My era, 1979!

Besides reflecting life, what other function should Chapter 171 serve?
On the same day John Rodriguez's New York Times report was published, Kim Chieh-pu, a professor in the Department of East Asian Studies at the University of Iowa, contacted Hsiao Chien.

This sinologist, renowned for his research on Shen Congwen, clutched a newspaper clipping in his hand, his tone filled with urgency: "Xiao, I must read the original text of 'Red Silk'—the report says it 'deconstructs the narrative of war,' which is precisely the characteristic of modern Chinese literature that Western sinologists have overlooked."

Jeffrey C. Kinkley was a renowned American sinologist, historian, and translator.

They are not of Chinese descent or overseas Chinese, but rather native-born white Americans.

Jin Jiepu's connection with the study of Shen Congwen began in 1972 when he was studying at Harvard University.

At that time, he was recommended by his mentor to read Shen Congwen's "Border Town" and was attracted by the cultural texture and human depth of western Hunan in his writing. Through Xia Zhiqing's "History of Modern Chinese Literature" and the Republican-era documents in the Harvard Library, he discovered Shen Congwen's important position in the literary world in the 1930s and 1940s, which was in stark contrast to the marginalized position of him in domestic literary history.

This discovery became the initial motivation for his in-depth research on Shen Congwen.

Two years ago, he received his doctoral degree from Harvard University with his dissertation, "Chinese Society and Culture in Shen Congwen's Writings".

It can be said that he is among the most knowledgeable people about Chinese culture in the entire United States.

He was deeply curious: how could a modern work be written in such a China and with such a historical background?
This unscientific!

Xiao Qian was slightly taken aback. To be honest, he didn't know Xu Chengjun very well.

In February 1979, the China Writers Association officially rehabilitated Xiao Qian's name, which enabled him to become active again in the mainland literary circle.

In August of the same year, he visited the United States at the invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Nie Hualing, the hosts of the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa.

Therefore, his rise to fame in the country did not overlap with that of Xu Chengjun.

Even after telling the American reporter about "Xu Chengjun's 'Red Silk'", he felt a little regretful.

What if this person is a good-for-nothing?

Fortunately, he immediately read Xu Chengjun's "Red Silk" after the interview.

Recalling his hesitation when facing the American reporter three days ago, Xiao Qian couldn't help but chuckle.

At the time, he was worried that Xu Chengjun wouldn't be able to live up to the praise of "comparable to world-famous works".

The beauty of "Red Silk" lies not in "being comparable to others", but in "becoming oneself".

It possesses the "glimmer of humanity" in Shen Congwen's writing, but carries more weight of the times than "Border Town"; it has the "awakeness" in Lu Xun's writing, but carries more expectation for the future than "Diary of a Madman".

"If Mr. Wen were still in the literary world, he would probably be a standard-bearer for this young man."

At that moment, Xiao Qian picked up his pen and wrote down his evaluation of Wang Meng in the blank space, which was the same as Wang Meng's but from a different time and space.

"At 20, to be able to write about 'the weight of memory' and 'the warmth of the future' is truly remarkable. The beauty of 'Red Silk' lies in its 'impartiality'—it does not shy away from the pain of war, nor does it abandon the warmth of humanity; it does not deny the weight of the times, nor does it drown out the lightness of the individual. Chinese modern literature has finally found a new talent who dares to 'break the mold'."

Faced with Jin Jiepu's persistent questioning, Xiao Qian had no choice but to take out the original manuscript of "Qingming" that he had obtained from his students.

"Kinkley, to be honest, I don't know Xu Chengjun well enough. I can only give you his work."

Jin Jiepu rolled his eyes: "Shit, I knew it, but you said his work is comparable to a masterpiece!"

Xiao Qian: "I'm sure about that~"

I just saw it~
Jin Jiepu: "Alright, I'll go back and see what Xu Chengjun can write!"

Wait a minute~
"Holi shit! This author is only 20 years old! Xiao, even though you're older than me, you can't be kidding me!"

Xiao Qian: "Hey! Kinkley, seeing is believing. When did age become the sole measure of worth? Aren't there quite a few rising young writers in America lately?"

Kim Gee-bo: "It's hard for geniuses to emerge from your society! Never mind, I'll take a look at his work!"

As soon as I got home.

Jin Jiepu forgot about Xu Chengjun's "Red Silk" and waited until he finished preparing his lesson plans for the next day before looking at the cover of "Qingming" with a red silk design on his desk.

I picked up this book as if by some strange impulse.

'I must be crazy! To believe a 20-year-old Chinese person could write a world-famous masterpiece! Shit!'

As a result, he became more and more engrossed in watching it.

Can war really be written like this?

Although different from the descriptions of war by authors from Western countries,

For example, Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" exposes the absurdity of "using rules to bind soldiers" within the U.S. military.

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" presents the brutality of the Dresden bombing from the perspective of American soldier Billy's "time travel," fragmenting the events without heroic charges, only absurd scenes of soldiers picking up dentures in the ruins and hiding in slaughterhouse freezers to survive.

"Red Silk" still portrays heroes, but these heroes are flesh and blood.

Heroes are the individuals behind this war.

Heroes come from the people, and greatness comes from the ordinary!
Moreover, through the mirror perspective of Nguyen Van Hieu, the film presents the absurdity of "You helped us fight the United States in 1965, why are you fighting us now?"

We do not shy away from the nature of war, nor do we reject its core principles.

By using Eastern philosophy to portray the confusion, fear, and guilt of "ordinary people," it countered the "sublime" feeling of traditional war literature.

excellent work!
No, it really has the potential to become a masterpiece, and it's the best way for the world to understand the East.

This is modern Chinese literature.

Kim Gee-po felt like he'd gone mad! He actually wanted to study a 20-year-old!
fuck!

Where is my Shen Congwen?!

Why did it disappear from my mind?

For the next two weeks, Kim Gee-po practically lived in his office.

I'll bother Xiao Qian for no reason.

Ask him to explain some of the "China" content in the book.

While translating word by word using a dictionary, he also contacted the translation team in the Department of East Asian Studies and even asked Xiao Qian to help check unique Chinese terms such as "Third Front Construction" and "cat ear cave".

The translation used is "Unbroken Red Silk".

In January 1980, Jin Jiepu brought a 30-page first draft of his translation to the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in the United States.

At the "Modern Chinese Literature" sub-forum, he juxtaposed and analyzed "Red Silk" with Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms": "Hemingway writes about the escape in war, while Xu Chengjun writes about the confusion in war. The former is a 'Western heroic' resistance, while the latter is an 'Eastern ordinary person's' questioning. Both are equally profound!"

These words caught the eye of Martha Nassbaum, an editor at Columbia University Press, who was sitting in the audience.

She was in charge of the "Emerging Asian Writers" series and was worried about not being able to find contemporary Chinese works that could move Western readers.

After the meeting, Martha immediately stopped Kim Ge-po: "Professor, I want the complete translation!"
-
Back to May 12th.

Xu Chengjun had just hung up the phone with Chen Dengke when Chairman Chen enthusiastically told him about the excellent results Xu Chengjun had achieved in the second issue of "Qingming".

In its first week, the second issue of "Qingming" sold over 5 copies nationwide.

Subsequently, as word-of-mouth spread, especially with Wang Meng's public endorsement, the story gained traction.

The red silk seems poised to continue its fermentation.

Chairman Chen's words were full of excitement, as he expressed his belief that "your 'Red Silk' will become a nationwide sensation."

He made the right investment!
Setting things right is also a good thing, isn't it?
Before he could catch his breath, Chen Dengke called again.

It is said that Writers Publishing House, Xinhua Publishing House and Warriors Publishing House have all approached them, wanting to snatch the publishing rights for the standalone edition of "Red Silk", with very generous terms!
In 1979, Xu Chengjun was the first young writer to receive offers from three publishing houses. Among them, the Warrior Publishing House even promised that if he entrusted the printing to them, the military would directly order 5 copies for distribution throughout the army.

5 copies!

This is already a relatively good achievement for a writer with a certain level of fame.

In 1979, Ye Junjian's novel "Spark" was published by People's Literature Publishing House, with a print run of only 2.2 copies.

However, Xu Chengjun was not in a hurry to agree.

"Qingming" will need to be sold nationwide for a while longer before it can be published as a standalone book.

In the afternoon, Xu Chengjun accepted the invitation of Professor Xu Zhongyu of East China Normal University to give a lecture at the university.

As a writer.

Introduce creative experiences and share creative ideas.

Choose your own title.

Professor Xu Zhongyu and Xu Chengjun were originally just casual acquaintances, but JYB entrusted the Chinese Department of Huazhong Normal University to hold a training course for backbone teachers of the history of Chinese literary criticism in national universities. Professor Xu Zhongyu invited famous scholars from all over the country, such as Guo Shaoyu, Cheng Qianfan, Qian Zhonglian, Wu Zuxiang, and Wang Yuanhua, to talk about their areas of expertise and topics.

Wang Yuanhua recommended Xu Chengjun.

At the beginning of the month, Professor Xu Zhongyu personally visited Zhu Dongrun at Fudan University and invited Zhang Peiheng and Xu Chengjun to participate in the training course.

Professor Xu Zhongyu is the head of the Chinese Department and is 64 years old.

Some of his views actually differed from Zhu Dongrun's.

However, he and Xu Chengjun had a very pleasant conversation as soon as they met.

In front of Zhu Dongrun and Zhang Peiheng, Xu Zhongyu also mentioned some of his thoughts on literary and artistic creation.

Xu Zhongyu mentioned: "As the discussion on practice as the sole criterion for testing truth deepens, people will increasingly understand that everything in the subjective world, including literary and artistic works as a form of ideology, must be tested by practice, and the masses of people, who are most experienced in practice, are undoubtedly the most authoritative evaluators of literary and artistic works."

Zhu Dongrun and Zhang Peiheng were not very interested in this topic.

This is not their area of ​​research.

As his last disciple, Xu Chengjun naturally had to step forward.

Xu Chengjun: "Mr. Xu, you proposed that 'the masses are the authoritative judges of literature and art,' which is key to breaking cultural autocracy at present. But in the long run, 'practical testing' may not only be about 'whether the work conforms to the current aesthetic of the masses,' but also about 'whether the work can withstand the test of time.'"

For example, reflective works that were popular with the public in 1979 might, 20 years later, shift the focus of young people from 'historical memory' to the pursuit of 'individual value.' If these works only resonate with contemporary emotions without leaving room for deeper thought, they may lose their vitality in new contexts.

Xu Zhongyu frowned slightly, tapping his fingertips lightly on the table: "You have a point about iterating over time, but how can the public's evaluation keep up with these changes? We can't keep putting a work under constant scrutiny, can we?"

"This requires transforming public evaluation from passive feedback to active participation."

Xu Chengjun slowed down his speech: "Look at the present, the public mostly expresses their opinions through newspaper reviews and theater applause, but in the future there will be more specific channels: for example, setting up 'literary and artistic councils' in factories and schools, allowing workers and students to directly talk to creators, not only saying 'what they like,' but also 'what they need';
Creators might even live alongside the public, ensuring that the practices depicted in their works are themselves the result of public participation. In this way, the evaluation isn't about having the public grade the work after it's finished, but rather about the public and creators jointly completing the practice.

A glint flashed in Xu Zhongyu's eyes, and he leaned forward slightly: "Then what role do you think art should play in this kind of shared practice, besides reflecting life?"

"It is about empowering practice."

"Empowerment?"

Xu Chengjun said firmly: "In 1979, everyone was looking forward to reform and opening up, but many people were unfamiliar with 'reform'—farmers were afraid that the household responsibility system would be unstable, and workers were afraid of losing their jobs when factories were restructured. At that time, literature and art should not only write about 'how good reform is,' but also about the farmers' hesitation when they were struggling and the workers' efforts when they were transforming, so that the masses could see themselves in the works, understand that 'I am in the practice of reform,' and then dare to try a new life. At this time, the standard for 'masses' evaluation changed from 'how good it is' to 'whether it can help me live better in the times.'"

Xu Zhongyu was immediately impressed: "Comrade Xu's thinking is truly remarkable and far-sighted."

Xu Chengjun: "I am just standing on the shoulders of giants like you and our teacher."

Xu Zhongyu: "Comrade Chengjun, I solemnly invite you to participate in the training course next March, and at the same time, I invite you to give a lecture at Huazhong Normal University on the empowerment of literary and artistic works."

People praise each other.

When Xu Chengjun visited the campus of Huazhong Normal University, he brought along a little tagalong.

Xu Xiaomei's studies have been progressing well lately.

He is deaf to what is happening outside the window.

Xu Chengjun advocates for a balance between work and rest. Before the lecture, Professor Xu Zhongyu mentioned that there was an exchange performance by the Shanghai Conservatory of Music Symphony Orchestra at Huazhong Normal University that afternoon and gave him two tickets.

Xu Chengjun's first thought was to bring this girl out to see the world.

Staying cooped up in the library reading all the time isn't a good idea.

"Brother, what's so great about symphonies! I need to study! You can just bring your wife, why did you call me!"

"I haven't seen you for almost two weeks. Stop burying yourself in your studies all the time, or Mom will say I'm mistreating you!"

"Oh no! That can't be!"

"Alright, you're already out here, so listen to me~ Do me a favor, okay?"

Xu Xiaomei pouted: "Your face is nothing compared to my dream of fashion design!"

Xu Xiaomei kept chewing her tongue.

Over there, Guo Yu led Sun Yu to the east gate to pick up Xu Chengjun.

Sun Yu met Xu Chengjun with Xu Zhongyu; he was among the first batch of graduate students in the history of Chinese literary criticism under Xu Zhongyu's tutelage.

Speaking of which, Professor Xu Zhongyu pioneered the system of "literary works can replace graduation theses" in September this year, which has cultivated writers such as Zhao Lihong and Sun Yu and given rise to the "Huashi Writers Group".

At the beginning of the year, Sun Yu completed the short story "Young Friends", which was published in the third issue of Harvest in 1979. He was able to enter the school smoothly because of this work.

Her experience is somewhat similar to that of Xu Chengjun. She had only heard of Xu Chengjun before, but had never met him.

Guo Yu is an associate professor in the Chinese Department of East China Normal University, a researcher of Ming and Qing literature and literary theory, and a renowned scholar of "Dream of the Red Chamber".

He was unaware of Xu Zhongyu's arrangements and was simply drafted into the army at the last minute.

Xu Zhongyu was busy and couldn't come to pick him up in person.

Sun Yu's qualifications are not comparable to Xu Chengjun's; bringing in a 46-year-old associate professor would seem more suitable.

Chinese society has very clear rules regarding interpersonal relationships.

Sun Yong was more excited than Guo Yushi.

Two figures approached from a distance. The man in the light gray jacket was tall and slender, followed by a girl with a ponytail.

He immediately leaned close to Guo Yushi's ear: "Professor Guo, it looks like it should be Mr. Xu!"

Guo Yushi nodded and stepped forward to greet him with a gentle smile: "This must be Comrade Xu Chengjun, right? I am Guo Yushi from the Chinese Department, and I am an associate professor. Director Xu Zhongyu had an emergency meeting and couldn't get away, so he specially asked me to pick you up."

He reached out his hand, his gaze falling on Xu Chengjun with a hint of curiosity. Upon seeing him today, Xu Chengjun appeared more composed than he had imagined.

Xu Chengjun quickly grasped his hand with just the right amount of force: "Professor Guo, you're too kind! I should be the one to pay you a visit, since you've made such a special trip for me. I've often heard people talk about your research on 'Dream of the Red Chamber,' especially your article last year, 'A Critique of Subjective Idealism in 'Dream of the Red Chamber' Research.' I've read it several times. Your proposed 'objective interpretation of the text' truly hits the nail on the head regarding the research of previous years."

Upon hearing this, Guo Yushi's eyes lit up.

When facing a literary research expert, what is the best form of flattery?

Of course, it's just experts chatting amongst themselves!
(End of this chapter)