Wolfgang Kubin Trashes Chinese Literature and Names Names Too
By Bruce Humes, published November 7, 2009, 6:48a.m.
Now that China's Coming-Out-Party in Frankfurt is over, Wolfgang Kubin, Bonn University Professor of Chinese Studies--and an outspoken critic of modern Chinese literature--is back with a vengeance. Here are two excerpts (my translation from the French) from the lively and provocative interview online at Books, L'actualité par des livres:
"The [Chinese] novel, [in contrast with Chinese poetry] enjoys a high profile internationally, but is of rather mediocre quality. This opinion is largely shared among my colleagues. But what my Chinese counterparts say—in private—is even more extreme. In most of their eyes, the contemporary version of the [Chinese] novelist is an utter ignoramus: he has no literary culture, no mastery of his language, doesn’t know a word of English, and hasn’t the slightest knowledge of foreign literature. According to them, on the world stage Chinese novelists are tubaozi (土包子), or hillbillys, as one calls migrants in China who have left the countryside for the big cities."
And another brief excerpt further on in the interview:
"Take Wolf Totem, this incredible global best-seller by Jiang Rong: It’s Jack London a la chinoise, only less good! Even Jiang Rong admits his influence. Contemporary Chinese authors bring absolutely nothing new to the table: They are outdated. Personally, I am tired of these bad rehashes of ancient masterpieces. And I’ll skip the ideas with fascist connotations that pepper Wolf Totem! The Western editors deleted many passages from the original. The German translator is one of my former students: The publisher requested that he clean up the text. In the US, the translator Howard Goldblatt did the same."
Comments
Very interesting interview indeed which has also been published on Rue89.com with a short post with my negative comments.
bertrand mialaret, November 7, 9:07a.m.
Kubin sounds pretty much right on here, no? There may be a few fortunate exceptions, but the majority of authors writing today really do seem to be more or less as he describes them -- uncomfortable in their own language, especially. I don't know that I'd agree about ignorance of international literature, given the number of books that turn up in translation here and the reliable popularity of the same few authors in Chinese translation, but I'd certainly agree about ignorance of the Chinese cultural context.
The Pooka MacPhellimey, November 7, 9:52a.m.
Well, he's right on some points. But I don't think he calls Western authors uncultured if they don't know anything about East Asian literature...
Anna Chen, November 7, 10:05a.m.
Certainly worth reading the whole thing - I'd translate the lot if I had time, which I don't. A he manages to avoid using the word "fuzao" once.
William, November 7, 10:22p.m.
Wolfgang is a clown.... I don't understand his bizarre pounding away at, 1) not speaking foreign languages, 2) not being able to use Chinese.
I mean, his ideal Chinese writer is a ludicrous Poochie the Rockin' Dog-type of figure: Okay, let's have him be able to use classical Chinese, completely break from all traditional forms, speak English, read foreign literature, and be completely belligerent and hostile to the Communist Party, isn't egotistic or individualistic at all but whose writings betray no trace of the horrible stain of collectivism, and can we Rastify him 10%? I can't figure the dude out.
Dylan, November 8, 3:52a.m.
"J’ai l’impression que rares sont les lecteurs occidentaux qui s’intéressent à la littérature chinoise par amour des textes : ces livres sont pour eux un matériau sociologique."
I agree with him here, but I think part of the reason Chinese literature is treated as "matériau sociologique" is because of people like Kubin. He's criticizing this tendency, but at the same time, he seems unable to criticize literature outside of a sociological context.
He mentions Guo Jingming, and, yeah, he says the writing is simplistic, but his major criticism seems to be from a sociological point of view. He's basically saying that Guo Jingming sucks because his entire generation sucks (spoiled brats). (On the foreign language front: Guo Jingming actually writes credible English dialogue and, I'd guess, reads more foreign literature than any of the writers Kubin is bigging up).
He doesn't criticize Yu Hua from a literary point of view, but is keen to ask us the question, "Où est la véritable critique du régime dans ce roman ?" (To be fair, he was asked the question). The book isn't meant to be a wicked satire of the Communist Party, and I wish dudes like Kubin were smart enough and had enough literary savvy (or the ability to wield literary theory in an effective manner) to figure that out-- instead of spouting lines about Yu Hua being politically correct.
Dylan, November 8, 4:06a.m.
Oooh, Kubin does annoy me! He is listened to because of who he is, so more's the pity that his comments are so completely unbalanced. So Chinese writers are ignorant of Western literature and are not even masters (mistresses?) of their own language? Just one example to disprove that: Han Dong, in his blog writes knowledgeably about people like Garcia Marquez, Murakami and Kafka - and his readers write back with their comments. And I defy anyone to say that Han Dong and many others like him don't write beautifully in Chinese.
To give Kubin his due, he does not, as Bruce implies, refer to all Chinese novelists as male - in fact he mentions three women writers with a degree of approval.
Mr. Kubin is misguided by his own ignorance and arrogance. No one can judge the Chinese contemporary literature. For one thing, there are more than ten thousands titles in fiction published in China last year. If what Mr. Kubin had read were, say, one hundred of them, how can his statement be treated as statistically true?
Jihong, November 10, 4:48a.m.
I've been thinking about that reference to Chinese literary "hillbillies":
"According to them, on the world stage Chinese novelists are tubaozi (土包子), or hillbillys, as one calls migrants in China who have left the countryside for the big cities."
Over the years, I've heard similar comments from a number of Chinese writers, most of them urban intellectuals. I wonder if this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to certain type of novel - I don't think you could call it a genre - that revolves around rural settings, rural themes and local dialect. My impression is that there are some in the Chinese literary community who feel that these sorts of novels represent a step backward, that they are too narrowly-focused and provincial, and not cosmopolitan enough for the world stage.
But I would argue that this sort of regional literature is a sign of empowerment, a sign that regional authors are taking back the language, eschewing standard Mandarin for linguistic experiments that depict local dialects (and themes and concerns) more accurately and believably than in the past. I suspect that many of the American "Southern Renaissance" writers of the twenties and thirties were labelled "hillbillies" in their time, but now their fiction has become part of the American canon.
If people like Guo Jingming keep getting translated, I won't blame Kubin for trashing Chinese novels. I hope translators will stop translating works that we generally consider as rubbish even ourselves. Imagine that we English-Chinese translators introduce only pulp fiction from the US, Chinese readers would also despise American literature too.
Berlin, November 10, 6:15p.m.
+++ Guo Jingming has never been translated into English (at least not that I see).
"Imagine that we English-Chinese translators introduce only pulp fiction from the US, Chinese readers would also despise American literature too."
See the Chinese bestseller list. What's on there? Stuff like 《Twilight》, but Chinese readers still get to read a wide range of literary translations (from Japanese, Korean, English, French).
We get a far more narrow vision of Chinese lit than Chinese readers get of foreign literature. Us English readers don't even get the Chinese 《Twilight》 (ie. Guo Jingming, or-- yo, even Han Han hasn't been translated in a major way, has he?).
DylanK, November 10, 8:46p.m.
Indeed!
The very latest -- last week of October -- Top 10 China Fiction Best Sellers include 3 of Ms. Meyer's classics!
Bruce Humes
Chinese Books, English Reviews
DylanK is, to my opinion , touching a major issue. The choice by editors is restricted mainly to writers older than fifty and to novels related to rural China and the period 1949-1976. Young writers are not published; in France we are happy to get translations of some books by Feng Tang, Murong Xuecun, Chen Xiwo,Han Han.Not to mention Weihui, Mian Mian and Guo Xiaolu who are also interesting.These young writers represent maximum 10% of total translations. I would be happy to read a novel by Guo Jingming or Anita Baobei just to try to understand why they are so so successful with the young generation.Fully agree with DylanK when he writes that we get a far more narrow vision... The same goes with city life and the middle class. Eight books by Chi Li are translated in French but none in English. Very few translations touch urban life;editors prefer rural China and the Cultural Revolution, more "exotic" for the western reader.Moreover I have touched this point during interviews with Yu Hua, Mo Yan, Yan Lianke and they agree with the fact that they do not feel really confortable with the younger generations and city life.
bertrand mialaret, November 11, 4:04a.m.
But I think we're confusing cause and effect here. Bertrand, you say you would be happy to read novels by Guo Jingming or Annie Baobei to understand why they are popular – not because you enjoy them as works of literature. Isn't this just a positive version of Kubin treating contemporary Chinese literature as "matériau sociologique" instead of "real literature"?
There's a very good argument that the reason the most popular Chinese literature abroad is rural in theme is because the best contemporary Chinese literature has been rural in theme. China's best writers write about the rural-urban divide, and small wonder, since this is one of the most fundamental of China's social realities.
There is absolutely no grounds to think, as Kubin seems to (I don't speak French), that Chinese writers are writing about the countryside because they're uneducated hicks who don't know any better. Nicky has already mentioned Han Dong; I know for a fact that Yu Hua, Mo Yan and Li Er are all extremely well-read in the literatures of many countries (all in Chinese translation, of course), and very cosmopolitan in their thinking. But they come from where they come from, and they write about what needs writing about.
In Frankfurt Xu Zechen told me he thought Chinese urban literature is just now emerging from an early period of immaturity (naturally, he saw himself as leading the way, and to some extent I would agree). City life in China is a relatively new thing; writers naturally need a couple of decades to get their heads around it; that make now the time to start watching for honest-to-god good writing from China's cities.
If we're just talking about curiosity about life in China, that curiosity would be better satisfied by watching an in-depth TV interview with Guo Jingming than by reading one of his books. The former would certainly require less time, money and resources to produce.
I am happy that nobody wasted his or her time translating childish works of Guo Jingming and the like, no matter how popular they are.
China introduced a far broader range of literature from various countries, at least much more than Chinese literature is being exported to these countries. The bestsellers are of course translated, but books of more serious nature are also translated. There are several publishing houses (such as Yilin, Yiwen) that are dedicated specifically for translated works, but I do not see this happening in the US. I know that Words without Borders (an online magazine) is dedicated to this, but I don't think they are having the impact they deserve.
While it is tough and slow to change the taste and preference of publishers in the west, I think the best way is for China to take the matter into its own hand, but giving its own publishers more resources to translate its own works into English, with the help of people like you, who are dedicated to bringing greater attention to Chinese literature. In the past, Chinese publishers work mainly with Chinese translators to translate Chinese works into English, which may result in some bad translation. Part of the reason is that they do not know people like you and they do not know where to find you.
Once works are translated in China into English or other languages, publishers can seek innovative models of distribution to sell these to the international market. I know that some American students buy textbooks from China (on ebay, of all places) because Chinese publishers publish these works under agreements with the original publishers and sell them at a lower price. These books were originally re-published in China mainly for the Chinese students (such as Intro to Macroeconomics), but somehow American consumers find out about them and buy them as well. Maybe a similar model could be adopted for literature. Now I think people are stuck in the old business model of waiting for publishers in America, for instance, to become interested in translating works from China. Something has to change as China move more aggressively to introduce its literature abroad after Frankfurt.
On another note, I do not think Kubin is as well-read or well-informed as media gave him credit to. When asked about Han Han, he just vaguely grouped him with Guo Jingming while the former is trying hard to become a public intellectual kind of figure to distance himself from the self-centered Guo, except he lacks the depth and vision to really become one.
Berlin, November 11, 11:05a.m.
FYI, from the tail end of an interview with Kubin about Berlin Wall stuff published in today's SW (no link yet):
jdmartinsen, November 11, 7:58p.m.
@Eric: "There is absolutely no grounds to think, as Kubin seems to (I don't speak French), that Chinese writers are writing about the countryside because they're uneducated hicks who don't know any better."
Kubin's interview in Books, L'actualité des livres begins with a frank quote (used as a picture caption):
"J’ai, comme mes collègues spécialistes, une conception élitiste de la littérature, que le grand public ne partage pas."
("I have, like my specialist colleagues, an elitist concept of literature, one that is not shared with the general public.")
There is little in the interview thereafter that implies that he likes or dislikes many contemporary Chinese novelists because they are fond of rural motifs. As noted in the opening quote that I translated, he simply considers them uncultivated types -- bumpkins in that sense -- who don't live up to his (admittedly elitist) idea of the intellectual-author.
Bruce Humes
Chinese Books, English Reviews