Sunzi:
It has been a long time since your grandfather last visited your house. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, your grandfather has been staying at home and cannot come to your house. A few days ago, I suddenly saw your letter to Aunt Fangfang on the Internet. Your grandfather was puzzled: my grandson has never been interested in literature before, why did he suddenly start talking about literature to Aunt Fangfang? Your grandfather is a journalist and also enjoys literary creation. He has works in novellas, short stories, essays, poetry, reportage, and essays, and has also studied literary theory. If your grandfather had known that you were so interested in literature, I would have taught you more. I don't know which mediocre teacher taught you, but the literary views you talked to Aunt Fangfang are simplistic, mediocre, and full of errors. They are basically representative of extreme left-wing thinking, which is the extreme left-wing literary theory that prevailed in the ten-year movement.
Sunzi, the literary theories you talked about were already discussed 41 years ago, in June 1979, before you were born. Li Jian's article "Goethe and 'Unethical'" was published in "Hebei Literature and Art" at that time. At that time, the ten-year movement had just ended, and the literary world broke through the extreme left-wing literary thinking and boldly created a batch of "scar literature". That article, like the extreme left-wing literary views your teacher taught you, believed that the task of literary workers was to "Goethe"—to sing the praises of the bright side, rather than "Unethical"—to specifically expose the "dark side". Based on this viewpoint, the article criticized works that wrote about "scars" and exposed the dark side as "unethical", mocking some people in the literary world for "lacking Goethe but having unethical behavior", and then narrowly advocating that socialist literature can only be "Goethe".
This article "prescribed" that the main task of creation was to "create monuments and biographies for the proletariat, and write new chapters for the heroes of the 'Four Modernizations'". Whoever did this was "Goethe", had "party spirit", and was praised; whoever did not do this was "unethical", became "revisionist", and was insulted. The reason why the author wanted to "Goethe" was because modern Chinese people "have no worries about losing education or employment, no worries about clothing or food, not afraid of thieves during the day or masked men knocking on the door at night. The river is flowing, the lotus is blooming, the green water is in a new pond, and the sun is shining." If life is not embellished in this tone, and criticism of backward things, and castigation of dark things in creation, then it is "unethical", "conscienceless", "cursing the red sun with class prejudice against the socialist system"...
At that time, General Secretary Hu Yaobang criticized this article and settled the debate between the "Goethe" and "Unethical" of that time: the so-called "Goethe" completely violated the literary policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend". The "Goethe faction" became a mockery of the first-class people in our literary and even cultural circles who only knew how to "sing praises". Look at the so-called bright side described by the "Goethe faction": "There is no worry about losing education or employment, no worries about clothing or food, not afraid of thieves during the day or masked men knocking on the door at night. The river is flowing, the lotus is blooming, the green water is in a new pond, and the sun is shining." Even today, more than 40 years later, it is still a castle in the air, it is a false thing.
Sunzi, I didn't expect that 41 years later, you would bring up the debate about the "Goethe" or "Unethical" literary views. This reflects that extreme left-wing thinking still has a market, and in today's environment, extreme left-wing thinking has experienced a resurgence. The literary views in your letter are a manifestation of the current extreme left-wing literary thinking. Some of your words are similar to the "Goethe faction", demanding that writers can only sing praises, and demanding that Aunt Fangfang can only sing praises in the face of the great disaster of the pandemic, and cannot express the real and shocking events she witnessed in society.
You are parroting others and saying: "Writers have a sense of mission, they inspire and motivate people with excellent works!" "Writers promote the main theme and spread positive energy." "One group supports you, saying that you are great, daring to speak out, better than contemporary Lu Xun; another group believes that you only see the shortcomings in reality and do not see the positive energy of this society. Who is right and who is wrong?" You mentioned the trendy phrase "positive energy" twice, and it's surprising that you are a science student. Anyone with a little knowledge of physics knows that the universe only has positive energy, not negative energy. It is completely wrong to demand that writers only sing praises and write about positive energy.
Sunzi, at your age, you can't possibly understand Lu Xun. You said: "Today's era is not the same as that era. Is the mission of Lu Xun's era still the mission of all writers today? In a bright era, should the main focus of writers be on uplifting the national spirit, or should they continue to focus on shortcomings and constantly expose and question?" "For a fighter who stabs the darkness with a dagger, Lu Xun is the hero of that era. Is today's China not the same as China back then? Is it a bright and confident China, right?" You still insist that writers should only sing praises.
The Russian writer Maxim Gorky said: "Reflection is a clear mirror that can reveal the stains on the soul." The French writer Romain Rolland said: "True brightness is never a time without darkness, it is just never obscured by darkness."
Sunzi, at your age, you cannot understand dialectics and the dialectical relationship between writing about the bright side and the dark side of society in literature. Works that expose the dark side of society in literature give people hope to move towards the light. On the other hand, works that falsely sing praises of a fabricated brightness give people a sense of darkness and despair. This is the relationship between the bright side and the dark side of modern literature. The literary theory your teacher taught you is a literary view from the Middle Ages and feudal society, which is hundreds of years behind the times!
Aunt Fangfang's diary truthfully records what she saw and heard during the pandemic. It is a reflection on humanity and society in a special environment and has great literary value. That's why it has had a huge impact among netizens. You asked why so many writers didn't write about it, but she was the only one? I dare say that there must be more writers who, driven by a sense of mission and responsibility, have created works about the pandemic. They may be hindered by the lack of a suitable platform for publication, or they may still be in the process of writing and revising. Once the timing is right, literary works about the pandemic will emerge like a volcanic eruption.
You said: Aunt Fangfang, "You are the biggest winner in this pandemic." It seems like you are saying that while many patients have suffered from the COVID-19 disease, some even lost their lives, Aunt Fangfang has gained fame in the midst of the disaster, as if she is "eating blood buns". This is a completely despicable literary view. In the past war years, many writers risked their lives and wrote timeless masterpieces. Tolstoy's "War and Peace," Hugo's "Les Misérables," Sholokhov's "Quiet Flows the Don," Ding Ling's "The Sun Shines over the Sanggan River," Qu Bo's "Tracks in the Snowy Forest," and many more, the list goes on. Are they all the biggest winners of the war?
You said: "Our political teacher said that no regime is perfect, no political party can be flawless, and no political system can be without flaws." You think that by quoting your "political teacher," you are politically correct, but his viewpoint is completely wrong when measured against the current political standards. This viewpoint confuses the fact that not all regimes, political parties, and political systems are the same. They are not "perfect, flawless, and without flaws." Then, where is the "superiority of the system" that the extreme leftists often talk about? Your "political teacher" has been left-leaning all along, and his position has ended up in the middle ground between capitalism and socialism, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie!
Aunt Fangfang has written about what she has seen and heard during the pandemic, reflecting on the changes in society, the complexities of human nature, and the various aspects of humanity. These are the true literary values. What do you, a little child, understand about literary value? You say things like "By doing this, aren't you bringing all the good and bad things from home to the streets? In the face of such a major pandemic, we have not experienced it, and there are definitely areas where we are unprepared, and even things we cannot imagine. We have been rescuing and improving all the time, haven't we?" You also said: "You are a writer, a soul engineer! You should give everyone confidence! By doing this, what is the difference between you and someone who shouts about 'shameful things' on the streets? And you still have a righteous face."
I suspect that you have only read a small part of Aunt Fangfang's diary and are talking nonsense. The "Diary of Fangfang" portrays the vulnerability of human nature, the social turmoil, the chaos of order, and the confusion of decision-making in the face of a major disaster. It also portrays the mutual assistance, selfless dedication, tenacity of human nature, and the yearning for life among the lower class. It not only sings praises of the bright side but also exposes the dark side. It is not "bringing all the good and bad things from home to the streets," nor is it "shouting about 'shameful things' on the streets."
Your letter is full of hatred towards the West. Who planted the seeds of hatred against other countries and ethnicities in your young and naive mind? How poisonous! Wasn't Marxist thought derived from the West? Marx said that his thought developed on the basis of the achievements of Western predecessors. Without the achievements of Western predecessors, there would be no Marx's thought. Western countries include many countries and ethnicities from all over the world. Do we have to be at odds with so many countries and ethnicities? We have received a lot of spiritual and material civilization from the West. Some people want to create an opposition between the East and the West, taking advantage of chaos. This kind of hatred towards the West is unacceptable! It will invite enemies and put ourselves on the opposite side of the world's people. Our slogan is "Long live the great unity of the people of the world!" Can the people of the world be the people of the world without the Western world?
You said: "My parents are good to me every day, but I don't appreciate it. I complain about this and that to my parents, saying that this is not good and that is not good. I am worse than a beast!" You compare the country to the parents of the people, which reverses the relationship between the country and the people! The people are taxpayers, and the country's money comes from the taxpayers. The people are the ones who provide food and clothing. Government officials serve the people, and it is the government's duty to serve the people. The people have the right to supervise and evaluate the government. You insulted Aunt Fangfang as "worse than a beast." It seems that you already have a slave mentality at such a young age. This is because your father, your mother, and even your grandfather have not educated you well!
During this year's epidemic prevention and control, people have had both praise and criticism for the government's organizational work. It is normal to praise the good aspects and criticize the shortcomings. Epidemic prevention and disaster relief are the government's work, and the government should be grateful to the people for enduring great suffering and making great sacrifices. It is not the people who should be grateful!
Unexpectedly, there are still people teaching you to bring up events from more than 60 years ago. At that time, someone asked the great leader: "What would Lu Xun say if he were alive today?" The great leader said, "Either he would continue to write in prison, or he would say nothing." You asked: "Aunt Fangfang, what does the great leader mean by this statement? Can you tell me?" Sunzi, those people behind you think that by bringing up a great leader, they can intimidate everyone.
I don't know if Aunt Fangfang told you, but your grandfather is very familiar with this matter. Let me explain. It was in 1956 when the great leader went to Shanghai. The great leader always enjoyed meeting with literary celebrities and scholars, so the Shanghai city leaders invited literary figures to have a discussion. Zhao Dan, Huang Zongying, and others were present at the meeting. Luo Jinan, who was bold, asked the great leader a question: "What would Lu Xun say if he were alive today?" The great leader said, "Either he would continue to write in prison, or he would say nothing."
This is a true story. At that time, the great leader said that. A few years ago, Huang Zongying and Luo Jinan recalled and verified this incident together and wrote about it in a magazine. That's how the great leader said it in a public setting. The listeners at the meeting were shocked! You want to say that if he had such an attitude towards Lu Xun, what about others? Sure enough, not long after that, the great leader launched a movement against intellectuals. It started with the "big airing of views" and then the "snake out of the hole" movement, which resulted in a large number of intellectuals who dared to speak out being criticized and overthrown for decades.
The great leader's words are not "every sentence is the truth, one sentence is worth ten thousand sentences." The above words of the great leader mean that writers are not allowed to write critical works, only allowed to sing praises. This is completely wrong and goes against his own view that "letting people speak will not cause the sky to fall, nor will it cause oneself to collapse. If people are not allowed to speak, it is inevitable that one day they will collapse." In the early 1980s, our party's resolution on historical issues negated the movement the great leader launched.
Not long ago, I happened to have done some research on Lu Xun. In the 1930s, Lu Xun had dealings with some communists in the Left League, including Zhou Yang and others. Lu Xun was very dissatisfied with the Left League, Zhou Yang, and others, calling them "red foremen" who used whips to make writers work. Lu Xun once imagined that if he were liberated, he might "wear a red vest and sweep the streets." Based on my understanding of Lu Xun, I dare to make a bold guess that if Lu Xun had not died in 1936 and lived until 1949, he would not have stayed in Shanghai. He would not have gone to Taiwan like Hu Shi or to Guangzhou like Chen Yinque. His new foothold would definitely be Hong Kong. In this free land, Lu Xun could continue to write his dagger-like essays without worrying about being imprisoned.
Sunzi, you are still a child and cannot possibly know about this. Someone must have taught you to say this. They use this story to threaten Aunt Fangfang with a cold and dagger-like chill. How poisonous! I warn those "old Sunzis" who appear in your name and hide behind you: times have changed, and it is impossible to repeat the movement from more than 50 years ago. There is no social foundation for it anymore, and the masses will not follow. Even if the great leader were alive today, it would be the same.
Those "old Sunzis" who hide behind you think that by launching a "second movement," they can silence writers like Aunt Fangfang. In fact, they themselves have experienced that movement. Those "old Sunzis" are all from the privileged class. When the movement came, they themselves could not escape the fate of being criticized and overthrown. From this letter, I smell the scent of gunpowder before a big battle. Both the anti-left camp and the extreme leftists who are trying to launch a "second movement" are accumulating strength and preparing for a decisive battle. Some people want history to repeat itself, but it is wishful thinking and will surely fail! Aunt Fangfang, you can continue to write your diary and sleep peacefully every night.
Sunzi, if this letter was really written by you, your grandfather would come to your house and spank you regardless of the fact that the pandemic has not ended. Your grandfather doesn't think you could write such a letter. Those people hiding behind you don't have the courage to come out and challenge openly. They can only speak in the name of a little child and play such tricks, which shows that they lack confidence and cannot make a difference!
More than 40 years ago, your grandfather wrote a poem called "If Lu Xun Were Alive." I will publish it here as the conclusion of this letter.
If Lu Xun Were Alive
If Lu Xun were alive,
What would he say?
Perhaps he would remain silent,
Saying nothing at all.
Playing the role of a "saint" in a new era,
Allowing others to dress him up,
Putting on makeup.
If Lu Xun were alive,
Would he truly remain silent?
"If I survive, I must continue to work."
The iron backbone of the Chinese nation,
This unwavering determination.
If Lu Xun were alive,
He would not remain silent,
Covered in shame from the ten-year movement,
"Angry, I search for small poems in the thicket."
Nowhere to complain.
If Lu Xun were alive,
He would not be silent,
With solemnity on the Qingming Festival of the Bingchen year.
Decades of collecting morning and evening flowers,
Truth bound and thrown into a corner of the cage,
Smoking and contemplating in the quiet night.
If Lu Xun were alive,
He would speak,
Perhaps he would say this,
Perhaps he would say nothing.
(On March 19, 1979)
Your grandfather, Gu Wanming, wrote this at midnight on March 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice: This work is copyrighted by the original author. This website only archives the original work for the convenience of netizens to review and commemorate.
This article is automatically generated by an aggregation program from the internet. The content and opinions do not represent the position of this website.