Enough has been talked about scar literature, and many of them have been taken to the rhythm by people who have nothing to do. Scar literature was a unique cultural phenomenon at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s. This is the consensus of literary critics.
Now some people are picking up people's wisdom and criticizing some contemporary literary and artistic works that truly describe the poverty and suffering of the past as scar literature. This statement is wrong from the beginning. As a literary phenomenon with strong hallmarks of the times, scar literature has long disappeared. You do not approve of the depiction of the past in today's literary and artistic works, but you must discuss things on the basis of facts and stop pulling at the past scar literature.
The reason why scar literature has become a literary phenomenon and has been recognized by the literary circles and literary and art critics is because there are obvious traces of reflection, criticism, reflection and discussion on poverty, hardship, suffering life and psychological pain caused by the injury of the turbulent years, which can make people truly feel the pain and pain in the hearts of creators. In today's literary and artistic works, the content describing poverty and suffering is still there, but it is only a true reproduction, and the kind of pain that was once rooted in the heart has long ceased to exist, so it is not a scar literature for a long time.
Forty years ago, scar literature flourished, but it has been controversial since its inception. Recently, some people who have a deep sense of nostalgia or have other plans have taken the hot literary and artistic works with a strong sense of age as an excuse to reopen the old accounts of the scarred literature of the past. However, it is certain that the scar literature of the past is a literary phenomenon recognized by the industry, but the voice of anti-scar literature has not become a literary and artistic phenomenon in the critical world in the past, present and will not be. In the end, it is basically just a name for some netizens to attract attention and whitewash their own pedantic and backward ideas.
Some netizens first pulled a piece of scar literature that did not exist at the moment on the Internet as a brand, thinking that this could unveil a public opinion name, but they really couldn't take a few reasons for the incident. Smearing and scandalizing, dividing and denying, selfishness and narrow-mindedness, counter-offensive reckoning, misleading and hurting people, exposing scars and flattering, being shady, etc., are almost all out of thin air and unreasonable trouble, and none of them can get on the table.
The literary and artistic works that have been officially reviewed have little to do with the opposition that "anti-scar" netizens said. The situation is that the wounds of those who have been hurt in the past years have healed, and the wounds of those who have hurt others in that era have added incomprehensible new scars, because they were once superior, they once took pleasure in hurting others, and now all this has become a delusion that will never be again.
Compared with the scar literature of the past, the voice that now talks about scar literature and "reverses scar literature" is neither a literary phenomenon nor a trend of thought. It has no name and no share, but it is just a few netizens' nonsense and strong words. It is actually nothing, I think at best it is some "net pimps" to make trouble.