When I was in middle school, I was particularly fond of philosophy, such as Schopenhauer and Descartes. But I didn't understand what they were writing at the time, but when I was in my twenties, I looked at it again and finally knew what they were talking about. But now I forgot what they said. The main thing is that I'm not interested in philosophy.
What else can literature write about besides suffering? A post-05 generation said that literature should focus on spiritual suffering. What literary propositions this post-05 generation put forward is not the most important, the key is that he has his own complete literary and philosophical system, and uses lofty language to tell everyone what literature should write in the future. Writing an article requires professional knowledge - just like writing **. I won't post this post-05 remark here.
I talk about everything in the vernacular, there is nothing professional. Because I've always been practice-oriented, I don't like theory. In general, no writer has been influenced by literary theorists. However, those who are engaged in the study of literary theory believe that they have made an indispensable contribution to "guiding literary creation".
The post-05 generation I am talking about, he didn't propose that "future literature should focus on spiritual suffering", so wouldn't others create in this direction? Of course not. I've written here in the past that literature should focus on mental suffering, but of course I'm not talking about it that lofty, it's all plain like boiled water.
There is never a "propositional composition" in literature, it is not "what others write", "I will write what I write". Sometimes when I look at literary history, I feel that some writers seem to follow the crowd, as if what others write, they have to follow what they write, and they don't have their own spiritual core.
My creative direction has always been "mental anguish", and I have not been guided by anyone. That's all my life is, after all.
Someone said to the post-05 that your proposal that "literature should focus on spiritual suffering" belongs to "little bourgeois" in the eyes of some people.
When this 05 talks about spiritual suffering, give an example of "Human Disqualification". "Human Disqualification" does have a bit of a little bourgeois feeling. Whether it is Hazo or Osamu Dazai himself, they have lived a privileged life since they were children, not low-level people, not ordinary people.
Human Disqualification" belongs to Osamu Dazai's semi-autobiographical style. Ye Zang has a bit of a psychological problem, which makes him different from others, and because of this, his life has plummeted. Because the family heard about some bad things in Ye Zang's life style, they stopped providing him with money, which made him lose his life.
Is mental anguish the little bourgeois? It depends on how you behave creatively. You behaved as "Human Disqualification", and indeed there was a little bourgeoisie. Literary creation is not about presenting superficial mental pain. Since it is said to be "mental anguish", it is not presented by superficial pain.