寄居於媒體的文學：人物專訪的敘事美學與再現倫理

Abstract

本論文旨在探討《壹週刊》、《鏡週刊》人物組，如何在極度商業的媒體環境之下，發展出被文學作家辨識為具「文學質感」（即敘事技藝上趨近文學創作）的人物專訪書寫。這一提問所指向的，是台灣非虛構書寫系譜中尚未被定位的位置：在追求流量與腥煽色的媒體環境中所生產的「人物故事」，既不同於報導文學的社會行動傳統，亦不同於純粹的文學創作。本文以「寄居」描述此一處境——生產條件是新聞的，操作方式卻是文學的；書寫者身處媒體的秩序之中，卻能續而維持文學的獨特性。 本文的回答是：這套書寫的力量，同時來自於選材與敘事的選擇。在事件與名人優先的媒體秩序中，持續將版面讓給那些不會成為新聞的人，本身即是對「何者值得被看見」的重新分配；藉塞杜（Michel de Certeau）的日常生活實踐理論，可以說明，「小敘事」不僅記錄了小人物的生存戰術，其書寫本身即是一種不動聲色的抵抗。敘事的技藝訴諸行動，固定內聚焦將意義的歸屬鎖定於受訪者，自由間接引語則使書寫者的文學能力得以注入而不現身，兩者合力，得以凸顯小人物的日常智慧。再現的倫理因此不在於書寫者是否有權代言，而在那些原本不被看見的人生，是否因此被看見。 循此理路，本文自「歷史系譜」梳理壹傳媒的發展與人物書寫敘事的移植，兼及《蘋果日報》〈人間異語〉等並行專欄，說明第一人稱小人物書寫在壹傳媒體系中延續二十餘年的軌跡；繼而討論「記者／作者群像」的技藝繼承與文類開創，及其在《鏡週刊》的延續與變化；再於「小人物的敘事倫理」一章，繞道可能的「大敘事」而擇取「小人物」的人物書寫作為分析對象，以十八篇選篇的文本細讀，開展書寫者的敘事策略及其可能的限制；最後論其文學史的位置。 所謂寄居，包含三個面向。其一是身分的偶然，進入人物組的書寫者多有創作身份，記者並非第一志業；其二是多元的發展可能，各自的背景形塑了他們的感知方式，新聞採訪則給了他們進入他人生命的通道；其三是雙向的改變，他們帶入的眼光改變了人物採訪的書寫面貌，而這段經驗也反過來影響了他們此後的書寫路徑。這群書寫者所形成的，是一個因制度條件與書寫規範而風格趨同的實踐社群；其貢獻亦是雙重的——對媒體而言，他們將文學的敘事技藝帶入商業週刊的體制之內；對文學而言，他們則把新聞採訪所提供的、大量而真實的生命經驗帶回文學場域。 文學在寄居之下所帶來的火種，日後亦有所傳續，《鏡文學》的成立即可視為其承繼之一。在數位而碎片化的時代裡，書寫「人」如何重要？寄居於下的「文學」所提供的，正是一使大眾更理解彼此、連接彼此的管道。

This thesis examines how the profile-writing teams at Next Magazine (壹週刊) and Mirror Media Weekly (鏡週刊) have, within a highly commercialized media environment, developed personal-profile writing that literary writers recognize as possessing "literary texture"—that is, narrative craft approaching literary creation. This inquiry points to a position not yet mapped within the genealogy of Taiwanese nonfiction writing: the "human-interest stories" produced within a media environment driven by traffic and sensationalism are neither continuous with the social-action tradition of reportage literature (報導文學), nor reducible to pure literary creation. This thesis uses the term " dwelling " (寄居) to describe this condition—production conditions are journalistic, yet the mode of operation is literary; writers are situated within the order of the media, yet manage to sustain a literary distinctiveness. This thesis argues that the power of this mode of writing derives simultaneously from choices of subject matter and narrative technique. Within a media order that privileges events and celebrities, the sustained allocation of space to people who would never otherwise become news is itself a redistribution of "who deserves to be seen." Drawing on Michel de Certeau's theory of the practice of everyday life, this thesis shows that "small narratives" not only record the survival tactics of ordinary people, but that the act of writing itself constitutes a quiet form of resistance. As for narrative craft, fixed internal focalization anchors meaning to the interviewee, while free indirect discourse allows the writer's literary capacity to be infused into the text without the writer's presence becoming visible; together, these devices bring the everyday wisdom of ordinary people into relief. The ethics of representation therefore lie not in whether the writer has the right to speak for others, but in whether lives previously unseen are thereby made visible. Following this line of inquiry, this thesis first traces, through a "historical genealogy," the development of the Next Media Group and the transplantation of profile-writing narrative conventions, alongside parallel columns such as Apple Daily's "Human Stories" (人間異語), tracing the more than twenty-year trajectory of first-person ordinary-people writing within the Next Media system. It then discusses the inheritance of craft and the genre-founding role of the "journalist-author" cohort, and its continuation and transformation at Mirror Media Weekly. The chapter "The Narrative Ethics of Ordinary People" bypasses possible "grand narratives" to select profiles of ordinary people as its object of analysis, undertaking close readings of eighteen selected pieces to unpack the writers' narrative strategies and their possible limitations. The thesis concludes by situating this body of work within literary history. The condition of "dwelling" comprises three dimensions. First, an accidental identity: many writers who joined the profile-writing teams held creative-writing identities, with journalism not their primary vocation. Second, a plurality of developmental possibilities: their varied backgrounds shaped their distinct modes of perception, while journalistic interviewing provided them a channel into the lives of others. Third, bidirectional transformation: the perspectives they brought reshaped the form of profile writing, while this experience in turn influenced their subsequent writing trajectories. What this group of writers formed is a community of practice whose style converged under shared institutional conditions and writing norms; their contribution is likewise twofold—to the media, they brought literary narrative craft into the institutional structure of commercial weeklies; to literature, they brought back the vast and authentic life experience furnished by journalistic interviewing. The spark that literature carried under conditions of "dwelling" has continued to be passed on; the founding of Mirror Fiction (鏡文學) may be seen as one such inheritance. In a digital and fragmented age, why does writing about "people" still matter? What "literature" under dwelling offers is precisely a channel through which the public may better understand and connect with one another.