Costas
¥
Ο A.E. Clark επεξεργάζεται περαιτέρω τα ερμηνευτικά του σχόλια στις τρεις ιστορίες που είπε ο Μο Γιαν στο τέλος της διάλεξής του στη Στοκχόλμη (#604) και δίνει ένα κείμενο γεμάτο φίνες παρατηρήσεις και ερμηνείες στο Ragged Banner Press, καταλήγοντας, αναφορικά με τη χρησιμότητα της ερμηνευτικής του προσπάθειας, ως εξής:
Why does this matter? It doesn’t affect the merit of Mo Yan’s works. This analysis has no bearing on whether Mo Yan deserved the Nobel Prize.
It matters, on the simplest level, because it is useful to understand what people are saying to you. That they might choose to rebuke you so subtly that you could easily miss the message may seem an odd form of communication. But you have probably witnessed such exchanges, in which the speaker is annoyed by the hearer and believes himself a lot cleverer. There is often an in-group, perhaps a domestic audience, that is expected to get the point. If the target makes a fuss, he can be assured it was a misunderstanding.[SUP]7[/SUP]
It matters, more seriously, because we need to identify differences honestly. It is beguiling to say, What we’ve got here is failure to communicate, and often that is true. But sometimes what we’ve got is a conflict of core interests or a clash of mutually exclusive values, which no amount of communication will resolve.
It matters, finally, because – even if he never wanted this role – winning the most prestigious international prize moves Mo Yan to the forefront of China’s pursuit of soft power. The leadership is surely pleased that he dismisses as hypocritical nonsense the values underlying the defense of human rights against the State. We will hear more of this, from Mo Yan and others, and it won’t always be so subtle. That is not to say there will be no improvements in the area of human rights. Liu Xia has probably already been assigned better guards.
------------------
(7) In 1972, Zhou Enlai clinked his wineglass against Richard Nixon’s in a particular way that only Chinese would recognize as disrespectful to a guest. The pianist Lang Lang, invited to the White House in 2011, played a melody from a Korean War propaganda movie.
Why does this matter? It doesn’t affect the merit of Mo Yan’s works. This analysis has no bearing on whether Mo Yan deserved the Nobel Prize.
It matters, on the simplest level, because it is useful to understand what people are saying to you. That they might choose to rebuke you so subtly that you could easily miss the message may seem an odd form of communication. But you have probably witnessed such exchanges, in which the speaker is annoyed by the hearer and believes himself a lot cleverer. There is often an in-group, perhaps a domestic audience, that is expected to get the point. If the target makes a fuss, he can be assured it was a misunderstanding.[SUP]7[/SUP]
It matters, more seriously, because we need to identify differences honestly. It is beguiling to say, What we’ve got here is failure to communicate, and often that is true. But sometimes what we’ve got is a conflict of core interests or a clash of mutually exclusive values, which no amount of communication will resolve.
It matters, finally, because – even if he never wanted this role – winning the most prestigious international prize moves Mo Yan to the forefront of China’s pursuit of soft power. The leadership is surely pleased that he dismisses as hypocritical nonsense the values underlying the defense of human rights against the State. We will hear more of this, from Mo Yan and others, and it won’t always be so subtle. That is not to say there will be no improvements in the area of human rights. Liu Xia has probably already been assigned better guards.
------------------
(7) In 1972, Zhou Enlai clinked his wineglass against Richard Nixon’s in a particular way that only Chinese would recognize as disrespectful to a guest. The pianist Lang Lang, invited to the White House in 2011, played a melody from a Korean War propaganda movie.
