红字

Retelling a novel in a film adaption can be challenging. One needs to consider casting, as well as the context and setting of the story and more. Most important, the main theme should be faithfully represented. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The scarlet letter (1850) and Roland Joffe’s film (1995) of the same title have certain things in common: both feature the hardened life of Hester Prynne, who commits adultery in Puritan Boston in the mid-seventeenth century. However, the differences between the novel and the film are so prominent that the film can be a problematic retelling. The novel reveals the tragic lives of the characters – Hester and Pearl Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth – as the inevitable result of the narrow and relentless Puritan society in the mid-seventeenth century. The film, in contrast, gives its leading roles unrestricted liberty, both physically and spiritually, rather than being subjected to the Puritan morality in the original story. This mismatch between the traits of main characters and their setting in the Puritan town compromises the integrity of the story.
Joffe presents The Scarlet Letter as an overtly sensual retelling of the novel. The alterations he made in both the plot of the story and the nature of its leading characters are a total distortion of the novel. The film portrays Hester Prynne, starred by Demi Moore, who leaves her husband in Europe and comes to live in puritan Boston in the mid-seventeenth century. Her unconventional behavior and opinions draw attention from the repressed Puritans in town. She then meets the passionate young minister Arthur Dimmesdale, starred by Gary Oldman, whose sermons deeply touch her. The minister is also attracted by her charm and they soon secretly fall in love. After receiving the news that Virginian Indians have killed Hester’s husband, she gets pregnant, bearing the minister’s child. She is nonetheless accused of adultery even if it is not known whether her husband is alive then. In order to protect the respectable minister, she refuses to tell the name of the father and is condemned to wear the scarlet letter A as a badge of ignominy. She is not repentant and continues to challenge the principles of the Puritan society openly. Meanwhile, Dimmesdale also suffers great pain from his secrete guilt. Hester’s husband then appears in town and becomes a killer to take vicious revenge on Dimmesdale. With the help of Indians, Hester and Dimmesdale leave the town finally and enjoy a happy ending.
Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter, allows Hester Prynne to have a freedom of mind, undisciplined by the prejudice and principle of the society. “The world’s law was no law for her mind”. However, she keeps her “freedom of speculation” all within herself. She does not want to irritate the authorities and lose the right to raise her Pearl. Conversely, Joffé apparently attempts to give Demi Moore complete freedom of mind and speech that seem totally unrealistic for a woman in the given setting and time. He glorifies the character of Hester Prynne by making her unbelievably strong, out-spoken and full of righteous justice. He portrays her as a rather wealthy heroine who buys indentured labor to farm the land instead of doing needlework. He even allegorizes Hester as a feminist by making her to confront the male dominated authorities several times in the film. When Demi Moore is accused of heresy because of disregarding “the law of men,” she questions the magistrates that “If the discourse of woman is ‘untutored chattering,’ then why does the Bible tell us that women shall be the teachers of women?” It seems rather bizarre her argument is beyond the magistrates’s power of refutation. More peculiar, Joffe describes her as a true friend to Mistress Hibbins, standing up for her when she is suspected to be a witch at the judicial hearing. Hester says bravely that “Mistress Hibbins is no witch. And she committed no crime beyond speaking her mind.” This overt battle with the public contradicts entirely with the image of Hester in the book as she “interferes neither with public nor individual interests and convenience” (209). Instead of showing Hester as a female character in a setting parallel to Hawthornes’s depiction of Puritan town in 1642, Joffe makes her too avant-garde and aggressive for her period of time.
Joffe misinterprets Hester’s morality under the Puritan setting by making noticeable change to her sense of sin in the film version. In the novel, Hester firmly believes she has sinned by the liaison with the minister though she never regrets their sincere love. She, therefore, throughout the book, does penance by living an ascetic life in an abandoned cottage at the outskirt of Boston. She is totally deprived of social interactions, with no friends and seeking none; she makes a living doing needlework and raises Pearl alone; she even gives out charity to the even more miserable beings. By doing so, she hopes that atonement can be made for “a union that is unrecognized on earth”. Hawthorne portrays her anguished by the public bitterness and conscious of the shame brought by the scarlet letter, but remains uncomplaining. In the film, however, Hester has no contrition or guilt nor does she think she has sinned at all. Right after Demi Moore is imprisoned because of adultery, she questions Dimmesdale that “Do you believe we’ve sinned? What happened between us has a consecration of its own!” Later in the scaffold scene, she challenges the Governor again on her understanding of sin: “I believe I have sinned in your eyes, but who is to know that God shares your views.” Whereas Hawthorne portrays Hester as a victim of Puritanism principles by presenting her sufferings and defenselessness to the notion of sin, Joffe makes her more like a victor over the “law of men.” Due to the absent conscious of sin in Demi Moore, Joffe is unable to bring to light the transfiguring and ascendant effects taken place in Hester in the novel, which is driven by her sense of sin. Therefore, he fails to underscore her transformation as Hawthorne does, which results from the inhuman nature of Puritan society – the main issue that Hawthorne criticizes.
As Hester’s guilt-wracked lover, Arthur Dimmesdale, is not only too powerful a character in the film, but he has too much flexibility in expressing his love. In the movie, he does not reveal bravely to be the child’s father only because Hester pleads with him. However, “everything in [his] nature cries out for it.” Joffe’s Dimmesdale no longer has the nature of cowardice and hypocrisy, but is almost as brave and honest as Hester is. He even defends her innocence as he accuses her confinement as “an abomination.” Joffe manages to set up excessive interviews between Dimmesdale and Hester, only to demonstrate that he has true love for her and desperately wants to help her out by risking himself. Even more at the end of the movie, when Hester is about to be executed for witchcraft, Dimmesdale confesses his love and secret to the public: “I love this woman. I am the father of her child. And in God’s eyes, I am her husband.” He then puts the string on his own neck, wiling to die for Hester. By openly challenging the rules of the town, Joffe’s Dimmesdale seems to have a negative view on Puritanism as well. Joffe reverses the role of Dimmesdale to an emotive and courageous man who has a voice for his love and a respect for human nature. This revision is problematic because such qualities are deprived in this repressed “Puritan divine” as decribed in the novel, whose puritanical morality is so deep-rooted.
Joffe overly emphasizes the emotional appeals to the audience by producing a Hollywoodized happy-ending. In the novel, Hawthorne creates a single powerful climax: all the other human voices and music subdue, left with only the majestic voice of Dimmesdale’s confession and the revelation of the scarlet letter on his breast. At this point, Hawthorne pushes all the tension and suppressed emotions – anguish, sin and repentance – to an extreme that they can bear no more but to be released into the final lyric paragraphs. The peaceful dialogue between Hester and Dimmesdale before his death serves as a powerful form of salvation for the previous vehement narrative as well as the burdened tragic lives of Hester and Dimmesdale. Joffe, however, creates different tension points in his ending. He depicts Hester, as a champion of justice, asks to be hanged together with Mistress Hibbins; then Dimmisdale heroically declares his love for Hester and is willing to dye for her; finally and most absurd, a rebellion by the Indians saves them all, turning the film into an action movie. Joffe introduces digression to release the main tension in the story. Though the ending that Hester and Dimmesdale live happily afterwards might be more comfortable for the audience, it is much less powerful than the one in the novel.
Joffe portrays both Hester and Dimmesdale as the brave and passionate warriors against the Puritan society’s inhumanity, rather than being victims. Of course, it is good that Joffe believes that Hester and Dimmesdale eventually triumph over the repressed Puritan doctrines, but by giving them much more undisciplined freedom in their nature than Hawthorne does, he seems to deny the fact that they are ever repressed or affected by Puritanism. Assuming that both Hester and Dimmesdale have emancipated spirits almost equivalent to modern-day people, Joffe manages to cross out the imprint left on them by Puritanism in the mid-seventeenth century in Puritan Boston. By depriving those characters of the tragic consequences from the Puritan principles, he undermines the intention of Hawthorne in reforming Puritanism in the novel.

《红字》，是美国小说家霍桑最著名的作品之一。这里要和小说进行比较的，是1995年黛米摩尔主演的电影版本。

同样是《红字》，故事框架似乎差不多，但是就像我以前提到的《活着》的电影和小说一样，《红字》的电影表现的是现代得多的东西。不仅如此，为了影片的票房考虑，电影中还增加了许多商业元素。借用我同学的话来说，就是以为买错碟了；简直面目全非……小说原著的文笔流畅，但是由于作者的时代局限性，也就是其个人对于未来发展的迷茫，所以看起来十分压抑。电影就要酣畅许多。明显的一点就是，影片中的牧师，比我想象中要狂野许多，看开头的时候，我还以为这是一个“红字”和“皮袜子”的混合体呢。


从表现出来的思想上看，原著主要讨论的是人的罪，即人皆有罪。而通过赎罪和将罪行袒露出来，可以使灵魂得到升华。这和作者本身是清教徒身份以及对家族以前犯下的罪过产生的宿命感分不开的。而且，作者虽然觉得当时对人思想的禁锢是不对的，但是，他对变革也抱有怀疑态度。但是电影就不一样了。时代向前推进了不是一点半点，现在思想解放已被公认，所以在影片中，海斯特的言行就更加坚定。霍桑只是向未来窥探，而导演却是回望，自然占了很大便宜。因此，再在电影中单纯的表现人皆有罪的思想便会显得不合时宜甚至怪异晦涩了。是以海斯特的丈夫的戏份被明显减少了。那么用什么来填补思想的空白呢？电影中表现海斯特和牧师间的爱情的戏份增加了，印第安人的戏份也明显增加了。特别是后者，甚至带来了影片结尾的大规模战斗场面，也许导演想为沉闷的全局制造一个高潮吧。恐怕用心白费了，因为后来强安上去的大团圆结尾实在突兀。


小说中海斯特是迷茫的，她为了爱人而拒绝说出情夫的名字，又因为愧疚和恐惧发誓不向他人透露自己丈夫的身份。电影中海斯特是坚定的，从不认为自己有罪，也完全站在爱人的一边。在影片中她去警告了牧师约瑟，而影片刚开始海斯特乘马车去找房子的时候，镇上的人都在看她，说明到镇上的人不多，每个新人都很受关注，约瑟不可能不知道海斯特的丈夫的身份。事实上，从后面的情节中可以知道，他知道的。海斯特的不同表现表明，霍桑对爱情和教义本身就存在迷茫，他既肯定两人之间的爱是伟大的，是上天的赐予，又认定通奸是罪。电影导演明显是将“爱情”这种人性需求放至第一位。他在为两个人的行为辩护。


电影对“女巫案”的映射部分还是保留的很好，也算是忠于原著了。但是小说中描写红字被海斯特装饰的异常美丽在电影中几乎没表现出来，更别提原著结尾海斯特是又回到这里，自愿带上红字，度过余生；而海斯特因为善良能干逐渐被众人接受也丝毫没有提及，这恐怕是因为要为引出影片结尾的战斗而不得不舍弃了吧。基于以上两点，我认为，电影在表现海斯特的坚韧善良方面比原著差远了。商业和思想似乎从来都是跷跷板的两端，我个人认为本片在这两端的平衡上处理的不好。


影片中还有一个意象分担了红字的重量，那就是一只红色的小鸟。红色的小鸟出现过两次，后来在女奴的描述中又出现过一次。都是在影片的前半部分。第一次是在海斯特劳作时，小红鸟引她看到了牧师裸泳的情景。这无疑是给海斯特心湖投下了一块巨石。按现在的话说，大概是：哎呀妈呀，太震撼了！第二次则是海斯特终于和牧师在一起的时候，小红鸟飞进了海斯特的房子里，女奴看着红鸟忘情地沐浴。第一次海斯特想捕捉红鸟却终没有抓到，第二次红鸟自动飞到她的房间里但最终又飞走。红鸟可以说既是海斯特的媒人又是她和牧师间幸福爱情本身的象征。又因为它是鸟，也象征着海斯特甚至可以说众多妇女的精神解放。说道它的人性解放含义，它在影片中还间接地出现了一次，即海斯特的女奴被骗去审问时，女奴表达出来的。对于这个我将其理解为，人性一旦尝到了解放的滋味，就会给人深刻的影响，再想将其束缚起来，是很难的。个人不太赞成小红鸟的出现，首先，它抢了红字“A”的戏；其次，它的出现有始无终，在影片大团圆结局中也没露个脸，反倒使人觉得它指代不明。
http://xmxxm.blogcn.com/index.shtml

这些年在书店，一看到霍桑的《红字》，就会想到八十年代初看到这部小说的激荡，逢友就会说起里面的事，那种内心所引起的微微颤动，是现在看书所无法体味的。由罗兰・约菲根据这部名著改编的电影《红字》（又译《红色禁恋》1995)，则多角度诠释了这部名著，拍摄画面与我想像的相似，这与之前维姆・文德斯改编拍摄的同名电影《红字》，有着不同的气息，或者说更符合人们对于小说的期待，文德斯拍的已尽心。更为重要的是，在这带出了可爱的小“爱丽丝”耶拉，为他一年后带来了永恒的经典《爱丽丝城市漫游记》，但在这只说《红字》。

片中，偏于马萨诸塞湾的英属殖民地一隅的小岛，并不是我们想像的那么安静。只要是有人迹的地方，暗流就会悄悄涌动。人的行为总是与怪物无异，何况在十七世纪新大陆的冰山一角，在清教徒殖民地社会，发生了一宗少妇在丈夫失踪的情况下，跟当地一男人发生了奸情，女主角席丝（黛米·摩尔饰）因怀孕暴露了奸情。

出乎所有人意料的是，她宁愿接受小岛执杖者的严酷惩罚——即终生穿着绣有红字A的衣服，也不肯说出情夫的名字。席丝的医生丈夫突然归来，使得整个叙事的矛盾性更加充满戏剧性。俨然行医高手的丈夫，借此不择手段的追查妻子奸夫的身份，并加以报复，不顾一切地挑起了印第安人与当地白人之间的激烈冲突。

蹊跷的是，最终身为情夫的牧师阿瑟，在历经惊吓和昏厥后，再也按捺不住深埋的情感，决定与席丝带着小孩逃离小岛。但神圣的宗教信仰，似乎让牧师良心发现，为了拯救席丝，他毅然决然地回到教堂，大胆的说出了自已的情夫身份，之后再次晕倒。在暗屋中，牧师阿瑟被残忍的权势者杀害。只有席丝带着可爱小女孩子奔逃的脚步声，因为狡猾的丈夫带着印第安人要置她与女儿于死地，幸而她们无恙的逃离。

情归何处，这似乎是一个伪命题。

至少在那时，追求幸福的爱情，可是一个拿生命开玩笑的事。或者说，女性只是男人手中一张好打的牌，正所谓翻手为云覆手为雨，既可恣意妄为，又可借机打击异己。其实，说白了，无人在那种特殊情境下，违逆了他们所定制的“教义”还能安然事外，除了听天由命，或者侥幸逃亡，真没别的路可走。

英国导演罗兰・约菲将剧情通俗化，感情的深处，总会有微光闪动，似乎要将激情在黑暗中细细诉说。总体上看，在人物表现上，略显单薄。虽有不足，但就改编的难度来说，应该说已很不易。

当狂风裹挟着“红字”掠过新大陆对面的小岛，一切人间的标识都会黯然。如果人类还是身处在清教徒的社会，她们还能怎样？最多如鲁迅所说的就昏睡在铁屋子里吧，永远都别醒过来，醒过来会更痛苦，因为我们已无处可逃。

2005.6.9

“我很敬重和爱这个孩子的父亲，而我不可能也不能说出任何给他带来伤害的话。”

向这样的女人致敬。

所有的宗教禁忌都是人们凭空想象出来的，有宗教信仰不代表就有崇高信仰，有一时的信仰不代表能坚守一生。真正的崇高信仰是严于律己、宽于律人。

所有的信仰之争、主义之争都是权力之争和利益之争。只有为人类和广大人民的终极幸福而追求的才是值得称道的。

人类从最初原始社会的夭折、饥饿、寒冷、病痛、乱伦到现代社会的长寿、美食、温暖、舒适、爱情，每经历过一次王朝的更替和帝国的消逝和民众的觉醒、民主和独立，人类的文明都在螺旋式的上升。

我坚信人类会因为文明而永恒。

按照这个版本的剧情和人物设定，亚瑟是很爱海斯特，并且也愿意和她生死相随的，最后海斯特提出离开，亚瑟也毫不犹豫地跟她一起走了。

并且这个电影后半部分男女主面临的惨状和困境比原著中更甚，原著中罗杰只是报复亚瑟一个人，只是从精神层面折磨他。这里罗杰为了查出情夫是谁，不惜怂恿教会彻查参加茶话会的妇女，说她们都是女巫，应该绞死，害死了女主的女奴，还要绞死希宾斯夫人，下一步就要绞死海斯特和珠儿，对亚瑟直接是亲自割喉扒头皮。 前半段海斯特刚来到殖民地的时候，是颇受当地各位地方长官的尊敬和欢迎的，安息日，参观学校，吃茶点，生活得非常愉快优雅。男女主之间相识相恋的经过也让人感到甜蜜唯美，这与后半段男女主、珠儿还有西宾斯夫人都要面临死的危险，形成了鲜明的对比。基于此，站在上帝视角、宏观思考了一下，女主应该在刚得知自己怀孕的时候就告诉男主，然后两人错开时间，离开这个地方。 女主刚怀孕的时候也很害怕，她以为拼命干活就能流产，所以不打算把这件事告诉男主，想着自己悄悄流产就完了，告诉男主只会徒增他的担心。直到因为呕吐被人发现告发，在教会接受审判的时候，男主才知道。这时候事情已经败露了，加上她不肯停止茶话会，也不肯认错，长官们逼问孩子父亲是谁，说出来就要绞死那个男人，亚瑟处境非常被动。要么女主蹲监狱，要么男主死。 女主刚来到的时候，她是很受人尊重的，虽然人们对她穿着华丽、生活消费不够节俭颇有不满。在她丈夫死讯和遗物传来不久，她就怀孕了。此时她应该离开这里，理由是她孤身一人来到新大陆，就是为了等丈夫团聚，两人在这里安家。现在丈夫已经被印第安人杀死，自己又继续等了几个月，还是不见踪迹。也想找回丈夫的尸体，但是已经被海浪冲走了。她一个人留在此地，孤苦伶仃，再也没有意义，还是带着丈夫的遗物回到故乡，把丈夫安葬了吧。回到英国还能有曾经的亲人朋友。这个说法非常合情合理。并且她只是一位普通的妇女，不是当地重要显赫、能带来巨大贡献的人物。走了这样一个人，对当地没有任何损失。加上她行为举指略违反宗教规矩，清除这样一个人对殖民地的秩序还有好处。 女主应该先走，因为她怀孕时间长了会被发现，男主随后走，两人最好间隔几个月，这样才能确保不被怀疑。两人约好在远离该城镇的某个地方汇合，（可以是比较远的荒野里的印第安部落，因为亚瑟一直以来和这群印第安人相处很好，在那里和约翰尼呆了一整个夏天）然后两人一起去另一个遥远的地方，比如后文中的卡罗莱纳，定居生活，生下孩子。这样就不会被当做通奸罪逮捕，也不会被人谩骂，可以作为一家三口正常的生活在一起。 男主离开的理由可以是远在英国的父母病重需要照顾，或家里给安排了婚姻等等。当然最好是故意几次关于工作问题、政建分歧和同行们吵架，这一点开头也有伏笔，在对待与印第安人的问题上，少校认为和平日子快到头了，不久要爆发战争，而亚瑟却想建立与印第安人的桥梁，和平相处。几次争执之后，亚瑟一气之下辞职离开。这样别人都会认为他是因为工作不顺心，政建分歧，无法实现自己的理想抱负而离开，而不是因为私人原因。亚瑟在殖民地一直深受爱戴，工作认真，没有任何作风问题，他离开，总督只会感到遗憾，丧失了这么一个人才，也不会怀疑他是不是因为犯了通奸罪而私奔。 至于一年之后罗杰回来，他就算打听海斯特的下落，也只能打听到海斯特以为他已死，带着他的遗物返回英国。他对海斯特感情也不是很深，何况这一路已是死里逃生，不愿意再折腾，不会再返回英国再去找她，在当地安稳的定居下来就完了。就算他返回英国，也找不到她，因为海斯特对当地的人说回英国只是个幌子，她不会真的回到原居住地，当时交通困难，殖民地也不会派人专程送她、监视她回到哪里去，因为这时候她还没被人们知道犯通奸罪。并且他对海斯特也不会有恨意。原著中是因为他刚来到就看到自己的妻子已经生下了孩子，还被当作全镇的谩骂对象，站在绞刑台上，感到自己受到了奇耻大辱。而这样他根本不知道自己妻子出轨的事，只知道她以为自己死亡而离开了此地，会有遗憾，但不会有恨。 弹幕中几次提到私奔。罗杰回来之后，海斯特建议亚瑟走，亚瑟为了照顾他们母女不愿意走。此时海斯特已经走不了了，因为他是全镇人民重点关注的对象，再逃跑就是逃犯。并且罗杰明确表示会监控他们的行为，逃跑也会追回来。

第二次是在森林里，亚瑟建议海斯特母女躲起来，躲避罗杰的报复追杀。海斯特却为了救希宾斯夫人不愿意离开。因为希宾斯夫人为她接生，并且被当成女巫要判刑，也是因为她和亚瑟的事情。这时候如果她们再走，就要牵扯其他无辜的人。

无论原著还是电影，女主最后都离开了，可见她对这里没有什么留恋，唯一留恋的是亚瑟。如果她能在刚怀孕的时候就离开，亚瑟士也随后离开，这个悲剧也不会发生了。

原载于：墨神的凡龛 http://www.thinkjam.org/mercury/archives/2005/03/eiecie2005ie.html

上周看的电影《红字》（The Scarlet Letter，1995），触动很深。或许一些专家尤其文学人士带着原著的条框去定格她的时候，会有众多的非议。但是从电影以及改编剧本的角度来看，不可否认《红字》算是成功之作。

她没有完全照搬霍桑小说的原貌，事实上，想要完全照搬也是不可能的。小说从海斯特受到公审开始，而电影却为她补充了一段前因，使故事更完整，人物行为和性格更突出更具特点。我认为，这段海斯特来岛，不惧欺辱，不理会他人眼光，以及丛林巧遇阿瑟牧师等等的安排都为后来打下了坚实的伏笔，这种伊甸园般的场景，一见钟情的相遇与后来受审，以致丈夫回来后的压抑痛苦形成鲜明的对比，是谓欲抑先扬吧。……

…… 另一方面，小说以人物心理的刻画为主，主人公海斯特身上的红字与阿瑟心中的红字，甚至作为新一代小珠儿本身就是红字的象征，三条线索一齐发展，丈夫不断的对牧师进行心上的拷问，两个有情人也因为相爱是过错备受煎熬。当然，一部电影是无法通篇展示心理活动的，于是电影《红字》中导演将这种心理活动具象化，用阿瑟的自责行为，丈夫的复仇计划等等呈现给观众，这就是电影语言的不同之处。全篇以小珠儿的口气画外音叙述，结尾也让有情人终成眷属，不过最后阿瑟还是由于过度的自责和内疚英年早逝，海斯特也没有再和别人在一起－－“或许这就是上帝对他们的惩罚吧”。其实经历过这么多矢志不渝的忠贞爱情，最后能够正大光明在一起，一天已是足以，更何况月月年年，不正是那句老话“两情若是长久时，又岂在朝朝暮暮”。据说，结尾还是按照Dami Moore的意见修改的呢。似乎与原著已经相距甚远，可是影片所表现的精神和想表达的内涵还是与原著如出一辙殊途同归了

巨喜欢男主角Gary Oldman演的阿瑟牧师，温文尔雅的外表下是一颗炙热的心，他有知识有风度有思想有理想，他希望以真诚打动印第安部落“邻居们”，避免战争，他把圣经翻译成他们的文字，想与他们共享教义，他深入部落帮助他们，与他们结为朋友。可是统治者们竟然利用他的真诚和友谊妄想消灭异族。他才华出众是少女们的偶像，他与海斯特偶遇一见倾心。他们戏剧性的在聚会上被多次引荐，他们一个漂亮骄傲，一个风度翩翩，他们有共同的爱好－－读书，他们更能看穿彼此的心。怎奈海斯特已嫁作他人妇，于是俩人小心翼翼的相处着，苦苦压抑着真挚的情感。她不去想他，他前往遥远的部落传道，一切的自禁只为忘记，或许稍许渐淡相思。可是真正的情感却在这种“禁”中一触即发。Gary Oldman将角色的情感用表情甚至眼神和气质表现的淋漓尽致，让我们的心与他一起流泪流血，一起在禁中煎熬。

我也“禁”了几天，总想认真写篇blog，可是感情还草草未准备妥当，直到这种感觉突然迸发时，就象海斯特听到了丈夫的死讯，那种欣狂还略显自责的的情感，于是我将即日的压抑喷发出出来，历练、凝固成一首“禁”。

禁
（2005.3.9）
谁用发丝捆绑住灵魂
心痛得呼吸都变得无力
谁的尺子试探着距离
遥远的无法测量的缝隙

谁用双手包裹住抗拒
怎么还能听见风的叹息
谁的信仰践踏着心灵
如何能萌生出春的痕迹

锁不住的心 情不自禁
忘了谁的谁 又想起谁的背影

谁用眼光锁住了神奇
神奇般望穿了铜墙铁壁
谁的剪影住进了圣经
圣经点燃了似火爱情

谁用美丽来点缀衣襟
衣襟织绘着猩红的字
谁的勇气刺破了禁令
碎片散落了一地的光阴

锁不住的心 情不自禁
忘了谁的谁 又重回谁的记忆