From September to November 1955, Sartre, a famous contemporary French existentialist philosopher, was invited to visit China. He was accompanied by his lifelong close friend and important French thinker Simon Beauvoir. They visited Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Guangzhou and other places and left a very deep impression.
Woodcut A Q
Lu Xun's "Weeds"
The Long March Chinese edition
After returning to China, Sartre published an article entitled "China We See" in the weekly magazine Observer de France, and said that he would write a special book to discuss the Chinese issue. This wish was not fulfilled. However, in 1957, Beauvoir published her monograph on China's perception of the Long March, which included her comments on the famous Chinese writer Lu Xun.
"He was closer to Chekhov"
"Lu Xun was the greatest and most famous writer of this period. Today, he is regarded as the Gorky of China..." For Lu Xun's works, Beauvoir has studied extensively. In the text, she introduced literary works such as "Scream", "Wandering", "New Compilation of Stories", and "Picking Up Flowers and Nights". However, Beauvoir did not stop at simple generalizations, she also excavated the meaning of Lu Xun through specific works.
"Almost all the characters in Lu Xun's novels—the ignorant peasants, the frustrated intellectuals, the big smokers, the beggars—are as confused and confused as Ah Q, and the economic situation and traditional morality leave them with nowhere to escape: some give up hope, some resign themselves to fate, and almost all the struggles are to no avail, seeking the comfort of imaginary images, or turning to the superstitions that destroyed them." Beauvoir's description of Ah Q's overall situation is accurate and profound—both superficial and deep-seated— captured and clearly presented in her pen: "The weakness of these victims, half connivance, and half obedience to their own misfortunes, are characteristic of despair in Lu Xun's short stories. ”
Beauvoir also wrote: "Chinese compare him to Gorky, but I find him closer to Chekhov." To be honest, the structural characteristics of Lu Xun's novels and the choice of characters are indeed closer to Chekhov. People call Lu Xun the Chinese Gorky, probably based on his attention to the bottom and his attitude of supporting proletarian literature similar to Gorky's.
Lu Xun's novels, like Chekhov's works, focus on the survival of small people, but Lu Xun can make people feel their inner emotions more. This should be proof that Lu Xun was influenced by the traditional Chinese novel, which shows the inherent psychological characteristics through narrative. Lu Xun's integration of the absorption of foreign cultures with the inheritance of Chinese traditions is what Beauvoir paid special attention to: "He (Lu Xun) never uses words with an analytical meaning to excavate the psychological activities of the characters, but he eliminates all the distance between the inner world of the characters and the external outpourings." ”
As an artist, Beauvoir's perception is indeed sharp and rich.
Between literature and revolution
It is certainly not sufficient to analyze a writer and merely explain the content and artistic characteristics of his work. As a thinker, Beauvoir paid more attention to the evolution of his thought when commenting on Lu Xun.
First, Beauvoir captures a little contradiction between Lu Xun's work and his thoughts. In Beauvoir's view, the setbacks encountered in the Xinhai Revolution dealt a great blow to Lu Xun, so he became a "stubborn pessimist." "He thinks that fantasies about a better tomorrow are nothing more than a mirage, not worth talking about..."
Then, Beauvoir quotes a passage from Lu Xun's "Scream and Self-Introduction", that is, Lu Xun said that in the novel "Medicine", he added a garland out of thin air to the grave of the revolutionary "Yu'er"; in "Tomorrow", he did not describe the situation in which Shan Si's sister-in-law did not achieve the dream of seeing her son. Beauvoir went on to comment: "Indeed, in both of his stories, Lu Xun has been completely infused with the color of optimism that is not easily detected. But what he considered to be a change in the slightest fact was, in his view, contrary to the requirements of literature: he considered artistic work to be absolutely sincere proof. He never withdrew from this position, he still needed revolution; this was the contradiction and conflict in man, and it would not change to bring it to the grave. ”
This comment should be brought to the attention of fellow Chinese critics. A writer may have his literary point of view, but his creation is not limited to his own circle, and it is inevitable that he will occasionally or even often escape. The contradictions and conflicts in the middle are not as easy to mediate as written on paper, and he may march in contradictions like this for the rest of his life.
Beauvoir also believed that Lu Xun's pessimism was not an excuse for doing nothing. When Lu Xun held a teaching position in Beijing, he used his influence to support students. In his opinion: it is wrong to live, because it seems to be alive, but it is dying. Young people must break through this ancient cage. However, the limited protests of students have been severely suppressed, and some of them have even sacrificed their lives. Later, Lu Xun published articles criticizing the government and was persecuted; in Guangzhou, where the revolution was most enthusiastic, he encountered Chiang Kai-shek's rebellion... All this caused the most serious impact on the concepts that Lu Xun had established from books. In Beauvoir's words: "At this time, Lu Xun seemed to be completely in despair. ”
This kind of despair, Beauvoir, can see from works such as "Weeds". Quoting a passage from Lu Xun's 1927 essay "Weeds", she said: "For Lu Xun, doubting the role of youth has reached the final deepest disappointment, because he has pinned all his hopes on young people. ”
Beauvoir attached great importance to the pure collection of Weeds. Many of Lu Xun's thoughts were unearthed by her from these rather sensual texts. Through "Weeds", she analyzed Lu Xun's thought this way: "As for the politics at that time, Lu Xun did not give up hope. But he was very skeptical about the role of literature in the revolution. ”
In Beauvoir's view, while the writer no longer fantasizes that books are a political weapon, "he [Lu Xun] does not despise the real goal of literature: to truly express the world." Indeed, it is only by detaching from action by exposing action that writers can fulfill their true mission. Lu Xun no longer supports escapism, he said, and some writers have withdrawn from the scene of life, keen on raising flowers and grass, talking about birds and flowers. But in his view, literature is how people feel about the life around them... In short, if you give too much of the function of literary politics, you lose both. You can't write a good book, and you can't do anything. ”
For Lu Xun's late period, he basically only wrote essays, and Beauvoir's understanding was that between literature and revolution, Lu Xun finally chose revolution. She also learned the focus of Lu Xun's work in his later years: from then on, he only wrote polemical articles and translated foreign novels. He introduced Plekhanov, Fadeyev, Chekhov, Gogol, and Baroha to Chinese readers, and his translations were thick in two volumes; he never wrote another novel or a story. Although in Beauvoir's view, these novels and stories are "extremely imaginative writing".
Beauvoir's study of Lu Xun is not limited to the writer and the work itself, she also describes in particular the background of Lu Xun's creation and the conflict between the conceptual positions of writers of other genres. In the early days, Lu Xun advocated that literature must "participate", but Lu Xun "had doubts about the nature and extent of intervention." Beauvoir found that Lu Xun had always insisted on his position that literature must have a certain degree of independence," and his attitude had not changed since the discussion of the mission of literature. For example, he once believed that literature must be the expression of the life of the whole society. Although literature cannot belong to revolution alone, it has the imprint of revolution as long as the society it reflects is inspired by a spirit of rebellion. ”
Some misreadings of Beauvoir
Judging from Beauvoir's introduction to Lu Xun, although it is relatively general, it involves a fairly wide range of aspects; from the perspective of length, Lu Xun occupies the largest page of "literary" writers. Although Beauvoir's pen also involves other people such as Hu Shi, Guo Moruo, Yu Dafu, Mao Dun, Lin Yutang, Lao She, etc., most of them are limited paragraphs or even a few lines, and most of them are mentioned when comparing with Lu Xun. We can probably think of it this way: this is the view derived from Beauvoir's own reading research, and at the same time we can feel Lu Xun's special position among modern writers.
Beauvoir's special emphasis on Lu Xun's introduction should be quite related to her literary and artistic concepts. Like Sartre, she fiercely opposed the "art for art" concept of literature and art, believing that literature must intervene in politics and life, and advocating "intervening literature". This point is quite consistent with Lu Xun's literary concept.
In his article, Beauvoir wrote: "The 'Literary Research Society', led by Mao Dun and Lu Xun in January 1921, issued its manifesto affirming the political role of literature: 'The time to treat literature and art as a game of pleasure or a pastime in frustration is now over', advocating the reflection of the oppressed 'literature of blood and the literature of tears'. Although there is a misunderstanding in this account, that is, it is believed that Lu Xun is a member of the "Literary Research Society", but it is practical to think that Lu Xun is close to or roughly the same view as this view.
However, due to the difficulty of collecting data, beauvoir sometimes appears uneven in its use. On the one hand, she even sought out and quoted materials that were not widely disseminated, such as the theoretical program of the "Left League" and the manifesto of the "Literary Research Society"; on the other hand, she was rather hasty in the use of materials, and in some places there were quite mistakes. For example, she said: "In 1925, he (Lu Xun) initiated the founding of the "Yusi" review, and the editorial staff at that time included the satirical and humorous writer Lin Yutang and the novelist Lao She. According to the author's search for relevant information, it is said that Lao She is a mistake in the editing of "Yu Silk".
In addition, she introduced Lu Xun as "completing his university studies in Nanjing." In fact, the Jiangnan Water Teacher School and the Mineral Railway School that Lu Xun studied in Nanjing were not universities. She said that Lu Xun and others initiated the organization of the "Left-Wing Writers Alliance", and Lu Xun was elected as the chairman, which seems to have misunderstood. Lu Xun was one of the standing committee members of the "Left League", and could only be said to be a leader, and did not hold the position of "chairman"... But given the difficulty with which Beauvoir collected material at that time, coupled with differences in cultural backgrounds, these misreadings that do not hurt the main idea are understandable.
At that time, Beauvoir's introduction was more aimed at some people in the West who were prejudiced against China at that time, so the content may not be new in the eyes of Chinese readers. But Beauvoir was, after all, a keen and profound thinker, and many of her comments on Lu Xun still inspire readers; the way she observes the problem also provides us with new perspectives.
(Original title: Lu Xun's works in beauvoir's eyes)
Source: Beijing Evening News
Author: Yang Jianmin
Process Editor: L061
Copyright Notice: The text copyright belongs to The Beijing News Group and may not be reproduced or adapted without permission.