ambiguous literary me

Oe Kenzaburo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1994. The title of his award-winning speech is "I am in Ambiguous Japan", which is usually translated as "I am in Ambiguous Japan". This translation is quite smooth, but it reduces the rich hints of the original text. Leaving aside the meaning of "ambiguous Japan", it is very intriguing to think about what kind of relationship "I" and "Japan" are in the latter "me". The real "ambiguity" lies in this relationship. If "I" is regarded as subordinate to "Japan", then "I" cannot but be shrouded in Japanese ambiguity; but when it is understood that "I" and "Japan" are in the same category, that is, the relationship between me and Japan, this "I" "I" has a certain degree of counterpoint and autonomy.

🦊Favorite this NFT 🦔

This speech begins with an unceremonious criticism of his compatriot predecessor, the 1968 Nobel Prize winner Yasunari Kawabata. The topic of Kawabata's lecture back then was "Me in Beautiful Japan". Oe described Kawabata's speech as "extremely beautiful" but also "extremely ambiguous". The Japanese "beauty" happens to be based on "ambiguity". The "beauty" expressed in Kawabata's literature is a kind of aesthetics of Zen and oriental mysticism. Using Waka as a model, he "emphasizes that language cannot express truth." Oe believes that this aesthetic is "closed." Aware of the crimes this "beautiful Japan" once committed in history, Oe sees through the deceit (and self-deception) contained in ambiguity, and refuses to hide in the closure like his predecessors.

Japan's "ambiguity" lies in the fact that society is torn between modernization and the duality of maintaining tradition. When the former expands out of control, the latter is not only unable to check and balance, but also becomes the former's help. After the former was ruined, the latter became a detached and pure spiritual world that escaped from facing responsibility. Dajiang believes that this ambiguity can no longer be allowed to be aestheticized. Critic Karatani Hiroto described the difference between the two in this way: "Ambiguous" can be understood as "vague" or "ambiguous", and it would be more appropriate to describe Kawabata as "ambivalent". . In a conflicted judgment, Kawabata chose "beautiful Japan" and ruled out "unbeautiful Japan", and this "beautiful Japan" was built on the basis of placing ethical and political dimensions in brackets. Relatively speaking, Dajiang admits that the two exist at the same time, and they are in a torn state. This attitude is ambiguous.

Kawabata's ambiguity and Oe's ambiguity have completely different meanings. The former is the indescribable obscurity of the East, and the latter is the decomposition of Western dialectical thinking. Da Jiang tried to use the latter to break through the former and break down its closure. This is an action with far-reaching historical and contemporary significance, but to a certain extent, it also makes Oe more difficult to understand than Kawabata. Readers are easily seduced by the beauty of Kawabata's literature, because beauty requires no brains; on the contrary, Oe's literature has many conflicts and ambiguities, which often make readers feel lost and confused. Moreover, there is nothing to enjoy in it. (In fact, it is not.) Reading Kawabata is very pleasant, but reading Oe is very painful. Anyone who likes to read Da Jiang is a masochist.

The most frequently heard Oe's post-reading comments are "difficult to enter" (why not just say incomprehensible or boring?) or offended by some ugly and grotesque (grotesque) descriptions, and feel that the handling method "seems not quite right." . The reason for such a reaction is that many people preconceived that Oe Kenzaburo is a democrat and humanitarian, who is kind to young people, and a good father who takes care of his disabled son with all his strength. It is easy to be frightened when reading Oe's novels with such an impression of a "good guy".

To the unprepared reader, "Personal Experience" must be a terrifying experience. Some people describe the protagonist as what is now called a "scumbag"—the wife just gave birth to a son with a defect in the head, and the baby is still lying in the hospital, but the young husband bird is addicted to alcohol and has sex with his female friend Himiko. Then he lost his teaching position, and finally almost killed his son and eloped. Such a man is a piece of rubbish no matter what. The sexual relationship between Bird and Himiko is generally interpreted as a kind of treatment and redemption, which makes him regain the vitality of life. But Himiko is not necessarily a saint. Later, she encouraged Bird to kill the deformed child and fled to Africa with her. It was only because of the failure of the action that Bird had an "epiphany" and decided to return to his wife and children and take responsibility. Various unbearable states, nasty descriptions, and morbid psychology constantly appeared in the process, which made people feel disgusted. However, it can never be said that Bird and Himiko are villains. They are just ordinary people with duality and ambiguity.

This kind of duality appears in almost all the characters of Dajiang, even the old writer Gu Yiren who used himself as the prototype in the later period was not immune. The only exception is the character based on his son Da Jiangguang, who is always a pure and good existence. Even if he is writing about his lifelong friend Gora (the prototype is Itami Shisan), the author will not keep his hands on some negative factors, such as whether Gora has ever been seduced by a young American military officer, and had an extramarital affair with a young woman in Germany before committing suicide, etc. They are all quite explicit, without any taboos. The description of Gu Yiren is even more difficult to touch. This self-professed old novelist is either willing to cooperate with terrorists or has sympathy for supranationalists. The opposition between good and evil is simple and clear preaching; the opposition between good and evil in the same person is ambiguous/ambiguous, that is, real criticism. It is by no means a peaceful view of "good people have shortcomings, and bad people have good intentions", but a real self-tearing and confrontation, and the result is often death or injury. Oe uses this to reveal the not-so-beautiful side of "ambiguous Japan".

Oe talked about the French literary scholar Kazuo Watanabe in his speech, and then talked about the feat of his teacher's translation of Rabelais, which may be the answer to the above-mentioned problems. Compared with Kawabata, who chose a one-sided "beautiful Japan", what Rabelais presents is not just "ugly France/Europe", but a world where beauty and ugliness, giants and villains coexist. Although "Giant" is full of very vulgar and indecent content, full of gluttony, violence, sex and excrement everywhere, giants are also a generous, enlightened, and noble race. This "polyphonic spirit" of upside-down and juxtaposition of high and low is the Western-style ambiguity inherited by Oe. Don't forget that the author of such an outrageous novel, which offends all good men, is himself a humanist.

Originally published in "Mingzhou Culture" 12.5.2023

🦊Favorite this NFT 🦔