Hello Gentle Reader
His pen name may mean “Don’t Speak,” but Mo Yan the twenty twelve Nobel Laureate in Literature has decided to speak out against the dismissal of his Nobel accolade. The greatest criticism from journalists, fellow Laureates (Herta Müller), writers (Salman Rushdie), and fellow Chinese artist and writer Ai Weiwei and Liao Yiwu, have all been unanimous in Mo Yan’s Nobel. Even I have been less than kind – and maintain my criticism, and will continue to abstain from his work. Throughout his interview with the German newspaper, “Der Spiegel,” Mo Yan had made it continuously clear that he is not a political writer. However he has been state honoured by the Chinese government, with the honorary title of Deputy President of China’s Writers Association. One of the largest issues, that Mo Yan has been attacked about, is his refusal to discuss the wish for freedom of the imprisoned political activist and Peace Laureate, of Liu Xiaobo. When pressed again for his comments and thoughts Mo Yan had refused to answer. Many immediately were left with the impression of not a Chinese political Messiah, but of a Chinese controlled patsy (as Salman Rushdie had called him) in which he spoke out of turn, much to the Wests and democratic worlds applause; and was reprimanded for it. Though he compliments Gunter Grass, for dealing with the political turmoil of the twentieth century, he himself has avoided in political commentating. Stating he is not a political writer.
That is where Mo Yan is wrong though. As a contemporary Chinese writer, there is no middle. You are either support the Communist government or you are a dissident writer opposed to the government. Though it is a unfair generalization, of China and Chinese writers literary merit, put alongside their political convictions; though a English writer or a French writers political stances would not be so equally scrutinized; it would be the same for a Israeli writer or Syrian writer. This same scrutiny is applied to other Chinese writers such as the Misty Poet Bei Dao, or fellow Nobel Laureate in Literature Gao Xingjian.
If one wanted to use Mo Yan’s literary talents as, game for the criticism than, then one should look at such articles like “The New York Review of Books,” article “Why We Should Criticize Mo Yan,” by Perry Link; or “The Kenyon Review,” article “The Diseased Language of Mo Yan,” by Anna Sun; or look to Doctor Wolfgang Kubin’s interview, in which he discusses Mo Yan’s work.
From “The New York Review of Books,” – Perry Link, finds fault in Mo Yan’s way of presenting twentieth century history by satire, as a way of avoiding, the actual issue presented by history. Perry Link calls this “daft satire,” in which Mo Yan lessens the blow; or avoids it entirely, by relieving the catastrophe with humour – and very low brow humour at that. From the article:
“I noted that when he arrives at catastrophic episodes like the Great Leap famine, he deflects attention by resorting to what I call “daft hilarity”—shooting sheep sperm into rabbits or forcing someone to eat a turnip carved to be a “fake donkey dick”—while making no mention of starvation that cost 30 million or more lives.”
Mister Link further, points out that Mo Yan furthers the political indoctrination, of the young and uneducated of China; by avoiding such issues. Their education, is state controlled and when it comes to events in history that may shake the unwavering belief and ideological support of the one party system – again using the Great Leap famine as an example; they are to be blatantly ignored or denied – or at the very least recognized as historical fact, but important details changed.
“How does “daft hilarity” affect them [the actual readers]? I hope Laughlin will agree with me that Mo Yan’s actual readers are numerous, mostly young, and not very well schooled in Chinese history. To reach the level of what Laughlin sees as Mo Yan’s ideal “intended reader,” a young Chinese must leap a number of intellectual hurdles that Communist Party education has put in place: first, that there was no famine, because the story is only a slander invented by foreigners; second, that if there really was a famine, it was “three years of difficulty” caused by bad weather; third, that if the famine indeed was man-made, it still wasn’t Mao-made, because Mao was great; fourth, that if it was Mao-made, people died only of starvation, not beatings, burnings-alive (called “the human torch”), or brain-splatterings with shovels (called “opening the flower”), as Yang Jisheng’s book Tombstone documents.”
Doctor Wolfgang Kubin himself points out that Mo Yan writes a very sensationalist writing style. Not something that is modern or contemporary in the least. It is usually a “Saga,” – rural setting and takes place over generations. It is easier to read; especially the uneducated, and is a popular entertainment model.
“The Kenyon Review,” certainly agrees with the above statement. Mo Yan maybe compared to Faulkner or Gabriel Garcia Marquez; but where they differentiate, for sure is that Mo Yan lacks a unified aesthetic conviction. “The Kenyon Review,” goes on to say the following:
“The discontent lies in Mo Yan’s language. Open any page, and one is treated to a jumble of words that juxtaposes rural vernacular, clichéd socialist rhetoric, and literary affectation. It is broken, profane, appalling, and artificial; it is shockingly banal. The language of Mo Yan is repetitive, predictable, coarse, and mostly devoid of aesthetic value. The English translations of Mo Yan’s novels, especially by the excellent Howard Goldblatt, are in fact superior to the original in their aesthetic unity and sureness.”
In the end, Mo Yan makes no apologies. He dismisses the criticism, and says if one wants to know his politics they only need to read his books. The writer also went on to continue, to justify his actions specifically, hand copying part of Mao’s speech. He further reiterates that he criticizes everyone, including the ruling party; though he states he does it on the sly. This may or may not be true. In the end Mo Yan did not clear the air. If anything he blatantly stuck to his previous manner of speaking – or rather not speaking. Not revealing anything, and repeating continuously over and over what has already been stated. In a sense, pseudonym is well picked. Even when Mo Yan does speak, it is coarse and without meaning or real context. It’s a jumble of repetitive statements, rehearsed and ready for staging.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
*And Remember: Downloading Books Illegally is Thievery and Wrong.*
M. Mary
