semola Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM Hope I'm not posting in the wrong section... Has anybody followed the blog fight between hanhan and Fangdanzi on their respective blogs? I'd like to read it but I'm not sure from what and whose blog entry I should start, can anybody give me some indications? Thank you, I love to 凑热闹 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM Take a look -> http://blog.sina.com.cn/twocold ; http://blog.sina.com.cn/fangzhouzi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imron Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:10 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 at 01:10 PM So presumably it's 舟 and not 丹 then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areckx Posted January 20, 2012 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 at 05:29 PM Yes, it's fangzhouzi not fandanzi ( 方舟子 ) I checked out both of them, read the newest entry(top-most) and added both to my bookmarks(reading list my iphone safari). So it seems like they're both talking about methods of studying English literature, and disagree on methods? Either way I don't pick sides, and read everything for the sake of reading. My Chinese is definitely not up to par, so even if I wanted to, I don't know enough to pick sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imron Posted January 20, 2012 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 at 09:31 PM I didn't read it all, but they're arguing over whether Han Han has a ghostwriter or a team of ghostwriters for his blog posts. Han Han denies it and offered a reward of 20 million RMB for anyone who can provide any evidence that he's ever had anyone else write his blog posts. Fang Zhouzi replies saying that several months worth of Han Han's blog posts from the past have conveniently been deleted, Han Han says they were deleted because those posts were turned in to a book, and so it goes on... (the above summary leaves out plenty of details, but you get the picture). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areckx Posted January 21, 2012 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 08:28 PM Sounds fun! (evil-laugh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heliogabalo Posted January 21, 2012 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 09:16 PM I will have a look. There can be only one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daofeishi Posted January 22, 2012 at 04:06 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 at 04:06 PM I have been a regular reader of both blogs for a while. Fang and the people at Xin Yusi have used the last few weeks to publicly shame Luo Yonghao and Han Han, both very popular among the 80后s. As much as Fang Zhouzi might be right about his criticism (I wouldn't be surprised if Luo Yonghao hasn't bothered with properly registering his English school or Han Han gets help polishing his essays), I think the problem runs deep into a culture that accepts murky business practices and does not value intellectual and academic integrity. Most people won't see the reason why Fang is criticizing people like Luo Yonghao and Han Han, will find the whole ordeal nitpicky, unnecessary and shameful or mislabel it as being about envy. That'll drive them away from his message, which is a shame, because I think Fang Zhouzi is one of the most interesting and sorely needed voices in China right now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhwj Posted January 27, 2012 at 07:53 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 at 07:53 AM Fang Zhouzi's fraud-busting is essential, and his essays and take-downs are frequently entertaining. But this assault on Han Han is embarrassing. The supposed "proof" in this case is ridiculous and is essentially the same sort of conspiracy thinking found in birthers, truthers, and creationists -- the sort of people who are typically the target of Fang's arguments. There seem to be unspoken assumptions that (a) everyone's memory is perfect, so any discrepancies are clearly lies; and (b) every utterance is meant to be taken at face value, so statements that from context are likely to be braggadocio or humor are cited as "gotcha" evidence (see the apparent "contradiction" between Han Han's claims that he wasted an entire year's class time writing his first novel, the same year he also claims to have wasted reading various classic works "non-stop". Oh and he's also claimed to not to be much of a reader at all). It's as if Han Han's critics have forgotten that teenagers can be prone to the sort of pretentious thinking and imitative writing style that crops up all over the place in Han Han's early work. One piece of "evidence" Fang cites is that Han's shadowing of Qian Zhongshu's 围城 style in his debut novel 三重门 is college-graduate level rather than the slavish imitation of a high school student. Convincing? It's a fun fight (although unfortunately played out to a large degree on microblog text-image panels), but more than a little infuriating due to the lack of concrete evidence. Fei Dao (飞氘) notes that there are two basic issues mixed up in the argument: (a) Is "Han Han" actually a ghost-writer or a team of writers? and (b) Are Han Han's writings worthwhile? (this question arises from the three political Q&A essays he posted a little while back) By performing a meta-analysis of the the past week's worth of analyses, I can state with confidence: (a) Yes, Han Han's writings were not actually written by him. No high-school dropout, second-rate race-car driver who confuses his 的得地s could ever have written a full-length novel that cites so many other literary works, much less all of the things he's supposed to have written; and (b) No, they're entirely worthless. Anyone who's received even a smidgen of education has no need for the naive thinking, slipshod logic, and inept style of Han Han's work. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renshanrenhai Posted January 27, 2012 at 09:01 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 at 09:01 AM 韩寒 is really a very humorous young writer. I also followed his blog on sina. He argued wih 方舟子 against the accusation of employing ghostwriters team. The post was written in a very ironic tone, so it's very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imron Posted February 8, 2012 at 05:46 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 05:46 AM 锵锵三人行 was talking about this in their most recent episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter2010 Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:05 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:05 PM I also followed their agurments and this video made me laugh so hard. See if you could get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gato Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:25 PM Great video. I've seen that movie. Hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted February 8, 2012 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 03:24 PM Great video at #11. I hadn't watched that programme for a long time. I was so glad to hear someone say 錢鍾書 was not that great in writing novels. And I like Dou and Xu too. It seems that Dou has gained some weight. Bruno Ganz was great at #12 too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gato Posted February 8, 2012 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 03:45 PM I was so glad to hear someone say 錢鍾書 was not that great in writing novels. We reached the same conclusion here: BOTM March 2008 《围城》by 钱钟书 http://book.douban.com/review/2931989/ 通过深刻彻底的拜读，我深深领会到钱大师风趣幽默的语言，语言在他笔下是游刃有余，总能说出一些漂亮话来，有时候甚至有点调侃的味道。钱钟书尤其善用比喻，而且用来比喻的事物总是匪夷所思，但又十分恰当，不得不佩服作者的想象力。 相对文章的语言，小说的故事性要大大逊色很多。作者所说的围城就是结婚。没结婚的人想进来，而结婚的人像出去。但故事没有太多吸引人的情节，一切事物的发生都显得很平淡。 所以总的来说《围城》是大师的小作（也许真正的大作并没有产生）。就像大厨烹小鲜，虽然算不上大菜，但细细品来却很有一番滋味。 http://book.douban.com/review/4910252/ 围城很薄，却有700多出比喻，这就好比一页里面就有2处比喻，钱锺书的比如很睿智，有的并非字面的浅显意思，你要深入细读，然而这样就会拉长文章的结构，使得用比喻衔接的文章变得很松散。 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted February 8, 2012 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 06:12 PM While we are on this subject, I find the highly acclaimed 北京法源寺 another very disappointing novel. Sorry to go off-topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gato Posted February 9, 2012 at 02:16 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 at 02:16 AM Yeah, I can't see 李敖 being a good novelist. http://book.douban.com/review/3181907/ 这本书里没有谭嗣同，没有康有为，没有梁启超，没有大刀王五。他们不过是木偶，真正说话的从头到尾只是一个人，那就是他李敖。 其实文学都是这样的借别人的嘴来说自己的话。但是作为小说，好歹应该稍微对情节和人物塑造下下功夫。可惜老李说起来兴致高昂，仿佛忘了自己是在写小说，不是在电视上作谈话节目。 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted February 9, 2012 at 02:24 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 at 02:24 AM Very very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outofin Posted February 10, 2012 at 04:35 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 at 04:35 PM I mostly agree with #9. That aside, now Han is suing Fang. Can he win in court? Did Fang do anything illegal? So much ado about nothing. (Though good entertainment values. People like it!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renshanrenhai Posted February 13, 2012 at 01:49 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 01:49 PM What would Sherlock Holmes make of Han Han's incident? Read this post for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.