Chapter 36 2. Write conclusions at "snail speed"

At the beginning of the new year, Guo Xiaochuan, who had just served as the deputy secretary of the party group, received a difficult task. He had to write a review conclusion for Chen Qixia and Ding Ling.It's a thankless job Guo Xiaochuan said in "My Thought Examination" on November 25, 1959 that after the investigation of Ding and Chen was basically completed, "there was a problem of who would write the conclusions of Ding and Chen's problems. Comrade Ding Ning wrote it, but she firmly refused; Comrade Lin Mohan wanted to write it, but he refused to write it in order to avoid complicating the issue (Li Zhilian and others attacked him). So she asked me to write it, and I readily agreed. gone."

On the second day after New Year's Day, Guo Xiaochuan spent a whole day reading Chen Qixia's materials at home. He just got involved in the situation and couldn't get a complete impression at once.The next day he went to see Liu Baiyu. Liu Baiyu's conversation generally said: Ding and Chen still made serious mistakes, which cannot be completely overturned. On the 9th, Guo Xiaochuan said, "This thing really stumps me." I didn't expect it to be so difficult.Since then, he often suffered from headaches, insomnia, and was in a restless state. At four o'clock in the afternoon on the 10th, he began to write and finally wrote the first paragraph. On the 12th, he couldn’t finish writing for a whole day. Before going to sleep, he read Chekhov’s novel "Sergeant Prishibeev", which described a retired soldier with many rules and disciplines and good deeds. Guo Xiaochuan felt that "He is very similar to Chen Qixia", suddenly found the feeling from Chekhov.The next day was Sunday, and he felt a little clearer. He continued to write until 10:30 in the evening. He wrote a total of 2,000 words and finished the most difficult paragraph."It's the speed of a snail," he said in self-deprecating words.

January 31st is the first day of the first month of the lunar calendar. Guo Xiaochuan has been writing his conclusion for a whole month. As a talented poet and a man in his prime, he made a difficult delivery conclusion painful.In an irritable but helpless mood, he ushered in the Ding You Year of the lunar calendar. Three days off for the Spring Festival, plus a Sunday, a total of four days of rest, Guo Xiaochuan hardly played at all, and wrote at home every day, he felt a little sorry for his wife and children, but finally wrote the first draft, which was not Chen Qixia's The conclusion, but the long poem "Deep Valley" of four hundred lines.

Guo Xiaochuan finally wrote the first draft of Chen Qixia's conclusion on February 5th, and it took another two days to revise it. He finally finished it at 10:30pm on February 10th. He was very happy and immediately showed it to Lin Mohan.Before Guo Xiaochuan was transferred to the Writers Association, he worked with Lin Mohan in the Literature and Art Department of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. He had a good relationship with him. He admired Lin Mohan's level and was willing to consult with him in case of problems. On the morning of the 14th, Chen Qixia's conclusion was printed out.

But the first draft of this conclusion was not adopted. The drafting, revision, and finalization of Ding and Chen's conclusions were all carried out under the auspices of Zhou Yang, with regular participants including Shao Quanlin, Lin Mohan, Liu Baiyu, and Guo Xiaochuan. At 2:30 p.m. on February 15, Zhou Yang, Shao Quanlin, Lin Mohan, Liu Baiyu, and Guo Xiaochuan held a meeting in Zhou Yang's office in the new building of the Central Propaganda Department to discuss Chen Qixia's draft conclusion.At this time, the Central Propaganda Department had just moved from Zhongnan Haili to the newly built office building in Shatan.Guo Xiaochuan later recalled: "The content of the draft, I still remember: first, Ding and Chen took off the hat of 'anti-Party clique', and described their 'mistakes' as 'sectarianism, freedom second, to admit that the struggle in 1955 was excessive, and to 'apology' to Ding and Chen." "They did not agree with certain formulations in my first draft. Zhou Yang It seems to be dissatisfied with the statement of "apology", and Shao Quanlin also "has some opinions on the wording". Their central meaning is: it is not enough to say that they are "sectarian, liberal, and independent from the party". In particular, we can't "make an apology" to them, but we have to raise the issue a bit more seriously. At that time, I explained a little bit, meaning: since the label of "anti-Party clique" is going to be removed, it can only be called "sectarianism" ', 'liberalism', I can't think of any other hats. It seems that at this moment, someone thought of a formulation of 'sectarian alliance for independence from the party', and Zhou Yang also agreed." Guo Xiaochuan said , this formulation may also have been thought up by Zhou Yang.

What follows is endless revisions. Guo Xiaochuan started this drudgery on February 17th (Sunday). He felt "extremely difficult and annoying at the same time. Especially mentally exhausted. I have no interest in this job at all. This is simply It's a punishment." The difficulty for Guo Xiaochuan is that there are differences in the determination of the facts and the delineation of the nature of the Ding and Chen issues. "middle.Guo Xiaochuan is caught in the middle and it is difficult to be a man. At 7:30 p.m. on February 28, Shao Quanlin, Lin Mohan, Liu Baiyu, and Guo Xiaochuan went to Zhou Yang again to discuss the revised Chen Qixia's conclusion.This time, several people agreed.Guo Xiaochuan proposed that he did not participate in the 1955 enlarged meeting of the Party Committee of the Writers Association and did not understand the situation. He hoped that Liu Baiyu and Lin Mohan could participate in the work of checking materials and revising conclusions. This opinion was approved.Guo Xiaochuan was very happy that someone finally shouldered this difficult burden with him.The meeting lasted until 11:30.

March 3rd was a Sunday, and Lin Mohan revised Chen Qixia's conclusion draft, with some major changes.Guo Xiaochuan checked it against his revised manuscript, and happily reported it to Liu Baiyu.They met at Zhou Yang's in the morning, and several of them revised it together again, forming the second draft of Chen Qixia's conclusion. In terms of formulation, the "anti-Party small clique" was changed to "sectarian alliance for independence from the party."After Zhou Yang came out, Guo Xiaochuan hurriedly sent it to the typing room, and sent it to the relevant leaders of the Central Propaganda Department and the Writers Association the next morning for comments.

At 9 a.m. on March 30, the Chinese Writers Association held a party group meeting to discuss Chen Qixia's conclusions.Xuefeng proposed that a general conclusion on the "Ding-Chen Anti-Party Clique" should be made first, and a clear statement on the rights and wrongs of the 1955 party group expansion meeting should be made before Chen Qixia's conclusion can be discussed.Guo Xiaochuan felt: This actually requires Zhou Yang and Liu Baiyu to admit their mistakes first.The party group meeting lasted until 12 o'clock, but it was not finished.After the meeting, Guo Xiaochuan reported his opinions to Liu Baiyu, and Liu Baiyu immediately came up with an idea: go to Zhang Jichun and use him to seal Feng Xuefeng and the others.At 5:00 p.m., they went to Zhang Jichun's place together. For Zhang Jichun's opinion, it was better to work out Chen Qixia's conclusion first, and then talk to him after revising it, and then bring it to the research group for discussion.Zhang Jichun also said: "In the future, the specific work will be done by the party group." This means that the research group headed by Zhang Jichun will withdraw.Zhang Jichun was originally reluctant to take care of this matter. Although he was the team leader, he did not participate more in the entire inspection process. He understood the complexity here.

On the morning of April 3rd, the meeting of the Party Group of the Chinese Writers Association continued, and the opinions were relatively unanimous. They agreed with this conclusion in principle, and only proposed some text revisions.Guo Xiaochuan was very happy. The next day he revised it himself, and then gave the manuscript to Qin Zhaoyang, a member of the party group, to revise it, and then submitted it to the party branch for discussion. On Monday, April 8, at 2:30 p.m., the general party branch meeting discussed Chen Qixia's conclusions.At eight o'clock the next night, Shao, Liu, Lin, and Guo went to Zhou Yang's meeting again. Guo Xiaochuan complained endlessly, and it should be over as soon as possible.Zhou Yang said that he couldn't drag it on for so long, and made one final revision according to the general branch's opinion, and then met with Chen Qixia himself.Ding Ling's conclusions were also discussed at the meeting, and an outline was discussed.On the 10th, Guo Xiaochuan reluctantly changed at home for another day, and went to print as soon as he went to work on the 11th.So far, this conclusion has finally been finalized, and it took Guo Xiaochuan three months of hard work.

At 3:00 pm on April 16, Party Secretary Shao Quanlin came forward to talk with Chen Qixia. Chen Qixia had many opinions on this conclusion, basically disagreed with it, and "sharply attacked the drafters." Regardless of whether Chen Qixia agrees or disagrees, his conclusion has come to an end, and Guo Xiaochuan is going to turn to Ding Ling. After Chen Qixia's conclusion was finalized, Ding Ling's conclusion became much smoother to write.Guo Xiaochuan later recalled, "Because Chen Qixia's conclusion has already set the tone, Ding Ling's conclusion can be prepared in the same way. On April 11, Chen Qixia's conclusion was delivered to print. On April 12, 13, and 14, only three days I wrote Ding Ling's conclusions as soon as possible, and printed them on April 15. On April 23, I asked Zhang Hai and Cui Yi for their opinions on the draft of Ding Ling's conclusions. They all felt that the materials were trivial. On the evening of April 24, I made another revision based on their comments."

On April 14, "Wen Wei Po" published a report by Yao Fangzao, a Beijing-based reporter: "News from the Writer: Ding Ling Goes to Sanggan River Again", the article said: Ding Ling "decided to go to Sanggan River soon to see what she wrote. Familiar, the protagonists that she wrote in the novel." Apparently, Ding Ling's trip is to continue writing "In the Frost Days".But she failed to make the trip, perhaps because her conclusion was about to be finalized, and the party group of the Writers Association did not agree with her to leave, or perhaps she herself missed this matter very much, and was not at ease to leave at this critical juncture. Although she did not leave Beijing, Ding Ling was interviewed by reporters at home, including "China Youth" and "Literary News". These reporters all published articles.She also received students from the Chinese Department of Beijing Normal University, and emphasized her opposition to formulaic, conceptual and unhealthy literary criticism in her creation.The weather is warming up. On April 16, the highest temperature in Beijing reached 24 degrees Celsius. She couldn’t even wear a sweater. Spring has come. Ding Ling felt that the sun was getting stronger and the sky was getting brighter, and her small yard was tanned. It was warm inside, and the two Xifu Begonias had already bloomed pink petals. Guo Xiaochuan was getting more and more busy and tired. On April 10th, Liu Baiyu left Beijing for inspection, and 10 days later, Shao Quanlin also went to Zhejiang with Ge Qin to preach the "Double Hundred" policy and mobilize great publicity.Before Shao Quanlin left Beijing, he explained three tasks to Guo Xiaochuan, the third of which was the "Ding and Chen problem".Of the three chief and deputy secretaries of the party group, only he, the third in command, is left to preside over the work at home.He is also the Secretary-General of the Writers Association, integrating many complicated affairs. On the day Shao Quanlin left Beijing on April 21, Guo Xiaochuan wrote in his diary: "In the evening, I was depressed. Shao and Liu both left Beijing, and the work was heavy. How to do things well during this period requires more brains. Yes. I had to let go of my original plan to write poems.” On the afternoon of April 24, he revised Ding Ling’s conclusion again, and the revision was completed at 6:00 pm, and Ding Ling’s verification conclusion was finalized. "Conclusions on Comrade Ding Ling's Error Check Results (Draft)" first admitted: "The results of the investigation prove that some of the examples presented in the enlarged meeting of the party group and the "Report" do not conform to the facts. The main judgment—the small anti-Party clique headed by Ding Ling and centered on her and Chen Qixia—is also insufficiently grounded and cannot be established.” The "Conclusion" affirmed Ding Ling's achievements: "Comrade Ding Ling has been engaged in revolutionary literary activities for a long time and has achieved remarkable achievements. During the Anti-Japanese War, she was one of the important writers of our party. After the liberation of the whole country, her works took place. With a wider influence, she herself has won a greater reputation at home and abroad; after 1949, she took on the responsibility of the literary circles and became the leader inside and outside the party of the Association for Literature and Art (and the Writers Association later) One of the people, the editor-in-chief of "Literary News" and the director of the Institute of Literature. During this period, she also did a lot of valuable literary creation activities and work beneficial to the party. The "Literary News" she directly presided over And the Institute of Literature, thanks to the efforts of her and all comrades, the work has also achieved results." The "Conclusion" then used a "but", pointing out that Ding Ling's mistakes were mainly arrogance and complacency and a sectarian attitude.It is said that Ding Ling's pride and complacency are firstly manifested in her "sectarian contemptuous attitude" towards Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, Lao She, Zhao Shuli, Zhou Libo and other writers; Ding Ling's sectarian attitude is mainly manifested in her rejection of Zhou Yang and her protection of Chen Qixia. The "Conclusion" describes the "examples and judgments that do not conform to the facts" in the "Report" of the Party Group of the Chinese Writers Association in 1955. There are seven main points: "1. According to the facts found out above, although Comrade Ding Ling made mistakes of sectarianism, the relationship between Comrade Ding Ling and Comrade Chen Qixia also lacked principle, but her mistakes have not yet developed to the level of anti-Party small Therefore, they should not be said to be small anti-Party cliques. Also, the "Report" stated that Comrade Ding Ling's anti-Party behavior was consistent, which is not true. "Second, the "Report" said: There are also some party members and writers who, at certain times, also formed an alliance with Ding Ling's anti-party group; all kinds of small undercurrents almost all lead to Ding Ling. There converged into a huge current of anti-Party. No. 16, Duofu Lane (Ding Ling's residence) became a special command organization above the organization of the Writers' Association.' According to this investigation, some party members and writers at that time The liberal style of work is relatively serious, and Comrade Ding Ling's liberal style of work and sectarian sentiments have an impact on these comrades and on the unity of the party; ' is an exaggeration of the facts. It is also unfounded to say that 'No. 16 Duofuo Lane (Ding Ling's residence) has become a special command organization above the organization of the Writers' Association'. "Third, the "Report" said that Comrade Ding Ling once "spread dissatisfaction with the Central Propaganda Department among the students of the Institute of Literature, saying that the Central Propaganda Department does not pay attention to the cultivation of young authors, and only Ding Ling personally cares about this matter." According to investigations However, Comrade Ding Ling never spread such words among students. "Fourth, the "Report" believes that Comrade Ding Ling and others 'completely discredited the report on the Second Wendai Conference approved by the Central Committee, and the "Literary News" they presided over did not organize any articles to publicize the spirit and documents of the Second Wendai Conference '. According to investigations, Comrade Ding Ling once expressed dissatisfaction with the crude criticism of the "Literary Daily" at the meeting of the Central Propaganda Department, but she had left the "Literary Daily" at that time. After she left the "Literary Daily", she did not Did not directly interfere with the work of the "Literary Newspaper". "5. The "Report" mentioned that Comrade Ding Ling once "pretended to rely on the words of the central comrades, saying that the positions of the representative writers of modern China have been scheduled, and they are Lu Xun, Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, and Ding Ling." According to this investigation, this is a rumored mistake Comrade Ding Ling did not say such a thing. Also, the "Report" said, "In 1953, when the Central Institute of Literature entertained German writers, they actually combined Ding Ling's photos with those of Lu Xun, Guo Moruo, and Mao Dun." Hang them up side by side.' According to the investigation, this fact did exist, but it was not what Comrade Ding Ling meant. When Comrade Ding Ling knew about it, she immediately stopped it. "6. In the "Report", Comrade Ding Ling said to some young writing cadres: As long as a person writes a book, no one can defeat him. With a book, he has status and everything. With immortality." She once "promoted pride to the students: young people must be proud, and pride can have personality and success!" After this investigation, Comrade Ding Ling did often persuade young writers to write a good book. At the same time, Comrade Ding Ling has a sense of pride and complacency, which has influenced them in contact with the students of the Institute of Literature, but Comrade Ding Ling did not say the above-mentioned words. "Seventh, the "Report" believes that 'Comrade Ding Ling has always been a passive observer of the campaign launched by the party to criticize Hu Feng'. According to investigations, Comrade Ding Ling did not express any attitude at the beginning of this campaign, but by After the exposure of the Feng Counter-revolutionary Group, she once wrote an article against Hu Feng in the newspaper, so she cannot be considered as a 'passive bystander'. "In addition to the above points, there are still some examples in the "Report" and the supplementary statements when conveying this "Report" that do not fully conform to the facts; some judgments are excessive and inappropriate; all should be based on the aforementioned inspection results In addition, there are some examples and judgments that have not been fully proved in the investigation and cannot be corrected accurately. Here it must be pointed out that there was a lack of fact-based investigation on the handling of Comrade Ding Ling’s mistakes. Research and dispassionate analysis of flaws and mistakes." However, Ding Ling and Chen Qixia's conclusions were not discussed and approved by the Central Propaganda Department, nor did they meet with them personally.In this regard, Li Zhilian’s explanation is: “The concluding draft revised by Zhou Yang has not had time to be discussed at the meeting of the special group and the Central Propaganda Department. "Instructions" was issued. This conclusion was not announced, nor did I meet with the person, but some people know that the conclusion of the 'anti-Party clique' has been rejected." Guo Xiaochuan said: "After April 15, Ding Ling, Chen Qixia The issue was not made public immediately. What is the reason? It seems that there are the following points: First, Liu Baiyu and Shao Quanlin left Beijing one after another. Liu Baiyu left around April 10 and returned at the end of April and early May; They left after the 22nd and came back on May 12th. While they were away, they did not deal with this issue; secondly, after they came back, they were busy with 'rectification' and mobilization for 'mingfang'." Check Guo Xiaochuan's diary in 1957, Liu Baiyu is He left on the 10th, and Shao Quanlin left Beijing on the 21st, which was Sunday.