...here is a link to a summary of Sun Yuming's criticism of Liu Xinwu 劉心武, the popular/populist persona-non-grata in the "serious" redologist world of China today. If this blog continues, I promise there will be an entry on modern redology, which will include some info on Liu Xinwu, who is quite the figurehead of what has been derogatively termed the Xin suoyin pai 新索隱派 (New obscurist school) in Honglou meng studies. As for now, this link must however suffice.
(I know, I know: months of silence, and then such incompleteness...I bow my head in shame)
Monday, May 4, 2009
...and again, it's been a while
...and ironically, this is not an entry I am writing because I am feeling very inspired, but because I am feeling like a blog should be kept or abolished. Haven't quite decided what it's going to be yet, but as I am already writing these lines, I might just as well keep on going.
Good books I have recently been reading include Sun Yuming's Hongxue:1954 紅學: 1954 (Redology:1954; Beijing: 2003), which I might just give a short summary of, as I would for once say: this is a Chinese work of secondary scholarship on modern China that is actually worth reading. Clearly, Sun Yuming 孫玉明, who is (among other things) the vice-editor-in-chief of the redologist journal Hongloumeng xuekan 紅樓夢學刊, devoted much time and research into his case study of Yu Pingbo's downfall at the hands of the Communist literary critics in the mid-fifties: at the end of each chapter, there are pages of footnotes revealing not only his source material, but also the contradictions he battled in analyzing it (I should perhaps mention that this is indeed a rare trait of Chinese modern historical studies).
The book is divided into nine chapters, and pretty much treats the first national literary campaign from every possible angle, beginning with the protagonist Yu Pingbo 俞平伯 and gradually moving on to all those involved either directly or indirectly in both the prelude and aftermath of the case. From Mao Zedong's direct involvement in the publication of the two central incriminating articles to the fall of the editors of Wenyibao 文藝報 and Guangming ribao 光明日報 who at first refused to publish them, from two no-name postgraduate students from the periphery to the upper echelons of the CCP and the political and personal rivalries playing into what allegedly started as an academic debate, Sun Yuming's book gives an insight into the literary field of the P.R.C. in 1954 and beyond. If one looks past the occasionally overwhelming display of rhetorical allusion and speculation as to possible alternative twists and turns to the plot, this book has a lot to offer in terms of understanding the workings of a system of literary critical production under the early Mao-regime, and it is perhaps an intriguing task to set the scene back then against the field of today, which, to Perry Link's knowledge (The Uses of Literature) apparently still has much in common with its past.
Among Sun Yuming's other works is a brief history of Japanese redology (Riben hongxue shi gao 日本紅學史稿), published in 2006.
Good books I have recently been reading include Sun Yuming's Hongxue:1954 紅學: 1954 (Redology:1954; Beijing: 2003), which I might just give a short summary of, as I would for once say: this is a Chinese work of secondary scholarship on modern China that is actually worth reading. Clearly, Sun Yuming 孫玉明, who is (among other things) the vice-editor-in-chief of the redologist journal Hongloumeng xuekan 紅樓夢學刊, devoted much time and research into his case study of Yu Pingbo's downfall at the hands of the Communist literary critics in the mid-fifties: at the end of each chapter, there are pages of footnotes revealing not only his source material, but also the contradictions he battled in analyzing it (I should perhaps mention that this is indeed a rare trait of Chinese modern historical studies).
The book is divided into nine chapters, and pretty much treats the first national literary campaign from every possible angle, beginning with the protagonist Yu Pingbo 俞平伯 and gradually moving on to all those involved either directly or indirectly in both the prelude and aftermath of the case. From Mao Zedong's direct involvement in the publication of the two central incriminating articles to the fall of the editors of Wenyibao 文藝報 and Guangming ribao 光明日報 who at first refused to publish them, from two no-name postgraduate students from the periphery to the upper echelons of the CCP and the political and personal rivalries playing into what allegedly started as an academic debate, Sun Yuming's book gives an insight into the literary field of the P.R.C. in 1954 and beyond. If one looks past the occasionally overwhelming display of rhetorical allusion and speculation as to possible alternative twists and turns to the plot, this book has a lot to offer in terms of understanding the workings of a system of literary critical production under the early Mao-regime, and it is perhaps an intriguing task to set the scene back then against the field of today, which, to Perry Link's knowledge (The Uses of Literature) apparently still has much in common with its past.
Among Sun Yuming's other works is a brief history of Japanese redology (Riben hongxue shi gao 日本紅學史稿), published in 2006.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
il prato - ennio morricone
And just because I happened to see it tonight and was moved by the music - here is the soundtrack to the beautifully crafted film by the Taviani brothers. Ennio Morricone at his best.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
cold song - klaus nomi
The amazing artist Klaus Nomi giving one of his final concerts in Munich - one of my all-time favorites by Henry Purcell (never mind the melodramatic intro, just watch and listen to this man perform!). Eerily inspiring. Merci, Arnaud!
Friday, November 7, 2008
hommage to chinfluenza
It seems to be a commonplace that the contemporary stereotypes about China and the West were for the most part formed IN or BY the west. The earliest possible "contamination" with cultural misunderstanding that was accordingly transmitted through regular writings (thus resulting in a steady production of texts all veering toward similar stereotypes) would therefore have been caused by the early European missionary presence in China, i.e. the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries. Anyone less sinological, but familiar with rococo splendour, will automatically think of the many and varied artifacts inspired by the so-called "chinoiserie" popular in (mainly) upper-class to royal households from the late 17th through the 18th centuries. But are the stereotypes therein embodied (i.e. men with queerly placed triangular beards in lavish oriental robes, sublime almond-eyed feminine beauties lounging in delicately arranged garden scenery, the odd exotic bird and flower included, etc...) really the same that we know today?
Let us for a moment take a virtual trip through your average book-chainstore (Borders, German Hugendubel, Wordsworth, whatever comes to mind...) and see what we can find. Ah, the esoteric section...notice anything? "36 Strategems for Managers", "Day-to-Day Daoism for Dummies", "The Spiritual Wisdom of the East", "Lullabies by Lao-tzu", "Chinese Wisdom for Window Cleaners", "Your Personal Confucian Calendar", "Kick it with Kongzi"...all those wise words for adherents to oriental truisms? Where the hell did all THAT come from? If the Jesuits had thought the Chinese were "wise" (as opposed to educated and literate, which they undoubtedly knew they were), wouldn't they have sold us that image centuries ago? But Laozi, Kongzi, Mozi, Sunzi...all those "zi" of the new age, they must have come from somewhere other than Jesuit texts...because the Jesuits may have thought they knew enough about China to run a mission, but they actually had near to no clue about the intricacies of Chinese traditional belief systems. So who dunnit?
Today I was leafing through Wm. Th. De Bary's highly recommendable Sources of Chinese Tradition, vol. 2 (2nd edition, New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2000), chapter 33 "The New Culture Movement" by Wing-Tsit Chan. A part of the New Culture Movement during the Republican era, as I was told, consisted of debates concerning the controversy over Chinese and Western Cultures. These debates apparently originated with a disillusioned Liang Qichao 梁啟超 returning home from a trip to war-stricken and technologically crazed post-WWI-Europe, whose travel reports basically stated that Europe was culturally bankrupt, as well as morally corrupt and desolate (was he right, or what?!). Several prominent intellectuals of the time took part in the ensuing war of wor(l)ds, among which two struck me as particularly symptomatic of painful cultural clichés: Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 and our old friend Dr. Hu Shi.
In Liang Shuming's "Chinese Civilization vis-à-vis Eastern and Western Philosophies" (東西文化及期哲學) of 1922, we read the following passage:
Let us for a moment take a virtual trip through your average book-chainstore (Borders, German Hugendubel, Wordsworth, whatever comes to mind...) and see what we can find. Ah, the esoteric section...notice anything? "36 Strategems for Managers", "Day-to-Day Daoism for Dummies", "The Spiritual Wisdom of the East", "Lullabies by Lao-tzu", "Chinese Wisdom for Window Cleaners", "Your Personal Confucian Calendar", "Kick it with Kongzi"...all those wise words for adherents to oriental truisms? Where the hell did all THAT come from? If the Jesuits had thought the Chinese were "wise" (as opposed to educated and literate, which they undoubtedly knew they were), wouldn't they have sold us that image centuries ago? But Laozi, Kongzi, Mozi, Sunzi...all those "zi" of the new age, they must have come from somewhere other than Jesuit texts...because the Jesuits may have thought they knew enough about China to run a mission, but they actually had near to no clue about the intricacies of Chinese traditional belief systems. So who dunnit?
Today I was leafing through Wm. Th. De Bary's highly recommendable Sources of Chinese Tradition, vol. 2 (2nd edition, New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2000), chapter 33 "The New Culture Movement" by Wing-Tsit Chan. A part of the New Culture Movement during the Republican era, as I was told, consisted of debates concerning the controversy over Chinese and Western Cultures. These debates apparently originated with a disillusioned Liang Qichao 梁啟超 returning home from a trip to war-stricken and technologically crazed post-WWI-Europe, whose travel reports basically stated that Europe was culturally bankrupt, as well as morally corrupt and desolate (was he right, or what?!). Several prominent intellectuals of the time took part in the ensuing war of wor(l)ds, among which two struck me as particularly symptomatic of painful cultural clichés: Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 and our old friend Dr. Hu Shi.
In Liang Shuming's "Chinese Civilization vis-à-vis Eastern and Western Philosophies" (東西文化及期哲學) of 1922, we read the following passage:
...The fundamental spirit of Chinese culture is the harmony and moderation of ideas and desires, whereas that of Indian civilization is to go backward in ideas and desires [and that of the West is to go forward]...Furthermore,
Let us compare Western culture with Chinese culture. First, there is the conquest of nature on the material side of Western culture - this China has none of. Second, there is the scientific method on the intellectual side of Western culture - this also China has none of. And third, there is democracy on the social side of Western culture - this too, China has none of...And then, speaking about the major differences in Chinese and Western philosophies (originating in static concepts vs. the "nontranquil" essence of change),
Human life is the reality of a great current. It naturally tends toward the most suitable and the most satisfactory. It responds to things as they come. This is change. It spontaneaously arrives at centrality, harmony and synthesis. Hence its response is always right. This is the reason why the Confucian school said, "What Heaven has conferred is what we call human nature. To fulfil the law of human nature is what we call the Way."Sounds like straight out of "Confucianist Obama - Aphorisms for Every Day" or something, doesn't it? Sadly, Hu Shi's response to this was not any less devoid of simplistic clichés:
...The most outstanding characteristic of Eastern civilization is to know contentment, whereas that of Western civilization is not to know contentment. Contented Easterners are satisfied with their simple life and therefore do not seek to increase their material enjoyment. They are satisfied with ignorance and "not understanding and not knowing" (Book of Odes, Da ya, Wen wang 7) and therefore have devoted no attention to the discovery of truth and the invention of techniques and machinery. They are satisfied with their present lot and environment and therefore do not want to conquer nature, but merely [to] be at home with nature and at peace with their lot. They do not want to change systems, but rather to mind their own business. They do not want a revolution, but rather to remain obedient subjects.And all that coming from Hu Shi, the ole' charmer...if this isn't pure Edward Said, I don't know what is. And if this isn't more of an origin of self-help books from the Asian-Wisdom section of your average Borders, then please enlighten me otherwise. It seems that East-West clichés and stereotypes have a much more compound nature and source than eurocentric studies have so far presumed. I suppose the average answer to my hypothesis would be that most of these debaters were at least influenced by Western training, and thus had perhaps merely imbibed these sadly linear and dualistic images floating around in their respective foreign environments. Maybe, maybe not. Chicken and egg situation, I guess. More clichés, anyone?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
have mercy, julia hamari
Thanks to another blog more specialized in music, this beautiful recording of Hungarian mezzo-soprano Julia Hamari singing J.S. Bach's "Erbarme Dich" (St. Matthew's Passion) was brought to my notice. It is apparently a filmed performance conducted by Karl Richter in 1971, five years after Hamari's 1966 Vienna debut as a soloist in the same part. Enjoy.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
communist individualism - the case of qu yuan
It has been a while. Many roads leading to various destinations other than my blog have kept me from being active around here for some time, but now I am back, so HURRAY... - but I doubt that anyone is actually reading this, so let's just get on with it.
In the course of the past months of reading, I was confronted repeatedly with the importance of individuals in Chinese literary historiography. Take, for example, the famed proto-master of Chinese lore Qu Yuan 屈原 and his treatment in post-1949 literary histories- why is it that the Chinese Communist literary critics were so incredibly into proving the man's individual existence? I mean: even if in a period of transition and cultural redefinition it becomes of vital importance to establish some kind of factual basis for one's own literary tradition, why is it that they needed the INDIVIDUAL Qu Yuan to exist?
A short referential note: Hu Shi 胡适, in his usual bourgeois revolutionary manner, had attempted to question the existence of the poet laureate in his treatment of the Chinese literary tradition (Baihua wenxue shi 白话文学史, 1928. Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe). The reaction during the Anti- Hu Shi-campaign 1954/55 was indignant defense of Qu Yuan's personal space, mind and body. How dare Hu Shi call into question such an important representative of the Chinese literary heritage? How dare he suggest - like those imbeciles in Europe doubting the existence of William Shakespeare - that Qu Yuan's work was the collective effort of many a distant talent?!
To the day I have not really been able to grasp why it should be so important for Communist literary historiography to point out and to an impressive extent rely on the existence of prominent individuals of past times in order to legitimize their cultural narrative - if the work has been deemed worthy, why should it matter so much how many people contributed to its existence? Perhaps it has to do with the symbolic value of the master-disciple relation inherent in Qu Yuan and later poets indebted to his work. Perhaps it is related to the question of the power of leaders in cultural development and revolution. I don't know - but if anyone has an idea, I would be intrigued to hear it.
In the course of the past months of reading, I was confronted repeatedly with the importance of individuals in Chinese literary historiography. Take, for example, the famed proto-master of Chinese lore Qu Yuan 屈原 and his treatment in post-1949 literary histories- why is it that the Chinese Communist literary critics were so incredibly into proving the man's individual existence? I mean: even if in a period of transition and cultural redefinition it becomes of vital importance to establish some kind of factual basis for one's own literary tradition, why is it that they needed the INDIVIDUAL Qu Yuan to exist?
A short referential note: Hu Shi 胡适, in his usual bourgeois revolutionary manner, had attempted to question the existence of the poet laureate in his treatment of the Chinese literary tradition (Baihua wenxue shi 白话文学史, 1928. Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe). The reaction during the Anti- Hu Shi-campaign 1954/55 was indignant defense of Qu Yuan's personal space, mind and body. How dare Hu Shi call into question such an important representative of the Chinese literary heritage? How dare he suggest - like those imbeciles in Europe doubting the existence of William Shakespeare - that Qu Yuan's work was the collective effort of many a distant talent?!
To the day I have not really been able to grasp why it should be so important for Communist literary historiography to point out and to an impressive extent rely on the existence of prominent individuals of past times in order to legitimize their cultural narrative - if the work has been deemed worthy, why should it matter so much how many people contributed to its existence? Perhaps it has to do with the symbolic value of the master-disciple relation inherent in Qu Yuan and later poets indebted to his work. Perhaps it is related to the question of the power of leaders in cultural development and revolution. I don't know - but if anyone has an idea, I would be intrigued to hear it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
