Chapter 4 Part I Between the Revolution and the Counter-Revolution

Universities and colleges are the focus of transformation, and so is the literary and art circles. The Department of Chinese Language and Literature is at the intersection of the two circles, and it is conceivable that the impact has been severe. The ideological transformation of the literary and art circles is carried out simultaneously with the ideological transformation of the institutions of higher learning.On November 30, 1951, six days before the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the "Instructions on Carrying out Ideological Reform and Organization Clean-up in Schools", that is, on November 24, Hu Qiaomu, Zhou Yang and Ding Ling studied and mobilized in the literary and art circles in Beijing. A mobilization report on ideological remolding was made at the conference. On December 5, the People's Daily published Hu Qiaomu's speech: "Why Literary and Artistic Workers Need Ideological Remolding", which was intended to promote the ideological remolding movement to the literary and art circles across the country.And half a year before this, the movie "Wu Xun Biography" has already been discussed.Judging from the editorial Mao Zedong wrote for the "People's Daily", "We Should Pay Attention to the Discussion of the Movie "The Legend of Wu Xun"", the purpose of this discussion is obviously not to evaluate the success or failure of a movie, but to clarify the cultural circles. confused thoughts.From the movie "The Legend of Wu Xun" and the many praises of Wu Xun and "The Story of Wu Xun", what Mao Zedong saw was: "How much ideological confusion has reached in the cultural circles of our country!"

Since the thoughts in the cultural circle are so chaotic, of course the problem cannot be resolved through a discussion of a movie.It is inevitable to continue to look for topics to do the work of clarifying thoughts. The discussion on research issues is exactly another topic that Mao Zedong grasped.The reason why this topic is important does not lie in Yu Pingbo himself, but because his "A Study of a Dream of Red Mansions" (formerly known as "A Dream of Red Mansions") is a representative work of the New Red School founded by Hu Shi. Through the criticism of this book and other articles of the author , can open the door to criticize Hu Shi's thoughts, and Hu Shi's academic thoughts and academic influence were the important obstacles to the spread of Mao Zedong Thought at that time.Because of this, Mao Zedong went to war because the articles of Li Xifan and Lan Ling, two little people who had just graduated from university, were suppressed.Moreover, using small people to oppose big people and using young people to attack old people is also a strategy of his, which was more obvious and prominent in the later "Cultural Revolution".However, at that time, many intellectuals still couldn't see the mystery of it, and it was inevitable that they would be a little estranged, and they would hit the muzzle of the gun when they acted.

When Feng Xuefeng was ordered to reprint the articles of the two small figures in the "Literary and Art News", he wrote a more realistic commentary, but was severely reprimanded by Mao Zedong and publicly questioned by the "People's Daily"; Standing up to speak out, accusing the "Literary Daily" of suppressing new forces such as Lu Ling and A Long, which led to an anti-Hu Feng movement. Of course, Hu Feng only used this as a breakthrough, and the liquidation of Hu Feng was only a matter of time.Because Hu Feng has considerable strength and influence in the literary and artistic circles, and Hu Feng's literary and artistic thoughts are indeed inconsistent with Mao Zedong's literary and artistic thoughts. This is absolutely intolerable.

As students of the Chinese Department, we have always been very concerned about these debates in the literary and art circles, because they are related to our majors.But it was really taken seriously after "People's Daily" published Yuan Shuipai's "Questioning the Editor of the Literature and Art Newspaper".This article is obviously aimed at Feng Xuefeng, because he is the editor-in-chief of "Literary News".But Feng Xuefeng is an old revolutionary in our minds, an authority on literary theory. How could he be publicly questioned and removed from the editor-in-chief position for such a trivial matter?I can't figure it out.But there will be a big change in the world of literature and art, which can be seen.After launching the criticism of Hu Feng, especially Zhou Yang's "We Must Fight" speech, many of us believed that this was a continuation of the struggle between the left-wing literary and art camps in the 1930s.Presumably in order to draw students' attention to the anti-Hu Feng movement, the city leaders specially sent some writers to make reports and guide them.I remember Wu Qiang and Jin Yi among them.Jin Yi taught in the Chinese Department of Fudan University. We all know that Wu Qiang hadn’t published his masterpiece "Red Sun" at that time, so he was not well-known. The author of "Little Horse Gun", but most of us have not read this novel, so we don't pay much attention to this author.

But soon the situation changed suddenly. "People's Daily" published Hu Feng's letter to Shu Wu, titled "Materials on Hu Feng's Anti-Party Clique", and added many very serious notes.Then, the second batch and the third batch of materials were announced.By the time the third batch of materials came out, the title had been changed to "Materials on the Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique".From anti-party to anti-revolution, the problem is of course more and more serious.Then, there was a suspension of classes and a movement, and the anti-Hu Feng clique developed into a comprehensive movement to eliminate counter-revolutionaries.

At that time, I lacked a sense of the legal system, and I didn’t realize that publishing my private letters without my consent would violate the principle of freedom of communication stipulated in the Constitution, and I also lacked the ability to think independently, so I could only follow the “People’s Daily” “ Editor's Note" to understand the problem.Although I found it puzzling that a well-known left-wing writer suddenly became an agent of the Kuomintang, since the party central organ newspaper always made sense, I stopped doubting it.It's just that our teacher, Mr. Jia Zhifang, was identified as a key member of Hu Feng in the "Materials", which was very surprising, and several students in the fourth grade were also involved in the school, which was even more terrifying.

Mr. Jia Zhifang was arrested shortly after the release of the first batch of materials.According to what he told me later, it was Yang Xiguang, secretary of the party committee, who drove him to the Higher Education Bureau for a meeting. Three cadres, including Chen Qiwu, came to talk to him and asked him to explain the problem. Mr. Jia said that he had nothing to explain. Yes, the attitude was very determined, and I slept on the sofa after lunch.Chen Qiwu and others said that he had a bad attitude and could no longer explain the matter to the Higher Education Bureau, so they were arrested by the police in the afternoon.This time, he was locked up for more than ten years, and was not released until 1966. He was still supervised labor.

"Isn't this trapping?" I asked. However, Mr. Jia said that whether to arrest at home or go to the Bureau of Higher Education, it is actually the same.He thought Yang Xiguang was kind to him, so he gave him two packs of Zhonghua brand cigarettes on the way to the Higher Education Bureau; There is a shortage of teachers in the school, you figure out the situation, come back and teach as soon as possible, we need you." Mr. Jia is really a kind person. Anyone who has done a little good to him or said a few good words to him, he will remember and always express his gratitude.

He also told me that after the case of Hu Feng was vindicated, Zhang Peiheng went to Beijing for a meeting and met Yang Xiguang. If Xiguang didn't send it off, someone else would. He also said that if Mr. Jia wanted to see him, he would call him the next time he was in Beijing, and he would send a car to pick him up.He also copied the phone number and asked Zhang Peiheng to bring it to Mr. Jia. Mr. Jia said: "What he said is true, but I didn't go to see him." Although Zhang Peiheng had just graduated at the time, he was already the secretary of the party branch of the Department of Chinese. At that time, each department had not established a general branch. His branch secretary was equivalent to the general branch secretary later, and he was the person who led the entire department. .His standard is slightly lower than Jia Zhifang's. Wang Ling, the deputy secretary of the party committee, came to pick him up at his home by car. Isolate him somewhere—because the car windows are hung with curtains, he can't figure out where it is, but based on his old Shanghai experience, he thinks it may be somewhere on Jianguo West Road, but after more than ten days Put Fudan, of course, still write a review.He was charged with tipping Jia Zhifang.In fact, he only said to Jia Zhifang: "It is the central government's decision to oppose Hu Feng." This is self-evident, who can't see that posture?Of course, he has other things that can be mentioned.Because he once said that he wanted to study three academic subjects: one was Lu Xun's thoughts, the other was Hu Feng's literary theory, and the third was Qu Yuan's works.This second item was already a big problem at the time.Moreover, although Zhang Peiheng served as the branch secretary and was doing political work, he was full of bookishness and could not understand the political situation. After Zhou Yang published the "We Must Fight" condemnation article, he even wrote an article in the "People's Daily" to communicate with him. Discuss.Of course the article will not be published, but the account is still kept in mind.Moreover, he also wrote an article criticizing the criticism of Lu Ling's novel "Battle on the Lowland" in the "Literary Monthly". Although this article was not sent, he once mentioned it to his old classmate Wang Yuxiang. Worked at the New Literature and Art Publishing House. When I went back and talked about it, someone wrote "Emotional Problems and Others" to criticize, and rushed to publish the book with additional material. All of this was quickly fed back to Fudan and became Zhang Peiheng's crimes.Later, Wang Yuxiang was also imprisoned because of the Hu Feng case.As a result of the review, Zhang Peiheng was not only removed from his position as branch secretary, but also expelled from the party and transferred to work in the school library.

Shi Changdong was arrested directly from the school.However, the public security officer is quite civilized, covering his handcuffs with a handkerchief, which is to save his face.But the closing time is very long.When I heard the news of his return to school, it was already the summer of the second year when I went to see him in the Songzhuang dormitory. Later, he stayed in the reference room of the department as a data clerk.One reason for keeping him in prison for so long was that he was suspected of being a Trotskyist.However, I heard from Zhang Peiheng that at that time the issue had been investigated clearly, and it was known that he was an imposter who used the diploma of a man named Shi Changdong to apply for the school. ,not him.From this point of view, it was only for this reason that he was arrested. In fact, Hu Feng's case was still to be investigated.Zhang Peiheng was the secretary of the party branch before being censored, so these things should be clear.I remember that during the anti-Hu Feng movement, Shi Changdong not only failed to defend Hu Feng, but also wrote an article criticizing Hu Feng's literary and artistic thoughts in the early days of the movement, which was published in the "Literary and Art Monthly", which had a great influence and was listed with Yao Wenyuan As a new force in Shanghai, but once the movement deepened, the situation changed.

Other affected students, such as Zeng Huapeng and Fan Boqun, were reviewed at the school. They were all graduate students at the time. After graduation, they still studied in a bungalow.In the early days of the anti-Hu Feng movement, Zeng Huapeng also wrote an article criticizing Hu Feng's literary thought and published it in the "Liberation Daily". It was very eye-catching, but it was of no avail.Originally, Zeng Huapeng, Fan Boqun, and Shi Changdong were the top business leaders in the class and should have stayed in school as teachers, but they were expelled from the regiment because of this, and Zeng and Fan were assigned to other places to teach middle schools.However, after they got to work, they all resumed their group membership, and soon, Zeng Huapeng was transferred to teach at Yangzhou Teachers College, Fan Boqun was transferred to "Yuhua" magazine as an editor, and later taught at Soochow University, all of which became very influential. Experts and scholars, this is another story. When we entered school, the 54th class had graduated ahead of schedule, and the 55th class was a third-year student, but they were considered big brothers. Some enthusiastic students often guided us younger brothers. Shi Changdong, Fan Boqun, and Zeng Huapeng were all familiar with us. Later, I stayed with us. After teaching in the department, I got acquainted with Zhang Peiheng again, so I have a better understanding of their situation.I originally thought that only these four people were implicated back then, and Pan Xinggong was added at most. He used Zhang Peiheng as a model to write a novel and published it in "People's Literature", so he probably had a deep relationship with them. .It was not until recent years that I asked Mr. Jia Zhifang: "In addition to Zhang, Shi, Zeng, and Fan, how many other classmates were implicated in your case?" Mr. Jia said, "More than 20 people have been implicated in total. For example, Zhang Delin, Chen Xiuzhu and his wife , has graduated and was assigned to work at East China Normal University, and was also subject to censorship. Chen Xiuzhu was the secretary of the party branch and was also dismissed, and later expelled from the party. The other two were assigned to the Institute of Literature, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and were also designated as 'controlled use' , but they themselves didn’t know it, my brother (Jia Zhi) told me after Hu Feng’s case was rehabilitated, he was the leader of the Institute of Literature and had a good grasp of the internal situation.” Fudan Songzhuang (the sixth dormitory), like several other dormitories at that time, was originally a barracks of the Japanese occupation army, small, simple and damp. When I entered school in 1953, this was a student dormitory, with several teaching assistants living in front of it. In 1954 it became faculty housing.After I got married in 1959, I was allocated a downstairs house after several twists and turns, and lived there until 1978. Mr. Jia Zhifang loves talents, is generous, and is quite chivalrous, so many students like to get close to him.Mr. Jia also often invites students to eat, donates money, helps them read manuscripts, introduces publication places, and contacts publication matters.However, in this way, it became a crime of wooing students and corrupting young people. Some people denounced it at the school assembly, and some exposed it in the newspapers.These words are included in the book "Exposing the Crimes of the Hu Feng Gang" edited by the Shanghai Branch of the Chinese Writers Association and published by New Literature and Art Publishing House. In Fudan, in addition to Jia Zhifang and his students being detained and censored, as a member of the anti-Hu Feng movement leading group, Wang Ling, the deputy party secretary of the school who sent Zhang Peiheng to the Higher Education Bureau for censorship, himself was also censored shortly afterwards. review.It is said that once the Municipal Bureau of Higher Education held a meeting of members of the anti-Hu Feng campaign leading groups in various schools, Wang Ling was also notified, but when he arrived at the venue, the host announced that Wang Ling could not participate, which undoubtedly embarrassed him in public.Wang Ling was censored because of his relationship with Liu Xuewei.He and Liu Xuewei were colleagues at the East China Revolutionary University. Liu Xuewei later became the director of the Literature and Art Department of the Propaganda Department of the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee and the director of the New Literature and Art Publishing House. He once gave a report at Fudan University. , invited Liu to have dinner at home, and reviewed this matter for nearly a year, but he was reinstated as an official soon.Probably Wang Ling and Liu Xuewei are just working, otherwise it would be difficult to pass the test.Wang Ling was originally a combat staff officer of the New Fourth Army. He had always been engaged in "weaponization" work, and he had no connection with the literary and art circles.However, when the "Cultural Revolution" was over and Liu Xuewei came back and continued to study Lu Xun, he still asked his old friend Wang Ling to help him find information.Wang Ling even ran to my house to ask for my help, and later transferred a book from Liu Xuewei.After the Hu Feng case was rehabilitated, I once sat in a meeting with Wang Ling. I asked about it, and Wang Ling said detachedly: "Oh, at that time, there will always be a review. Even if there is no such thing, it will Find other reasons to review." Then he laughed. Although the anti-Hu Feng movement involved many people, it cannot involve everyone.Because not everyone has contacts with Hu Feng and "Hu Feng elements".The anti-revolutionary movement that followed was different. It was related to almost all teachers and students in the school, and no one could stay out of it.Everyone first studied the report of the Minister of Public Security Luo Ruiqing at the National People's Congress to arm their minds, open their eyes, and raise their vigilance, and then launched a campaign to report and expose.It is necessary not only to expose counter-revolutionary facts, but also to expose reactionary speeches.And this "reactionary speech" has no clear boundaries, so everyone is in danger.For example, when Professor Tan Qixiang was teaching in the Department of History of Zhejiang University, he was highly regarded by the head of the department, Zhang Qiyu.Zhang Qiyu is an authority on history, especially in history and geography, and he is a colleague of Tan Qixiang. He has written a lot and has a great influence. Tan Qixiang said that he is a learned person and has made great contributions to Zhejiang University.There was nothing wrong with this originally, but Zhang Qiyu's identity made these few words a problem.After Chen Bulei committed suicide, Zhang Qiyu took over Chen Bulei's work and became the secretary-general of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang. He became another literary hero of Chiang Kai-shek, and later served as the head of Taiwan's education department. This became a counter-revolutionary figure. In the era when politics determined everything, Tan Qixiang affirmed Zhang Qixiu's knowledge in order to applaud the counter-revolutionaries. Of course, this was considered a reactionary speech, and it was inevitable to be criticized.Although he was not convicted later, the mood of the person involved was very unhappy. The first teaching building was built in 1953.We didn't have a decent classroom until it was built.Due to the increasing number of students, many classes were moved to temporary bungalows.In this building, I have listened to the classes of teachers such as Guo Shaoyu, Jiang Tianshu, Liu Dajie, Wang Xinfu, Wu Wenqi, Zhang Shilu, Zheng Quanzhong, Fang Lingru, Yu Shangyuan, Bao Zhenghu, Jiang Kongyang, Hu Yushu; Zhu Dongrun, Zhao Jingshen, Pu Zhizhen, Wu Lifu, Yang Lie and other teachers' lessons were listened to in the bungalow classroom.These courses have laid the foundation for my academic studies and left me with unforgettable memories for life. What's more, it is even more wrong to be convicted of speech or social relationship, and be labeled as a counter-revolutionary.At that time, there were many counter-revolutionaries who came out of "Su". For example, Professor Yu Shangyuan of the Chinese Department was only Yang Fan's teacher. When the government collapsed, the Ministry of Education ordered the Drama Academy to move to Taiwan. Under the influence of Yang Fan, Yu Shangyuan resisted the order, preserved the school, and handed it over to the Communist Party's military representatives.These actions should be said to have contributed to the revolution, but after the Pan Hannian and Yang Fan incidents came out, Yu Shangyuan was captured as an accomplice of this group and released a year later. He was already lifeless.Professor Zhao Minheng from the Department of Journalism is a very active and well-known reporter. He once served as the head of the Far East branch of a foreign news agency and made many important reports during the Anti-Japanese War.It should be said that he stayed in the mainland as a patriotic act, but he was suspected of being a hidden spy and spent many years in prison.Among the students, some were labeled as counter-revolutionaries.In our Chinese department, there was a student who was disabled in both hands. He was caught out and told that he had been a member of the Home Returning Corps. After the "Cultural Revolution" was over, a re-examination confirmed that his hand was disabled by polio, and he was only twelve or thirteen years old at that time. His father, not him, was vindicated.But at this time he was old and had been out of touch with society for too long, so he was unable to work normally. It is said that he was asked to receive a pension. Double Hundred Policy and Marching to Science However, by 1956, the situation had changed a lot. In mid-January, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China held a meeting on intellectuals. Zhou Enlai made a "Report on the Issue of Intellectuals" at the meeting, emphasizing the important role of intellectuals in socialist construction, and announced that the vast majority of intellectuals in our country are already part of the working class.The meeting also issued a call for "March to Science". In May, Mao Zedong put forward the policy of "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" at the Supreme State Council.He believes that the blooming of a hundred flowers should be advocated in literature and art, and the contention of a hundred schools of thought should be advocated in academics. In order to implement the policy of contending among a hundred schools of thought, the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China immediately focused on two key points: in the liberal arts, it organized a discussion on aesthetics; in the sciences, it held a conference on genetics. In 1956, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China put forward the cultural policy of "Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend", and issued the slogan "March to Science".Fudan held the third scientific symposium in May of that year on the occasion of its 51st anniversary celebration.In the photo, President Chen Wangdao is giving a report at the meeting.After that, each department had separate discussions, and students also had special sessions, which lasted for several days and were very lively. The aesthetic discussion started with Zhu Guangqian's self-examination.He published an article on "Literary News": "The Reactionary Nature of My Literary Thoughts", denying his original aesthetic views and expressing his willingness to accept everyone's criticism.Then, in the criticism of Zhu Guangqian, there was a debate of different aesthetic opinions. Some advocated that beauty lies in the subjective, and some advocated that the beauty lies in the objective. Some people introduced new theories from the Soviet Union, emphasizing that the objectivity of beauty lies in its social nature, and the debate was very lively for a while.Mr. Jiang Kongyang from our department also participated in the discussion, which sparked a wave of aesthetic craze in Fudan.Later, when Jiang Kongyang's literary thoughts were criticized, he turned to aesthetics, especially the teaching and research of Western aesthetics, which made the literature and art discipline of Fudan Chinese Department a characteristic.I heard that Zhou Yang, the deputy director of the Central Propaganda Department who organized this discussion on aesthetics, later told the editorial team of "Introduction to Aesthetics": Let them argue subjectively and objectively, since it does not involve practical issues anyway.He inadvertently disclosed the bottom line of contention among a hundred schools of thought: practical issues cannot be involved.It can be seen that the separation of academic research in the liberal arts from reality is actually intentional and a policy orientation.The reason why Hu Feng and Feng Xuefeng's literary and artistic thoughts were criticized was because they were too realistic.On the one hand, it is self-contradictory to criticize university teachers for their academic research being divorced from reality, and on the other hand, they are deeply afraid that others will come into contact with real problems. The issue of genetics is more closely related to Fudan University.Because here is Professor Tan Jiazhen, a representative of the Morgan School.In the "one-sided" era, our views on academic issues also closely followed the Soviet Union.Lysenko, a Soviet scholar, divided genetics into two opposing schools of thought, Michurin and Morgan. He believed that the former was proletarian and materialistic, while the latter was bourgeois and idealistic. Fake pseudoscience.Professor Tan Jiazhen from the Department of Biology of Fudan University is Morgan's student. He has been engaged in the research on the evolution of Drosophila germline and the variation of color spot in Asian ladybug. It has an impact, and of course it is the first to bear the brunt now. In 1950, Nurikin, the deputy director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Union, came to China and asked to discuss with Tan Jiazhen by name. In 1952, the domestic biological circles again emphasized sticking to Michurin’s direction and openly criticized Morgan’s theory, which formed a great influence on Tan Jiazhen. big pressure. On May 27, 1952, the "Fudan" school newspaper published a photo of Tan Jiazhen looking at a microscope. The caption read: "Professor Tan Jiazhen, the director of the Department of Biology, studied Michurin's theory and studied genetics. The picture on the left is used by Professor Tan. Observing fruit flies with a microscope." This is obviously a response to external pressure, because from the photos, it is really impossible to tell whether Tan Jiazhen is using Michurin's theory to study genetics or Morgan's theory to study genetics. Anyway, just follow the situation. The symposium on genetics held in Qingdao in August 1956 was after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.At that time, the Soviet Union had already begun to criticize Stalin, and Lysenko, who was supported by Stalin and supported by administrative orders, also began to be liquidated by the Soviet scientific community.This cannot but have an impact on the Chinese biological community.Therefore, under the impetus of the double-hundred policy, the Morgan School has a chance to stand up.For Tan Jiazhen, it was undoubtedly a spiritual liberation.In the following year, Mao Zedong met with him twice and encouraged him to get into genetics.With the backing of Mao Zedong, things would of course be easy to handle. Fudan established the Genetics Research Office in 1959, and later expanded it into the Genetics Research Institute, and finally made achievements in genetics. Focusing on key points is to promote comprehensiveness.Intellectuals were particularly excited that year, feeling that the time had come to play a role, and they were all eager to try.What impressed me deeply are: Zhou Gucheng published the article "Formal Logic and Dialectics" in the "New Construction" magazine, which caused discussions on formal logic issues that lasted for several years; Social repercussions; in our Chinese Department, some viewpoints that were once criticized in the anti-Hu Feng movement were raised for discussion, such as the problem of writing the truth and the artistic characteristics of literature. Text: "On the Characteristics of Literature and Art" - Of course, this is not unrelated to the new changes in the Soviet literary and artistic circles.This year's scientific report meeting was very lively. Not only teachers provided papers, but students also set up special sessions.It has been held annually thereafter for many years.It should be said that this has promoted the scientific research of Fudan University.It's a pity that when class struggle is talked about every day and every month, it is virtually interrupted.Although it was restored later, it no longer has the grand occasion of that year. At that time, what made us particularly excited was that the leaders also proposed to encourage "independent thinking", which was unprecedented before.Originally, free thinking and an independent spirit were the basic requirements for intellectuals' creative work. Before 1949, Fudan students also wrote "Academic Independence, Freedom of Thought" into the school song.And the contention of a hundred schools of thought and independent thinking complement each other. Without independent thinking, how can there be contention of different opinions?Since a hundred schools of thought are to contend, of course independent thinking is required.However, under the situation of emphasizing the unity of thought and the formation of uniform public opinion for many years, this spirit has been lost. It is indeed inspiring to raise the question of independent thinking now.At that time, not only the leaders encouraged independent thinking, but the professors also showed their own experiences, emphasizing the importance of independent thinking for academic research. The "Fudan" school newspaper also published a large speech by Professor Guo Shaoyu on independent thinking, which was very convincing. However, the slogan of "independent thinking" is incompatible with the "tame tool theory".If you want to think independently, you cannot obey blindly; if you want to be a taming tool, you cannot think independently.The result of the conflict between the two, of course, is the victory of the "Taming the Tool Theory". Anyone who seriously engages in independent thinking will be beaten to death in the face of reality.