How do you evaluate Mo Yan's works?
Let's review it together, "Speech at the Yan'an Symposium on Literature and Art", *There has been a clear explanation of all this.
As the vice chairman of the Chinese Writers Association, does Mo Yan dare to read this epic exposition of the Chinese literary and artistic circles?
Attached: 1) "Literary and artistic works have always written about light and darkness, half to half. "There's a lot of confusion here. Literary and artistic works are not always like this. Many petty-bourgeois writers have never found the light, and their works only expose the darkness, which is called "exposing literature", and there are simply pessimistic and misanthropic.
2) Only a truly revolutionary writer can correctly solve the problem of praise and exposure. All the dark forces that endanger the masses of the people must be exposed, and all the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people must be glorified.
3) "The task of literature and art has always been to expose. "This kind of **, like the previous one, is an insight that lacks knowledge of historical science. Literature and art are not only about exposure, as I have already mentioned. For revolutionary literary artists, the object of exposure can only be the aggressor, exploiter, oppressor and the bad influence they have left behind among the people, not the masses of the people.
4) "I'm not ***; The works of those who praise the light are not necessarily great, and the works of those who depict the dark are not necessarily small. "If you are a bourgeois literary artist, you will not sing the praises of the proletariat, but the bourgeoisie; If you are a proletarian literary artist, you will sing the praises of the proletariat and the working people instead of the bourgeoisie: one or the other. Isn't it a fact in the history of literature and art that the works of those who praise the light of the bourgeoisie may not be great, those who portray the darkness of the bourgeoisie may not be small, those who praise the light of the proletariat may not be great, and those who portray the so-called "darkness" of the proletariat must be small?