"However, those who are great generals in ancient and modern times are often proud of their achievements and cannot cheer up their vitality, and they do not fall in the name of Ke Bao Ling."
The great writer Yao Xueyu wrote such a sentence in his work "Li Zicheng". The novel uses nuanced sentences to show the magnificent depiction of war scenes and the vivid image of the true portrayal of life in the late Ming Dynasty, although there are many praises from everyone, but it still does not make this work get rid of the fate of being criticized by many people.
What made "Li Zicheng", a work that won the Mao Dun Literature Prize, into a huge controversy? Is it really because it glorified the Peasants' War? The works written by Yao Xueyan, a cultural master, have been attacked by people in various ways, and has he ever regretted writing such a work?
Writer's controversy
War has always been a painful existence for the world, born in a landlord family, Yao Xueyu lost his original solid family in the war, but his experience is also wonderful because of this era of blood and fire. He was even kidnapped as a "meat ticket" as a child, an experience that led him to write another of his autobiographical novels, The Long Night.
For the book "Li Zicheng", Yao Xueyu is very fond of it, and he even denied Luo Guanzhong, the author of one of the four famous works in China, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", saying that the other party was inferior to him in terms of historical materialism, history, and novel art. However, as a cultural person, Yao Xueyan's personal love for his own works cannot be a reason for his works to be excellent.
Zhang Peiheng, an expert in literary history, once believed that the novel "Li Zicheng" beautified the image of the peasant. And Wei Minglun also said in a sarcastic tone that Yao Xueyan was portraying Li Zicheng in a "tall and complete" way, which he wrote about farmers as "Old Eight Roads".
Zhang Peiheng
There are not many attacks on "Li Zicheng", most of which are due to the fact that as a historical novel, history is deliberately deleted in order to shape the heroic image of the characters, which is unacceptable to the examination party.
Controversies are actually very common in literary and artistic works, and disputes over morals and values are not uncommon in many works. As to whether such a dispute is reasonable, it is a matter of opinion.
The influence of literary and artistic works on people is huge, which is an invisible influence, so people advocate to have good values and morals, but the most wonderful part of literary works lies in contradiction, people are creatures that pursue irritation, it can be said that the more stimulating the works, the more wonderful, so it will produce back-to-moral literature.
This is also the reason why commercial literary and artistic works often make people feel that they have no connotation, but they are good-looking. The excitement of the plot and the connotation of the work do not necessarily exist at the same time, but their impact on people makes parents panic, will my child imitate such works? It takes time to distinguish between the author's cultivation, but it only takes one second to distinguish between the choices and direct prohibition.
Therefore, people oppose the criterion of rough distinction and call for creative freedom. Unfortunately, people often seem to be unaware of a problem, the content written by the author is not necessarily agreed with by the author, but because of the first perspective, people substitute themselves, but weaken the moral concept. In turn, it is necessary to deduce that there are problems with the author's body and mind.
"Lolita", which is often debated, is actually what the author Nabokov wanted to burn after he finished creating it. He never identified with such evil, but he was still hated as a bad person by many unsuspecting people. In this case, it seems that the author's emotions cannot be analyzed, and the euphemistic criticism becomes the legitimacy of the acquiescence of sin.
Revolutionary writer
Yao Xueyu is different from Nabokov, he completely agrees with his works, and even he will say that the purpose of his creation is for the peasant class. In order to justify the name of the peasant class, he would choose to create such a work, which is inseparable from the identity background and creative background of Mr. Yao Xueyu.
First of all, Mr. Yao Xueyan was a revolutionary. Early acceptance of Marxist ideas and participation in the student movement. Although he has never been on the front line, he has been engaged in the cultural progress movement in the rear, criticizing the darkness of society, and his heart yearns for the light more than anyone. He has been running for the people at the bottom, and he is the most distressed about this group of people who are not easy to live.
The creation of the work began in a special era, and he did not hate anyone who was beaten into the Y school, but strengthened his belief because of the special permission to create. His creation began with the peasants, then he would never leave the peasants.
After reading the history books, he will not be unaware of the limitations of the peasant uprising, the ugly truths. He just didn't want to write, he had been singing the praises of the peasants, how could he be willing to write those sins clearly? If you have to find a mistake for "Li Zicheng", it is better to say that the characters are too flat, and the boundaries between good people and bad people are too clear.
Literature is influenced by the individual author, and the individual author is influenced by the times. This is the limitation that every work will have, except for the crosser in the work, no one can break through the limitations of the times. Everyone lives in their own era, it is inevitable that they will engrave the brand of the times, and standing on the other end of the times to blame each other is also the limitation of the times?
Because they have experienced it, they will have God's perspective, but people who live cannot see the future, nor can they know their future and the future of the times. It is easy to blame others for mistakes out of the times, just like a teacher grading a student's paper with a reference answer, right and wrong at a glance. But if you actually go to the exam room, you will know how difficult these questions are.
People always feel that they are right because the times have indeed progressed, but it does not mean that the right people now can criticize the right people in the past. Because right and wrong are inherently time-sensitive. People can absorb the advantages and lessons of the progress of the times, but they should not think of themselves as gods who guide the country.
Literature and history should be separated
Mr. Yao Xueyu used his imagination to be the god in his works, and he deleted all of Li Zicheng's mistakes, so he was accused by literary historians.
But history and literature have a clear line. Although it is often said, "Literature and history are not separated." In fact, literature and history were originally two concepts, even in the past book classification, through the subset of history, history is also a unique purpose.
Real history is always different from the creation of literature, even in autobiographical novels, historians will refine history, but literary scholars praise the literary nature of works. It would be biased to accuse a novel of its errors in terms of its historicity.
The novel is already a story, and historians have to find the truth from it, and in turn, they have to say that this book is falsifying history and is not very well written. Such a view is a kind of harm to both literary creation and historical analysis. Although the current trend is to require interdisciplinary research, it is not necessary to stick to the truth of history when it comes to real literary criticism.
Historians always search for the truth of history in various scripts, and writers use a variety of words to weave a world of imagination.
Literary creation is originally a world intertwined with imagination and words, and the real world is not perfect, so why deprive people of perfection in the imagination space? Or, if it can't appear in the real world, why can't we let writers create it in words?
If you want to let the writers evaluate the writing of the history books one by one, historians will feel unreasonable. Both literature and history need their own space.