In the headlines, the non-famous poet Jin Jun seems to be a magical presence.
I haven't brushed his dynamics for months, and somehow I brushed him again on the homepage today. He is still firmly opposed to the law as always, and this strength is also cattle.
I think that Jin Jun has gone from "unnamed" to "famous" by relying on anti-grammar, right? At least in the headline poetry circle is "famous" - even the unknown person like me who is not in any circle has brushed him on the front page.
Screenshot of Jin Jun's micro headlines
It is normal that there may be some people supporting and some people opposing anything. I think that as long as it is not anti-legal, anti-moral, anti-human, then in terms of attitude and value orientation, everything can be reversed.
However, when we oppose, we need to have a valid reason, facts and logic.
Jin Jun's anti-grammar is not negligible in itself, but his reasons for opposing the law are very strange, both in fact and logically, untenable.
Jin Jun has always stressed that poetry should develop and innovate, which is of course correct. In fact, not only poetry, but everything must develop and innovate. But common sense tells us that development and innovation must be forward, is there any reason for the future? Isn't that called retro in the future?
On the one hand, Jin Jun accused GeLu of "restricting the freedom of poetry" and "hindering the development of innovation", while at the same time flaunting himself as "ancient poetry" and "ancient style" and self-satisfaction, which is very contradictory.
In fact, as opposed to archaic poetry, why can't it be called a development and innovation? Could it be that Jin Jun believes that Gelu poetry is a kind of regression compared to ancient poetry, and it is not as poetic as ancient poetry? Then, why did the Tang Dynasty produce a large number of outstanding poets such as Li Bai, Du Fu, Wang Wei, Wang Changling, Bai Juyi, Du Mu, and Li Shangyin?
Du Fu Caotang
It can be seen that the key to whether poetry is written well or not lies not in whether there are requirements for discipline, but in the talent of the author himself.
Mr. Hu Shi has a point of view, which is very illustrative: "Literature is a kind of record of the state of human life, human life changes with the times, so literature also changes with the times, so there is a generation of literature." Zhou Qin has the literature of Zhou Qin, Han Wei has the literature of Han Wei, Tang has Tang literature, Song has Song literature, and Yuan has Yuan literature. ”
Therefore, from the perspective of literary development, Jin Jun's accusation that Gelu restricted the development of poetry is not unreasonable. However, the grammar is indispensable to the near-body poetry. Other people's "finger-pointing" is only aimed at near-body poetry, and I have never seen anyone accuse @contemporary poetry Wang Yingshi of being "out of tune" in modern poetry.
It is precisely because poetry wants to develop and innovate, and the development of near-body poetry in the Tang Dynasty has reached its peak, and it is difficult to create new heights, so on the basis of Tang poetry, Song Ci, Yuanqu, and modern poetry have appeared one after another.
Song Ci, Yuanqu and modern poetry that conform to the trend of the times and conform to people's actual lives are called breakthroughs, innovations and developments compared to Gelug poetry, and even if Jin Jun's ancient poetry of "looking backwards" is good, I believe it is no better than Ruan Yuanming, Tao Yuanming, Xie Lingyun, and Cao Cao.
Portrait of Tao Yuanming
Therefore, if Jin Jun really wants to "promote the development of ancient poetry, near-body poetry and modern poetry", he should focus on how to break through, innovate and develop on the basis of modern poetry, rather than writing ancient poetry while at the same time being obsessed with the "finger-pointing" of netizens - and it will be geng for several months. Contemporary people writing ancient poems, I am afraid that they cannot be called development and innovation, but can only be called picking up people's teeth and wisdom.
In addition, Jin Jun also said: "Since ancient times, some so-called literati have always opposed innovation." This is probably a good thing, almost every major change in history, there are "big people" opposed, but Jin Jun attributed its reasons to "reading dead books", "not thinking", "unwilling to think", this is wishful thinking, self-talk, there is no fact and logical support.
In fact, the "literati" oppose change and innovation precisely out of their own interests or social interests, and are worried that change and innovation will disrupt the original life and order. You can say that they are conformist, conformist, old-fashioned, and "will not (not good at, not unwilling) to think", but you can't say that they "don't think" and "don't want to think", let alone because they "read dead books".
Just think, if a literati can only "read dead books" and "don't think", then how can he become a "literati"? Isn't that logically unreasonable? Since the logic does not make sense, it is certainly not true in fact.
In fact, I think Jin Jun's sentence is still very good: "You can love, love, and even superstitiously believe in the law." It's not a problem, it's your personal business..."
In fact, it should be so, "turnip greens, each has its own love". Values should be pluralistic, ideological, cultural, and artistic "a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought" is really necessary, otherwise "ten thousand horses and horses are sad".
However, Jin Jun followed up with another sentence, "But please don't point fingers at others", which made me completely confused. Is this to silence people who disagree with you?
But I still clearly remember that a few months ago you publicly said that the disadvantage of Cui Hao's "Yellow Crane Tower" is that it is too "circling" and not "directly expressing the chest". It seems that bai juyi's "Reminiscence of Jiangnan" how to do it, right? I wonder if this can be regarded as "pointing fingers at others"? Such a "double standard" does not conform to the guidelines of "a hundred flowers blooming and a hundred schools of thought contending".
Yellow crane tower
Finally, I would like to say that it is true to keep pace with the times, but it is also the truth of the Grammatical poetry. We don't understand the grammar, we can say generously, "I don't understand the grammar, so I don't like to write the poems", I believe that no one will laugh at the contemporary people who can't write the poems.
However, if someone does not understand the law and thinks that "the law restricts the freedom of poetry" can be used as a fig leaf, so that they declare over and over again all year round that "we must break the shackles of the law" and "innovate and develop", but we have been writing ancient poems that have been written by our predecessors long ago, then it is inevitable that the "finger-pointing" that will cause others will be inevitable.