most of the creations of 19th century writers were in people and the world; most of the creations of 20th century writers extended to the text itself. It is for this reason that we also see that to measure the great contributions of the great writers of the 19th century, we cannot fail to examine how many and how unique characters he contributed in the character gallery of literature, and how universal these characters are in the world. While examining the great writers of the 20th century, although we should also examine his contributions in the Literary Character Gallery, we should focus more on his contribution to the creation of texts. Just as “Ulysses” was for Joyce, Bloom’s existence as a literary character must not be ignored, but what is more literary is “Ulysses”‘s textual approach to “stream-of-consciousness” writing great contribution. So did Woolf and Proust. Another example is Borges, in terms of characters, no matter how much he despised Tolstoy’s long speeches, rants, and even the cumbersomeness and complexity of all novels, in terms of characters, Borge None of the characters written by Tolstoy can compare with the immortal characters written by Tolstoy. However, the unique narrative created by Borges shifts literature from stories, characters, and reality to imagination, labyrinth, metaphysics, and even the universe and philosophy. If Tolstoy could read it, he didn’t know what he should do. The comments and emotions of the people, will they ask people in horror: “Is this also called a novel?!” However, after the 20th century, it is indeed a novel, and it is also an extraordinary and great novel. This extends to Marquez’s “One Hundred Years of Solitude”. The ups and downs and vastness of the story, with more than one hundred characters, can really be compared with “War and Peace”. However, in terms of the profundity and complexity of characters and human nature, how can it be the same as the nobles, women, generals, soldiers and even countless ordinary little people in the four major families in “War and Peace”? But on this basis, we can definitely not say that “War and Peace” is higher or greater than “One Hundred Years of Solitude”. The greatness of the two is incomparable. There is absolutely no comparison with anyone greater. Just think about the way and structure of the narrative in One Hundred Years of Solitude. Is there anything in War and Peace? The semi-causal relationship between people, the world, and narrative stories (refers to the fact that there is a causal connection in the plot logic of literary relationships, but the cause and effect are not equal to each other, or the cause is greater than the effect, or the effect is greater than the cause. Literary connection.—Original Note) Method, is there in War and Peace? The contribution of “War and Peace” to the understanding of human beings is unparalleled. The contribution of “One Hundred Years of Solitude” to the understanding of literature and text creation is completely absent from “War and Peace”.
This is the great divide between 19th and 20th century literature. We can’t imagine what it would have been like to write in the nineteenth century without a writer’s sense of humanity and a deep concern for people. But in the 20th century, these things can sometimes be discarded or temporarily forgotten. In many of Calvino’s novels, the characters are the ships of the narrative. They are only responsible for crossing the narrative from one shore to the other, and are not responsible for taking readers into the interior and soul of the characters. “If On a Winter Night, A Traveler” is especially true. It can be called a masterpiece of textual narration, but the whole story’s understanding of people is so shallow that the river can’t bury the ankles of those who cross the river, and even dry, The danger of cessation, but this does not prevent it from becoming a representative writer and work of Calvino and the 20th century.
Now, to bring the issue back to Kafka and his writing, back to what we were talking about in the first place. When we discuss the main focus of 20th century literature on text creation and the 19th century literature’s focus on the discovery and creation of people, we find that Kafka has geniusly unified the two in his in literature. Whether it is the creation of texts, or the discovery and writing of people, he is relatively perfect. In the method of writing, he “unconsciously” completed the narrative of “zero causality” in the narrative, and used the “black hole of literature” to make up for the logical gaps and broken links in the story. However, in the discovery and understanding of people, K, Gregor and “artists”, etc., are not disgraceful to the literary mission of the 19th century and even earlier – a profound understanding of people and the world. So, he is the beginning of the twentieth century literature, a real milestone in the century that started the literature from one century to another. It is precisely because of this that all writers see what they need from Kafka, and regard him as a treasury of creation, and each writer has the key to open that treasury, each takes what he needs and voluntarily claims it. It seems to be inexhaustible and inexhaustible. This also led to the emergence of numerous 20th century Kafka’s latecomers. Among these latecomers, thousands, year after year, make this huge team of writers divided into three types, or at least three distinct types:
First, down-to-earth, real and solid learners— —Or really enlightened works, such as Mary Dalie Sek’s “The Sow Girl”, etc. In this series, there are many works in the world that we have not read and some imitators in China .
2. Those who have been enlightened and surpassed or strive to surpass. Such as Beckett and his “Waiting for Godot”, Marquez and his “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, Calvino and his “The Viscount Divided in Half” and “The Baron in the Tree”, as well as the Japanese writer Abe Kobo and his “Box Man” and “Sand Girl”, Chinese writer Mo Yan and his “Life and Death Fatigue” and so on. Let me say a few more words here. The narration in “Life and Death Fatigue” about the reincarnation of human beings, people turning into pigs, cows, and dogs, comes entirely from Chinese Buddhism, and does not seem to have anything to do with Kafka. But after your work is published, it has been separated from the conception, seed and soil of your original creation, and handed over to readers and commentators. Such an analysis gives people the right to discuss and analyze literature, and has nothing to do with the writer himself and his work. What’s more, the relationship between the writing of Chinese writers and Kafka is the same as the relationship with Latin American literature. There are innumerable, inextricable, and even some connections, which even the writers themselves do not expect or know. When the seeds of Kafka’s absurdity take root in our own ink bottle, we will think that it is the growth of the roots and shoots of the native water, and forget the spread and diffusion of alienation and absurdity in 20th century literature. In any case, we cannot escape. Kafka’s initial sowing and primary breeding.
3. Seeing the light of the lighthouse from Kafka, but walking in the backlight, sailing alone toward the dark place, to create a literary path and route of one’s own. For example, Borges and Nabokov deeply admired Kafka, but did not really try and learn from their own works. A writing distance, coldly isolated in the middle of each other, for fear of having an eager connection or closeness to that distance. In this regard, Borges is the poster child for this. Independent creation, so that Kafka is still Kafka, Borges, after all, Borges, so that the difference between each other is completely different, thousands of miles away.
These three types of people who write in association with Kafka, the results of their writers and works are self-evident and obvious to all. The first is that we don’t need to talk about anything, so we stop here, but because of this, I revisit and review the writing of Abe Kobo, which I used to love so much. His writing is unique in Japanese modern literature, its value is irreplaceable, and it has considerable influence in the world. But today, when the times have changed and the years have moved, when we look at these works again, there will always be a little bit of doubt in our hearts – this doubt actually started from my doubts about myself. We did not deviate from (escape) Kafka like Borges, but we cannot surpass Kafka in writing, so when we put the work in a larger and broader context, the creative value that can be left behind is not How much is there for reference and enlightenment? Everyone knows that the only value of literature is to create! Whether it is thought, language, characters, narrative and structure, without creation, there is no value. Value is creation, just like one is one, two is two, the phoenix will never be equal to the chicken. The vitality of literature, that is, the creativity and creativity of literature, is like the value of chicken and phoenix cannot be confused. When literature loses its creativity, it also loses its literariness. It is only in what circumstances do we discuss these matters: whether to discuss them in a closed cage, or in a more open and expansive world. It is in this sense that I doubt myself, and gradually I suspect the Abe public housing that has long been rated in Japan. This suspicion started from the relationship between Anbe and Kafka, and when he placed Anbe on the stage of world literature, and after letting him leave the East and the Japanese cultural context, he surpassed Kafka. Still staying on the literary stage built by Kafka.
From this point of view, no matter what, “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is beyond or beyond the creation of Kafka and has a new creation in Latin America. “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is a work that has been criticized and annoying by Chinese writers and writers all over the world. Anyone who talks about it seems to have read other writers and works other than that. Márquez is in our mouths like chewed gum that seems to have no taste at all – but when you spit it out, you will find that the last taste that is almost gone is also dusty Lovingly. In the meantime, it has no choice but to talk about it – to be honest, although Marquez famously said after reading “The Metamorphoses”, we found that in addition to his early short stories, he It’s all trying to keep his characters from being Gregor, all making themselves the creators and as much transcendence as possible among the latecomers, not simply enlightened imitators. And in the end, he did make Gregor’s “zero causality” become a “semi-causal” with great creativity in his writing. The gaps and “black holes” in the literary chain left by Kafka in “The Metamorphosis” and “The Castle” were filled by Latin American history and reality. From this point of view, we have to admit that in the first half of the 20th century, literature strayed too far from the form and creation of history and reality, and it was Latin American writers who brought this deviation back to the track of history and reality. . Make the form and content become the two wheels and wings of literature again. It is precisely because of this that “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, which is not easy to read, has been accepted as widely as scriptures, the public, and even popular all over the world, and it is no longer difficult to understand.
In the beginning, when I recalled the literary festival in Paris, most of the writers answered in unison that the work he admired most was “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, and it was naturally not difficult to understand.
Now, let’s talk about Kafka’s writing posture, state and attitude. In other words, he faced the inner situation of his own literature. The situation we are talking about here is a writer’s inner situation facing literature, not a writer’s life experience. When a writer faces his literary inner situation, he decides what kind of works he writes. Teacher Liu Zaifu often said that the “literary state” of a writer’s self has some meaning in this regard. If it were him, he could clearly and theoretically explain the issue. And I, can only try to discuss this from feeling.
To emphasize this again – we are talking about a writer’s inner situation in the face of “his literature”, not in the face of his fate or in real time as it emerges. Of course, every writer’s writing is a part of his life, destiny, or even more important. This is another topic that is not in our discussion. From this opening, we can see that for some writers, beheading, exile, imprisonment, rightist, reformation, separation of life and death, ups and downs, ups and downs of fate are like boats and drifting bottles in the turbulent ocean and rivers, all the time. There is a possibility of breaking and disappearing, but after his fate is calm – although he is a writer, he may not be able to write a “Dead House Notes” and “From the Deep” [“From the Deep” is a The English poet Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) wrote a masterpiece of prose to his lover in prison. ——Original Note], but for other writers, such as Kafka, the ups and downs of fate are not as good as Wilde, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Bulgakov, Gross Man [Grossman (1905-1964), Soviet writer, represented as “Life and Destiny”. –Original Note], Pasternak, etc. In terms of the ups and downs and unpredictability of life and fate, any of the Chinese right-wing writers is more unbearable and disturbing than Kafka’s fate. But when I go back to my works, there are indeed too many writers, suffering from fate and ordinary works, and cannot write the soul of human suffering. This is due to talent, but also due to a writer’s inner situation when facing “my literature”. Some writers, when facing literature, are facing “my destiny” rather than my literature. This is the common situation and difficulty in writing of a whole generation of Chinese writers who have gone through right-wing, decentralization, reformation, prison and other hardships, that is, it is difficult for literature to transcend life itself and personal destiny. Even more writers, after suffering, do not even have the courage to recall, they only want to forget, rather than face. There is no face, and how can we go beyond? We all know that Wilde wrote the immortal “From the Deep” in prison, and Dostoevsky wrote a series of masterpieces after going through exile and “being shot” after “accompanying death”. This illustrates the point that literature is ultimately a product of emotional experience, not necessarily in direct proportion to the suffering, joy, ups and downs, and peaceful warmth experienced by the writer. On the other hand, life experiences and emotional experiences that are as light as white water do not necessarily mean that they cannot write great works. Proust is a typical example of this. Kafka is also a typical example of this. How can we emphasize Kafka’s panic and shrinkage in the presence of his tall father today, even using his earlier short story “The Verdict” as an example to illustrate his Everything in the writing stems from a sensitivity to his father’s authority, from the inverse relationship between his frailty and his tall, domineering father; no matter how much we stress today, Kafka’s experience of frustration with several of the women he was with , both of which are in direct proportion to his sensitivity and inner richness, and neither can explain that the fate of a writer and a certain kind of unique creative artistic temperament in his works are a ratio of equality or who is greater than who. relation. About Kafka’s talent, about Kafka’s sensitivity, about Kafka’s family relationships and his frustration with several women, there is no doubt that they are all sources of emotion and experience in his writing. But why are so many people who have rich personal emotional experiences and experiences unable to write works with transcendent significance? For example, an entire generation—dozens or hundreds of Chinese rightist writers—at this time, we can speak purely from the perspective of talent and talent, but we cannot fully speak. Can we say that all the writers of our generation in China are not talented? Without talent, didn’t they also write one after another that cannot be ignored in Chinese literature? But when comparing them with Kafka, a problem arises. Kafka’s experience and experience, compared with their experience and experience, can be said to be insignificant, a small bridge meets a big river. The waves of their fate are enough to knock down any pier and pier on the river of Kafka’s fate. However, Kafka wrote works that transcend all the limitations of life and destiny, while among the entire generation of Chinese writers, dozens or hundreds of writers, very few people can write works that transcend the experience of personal destiny. Is it a work that cannot be ignored in Chinese literature? But when comparing them with Kafka, a problem arises. Kafka’s experience and experience, compared with their experience and experience, can be said to be insignificant, a small bridge meets a big river. The waves of their fate are enough to knock down any pier and pier on the river of Kafka’s fate. However, Kafka wrote works that transcend all the limitations of life and destiny, while among the entire generation of Chinese writers, dozens or hundreds of writers, very few people can write works that transcend the experience of personal destiny. Is it a work that cannot be ignored in Chinese literature? But when comparing them with Kafka, a problem arises. Kafka’s experience and experience, compared with their experience and experience, can be said to be insignificant, a small bridge meets a big river. The waves of their fate are enough to knock down any pier and pier on the river of Kafka’s fate. However, Kafka wrote works that transcend all the limitations of life and destiny, while among the entire generation of Chinese writers, dozens or hundreds of writers, very few people can write works that transcend the experience of personal destiny.
Taking “In Exile” as an example, let’s read this passage:
… When the prisoner was lying on the “bed” and the “bed” began to vibrate, the “rake” fell down on his body. It was self-adjusting so that the needle tip just touched his skin; as soon as it touched, the steel band hardened into a rigid steel bar. Then the work begins. A lay bystander cannot tell the difference between the various punishments at all. It all looks the same when operating “rake”. As it vibrated, the tip of the needle pierced the skin on the body that vibrated with the “bed”. In order to facilitate the observation of the specific process of execution, the “rake” is made of glass. Attaching the needle to the glass was technically a problem, but after many trials we overcame this difficulty. There is no difficulty for us that we cannot overcome, do you understand? Now, anyone can see the words carved on the body through the glass. Would you like to take a closer look at these needles?
Did you see that? The Rake began to write; after it had carved the draft on the man’s back, the layer of coarse cotton turned, slowly turning the man’s body over, so that the Rake had new places to write. At this time, the part of the fresh meat on which the characters are written is wrapped in coarse cotton, which is specially used to stop the bleeding, so that the “rake” can deepen the characters on the thorns. Then the body continued to rotate, and the teeth on the side of the “rake” ripped the coarse cotton from the wound and threw it into the pit, so that the “rake” continued to work. In this way, for a full twelve hours, the words were carved deeper and deeper. For the first six hours, the prisoner was still alive, just in agony. Two hours later, the felt mouthpiece was removed because the prisoner could no longer scream. And here, in a pot heated by an electric grill at the bedside, some hot rice porridge will be poured. If the prisoner wants to eat, he can lick as much as he likes with his tongue. No one ever misses this opportunity. I have a lot of experience, but I don’t remember a missed one. (Quoted from Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”, translated by Li Wenjun. – Original Note)
The “rake” mentioned here is the knife or needle in the specific killing process on the “killing machine” in “In Exile”. We have no way of knowing how, in 1914, Kafka wrote his earliest and most important novels, “The Proceedings” and “In Exile.” But reading his works, we can see that novels like “In Exile” are not impeccably perfect in his life’s writing, but they are impeccably abnormal, completely different from the left-to-right and the south of the 19th century writing. . The absurdity, alienation, fear, and even the tireless calm and soothing display of killing and being killed in novels are rare in all of his works. So in this regard, if you insist that the killing machine in the novel be regarded as a “reactionary ruling institution”, “officers” as rulers, and “prisoners” as enslaved people, this is really looking down on Kraft Card’s “literary mood” in the face of literature, that is, his literary heart, is beyond the “social conditions” that we can see and understand every day (such as the chaos and darkness of the European world after the First World War). . The only thing that can be connected and convincing to this is not the simple correspondence between Kafka’s writing and the “dark world”, but the secret connection and transcendence with his life.
From the many works that study the relationship between Kafka’s writing and his life, we can see that the four climaxes of Kafka’s creation happened at the time of and after the crisis of his four loves: 1. In 1914, Before and after the first dissolution of the engagement, he wrote the novel “Lawsuit” and the short story “In Exile”; 2. In 1917, on the eve of the final breakdown of the relationship with Phyllis, he wrote the famous short stories “The Country Doctor”. “On the Block”, “When the Great Wall of China was Built”, “Gracus the Hunter”, etc.; 3. In 1919, when the relationship with Juliet faced a crisis, that is, when he was opposed by his father, he wrote the famous “Hunter Gracus”. Letter to Father”; 4. From 1921 to 1922, after the relationship with Melena failed, he wrote the novel “The Castle” and the short masterpiece “The Hunger Artist”.
For our discussion or research today, this is not a coincidence. For the writer himself, this is the “literary situation” that the writer meets after facing the transcendence of his personal destiny in life. It is the beginning of the 20th century writers transcending the “life situation” and entering the “literary situation” writing, and it is the best writing text for the literary situation. Returning to the novel “In Exile”, Kafka’s compatriot, latecomer, and another master of Czech literature, Ivan Klima (Ivan Klima (1931- ), a famous Czech writer, Representative works include “My Happy Morning”, “One Day Lover”, “Waiting for Darkness, Waiting for Light” and so on. ——Original Note], in his famous analysis of Kafka’s long essay “The Sword is Approaching: The Source of Kafka’s Inspiration”, he analyzed the love relationship between “In Exile” and him: “If Saying that most of Kafka’s stories draw their themes from his inner experience, what experience does the image of this torture machine represent? In a letter to Melena (after writing “In Exile”) He wrote: “You know, when I try to write something (about our engagement), the tips of the knives that are all around me against me start to slowly approach my body, and it’s the most complete torture: when they It was so terrifying when it first brushed me that at the first call I betrayed you, myself, and everything. Kafka was apprehensive and terrified about the prospect of marriage, and the imagery he used in these letters was the same as the “killer” of “In Exile” he had done earlier. But at the same time, when we went to read “In Exile”, we didn’t see any traces of his marriage, love, and love. This is the “spiritual experience of Kafka’s writing that transcends his life circumstances and only has literary circumstances.” “The genius of the book. He uses personal spiritual experience, such as spiritual fear, as the source of literary creation, rather than the real experience of life as the resource for writing.
Literary situations require the writer’s spiritual experience more than real life experience. The relationship between this literary situation and spiritual experience is like the relationship between a yellow leaf and the roots and soil. However, when the roots and soil have changed, why only this leaf turns yellow and the other leaves are still green? There is one layer, several layers, or a paragraph, or a few paragraphs in the middle? Why almost everyone has the distress, sorrow and depression of breaking up with their lover, but only Kafka wrote “In Exile”, and others did not? Why is it that when writers are in or after a lovelorn, Kafka wrote “The Lawsuit”, “The Castle”, “The Hunger Artist”, etc. which are “unrelated” to love, while Dumas wrote “La Traviata” and Wilde wrote “The Traviata” Prose (letters) and words that are closely related to love like “From the Deep”? This is the difference between “life experience” and “spiritual experience” that the writer we are going to face in writing.
What happened in the middle—between personal experience and the writer’s literary situation? “Facing the spiritual situation of literature” is precisely such a question. When a writer is “feeling” and is preparing to write, or when you are preparing for writing, whether your inner situation is faced with spiritual experience, or faced with your personal encounter and personal emotional experience, here is the difference . Really right here. It’s that simple. Although simple, for a writer, it is a high wall that is insurmountable for a lifetime. A writer whose personal experience is too complex and emotional experience is too rich, maybe you write your experience and experience with the greatest honesty and the reputation of literature, and it is a handed down work, such as Rousseau’s “Confessions”, Papa Sternak’s “Doctor Zhivago”, etc. However, it is quite difficult for you to write “the most literature” beyond experience based on this experience. In terms of real life and human experience, “The Gulag Archipelago” and “Doctor Zhivago” have undoubtedly broadened the boundaries and values of literature, making literature a mountain of mountains that is closely related to human history, human truth, and human truth. , the meaning of the sea in the sea. Therefore, readers all over the world will not discuss “The Gulag Archipelago” as a novel, just as they will not discuss “1984” as a documentary. Orwell and Solzhenitsyn, faced with literature, have such a different inner situation, but there are many similarities in human experience. If psychologists can restore the inner situation of these two writers facing literature, it will be extremely interesting and have extreme literary significance. But if writing transcends the real experience of people and human beings and enters the level of “spiritual experience”, in any case, the writer has a “literary situation”, not a “life situation”, intentionally or unintentionally. Even as a novel in a pure sense, “1984” is not a success that everyone praises, which is also due to the “impurity” of its literature, but no one can deny that when Orwell wrote, more or less There is a feeling and spiritual experience in the heart of literature. When Solzhenitsyn sat down to write, his inner situation was not “literary”, or more precisely not “fiction”, but the personal and human situation, the truth of experience and the symbiosis of writers and intellectuals. true and truthful. From this, returning to Kafka’s writing again, it is possible to understand how his inner situation facing literature—spiritual experience—was uneasy, anxious for anxiety, for literature itself rather than personal experience, experiencing that A direct writing and creation, but writing and creation in a “literary state” that transcends these. Although all his classics are generated unconsciously and unconsciously,
Facing the spiritual experience of literature is a process in which the writer transcends personal experience and experience. It does not mean that if you go beyond personal experience and experience, you will definitely be able to write great works, but it means that writers who are too rigid and entangled in personal experience and experience will definitely not be able to write great works. Unless your experience and experience, which in itself transcends other people, nations and other languages, constitutes great literature in itself. Kafka’s life experience cannot constitute great literature, but he faces the transcendence of life’s real experience, the spiritual experience of literature, but it can constitute great literature. This is what we want to say, the writing of the great writers of the 20th century, first of all, they must face the spiritual experience of the writer in the literary situation, the people and literature itself, not the people and the world itself in the 19th century. This is the most fundamental distinction between 19th and 20th century writing. From this point of view, the spiritual situation of people and the spiritual experience of writers are an inexhaustible new source that the literature of the 20th century has excavated for our writing. With this source, even if a writer has limited life experience, it is possible to write infinite and countless great works.