柴静与《看见》最近很火,媒体连篇累牍报道不说,居然还引发口水战。赞之者捧之如女神,贬之者视之如蝼蚁,还有态度暧昧的中立者借此兜售个人观点。不过,正如鸡蛋好吃,但人们并不一定非要理会下蛋母鸡招致的每一个评价。因此,评价一本书的优劣,也不必理会七嘴八舌。读书需要“英雄不问出处”的态度。客观,这是读者毫不功利地选择这本书的首要条件。因为这一点,《看见》做到了。从非典开始,到虐猫事件、真假华南虎、药家鑫死刑……这些关键词在中国过去的十年中,都曾陆续位居社会关注度的榜首。“虐猫没人性”“周正龙说谎”“药家鑫该死”……这些简单粗暴的判断,大概是很多人认识事件后的第一反应。但是在柴静的笔下,事情远没那么简单。比如“虐猫事件”。2006年,网上热传一个女人用 Chai static and “see” the recent fire, the media reported exhaustive report, actually also triggered a war of words. Like the goddess praised as demons like the ants, as well as the ambiguous neutral attitude to sell personal opinion. However, just as the eggs are delicious, one does not necessarily have to care about every comment that the laying hen incurred. Therefore, evaluation of the pros and cons of a book, do not bother. Reading requires “hero does not ask the source ” attitude. Objective, this is the first condition that readers choose the book unfunded. Because of this, “see” did it. From the SARS to the cat abuse incident, the true and false South China tigers, the drug king Xin death penalty ... ... these keywords in China over the past ten years, have successively ranked first in social attention. “No cat abuse sexual ” “Zhou Zhenglong lying ” “Pharmacy Xin damn ” ... ... these simple rude judgments, probably many people recognize the first reaction after the incident. But in Chai Jing’s pen, things are far less simple. Such as “cat abuse incident ”. In 2006, a woman was used online to pass on heat