Chapter 66 Section VI

If Hu Shi’s evaluation is still not enough for us to face up to the value of the novel, then we might as well look at other reviews when the English version of the novel was published—— April 3, 1955, "The New York Times" praised: "Excellent short novel... Eileen Chang is both a penetrating reviewer of the hidden world of Communist China and an exciting new artist, We eagerly look forward to reading her work again." New York "Library Journal" commented on May 1: "Ms. Zhang is a successful Chinese playwright and short story writer. This touching and modest book is her first English work. The writing is concise and may inspire many of us in English. Native readers will be envious. More importantly, this book demonstrates her sincerity and skill as a novelist."

Song Qi said in "Whispers of Zhang Ailing": "After publication, many major newspapers and magazines have received good reviews...you can use the clichés such as 'very good reviews' to describe the reactions of all parties." Gao Quanzhi once concluded: "Since 1905, the Wilson Company in New York, USA, has published annual tome book review abstracts every year for nearly a hundred years. 1955 Book Review Digest, which lists eight book reviews about the English version." When Zhang Ailing passed away in 1995, on September 16, the "Los Angeles Times" once again specifically mentioned: "Chang Ailing was a popular Chinese novelist at the age of 74. His works are popular among readers in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Recently, The ban was only lifted in mainland China... Her most popular novel is and. Works such as , ,, have been made into movies. Critics especially appreciate her early short stories. Professor Zhang Cuo of the Department of East Asian Languages, University of Southern California said that Ms. Zhang is very Unusually, if it hadn't been for the political split between the KMT and the Communist Party, it would have won the Nobel Prize."

It is sad that foreign readers are required to tell us about the excellence of Chinese works, but we are still reluctant to admit it. The criticisms of these two novels are endless, and I don’t want to quote them, so as not to make the idler famous, here is just an excerpt from Ke Ling, who claims to be Zhang Ailing’s confidant: “I frankly think that her novels are bad works, no Like the handwriting of a harmonious author." "The fatal wound lies in falsehood. The people, things, situations, and situations described are all specious, and the words also lose the original beauty of the author." "Zhang Ailing was cited far away in 1953, and her life footprint You have not been to the countryside, and the pen holder is not a magic wand, how can you conjure things out of thin air! There are no secrets or miracles here."

There are many inconsistencies in this article, and there are many self-deprecating places.First of all, the time when Zhang Ailing went abroad was not 1953 but 1952. Of course, this can be explained as 30 years later, so I can't remember.However, Ke Ling said in the previous article that he was the deputy director of Xia Yan's script creation office. Xia Yan wanted to ask Zhang Ailing to be the screenwriter, but before he had time to tell, Zhang Ailing traveled far away.This is so wrong! ——In Zhang Zijing's "My Sister Zhang Ailing", this incident is also mentioned.It seems that Xia Yan really appreciates Zhang Ailing, and has praised her with many people.Gong Zhifang was entrusted by Xia Yan to send a message to Zhang Ailing twice, and the message was delivered, but was rejected by Zhang Ailing "shaking his head, shaking his head again, and shaking his head three times"; and Ke Ling, the deputy director of the creation institute, of course got it immediately News, even he himself should have the right to invite Eileen Chang, but how could he "learn that she went to Hong Kong before I could disclose the news to Eileen Chang"?The article by Luo Fu quoted above also mentioned that in 1953, Xia Yan asked Tang Dalang to write to Eileen Chang, who was already in Hong Kong, to persuade her not to go to the United States, but to return to Shanghai to participate in the script creation institute, but was rejected by Eileen Chang’s friend Lied, saying that she had left Hong Kong - Ke Ling didn't even know about this, Xia Yan knew that Ke Ling was Zhang Ailing's good friend, why didn't he let him persuade Ailing, but repeatedly asked others?

I speculated before that it was because Ke Ling was criticized by the "Leftists" when he anonymously advertised Zhang Ailing's "The Legend" in the newspaper, "Once bitten by a snake, I am afraid of well ropes for ten years"; He wrote, "(Xia Yan) wants to invite Zhang Ailing to be the screenwriter, but there are still people who object, so I have to wait for a while." Zhang Ailing drew a clear line and stopped contacting her. Otherwise, how could she not even know when Zhang Ailing would leave Shanghai if she was such a close friend? But after looking at it, one of them, Xun Hua, can be clearly seen to be born out of Ke Ling's prototype.Zhang Ailing wrote in it that he had two wives, lived with another woman, and had a lot of children.They all left after liberation, and married another young woman, which shows that they are quite interested in women's sex.After he was rescued from prison by Sheng Jiuli and Shao Zhiyong (the prototypes of Zhang Ailing herself and Hu Lancheng in the novel), he would make a mistake, thinking that Jiu Li had feelings for him, and visited his house repeatedly; When he met Jiuli on the tram, he dared to tease her because "everyone can make fun of a traitor's wife". ——If this is the case, then it's no wonder that Zhang Ailing kept keeping away from Ke Ling.

However, even so, Xia Yan invited Zhang Ailing to participate in the "land reform" work in the countryside to experience life. It is impossible for Ke Ling not to know, and he may even be among them. It's a big lie! ——Okay, let’s just pretend that he didn’t know that Eileen Chang had been to the countryside, or even pretend that Eileen Chang really “didn’t go to the countryside in her life”, so what?Ke Ling is a writer in vain, doesn't he know that personal experience is not the only source of writing?Sure enough, there is no such school of romantic literature in this world, and those who write historical novels or novels of martial arts, gods and monsters are even more likely to die.

Ke Ling once wrote in "Literature and Character": "Creation must be loyal to reality, but the observation must be deeper, the means of expression must be richer, and it must not be too honest-of course, it must not be contrived. People should have quality, and literature There should also be quality. The process of character formation is arduous, but what is even more arduous is the breakthrough of individuality, the pursuit of diversity from unity, and the pursuit of diversity from purity.” These words are quite clear, but why did this point of view come to the fore? Is Zhang Ailing not working here?Why did Zhang Ailing's "deeper observation and richer means of expression" become "false" "bad works", and Zhang Ailing's pursuit of "personal breakthrough" became "words also lose their original beauty"?

The most hateful thing is that many of the subsequent biographies about Eileen Chang also held the same point of view, and said the same clichés, such as Eileen Chang never lived in the countryside, and was far away in Hong Kong, and did not know the truth, so she listened and believed I don’t know whether you are explaining for Zhang Ailing or leaving a way for yourself—then you, the writer who wrote a book for Zhang Ailing, did not live in Shanghai in the 1930s and 1940s, and you have never met Zhang Ailing herself. You wrote this book What are you doing again? It is rare to see it in the mainland so far, and it has always been regarded as an "anti-communist novel". The false report is to treat individual cases as a common phenomenon in society.However, are the stories they wrote really false reports, fabricated slander?

Most of the people at that time were still alive. Anyone who is a Chinese knows what a long period of hunger our people have experienced.Not only is it not "special", it is simply too "general" and "typical".Moreover, in many contemporary literary works, descriptions of similar themes are not uncommon. As Mr. Liu Denghan said in "Hong Kong Literature History": "Actually, from today's standpoint, it is not uncommon for those political mistakes in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, as well as for the common people. Compared with the description of intellectuals' injury and the "scar literature" of later mainland writers, it is obviously much milder. It's just that at that time, when New China was founded, these two novels seemed too harsh. "

In the countryside described by Eileen Chang, poverty and hunger are not exaggerated, and they can even be considered food and clothing.Because at least there is porridge to drink, which is rice. In those years, farmers in Shaanxi could not see a few grains of rice all year round. In some places, they could not even eat corn cores and elm bark. As for the story of "robbing food", ask the elders around you, almost no one knows it.For example, Zhang Yigong's "The Story of the Prisoner Li Tongzhong" was rewritten based on the true story of a "grain grabbing incident" in Xinyang, Henan. .However, it tells us that it is not an isolated theory, and it is not an exclusive theory. Zhang Yigong can write about farmers in Xinyang, and Zhang Ailing can certainly write about farmers in the south.

I often think that it is a pity that Zhang Ailing is far away in the United States, and her understanding of the "struggle" in the Mainland is still very limited.Moreover, she only wrote about "Land Reform", "Three Antis", and "Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea". If she writes about "Cultural Revolution", it must be much more powerful than peace. History is just a story for those who have nothing to do with it, but for those who know each other closely, it is a scar that can never pass away. And every publication in the mainland must be banned. This is not only the sorrow of the readers, but also the sorrow of the Chinese publishing industry.A day that cannot correctly face the world is a day that cannot correctly face history.