read where people, where the writer says things like he decided to do so and so, she felt bitter resentment, he was overcome by a wave of happiness, all this seems absolutely perfectly natural in a novel and what it implies is the writer knows everything about the thoughts and feelings of the character he's talking about. Well that is not possible in a play. In a play all we have is characters talking and doing things, and of course they can tell us how they feel, they can tell us why they did something.
I see that's a description of the difference, but how do you find yourself saying this is going to be a play or this is going to be a novel?
Well some stories you need to be inside the heads of the characters and some you don't. With "Spies" you really do need to know what that little boy is thinking about, what he sees, that is the story about how he interprets what's in front of his eyes. With "Copenhagen" the, the story is why did Werner Heisenberg go to Copenhagen in, in 1941 to meet Niels Bohr, and if I'd had absolute knowledge of Heisenberg's intentions it would have been a very short novel, I would have said Werner Heisenberg went to Copenhagen in order to talk to Niels Bohr about such and such, the end of the book, and I naturally wanted to spin it out for a lot more than that, and since none of us does have access to Heisenberg's intentions, people have endlessly speculated on them, this seems to me worth trying to reproduce in a play. I have to say that Heisenberg seems to me didn't have absolute access to his intentions and none of us does, I mean we, we can, we all have to make estimates of what our intentions are just like anybody else does and, and often they're worse ones because we want to give a better impression of ourselves, or we want to, we want to think well of ourselves, or we, or sometimes we want to think ill of ourselves, and if I tell you I've done something for some noble motive you looking at me from the outside may well say that's not so, you're just doing it for the money, or to make yourself popular or whatever.
Are you equally happy in writing both forms, once you've decided which form it's going to be?
Yes I, I find writing quite hard work I must say and I've had difficulties with, with both. I suppose the things that I've had most difficulties with have been plays, "Noises Off", " Copenhagen " and "Democracy" I, I had a great struggle with each of them and had to write many, many drafts. It's very compact, the plays, the plays are very short, I mean even the longest play is very short compared with a novel, you can't hang around, you have to get going.
I'm always struck by when I read the text of a play that I often find them very different, difficult to read because what is put into the mouths of the characters is so short, so terse, so telegraph, it's a completely different style even of writing dialogue isn't it?
It is, it's, dialogue's in, dialogue in plays is different. It took me, I started writing plays long after I started, I wrote novels, and it took me quite a long time to appreciate how different dialogue is for the stage.
There's an interesting case in a novel you wrote called "Now You Know", about a rambunctious political dirt dealer and exposer, and the novel's told from about six different viewpoints, it wasn't judged to work as a novel but then you tried to turn it into a play. Was that because you thought there's so much dialogue and so many people it's got to work on the stage?
This is the only time I've been really radically uncertain as to whether something was a novel or a play and I first tried to write it as a play and I wrote a draft of it as a play and just couldn't make it work, and I thought what's the problem, what's the problem, it's that I do need to know and be able to explain what each of those characters is thinking, how they interpret the situation. So I then wrote it as a novel and as you say had access to each of the characters in turn, so each of them takes a turn, a turn at telling the story and they tell us what they're thinking. Then after I'd done that some time went by and I thought well now I've done that why don't I go back to the situation we're in in life with most people most of the time, everyone in the world except ourselves of not knowing what the story is from the inside and look at them all from the outside in a play. Now I have private, more knowledge about what's going on, but I have to say neither the novel nor the play was judged to be of much interest.
Oh I think it's, it, it reads very, it reads very well actually the, the novel. Of course one of the things that you are constantly doing is turning things inside out, "Noises Off" I suppose being the most obvious and the best known. Just at this stage let's see whether it works and see if we can play a little game, that is if you were about to do one of your inside out, back to front, how do things really appear tricks on what we're doing now, how do you think you might approach it, what sort of inversion do you think you might introduce?
Well I suppose it's likely that what would catch my imagination is your situation of interviewing some person you've known for many years, who's turned up in the studio and you've done a lot of work reading all his books and whatnot, and now you've got to talk to him for forty five minutes, and I suppose then that's what would turn my imagination on, so I would since I know what the situation is from my own point of view as the interviewee, so I would be tempted to do it as a narrative, a fictitious narrative written from your point of view.
4/24/2007 都进来学习一下，聪明人是如何回答白痴问题滴1.你会因为所爱的人另有所爱而终身不嫁/娶么？
－ 不会，一定有能和我相爱的人 2.假如老天就只给你3天的时间可以活，你打算怎么度过这宝贵的3天，期待有什么样的事发生呢？
－ 期待三天变三万天啊，这个问题太笨 3.谈谈你未来10年的远大计划吧。
－ 过日子 4.心目中的白马王子/公主是誰？
－ 从没 5.如果遇到火灾,你第一会带走的是什么？
－ 冬天的话，带被子 6.第一次失眠是什么时候，为了什么事情失眠？
－ 小学，春游前兴奋综合症 7.最近一次失眠是为了什么事？
— 前天啊，命苦，为了赶活儿 8.男人和女人之间可能有纯粹的友谊吗？
— 有。偶尔做爱与当朋友不抵触吧 9.2007年最大的愿望是什么？
— 给自己赚间房 10.另一半如果出轨的话,你会怎么做？
— 不变应万变 11.你对暧昧的理解是什么？
— 有趣的人才渴望暧昧 12.现在最想见的人是谁以及最想和他/她说的话？
— 老妈 13.虽然是大家基本都恋爱,也有着”老公”/”老婆”,但,听说再甜蜜的情侣一听到结婚,心理也要哆嗦一下,请问:你的那一半给你提”明天我们就去结婚吧?!”,你心理”哆嗦”吗?你心理会考虑什么呢？
— 会。日日相对总会厌倦。 14.说一本你最喜欢的书吧？可以的话再说说为什么吧。
— 无个性者。大家都挺没个性的，其实。 15.听过最伤感的诗或词是什么？
— 取次花丛懒回顾，半缘修道半缘君。 16.（楠楠的问题）：结婚需要什么必备条件？
— 起码要看着顺眼吧；以后不顺眼了，也不会随意抛弃责任 17.(小欣的问题)：对生活的最好想象是什么？
— 这样的问题似乎是在扼杀想像力，不回答了 18.（走来走去的问题）：如果你爱一个人，无论有一天发生什么事，你真的会恨他/她么？
—困困说：逻辑好像有点混乱吧，我同意 19.（zhuzhu的问题）：如果结婚之后发现你的另一半性功能有障碍你会离婚么？说说理由。
— 障碍到什么程度？反问 20.(ZhangV的问题）：早晚要死，活着为啥？
—活到死的那一天嘛 21.（木木白水的问题）：不谈恋爱的人会心理变态么？理由是什么。
— 她/他一定是另有所爱 22. (柴柴的问题):你有理想吗?你会花一辈子去实现吗?
— 有啊，一个问心无愧的人生 23. (花花的问题)你的拿手菜是什么?结婚后会天天给他/她下厨吗~
—几乎没。如果他愿意吃。 24. (fujia的问题)能忍受和bf/gf分开多久？不能忍受了怎么办？
— 我更关心能忍受在一起多久的问题 25.（Riley的问题）你会因为一个人的长相而在第一时间给他/她的人品做定位吗？匿名举个列子吧～
— 能。一个人应该多少为她/他自己的长相负责——我指的是没经过休整的哈 26.(a萍）大家觉得异地恋能长久吗？
— 不能。 27．（joker）找不到满意的工作你会继续读书吗？
— 还能怎办？ 28，（卿青）如果你爱一个人比他（爱）你更多，你会怎么办？
— 撤。 29.（泉岭）如果我点你回答这么多问题，你丫会不会想抽我？
— 脚丫子都能肯定地回答你。 30.（黎简）喜欢独自生活是个好习惯么？
— 只是一个习惯，未必是好习惯 31.（困困）最喜欢吃什么？
白痴丫头问白痴问题，是不是我最喜欢吃什么，你都回来请我啊？
32.（打死）终于完了，这该死的白痴游戏是谁发明的？
我不点，怕被人追杀。 4/23/2007 布拖县六个乡镇致孤儿童调查报告（转载）
4/13/2007 标题: 布拖调查攻略(2005版) 转载布拖调查攻略（2005版）
来源：希望之光助学网站（http://www.lohcn.org/forum/index.php）
布拖概况
布拖县属四川省凉山彝族自治洲,地处大凉山腹心地带，是一个彝族聚居的高寒山区县。有彝、汉、藏、回、苗等十多个民族，彝族占总人口93%，是布拖县的主体民族。地理环境复杂，属国家级贫困县. 这次调查主要活动地点在布拖县西溪河区的乐安乡老达村和补洛乡补特村. 乐安乡概况 乐安乡属西溪河区，位於布拖县东部，距离县城32公里，平均海拔在2870米。全乡有11个行政村，有7所学校，总共有在校生852人，其中女生384人。全乡几乎是100%的彝族，共6900多人，绝对贫困户占全乡的比例为30%~40%。香港互助行动( http://www.interglow.org/ )目前在老达村和莫合作村有活动，他们是乡里其中两条水、电、路皆不通的行政村。 调查攻略 交通： 到布拖的交通一般要到西昌中转．所以交通就分三个部分（分别是如何到西昌＼西昌到布拖及到区上＼如何到孩子家里）来分别叙述 Ａ：西昌 西昌在成（都）昆（明）线中部，所以到西昌一般首选铁路（不过也有成都都西昌的飞机）．成都到西昌空调快车硬座票价为８０元，一天有３－４趟车，时间要８个小时左右． Ｂ：布拖 西昌火车站坐６路公交（晚上也营业），一元钱到市区（一般在长途汽车站站或者其前后一站下即可找到好多旅馆） 从西昌到布拖在布拖客运东站搭车，每天从早上６：００－到下午５：００都有车，半小时一班（具体数字记不确切了，反正就是很多和全天都有车就是了），票价一人２４元，时间要３个小时左右． 返回同理，在布拖汽车站等车． 从布拖到西溪河区上有营运班车，票价１２元，车程一个多小时．在布拖汽车站坐车．西溪河区所在地为补洛乡，补特村在他们街道后面的山上．而从区上到乐安乡政府和中心校所在地有车路，但是没有班车，可以包车或者包摩托送过去，也可以步行，步行大约需要１个多小时（中间还需要趟过一条小河）． Ｃ：实地察访 补洛乡补特村在区上街道后面的山上，我们调查的一户家庭从区中心校步行过去大约需要１５分钟． 乐安乡老达村位于海拔较高的山上，没有车路（正在计划修中，估计明后年老达村１＼２组河莫合作村可以同车路）．老达村共有５组，三个自然聚居村庄（１＼２组一个，４＼５组一个），莫合作村有３个组，三个自然聚居村庄（１＼２组一个，３组两个）．建议从乐安乡上到老达１＼２组，然后到莫合作村１＼２组，然后到莫合作３组，然后到计划中的车路终点（两个村的中心点），然后到老达３组，然后到老达４＼５组，然后从老达４＼５组出发走另一条路到乡上或者直接从４＼５组到区上．由于山路难走，即使在有向导的情况下一天也难以走完，所以建议根据实际情况合理安排每天行走的路线．其中每个自然村庄之间估计的行走所需要的时间如下： 乡上到老达１＼２组：２个小时左右（有一个比较难爬的陡坡） 老达１＼２组到莫合作１＼２组：２个小时多（路不危险，但要翻山下沟） 莫合作１＼２组到３组Ａ铺子：10分钟（绕过一个沟） 莫合作３组Ａ到３组Ｂ：５分钟 莫合作３组到老达１＼２组的几户散户：一个小时（路比较好走） 老达１＼２组几户散户到两个村的地理中心：半个小时少（路好走） 地理中心到老达３组：５分钟 老达３组到老达４＼５组：两个小时（要翻过５－６个山坡，有几段比较险，下雨路滑） 老达４＼５组到乡上：两个小时左右（要趟过一条河，爬一个陡坡，和翻过几个山坡） 老达４＼５组到区上：两个小时左右（要趟过一条河，没有大的陡坡，不过有一个地方特别危险） 乡上到区上：有车路没有班车，步行一个多小时，要趟过一条小河 住宿： 成都可以住武侯祠对面的中国青联旅行社（梦之旅），３０－３５一个铺位．还比较干净． 西昌可以从火车站６路车到长途汽车站站下，住邮政宾馆或者周围的化工宾馆等．一般需要６０－７０一个标准间． 布拖有菩提园宾馆（标准间８０），邮政宾馆（标准间６０－８０）．也可以住县政府院内的招待所（２０元一个铺位，普通间） 西溪河区上，好象只有政府招待所５－１０元一个人． 山上：自己带睡袋，睡农家＂阁楼＂上，需要防跳蚤，抗鸡鸣羊叫猪哼． 气候： 布拖为高海拔地区，县城８月最高温度也就２０度左右．所以即使是夏天去也需要带秋衣．冬天就更要注意防寒．另外紫外线强烈，需要帽子和防晒，不然晒黑晒红事小，但造成脱皮就事大了． 饮食： 四川喜辣，成都小吃很出名 山上：只有土豆和荞麦粑粑，偶尔有鸡蛋＼白菜＼燕麦算是美味．具体不想多说，反正就是为了维持生存，你必须有什么吃什么，不适应也得习惯了．建议上山前买些热量高得糖果＼巧克力等带上山． 语言文化： 一般县上，区上的人能说简单汉语。村子里绝大部分不会说汉语。所以需要请翻译（如果是翻译兼向导更好），互助在当地有一些经常联系的比较合适的人选，我们可以通过他们去请个比较好的向导兼翻译。最好自己先学一些简单的彝语比较好。比如：卡莎莎（谢谢），身体娃娃（身体好），娃娃（好），您阿苏名（你叫什么名字？）。您阿苏来（你干什么去？）。啊喀（不要了、不用、我吃饱了不能再吃了） 文化习俗上他们有许多忌讳和民族习俗。需要大家的尊重。具体内容最好到当地以后向向导（翻译）多请教。比如：不能摸小孩的头（尤其是男孩子）。不能用腿跨过火塘等等。 旅游： 西昌附近有卫星城，需要一天．城内有彝族奴隶博物馆．如果你有４－５天，可以去泸沽湖．成都附近可以都江堰＼青城山＼乐山＼哦眉山其他四川得旅游地都值得一去乐，关键是看你的钱包和时间 ******************************************************************************************
概况
布拖县概况
全县幅员面积1685平方公里，县境内高山林立、沟壑纵横、地理环境复杂属九分高山一分沟的地貌，县境内海拔2000米以上的高寒山区占全县幅员面积的89%，立体气候灾害多，乾旱、低温、阴雨、霜冻、洪涝、泥石流、病虫害等自然灾害每年不同程度地发生。农民的人均纯收入为每年761元，属国定贫困县。布拖县城地处特木里镇，东北至西南长1670米，东南至西北宽1200米，面积1398亩，其中建筑面积450亩。县城内开通了程控电话、移动电话。县城供水、供电一应俱全，交通方便，商业较为发达，投资环境良好。县城街道主要有火把大道、嘎子街、特觉街和普提街。街道全是柏油路面，两旁植有柳杉、槐、柳、杨等风景树。 地理位置 布拖县位于四川省凉山彝族自治州东部，地处东经102º43'至103º03'，北纬27º16'至27º55'。县城海拔2380米，周边相邻五县：北靠昭觉，从西至南以乌科、吉留秀梁子为分水岭，与普格、宁南交界，东南经西溪河、金沙江为界，与金阳县和云南省巧家县隔江相望。因地处布拖坝子（俗称吉拉布特觉谷）而得名。 地形地貌 境内地势西北高东南低，从西北向东南形成倾斜面，山脉纵横小溪交错，最高海拔有3891米的阿布泽鲁山，最低海拔是540米的三江汇合处，80%的起伏山地，海拔均在2000米以上，地势较平的有布拖、西溪河、拖觉三大坝子，地形以中山和山原为主。 面积人口 布拖县幅员面积1685平方公里，总人口14万人，以彝族为主，另有汉、苗、回等族。 行政区划 布拖县于1955年建置，1962年复置。全县5个片区，辖3个镇27个乡，189个行政村，1008个村民小组，其中，彝族人口占总人口的94%，有汉、壮、白、苗、藏、回、蒙、京等13个民族。县人民政府驻特木里镇。 气候
高寒地区，立体气候灾害多
住宿
县城里有宾馆和私营旅馆；县委、政府有招待所。火把节期间住宿较紧，可提前联系。乡镇也有招待所、旅馆。
普提园宾馆 地址：布拖普提上街。电话：8531701，联系人：俄底里呷 收费标准（带空调）：一楼单间80元，双人间80元，二楼单人间100元，双人间100元，可接待22人。 布拖宾馆 地址：普提下街。电话：8532503 收费标准：2人间60—90元，3人间60—90元，单人间80—90元。 政府招待所 收费标准：2人间10元，单人间20元，3人间5元。 邮电招待所 地址：普提下街8号。电话：8532150，联系人：刘大英 收费标准：豪华间70元，2人间60元，3人间75元，4人间60元。 交通
川滇民族生态旅游大环线
进入四川——成都——西昌、邛海或卫星发射基地——布拖补莫湿地自然保护区——金沙江大峡谷——巧家——昆明——离开云南。 进入云南昆明——巧家——金沙江大峡谷——布拖百万白杨基地、布拖彝族阿都火把节或彝族年、补莫湿地自然保护区、乌科高原万亩索玛花海——普格——西昌——成都——离开四川。 昆明——丽江——泸沽湖——西昌——布拖——雷波——云南永善或四川宜宾。 川西南民族风情、生态旅游大环线 成都方向 成都——乐山——西昌——布拖（补莫湿地自然保护区、金沙江大峡谷）——雷波——宜宾——成都。 昆明方向 昆明——巧家——布拖——西昌——泸沽湖 北京、上海、江苏、浙江、广洲及港、澳、台等地区 （飞机到）西昌——布拖——昭觉——美姑——雷波——成都（火车、飞机返回）。 成都——乐山——峨边——美姑大风顶——雷波——金沙江大峡谷——布拖——普格——西昌。 成都——宜宾——雷波——金沙江大峡谷——布拖——西昌 两日游： 第一天早从普格出发，观光乌科高原索玛花海；下午，到县城住布拖宾馆，参观民族建筑、游民族风情一条街；晚上观看民间文艺表演。 第二天，上午，参观彝族阿都文物展览馆；中午，观看彝族阿都火把节传统项目表演；晚上，参加“火把狂欢夜”；第三天早上离开。 三日游： 到布拖住布拖宾馆，第一天上午观乌科高原索玛花海，参加民族传统项目骑马高原游；中午就地野餐，返回县城逛民族风情步行街，参观阿都彝族文物展览馆；晚餐（彝族传统餐——砣砣肉、酸菜汤），晚上，民族风情园观看表演。 第二天：早上乘车赴西溪河乐安观光补莫湿地自然保护区，中午，就近午餐；晚上住彝族村寨，领略民族风情，朵洛荷、扯格舞，看毕摩、苏尼表演。 第三天：早上从西溪河乐安补莫湿地自然保护区返回县城，观看彝族阿都传统火把节项目：斗牛、斗羊、斗鸡、赛马、爬杆、摔跤、选美等活动，午饭后离开布拖。 五日游： 到布拖住布拖宾馆，第一天早上从县城出发到衣某，观民间传统火把节；下午返回到西溪河，住彝家村寨。 第二天，早上游乐安补莫湿地自然保护区；下午，返回县城，观彝族阿都文物展览馆；晚上，观看彝族民间文艺表演。 第三天，上午出发到拖觉，参加传统火把节，主要项目斗牛、赛马、选美、朵洛荷、民族服饰；晚上，住彝族村寨，品彝族餐，参加原始古朴的民间“打火把”游戏。 第四天，上午从拖觉回县城，参观现代彝族建筑，游阿都民族风情一条街，购纪念品；中午，参加规模盛大的县火把广场活动；晚上，参加火把狂欢夜，阿都风情小吃一条街。 第五天，上午，从县城出发，金沙江大峡谷探险游，住白石滩，次日早离开布拖。 美食
布拖县城主要餐馆茶园推荐： 执玛格尼餐厅 地址：普提上街。电话：8531029，联系人：罗杰明 特色菜品：富贵金肘、山椒仔鸡、麻花猪尾 收费标准：每人每天收费25元，一次可接待60人。 回归园餐馆 地址：嘎子街，电话：8533314，联系人：陈三 特色菜品：砣砣肉、青炖羊肉、油炸猪、回锅鸡、酸菜鸡、辣仔小猪 收费标准：每人每天收费25元，一次可接待120人。 农行餐厅 地址：普提下街农行内，联系人：且沙拉此；电话：8531327 特色菜：豆花鱼、重庆辣仔鸡、干煸肥肠 收费标准：每人每天20元，一次可接待120人。 政府餐厅 地址：普提下街政府内， 联系人：曲林 特色菜品：乌洋芋、荞粑、砣砣肉、牛肉、酸菜鸡 收费标准：每人每天20元，一次可接待250人。 县委餐厅 地址：普提下街县委内 联系人：俄底拉日 特色菜品：乌洋芋、荞粑、猪、羊、牛砣砣肉 收费标准：每人每天20元，一次可接待250人。 执玛格尼茶房 地址：普格上街，电话：8531029；联系人：罗杰明 收费标准：每天20元包间费，茶5—10元/杯 回归园茶房 地址：嘎子街：联系人：陈三；电话：8533314 包间费每时段40元（6小时）（包括小吃、10杯茶）。 4/11/2007 小波
4/10/2007 如果你不是你，而我也不是我在这个据说是一年中最残忍的四月，如果你不是你，我也不是我，不知我们各自会有怎样的际遇。
但，你是你，我是我，这就注定了，我们都会以自己习惯的坚定姿态行走。极目，繁花迷人，沾衣而逝，我们走过。
“时光愉悦地过去了。”
期待明天，如婴孩般惊异而惶惑。 4/9/2007 高情已逐晓云空，不与梨花同梦
不过收获可不少，包揽木兰园中的二乔玉兰，一片片冰丽的花瓣，极力伸展，向上向外，几欲飞离花萼，原来白色温文的花木，也可以表达强烈的生机。无法言表，“怒放”二字仍难以尽态极妍。 梅园中有沁人香花，萼朱红丹赤，花白如羊脂。娇柔娇弱娇媚娇美皎洁，如何形容？“高情已逐晓云空，不与梨花同梦。”
4/6/2007 ZTZT不是转帖，是折腾。我TMD突然自曝隐私，就当自己发烧了，梦游哪。
 某周末想飞上海喝酒，未能成行，心有不甘。开始在满北京城瞎折腾。总不过是定不下心，做不了事，或者又是没做事，因此心不定。
从最初懵懂的感情、各个阶段升学就业、与男人女人们交往，凡此等等可以将来想起来得意或愧悔的事儿，都出于骨子里的寂寞。 说白了，一站我爹妈家那盏老式落地台灯前，看见米黄老旧、现在已经被灯光照得没色的灯罩，就揪心，一阵子一阵子打摆子，重新陷入小时候的怪情绪：“怎么才能跟这些物什不一样”。这是强迫症吧？ 还有息壤的怪梦[在况大空间里不停追索，永远得不到]、一挨枕头就有无名恐惧的怪习惯，都是折腾的动力，或者说，就为了逃避这些稀奇古怪的东西[学一新词：“内心现实”——不会是给自己无病呻吟找到借口了吧？]，它们似乎不应该出现在我这样也算没受什么挫折、家教森严但备受隔离的苍白人生中。 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
