【1.20 League Group F Preliminary Round Review】Online Literature is the Fall of Literature/Rebirth (Part 1)

January 20 First Match Review of The First Division F Preliminary Round

Liu Jia judges

Against both sides:

F1 Tiangongda Debate Team (Main)

VS

F2 Star Sea Pigeon Born Again (Reverse)

Contest Results:

Square: 1:2 on the opposite side

Best Debater:

not

First of all, the opposing party proposed that the signed authors accounted for only 4% of the total platform, and the part of the unsigned authors in the later competition was mainly taken down by the opposing party.

Secondly, for water injection and homogenization, the opposing side has several strong doubts:

1) Will the water-injected work really be accepted by the reader? -------------------------------------------------

2) On the issue of homogenization, there are only 6 types of traditional literature, Romeo and Juliet and Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai are similar; but the homogenization in classical literature does not affect the two works can not become good literary works.

Finally, on the issue of aesthetics, Zhengfang naturally believes that only literary works that arouse people's deep thinking are good, and popular works cannot be classified as high-quality literary works.

The response of the opposing side has some weaknesses, proposing the difference between popular and vulgar, and popular works can also be good literary works.

At this point, my personal view is basically the same as that of the opposite side: literature is divided into classic literature and popular literature, and authors such as Qiong Yao, Jin Yong, and Gu Long specialize in romance and martial arts novels, but I think they have all created good literary works for the world to learn. Popular literature does not equal vulgar, inferior aesthetics.

In addition, in the interrogation session of the opposing party's defense, the square proposed that the value of literary works is greater than the value of the writing. So, if that's the case, a little water, but why not promote good values? This square contradicts each other in argument.

On the other hand, although the arguments and arguments put forward will look a little low, they will be slightly better in the degree of argument, and some responses will be OK.

1) People who love to read Shuangwen, will they go to see classic works before? ——The disadvantages of Shuangwen: the tilt of time and aesthetics

In fact, in general, the reason why I judge the square to lose is that the underlying logic of the square argument is based on water injection and homogenization, and naturally thinks that popular works are not good, but this point is too low in the field argument, so I judge the opposite side.

Jiang Xuan judges

The first time I wrote a review, I only expressed my own personal opinions, and if there was anything wrong, I asked my seniors and peers to criticize and correct them.

The first is the argument given by both parties.

The square gives two arguments, one is the current situation of water injection and plagiarism into the trend, the argument given is that "the platform requires the author to change 9,000 words a day, in order to catch up with the progress of the author has to inject water." In order to cater to the public traffic, so everyone's story is a template, and it is a cool text for fighting monsters and upgrading."

Another argument is that it will cause a dumping of traditional works, and the argument given is a report: "Online articles will make the aesthetics of today's college students tend to be vulgar."

The opposite side also gave two arguments, one is that the creative threshold of online articles has become lower, which can allow many people to join the ranks, and give specific data to prove that many online writers have several positions.

The second argument mainly says that it can promote reading for all, combine social hotspots in real time and promote cultural exchanges, and give specific arguments such as the depiction of the Winter Olympics by various online authors and the many foreign readers who like Chinese online texts.

After listening to the argument, I have the following questions about the square argument:

(1) Is water injection and plagiarism the essence of online literature?

(2) Is it really a demanding requirement to require the author to change 9,000 words a day?

(3) Why is "vulgarity" bad, which means depravity?

(4) Why does traditional literature necessarily have to be "good literature"?

(5) How is the inclination of traditional literature reflected?

Among them, (2) (3) and (5) have been taken out by the opposite side to attack, such as the other side cited Jin Yong, Mo Yan and other writers can question whether this requirement is harsh, question whether Shuangwen is really very unbearable, question how many people originally look at classic works because of the emergence of online texts and now no longer look at classic works.

Of course, it is not until the opposing party concludes the argument that the first question (5) is finally pointed out, but because the time is too late, it is not included in the judgment.

I also have some questions about the opposing side:

(1) Does the lower threshold for online creation also mean that there will be a mixture of fish and dragons, and a large number of inferior works will also appear, so what is the future trend?

(2) If anyone can write online articles now, does it mean that literary creation has become a very casual thing, or does it mean depravity?

(3) Whether the combination of current political hotspots is the exclusive advantage of online literature, and why can't other literature?

(4) Why is online literature not a natural continuation of traditional literature and has not brought anything new to literature, so it is not considered a new life?

Among them, the square only challenged (1), but did not directly hit the pain point, and the other side also gave an argument that there were high-quality works, which can be considered that the opposite side held.

In addition, the opposing side also used the proportion of signed authors, plagiarism will be punished, similar works in ancient times will also have ("Romeo and Juliet" and "Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai") and other offensive and defensive points to further attack the positive side of the argument, and the square side did not respond well, the attack on the opposite side is not strong, but also held by the opposite side, so the final victory and defeat I belong to the opposite side.

In fact, this is a type of question, such as "traffic students", "emotional premium", etc. belong to this type of debate, he is a discussion of the current situation and the past aesthetics.

I think that the square side of this type of debate needs to explain one thing, and the other side needs to attack one thing is "why the traditional and classic is good", for example, the New Culture Movement is the negation of the text, and Li Guyi has also openly opposed the French version of "Fishing Drum And Road Feelings".

Therefore, if this kind of question is only to talk about some superficial problems, such as plagiarism, blindness and the like, I think it is not enough, but more importantly, to talk about this change of values, whether it is really developing in a bad direction, or whether we are used to some traditional models and are not willing to accept this change, so we mistake the immaturity of some new things as the future trend - I think this kind of debate if it digs into this layer, it will be a game of profound significance.

Himalayan FM

NetEase Cloud Music

Good articles in the past

Typesetting | Hu Shiya

Audit | Zeng Yaqian, Lu Yubin, Cui Xinrong