Chinese Literature should have taken great pride in having finally won its first Nobel Prize last year. However, instead of applauding, Chinese writers (both in and out of China) were at first shocked when the winner was announced, then hurried to get the only two novels by Gao Xingjian (高行健), which the Taiwan publisher rushed to reprint after initial print runs failed to inspire the public's imagination.
Reading the two novels, Soul Mountain
I have read the reviews in both the English and Chinese media and found that no one has given a clear brief of the book. Nobody really can. For it is a horrendously heaped hodgepodge of travel notes combing chaotic choreography, superficial legends, sinister folklore, fragmentary historical events, random thoughts, hazy memories, artificial feelings, scrappy jottings, ethnic customs, fake fables, folk songs, parodies of ancient Chinese novels, trivial and totally irrelevant encounters, shallow political and literary comments, pseudo-philosophical accounts, and erotic fanatics with monotonous female characters.
One has to admit that it is shrewd to use a modernist-like narrative that instead of giving names to the characters, uses "I," "you," "she" and "he."
In this largely autobiographical book, "`I' travel in the real world," Gao explained in the book and in a lecture at Stockholm University in 1991. "`You' are an imagined `I' who wanders in a fantasized spiritual world, `She,' then is the derivative of the lonely You," he said.
"The dissolution of `She' caused the alienation of `I,'" the author enigmatically rigmaroled in the lecture, "then emerges `He.'"
"All this is better understood when not closely examined," wrote Richard Eder in a review in The New York Times. He is right, because neither Gao's eloquent lecture nor his characters can withstand any close examination.
Occasionally (in two chapters toward the end), when the author becomes too eager to make comments about himself, his work or some phony philosophical thoughts, he finds it sounds awkward to use "I" or "You" as narrator, so he shifts to "He."
After closing this 500-plus-page bogus book, one is guaranteed to remember no characters, no storyline, no details and no beautiful prose. And forget about the stream of consciousness one might expect from a modernist novel, for the book is almost entirely devoid of psychological probes. To sum it up, one will not grab anything at all from reading the book and will become more baffled than ever about anything Chinese. Readers will not understand in the least the philosophical approach Gao explained in his lectures and his English translator parroted in the introduction, that Soul Mountain is about an individual's struggle between resisting collective forces and longing for community warmth.
I can almost see how desperately some reviewers tried to find something philosophical, something beautiful or something quotable in the book, so they would be able to lift the Nobel-winning book up to a certain level. Unfortunately, finding nothing by the end, some went with the English translator's introduction.
So far, the translator, Mabel Lee, has taken most of the blame for the book's coarseness and obscurity. This writer certainly has no intention of glorifying Lee's translation, for mistakes and inaccuracies could easily be picked here and there throughout the book (well, if the whole book is nonsense, why can't a translator add a little more?). What must be pointed out is that Gao's original is as dreadful as the English translation, if not worse. Grammatical blunders and misused characters can be easily found in the Chinese text. Who said Gao is a Chinese language master? Only the Swedish Academy, certainly nobody Chinese. It would invite ridicule for any Chinese person to praise Gao. The language, as well as the content, in his second novel, One Man's Bible, was reduced to such a level that many Chinese writers can find no other word but "trash" to describe it.
The fact that Gao's books were consigned to oblivion immediately after they were released to bookstores here in Taiwan (before their author won the Nobel) was not because they were too avant-garde for the general reading public to understand, but because of their awful quality. The adulation around him now is for his crown and political purpose only.
Nothing better describes what Soul Mountain is than Hans Andersen's fairy tale The Emperor's New Clothes. This writer simply has to say out loud that the "Chinese emperor" is indeed naked!
I certainly have not read all Gao's works, but I believe there could be no greater scandal than this one in the Nobel literature prize's history. With the generous intention of honoring Chinese writers, the Swedish Academy has instead played a big joke on international society and Chinese people everywhere. I have no doubt that the Nobel committee will bitterly regret their blunder before they begin trying to select the next winner.
Cao Chang-Ching is a writer and journalist based in New York.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS