MCLC: Mueller says Mo Yan choice a 'catastrophe' (5,6)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: scott savitt <scottsavitt at gmail.com>
Subject: Mueller says Mo Yan choice a 'catastrophe' (5)
***********************************************************

At risk of 班門弄斧 (many on this list are much more expert on Chinese
literature than I am), the accuracy of your statement is questionable.
Those of us interested in contemporary culture who lived and worked in
Beijing in those years (full disclosure: I translated some of Gao's early
work as a colleague of his at Beijing's Foreign Languages Press) remember
well the criticism of his 車站 (Bus Stop) as "spiritual pollution." And 野人
(Wild Men)'s intended premiere under the direction of Lin Zhaohua at the
Beijing People's Art Theatre was shut down by the government before it
reached performance. So your statement "Gao left on will in 1987 for
Germany and then for Paris because he could make money there with his
paintings" is incomplete, if not erroneous.

We're back where we started with our Bei Ling debate. If I really wanted
to know why Gao left for Paris I would ask him myself. Short of that, I
question why someone would claim to know why another person (never mind a
censored artist) would make a major life decision like leaving the country
of his birth, native language and most-natural audience. Perhaps I define
"exile" more broadly than you do.

致敬 (Respectfully),

Scott

==========================================================

From: martin winter (dujuan99 at gmail.com)
Subject: Mueller says Mo Yan choice a 'catastrophe' (6)

Most discussions after Nobel awards to anybody coming from China are
political discussions. Because of reactions from China, mostly. And because
of the one-party society. The fact that mentioning Gao Xingjian is still
taboo in China does certainly suggest Gao is regarded as something like a
political dissident. We may find that absurd when we are living in a
different society. Prof. Kubin has translated one play by Gao Xingjian, a
long time ago. Later he started to vilify Gao. He has acted that way a lot.
Makes for headlines and more debate, which is not a bad thing, on the
whole.

Although anyone who has followed the civil rights situation in China in the
last 20-odd years and has read a bit more by the authors in question should
know better. Gao Xingjian has never called himself a dissident.

Martin