2003年，公視連續劇孽子風光上檔。本劇改編自1983年白先勇同名小說孽子，由於小說本身已經具備的高知名度以及公視向來對弱勢族群所展現的社會關懷，使得本劇的上檔以及上檔之前的諸如製作、選角過程都獲得高度的注目，大家都在看形象良好的公視頻道將如何再現白先勇小說中「惡名昭彰」的同性戀角色。一如預期，孽子一劇的撥出不僅獲得同志社群廣大的迴響，更在學術、文化及娛樂領域引起廣大的討論。隨孽子一劇上檔而至的研討會、演講和電視電台的訪問和報導，都成為孽子現象的一環。
本篇論文主要將藉由比較2003年公視孽子的文本與白先勇1983年的孽子文本以探討「同性戀」概念如何地在大眾媒體變形及再定義。本論文所採取的角度是將白先勇孽子及公視孽子看成是特定時空脈落下的文化產物，也是權力部署的場域---主流異性戀體制意識型態、公視的製作動機、同志團體的期待、通俗劇商業考量、以及白先勇對原作的堅持---種種因素都參與其中，宛如一場權力的角力競賽(power struggles)；種種的複雜因素看似互斥，有時卻又彼此交錯而強化。同性戀在公視頻道的最終再現，即可視為角力(power struggle)之後的最後結果。權力爭戰的場域不單單限於電視劇本身，看同性戀如何在劇中再現；更延伸至戲外，看同性戀如何在相關的宣傳活動、討論會、報章雜誌報導、訪問中被再現。因此，藉由批判性地細讀公視文本及相關活動中同性戀的再現，本篇論文企圖追溯種種權力部署的蛛絲馬跡，以了解當代台灣社會中的同性戀形塑。
本篇論文第一部份藉由Gayle Rubin對性階層的分析來對照公視孽子如何藉由再現白先勇孽子中的同性戀角色建夠當代台灣的性階層：其中，性工作者、跨代性/愛與性病都被放置在性階層的下方，在將這些「壞性」排除於同性戀之外的同時，公視賦予孽子們政治正確的身分認同，意即，將孽子們去「孽」、去污名化；相對地，父親與母親角色被重新改寫，以接納這些迷途之返的孽子。此再現因而強化卻也再定義了傳統(異性戀)家庭「嚴父」、「慈母」、「孝子」的典型，另一方面，藉由父親對同性戀兒子的接納，父子關係變得可親而可愛，也塑造了現代化的家庭形象。
第二部分主要沿用了劉人鵬與丁乃非對含蓄美學的討論。藉由細讀公視孽子對白先勇小說中同性愛場景(homosexual sex scenes)的含蓄再現來揭露公視如何在「擁抱同性戀」、「將同性戀去污名」的偽裝之下將同性性愛魍魎化為一不可見、不可辨識的魍魎主體。此一分析所導引出來的問題將會是同性戀(homosexuality)與同性性愛(homosexual sex)之間的關聯性，以及除了「同性戀」的概念之外，「恐同」如何地於公視孽子中被再現。最後，本章節將企圖歪讀公視孽子中某些含蓄的同性性愛場景，企圖將含蓄美學逆向操作並加以酷異化。
論文的最後一部分將原本的分析由公視孽子電視劇文本延伸至戲外，看「同性戀」在孽子一劇的相關報導及訪問中如何被再現。此一部分可視為前兩章節分析的延伸，以及對前述觀點的再確認。本文最後將把孽子電視劇的上檔及其所造成的社會效應與台灣當前同志運動做連結，並探討其得失，以作為本論文之結論。

In 2003, Public Television’s Crystal Boys, adapted from Pai Hsienyung’s novel Nie Zi (1983) went on the prime time TV screen. Owing to the high reputations of the novel as well as of Public Television, prestigious for its strong social concern of the minority groups, the advent of Crystal Boys, including its production and casting, and most significantly, the representation of homosexuality have gained intense attention. Not only the LGBT community but also the heterosexual public was waiting to see how Public Television would translate the “notorious” homosexual characters in Pai Hsienyung’s novel. As expected, Crystal Boys’ showing resonated strongly with the LGBT community. Furthermore, it provoked unprecedented discussions from the academic, cultural, and entertainment fields. The numerous seminars, lectures, and TV and newspaper reports and interviews all become part of the “Crystal Boys phenomena.”
By comparing and contrasting Public Television’s Crystal Boys and Pai Hsienyng’s Nie Zi, this thesis explores how the concept of homosexuality is reconfigured and redefined in the mass media. This thesis views Nie Zi and Crystal Boys as cultural products of specific social contexts and as a site of multiple power struggles, including the heterosexual ideology, Public Television’s production motivation, the LGBT community’s expectation, the commercial consideration, and Pai Hsienyung’s insistence on the fidelity of the series to the novel. The different factors sometimes clash with each other, sometimes overlap with each other, and yet sometimes reinforce each other. The final representation of homosexuality can be viewed as the outcome of the power struggles. The battlefield extends from inside the series to the off-screen events, including promotion activities, the press conferences, and the relevant interviews and reports. Thus, by shedding critical light on the representation of homosexuality in the TV series as well as in the relevant events, I try to map the deployment of diverse fields of power so as to trace the trajectory of the concept of homosexuality in contemporary Taiwan society.
In the first part, following Gayle Rubin’s discussions of the sexual hierarchy, I explore how Public Television “de-stigmatizes” and “legitimates” homosexuality by purging if of the “deviant” sexualities and by endowing the homosexual characters with politically correct images. In response, the father and mother figures are adapted so as to accept these wayward children. Simultaneously, the (heterosexual) familial ethical value is endorsed but reconfigured to its modern version.
In the second part, I follows Liu Jenpeng and Ding Naifei’s discussions of the reticent politics to see how Public Television, under the disguise of how (“normative”) homosexuality is embraced and justified, deploy the reticent force to turn the homosexual sex (practices) into the penumbrae, becoming the unspeakable, unspoken, unrecognizable, and unrecognized. This analysis will lead to the discussions of the relationship between homosexuality and homosexual sex and of how homophobia is reconfigured in Crystal Boys. In the end, I will offer alternative queer readings of some reticent homosexual sex scenes to activate the counter-reticent force.
In the last part, my analysis extends from inside the series to the off-screen events to see how homosexuality is translated in relevant reports and interviews. This part could be viewed as both a reconfirmation and an extension of my previous discussions. At the end, I will conclude my thesis by examining the complicated negotiation between Crystal Boys as a cultural product in the mass media and contemporary Taiwan gay movement and give a critical review of the gain and loss that the former may bring to the latter.

1.Introduction 1
2.The De-stigmatization of Homosexuality or Taming the Wild in the Crystal Boys TV Series 9
3.The Reticent Redeployment of Homosexual (Would-be) Sex Scenes in the Crystal Boys TV Series 39
4.Cultural Events and Social Effects of the Crystal Boys TV Series 68
5.Bibliography 85

English Reference:
Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. Preface. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge, 1992.
Berlant, Lauren, and Elizabeth Freeman. “Queer Nationality.” Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Ed. Michael Warner. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage, 1990.
Huang, Daoming (黃道明). “State power, prostitution and sexual order in Taiwan: towards a genealogical critique of ''Virtuous Custom.” By Culture: the 2004 Taiwan Cultural Studies Association Annual Conference. Soochow University, 3-4 Jan 2004.
John, M. Clum. “Seeing Gay.” Acting Gay: Male Homosexuality in Modern Drama. NY: Columbia UP, 1992. 3-36.
Liu, Liangya (劉亮雅). “At the Intersection of the Global and the Local: Representations of Male Homosexuality in Fictions by Pai Hsienyung, Li Ang, Chu Tienwen, and Chi Tawei.” The Fifth Annual Conference on the History and Culture of Taiwan. 2003 < http://www.international.ucla.edu/cira /paper/ TWLiou.pdf >
Miller, D.A. “Anal Rope.” Representations. 32 (1990): 114-133.
Pai, Hsienyung. Crystal Boys. Trans. Howard Goldblatt. San Francisco: Gay Sunshine Press, 1990.
Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Ed. Carol S. Vance. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.
Seidman, Steven. Beyond the Closet. New York and London: Routledge, 2002.
Sinfield, Alan. Gay and After. London: Serpent’s Tail, 1998.
Silverman, Kaja. Male Subjectivity at the Margins. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Chinese Reference:
Cai, Kangyong (蔡康永). “Thanks, Cao Ruiyuan” (謝謝曹瑞原). “Gu Chen, Nie Zi, Taipei People” (孤臣，孽子，台北人). By Zeng Xiuping (曾秀萍). Taipei : 爾雅, 2003.
Chang Xida (張士達). “Are Homosexuals Perverts?”(同志都是色情狂嗎). China Times. 11, Apr, 2004.
Chen, Shijie and Wang Ciyang (陳世杰，王詞仰). Crystal Boys Screenplay (孽子劇本書). 2 vols. Taipei: Public Television, 2004.
Chen, Yaomin (陳耀民). “We are One Family: Familialism/Identification in Nie Zi and Ni Nu ”(我們都是一家人:論孽子及逆女中的家庭機制/身分認同). Gay Studies (同志研究). Taipei: 巨流, 2001.
Crystal Boys (孽子). 20 episodes. Dir. Cao Ruiyuan (曹瑞原). Per. Fan Zhiwei (范植偉), Jin Qin (金勤), Tuo Zonghua (庹宗華), and Ke Junxiong (柯俊雄). Public Television. DVD, 2003.
Hei, Hsienyung (黑先詠). “One Light that Changes it All” (一點靈光全體皆活) Public Television Official Discussion Forum Website. 2003 <http://www.pts.org.tw/~web01 /boys/>
Ji, Dawei (紀大偉). “Globalization of ‘qing chun niao’” (鳥的全球化). China Times, December, 2001
Ju, Weicheng (朱偉誠). “Queer(ing) Taiwan: Sexual Citizenship, Nation-Building or Civil Society” (同志˙台灣: 性公民、國族建構或公民社會). Journal of Women''s and Gender Studies (女學學誌: 婦女與性別研究). 15 (2003): 115-151.
Liu, Jenpeng and Ding Naifei (劉人鵬，丁乃非). “Penumbrae Ask Shadow: Reticent Poetics, Queer Politics” (魍魎問景: 含蓄美學與酷兒攻略). Working Papers in Gender/Sexuality Studies (性/別研究) 3-4 (1998):109-155.
Ning, Yingbin (甯應斌). “Elementary Notes on the History of Sex Liberation Thinking: Sex Politics, Sex Minorities, and Sex Hierarchy.” (性解放思想史的初步札記: 性政治性少數性階層) Working Papers in Gender/Sexuality Studies (性/別研究) 3-4 (1998): 179-234.
Pai, Hsienyung. Interview. Outstanding Chinese Serial (傑出華人系列). RTHK MM, 2000.
“The Cultural Effects of Crystal Boys—from the Lily Pond to the Cozy Nest, and from the Dram to See Life”(文學劇孽子的迴響—從「蓮花池」到「安樂鄉」，從戲劇看人生座談會). Eslite Bookstore. 11 Aug, 2003.
Wang, Yage (王雅各). The History of Taiwan Gay Movement (台灣平權運動史). Taipei: Lovely Sunshine (開心陽光), 1999.
Ye Dexuan (葉徳宣). “The Haunting Specter of Familialism—an Analysis of the Discourses of Nie Zi” (陰魂不散的家庭主義魑魅—對詮釋孽子諸文的論述分析). Chung-Wai Literary Monthly中外文學. 24.7 (1995): 66-88
---. “From Domesticity to Police Interrogation: the Patriarchal National/Familial Discipline of the Body in Nie Zi” (從家庭受勳到警局問訊—孽子中父系國/家的身體規訓地景). Chung-Wai Literary Monthly中外文學. 30.2 (2001): 124-154
“Youthful Journey : a Talk with Pai Hsienyung about the Coming-Out of Nie Zi in Public Television” (青春的行旅—與白先勇談孽子現身公視). Rec. Yi Li (伊里). “Gu Chen, Nie Zi, Taipei People” (孤臣，孽子，台北人). By Zeng Xiuping (曾秀萍). Taipei : 爾雅, 2003.
Zhao, Yanning (趙彥寧). “The Invisible Power: an Epistemological Analysis of Regulatory Discourses of Non-Reproductive and Non-Consanguineous Relationship”(看不見的權力—非生殖非親屬規範性論述的認識論分析). From Queer Space To Education Space (從酷兒空間到教育空間). Ed. David D. W. Wang (王德威). Taipei: Rye Field Publications, 2000.
Zhang, Xiaohong (張小虹). “Nie Zi’s Shame Performativity”(孽子的恥辱踐履). United Daily News, March 1, 2003.
---. “Unfilial Bastards’ Literature History—a Case Study of Nie Zi” (不肖文學妖孽史—以孽子為例). Gender Discourse and Taiwan Fiction (性別論述與台灣小說.) Ed. David D.W. Wang (王德威). Rye Field Publications, 2000.