To equate the feelings toward one group of writers with the love - or the lack of it - for Chinese culture is preposterous. I adore the costumes of China's ethnic minorities, including cheongsam of the Manchus, but I'm turned off by the traditional Han garb, which some tout as our national wear. Does that make me a traitor of Chinese culture? But, hey, I admire the same black-and-white aesthetic that dominates old architecture in southern China.
On the second point, there is also room for debate.
Writers of the early 20th century were at the threshold of the vernacular revolution. They were exploring new territories. It is not surprising that some of the linguistic details did not make it to the mainstream usage of later generations.
What Han meant by "terrible", I came to interpret as "not quite readable to someone of our generation", judging from his more nuanced analysis in his blog. Television is good at soundbites, and Han has given it something out of context, which it turned around and used for shock value. It was intended for mutual publicity.
We must understand that Han was not offering a complete evaluation of these writers, but just their language skill. Even as many of us disagree with him, we should put his overtly sensational and simplistic statement in perspective. If you use the writing standard of this era, many of the sentences of those writers can indeed be less than mellifluous. But that is to disregard the evolution of a living language. Just imagine someone today who speaks or writes in Elizabethan English, he would be regarded as either a comedian or a lunatic. Nobody would see him as Shakespeare reincarnate.
【Need for modesty, respect】相关文章:
★ 小学英语绕口令 Susan sells sea shells
最新
2020-09-15
2020-08-28
2020-08-21
2020-08-19
2020-08-14
2020-08-12