What I wrote yesterday was very taxing on my brain. I didn't sleep well, so I wrote something before I slept.
One or two months ago, there was an interview in which a question was asked. The content went something like this:
When I was studying at the Lu Academy, I wrote something. After a teacher saw it, he asked, "Why do you web novelists write in such a roundabout way?" After self-examination, I realized that when I wrote, I was used to emphasizing, while traditional literature requires that it be just right, because it has a sense of beauty.
It's not that I can't understand traditional literature. Fortunately, I can still understand it, so I can clearly see the reason for this difference: the audience. Readers who have really received elite education or systematic education have a lot of basic logic in their hearts. To give a simple example, we talk about the concept of "group silence". Where this concept comes from, what consequences it causes, in the hearts of readers who have truly received systematic education, only four words are needed to form this concept. According to the principle of output, the worry and seriousness of "group silence" may be instantly fed back to the person's knowledge system.
But most people in this society don't have such a mechanism — I mean more than 90% of people in this society, even people who have gone to university or obtained a higher degree probably don't have such a mechanism. Then, in order to convey a thorough and accurate message, I have to explain the ins and outs of "group silence" in detail. That way, people will not only see a seemingly cool term, but also truly understand its meaning.
It's also like a famous book full of complex and profound social metaphors, such as "Water Margin". Only people with a perfect logical system can see the satire and revelations contained in it. But most people will only see "Roar at the sight of injustice!", "Brotherhood and loyalty", "Eat meat, drink wine, and kill to your heart's content!"
Enlightening essays needed to have a clear direction. This was something I understood after reading all of this. It's not that there aren't any powerful and profound readers among my readers. However, based on the current culture and education system of this society, there are countless people with flaws and one-sided problems in their individual thinking systems.
This problem was very complicated. For example, to truly understand Water Margin on a literary or philosophical level, a complete set of cultural training was needed. Such training existed in ancient times, and it was directional. The modern era was gone because of the collapse of culture. The collapse of culture caused the country to not be able to clearly define what it needed to create. If the country could not be clear, education could not have a goal. When education did not have a goal, the education system could only put everything that might be useful in front of you. Therefore, even if it was just Water Margin, even if you had gone through higher education, you would still have a lot of different thoughts after reading it. We don't know what kind of educational direction is "correct" based on the modern era, and we don't dare to come to a conclusion easily. However, no direction is necessarily "wrong". Some people will say that this is freedom, that this is diversity, but it is not. As for why it is not, I do not intend to explain it here.
I seemed to have explained many things in the book. For example, "Heaven and Earth are heartless." This was a concept that was both deep and shallow in ancient times. It was deep because everyone avoided saying it, but it was shallow because after receiving professional training, it wasn't difficult to understand. But after understanding it, one would realize that there was no need to explain it to them. It would be more troublesome if they understood. In ancient times, it was right to make people weak and ignorant.
The modern era was different.
After the establishment of human rights, democracy became a big concept and trend. Many idiot elites said that it was better than anything else, but in fact, democracy was the way of the ancient gentleman. When you understood logic, had discernment, were not selfish, and could be independent, that was true democracy. If the people wanted to be independent, they had to be enlightened. What were the requirements for people to be enlightened? Human society was like a ship sailing in the sea full of reefs. There was no map. In the past, the most outstanding people were at the helm, and they were trembling in fear. One mistake, and millions of people died. In the future, if everyone was at the helm, everyone could imagine its requirements. If it was like the current China, if you said that national affairs should be decided by the people around you, I'd better emigrate. It wasn't safe to emigrate to America, at least to Mars.
However, as human rights became more and more important and people became more and more important, letting people vote might really be possible. At the beginning, it was just a symbolic trick, and in the future, you might really be able to decide something.
Enlightening people was mentioned during the May 4th Movement, but after that, no one mentioned it, and no one did it. There was an objective reason for this. After 30 years of reform and opening up, mud and sand had fallen. The original purpose of the cultural system was to hold on to spiritual civilization, but it did not play any role because it had long been destroyed.
When talking about literature in the Lu Courtyard, the teacher said, "There are many people around me who have been sticking to it." Sticking to it was very valuable, but in the end, culture since ancient times was the culture of the elite, and elite culture was something that people had to worship. For example, in university, we said that university education had no direction, but knowledge was always there. If you were a person with a certain level of self-awareness, you would definitely be able to learn very deep things. On the contrary, if you did not have self-awareness, you would gain nothing. The difference was like heaven and earth. Where did this self-awareness come from?
30 years of sticking to it, when there was no real meaning, had anyone tried to kneel down? Had anyone tried to think of ways to guide it? After all, the basic foundation of literacy had finally been laid.
My readers, or should I say the readers of online literature, are from the bottom of society — please forgive me, I am not looking down on this bottom, because I am also one — I have read books, but there is no reason to go further. After leaving society, working, carrying bricks, working as a civil servant from 9 to 5, getting married and watching "Empresses in the Palace", the people above said that this is very superficial. In terms of spiritual level, this is indeed a low level of spiritual realm, but can these people be blamed?
If you want to pull up the social level and pursuit in a society full of desire and capital, you have to be realistic and pragmatic to do it. Oh, saying "I have stuck to it", does it really mean that you have done your best? Watching coldly from the sidelines and then criticizing and cursing, is it enough to feel superior?
There was such a conversation during the interview.
Question: "Then is fantasizing and feeling good a method of establishing a person for you? Is it a method that combines education with entertainment? "
"Yes, it is an extremely necessary method. At this stage, it is not lighter than the pursuit of elegant art. In fact, it is more important."
"Killing time efficiently for the readers?"
"No, it is an efficient export of values."
When the hearts of our readers are 100% filled with desire, it is meaningless for us to talk about 100% spiritual pursuit. Only when the hearts of our readers are 100% filled with desire, or when we talk about 10%, can we effectively send people to a better place. I will send them on this journey, and the next journey will be sent by someone else.
What I am facing is a reader with basic attributes of reality. There are many friends who are willing to explore these things, and will be inspired by these things, and then they will become less extreme — this is actually also the path I have taken. Before this, I have been immersed in long paragraphs, such as the end of the fifth episode and many other places. Some readers, with a certain degree of literary self-restraint, after seeing these, suggested that you have actually destroyed the aesthetic requirements of traditional literature, and even destroyed the integrity of the work. In fact, I have said it again and again a long time ago, this is the balance I have chosen.
Why can't they understand: In fact, in my heart, I am very clear that these paragraphs destroy the integrity of the work?
Even if it destroys the integrity of the work, I want to highlight them. Another reason is that this kind of crude method of destroying the integrity of the work can make it more obvious.
I have written a very storytelling book, to put it more accurately, it can even be described as literary. After I have attracted people in, I have crudely smuggled them in, but this is also the result of hundreds of thousands of considerations. In the past, I have said that if you don't like it, you can skip it, if you can't skip it, you can endure it, if you can't endure it, then you can give up. In fact, I have said this more than once.
Every time after a long paragraph of presentation, someone will come out and explain some basic concepts of literature. I can understand the meaning of each and every one of them, but I do not like these things. In the end, from my point of view, "Son-In-Law" is an experimental work. It is about experimenting with things that high and mighty literature can't do. We try to kneel down and see if we can be stepped on. And because it is an experimental work, it cannot be concluded. I have repeatedly deduced the basic concepts of literature, which is the starting point of this deduction. What you think you have to teach me, I have already broken it into pieces and carefully read it countless times. But when you mention it, it still wastes my energy and time.
It is like after we have determined the basic attitude of doing things, determined to work in the most rigorous manner, and there are people who keep jumping out and saying, "How can you be sure that you are right?" That is a waste of time.
I hope that after this article, no one will talk to me about the foundation of traditional literature. After writing it, we can judge its merits and demerits.
…
To add one more point, I have not actually thought of going to the high point of traditional literature. I advocate traditional literature because traditional literature has been researched to the extreme for any expression. I am afraid that the economic platform of online literature will be like the invasion of the Eight-Nation Alliance. Traditional literature will suffer a crushing defeat, and these good techniques will be lost.
But the future literature cannot be high and mighty. It is not a divine object to be hung on the top of a tower for people to worship. It should itself be a ladder for human society to step on and enjoy the scenery at the top of the tower.
The essence of the creation of culture is to explore and improve one's spiritual realm. Any culture that does not aim to improve human society does not matter if it exists or does not exist.
You've already exceeded your reading limit for today. If you want to read more, please log in.
Login
Select text and click 'Report' to let us know about any bad translation.
