#beidao

Here is a platform to discuss poetry,

But one should not use the brute force of language.

From now I close the poem and the comment section of poetry.

In the world I am Always a stranger I do not understand its language It does not understand my silence

Outlines:

Bei Dao reached his golden age around 1970s and 1980s, when he voiced powerfully with exquisite and precise lines to challenge the orthodoxy of state-controlled literature and inspire one generation.

Bei Dao’s works after leaving China are controversial. He was both loved and hated by Chinese colleagues and frequently lionized by the Western academic press.

Chinese poetry world is trapped into the “curse of criticizing Bei Dao”, due to two reasons: (1) potential suspects of partnering with or giving in to the state authority; (2) moral dilemmas to challenge the poetry patriarchy. (Zang Di, 2011)

Critiques on Bei Dao’s poems include:

(1) Bei Dao makes no progress, and now more domestic young talents write better poems about China content. (Rudolf G. Wagner, Ceng Lang, Zang Di, etc.)

(2) “Bei Dao is a well-known contemporary poet in China, but he is by no means pre-eminent”—Stephen Owen adopted the perspective of “World Poetry” to explain the important role of translatability in fostering Bei’s  representation of Chinese poetry among the global community. (Stephen Owen)

(3) Given Bei Dao’s USA citizenship and his obscure familiarity with China content, Bei Dao might face a similar representation issues as Ai Weiwei.

Critiques on Bei Dao’s vision on Chinese poetry future include:

(1) Zang Di contradicts Bei Dao’s notion of “crisis of contemporary Chinese poetry”

(2) Zang Di argues Bei Dao’s vision of National Cultural Renaissance Movement is not practical and convincing.

  [The Golden Age]

In the 1970s and 80s, Bei Dao wrote powerful poems which inspired one generation about liberty and humanity, with the background of the national socio-economic transformation. He was a leading member in a new poetry movement—Meng Long Shi Ren, or Misty Poets, so-called for the abstract language and obscure meaning in their poems. Bei’s poems embraced metaphors of social and political issues with human dignity lying in the core. Most of his brilliant works were published on an influential underground journal named JinTian (Today), which he co-found in 1978, and was banned by the state after two years of publication.

In 1989, Bei was exiled from China for his perceived influence on the protests that led up to the Tiananmen Square massacre. The he started the life across 7 countries and his accomplishments have been adored by the global literary community—he has taught extensively in Europe and the United States, was elected an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has received awards in Germany, Morocco, and Sweden.  After 1989, much of his works address the topics of freedom and exile but avoid political narrative, in a way that poet Michael Palmer says “abjures overt political rhetoric while simultaneously keeping faith with his passionate belief in social reform and freedom of the creative imagination.”

Critiques are controversial for Bei’s works wrote after 1989, for instances, some contend that Bei continues to be the most influential poet voicing for China, and some argue that Bei might run out of his talent and satisfied himself with the inane international reputation. He was both loved and hated by Chinese colleagues and frequently lionized by the Western academic press. The public would be more inclined to reach the consensus that, the golden age of Bei would be 1970s & 80s when he voiced powerfully with exquisite and precise lines to challenge the orthodoxy of state-controlled literature. As one critique summarized, “widely treasured by those who participated in China's democracy movement, Bei Dao's poetry is marked by the effort to reveal the nature of the self, to identify both public and private wounds, to trust in instinctive perceptions, and to reach out to other afflicted souls.” 

[Critiques after 1989]

Curse of Criticizing Bei Dao

Today the name of Bei Dao turns out to be the symbol of Chinese poet internationally; however, the representation issue of Bei remains to be an open discussion back to the world of Chinese poetry. Poets and poetry critics from mainland China have launched the challenge towards Bei’s venerable status, and re-thought the role Bei plays in contemporary Chinese poetry.

In 2011, Zang Di, a sophisticated poetry critic from mainland China, published an article (as long as 20,000 words) to strongly criticize Bei’s poems and notions, along with an indepth interview transcript (as long as 80,000 words). So far, Zang’s works have made the strongest position against the quality of Bei’s poems and his corresponding poetry visions.

Zang argued that the mainland Chinese Parnassus is trapping with the “curse of criticizing Bei Dao”, and tends to prevent itself from going against Bei, due to two primary reasons.  Firstly, criticizing Bei’s poems would render suspects of partnering with or giving in to the state authority—the China communist party, since all these years Bei has kept quoting the notion of “Dang Tong Fa Yi” (uniting with those of the same views but alienate those with different views), to confront opposite critiques from mainland China, when facing the western media. Secondly, in terms of poetry history, it is well accepted that the Bei’s poems are the milestones of the new age of Chinese poetry since 1970s. And this linear logic, instead of a more appropriate way to view it as netty genealogy, has brought Bei to the glory of “Father of the contemporary Chinese poetry”. The younger poets are encountering the patriarchal moral dilemma—the next generation is not encouraged to rebel from the glorious ancestors.

 Critiques on Bei Dao’s Poems

Critiques on Bei’s poems ask the questions that (1) whether Bei’s recently published poems are as good as the global literary community claims to be, and furthermore (2) whether Bei’s poems can represent current Chinese poetry.

There are only several published critiques about Bei carrying weights among the Chinese Parnassus. One leading critique was from Rudolf G. Wagner, a German sinologist; he reviewed that Bei is repeating himself and makes no progress after 1989. Some younger poets and poetry critics second this review and justify that nowadays there are dozens of talent poets who can write greater poems than Bei in terms of aesthetics and China content. One of the most widely spread critiques is from a scholar named Ceng Lang, who commented the post-exiling poems are of inferior rhetoric. His radical opinions led to discussions and contradictions; supporters of Bei argued that it is the incredible depth embedded in the poems that contributes to opacity and misunderstanding.

Another renowned sinologist professor in Harvard University named Stephen Owen, provides a perspective from the translation side to explain how Bei accumulates his global reputation. (Owen’s long articles about Bei Dao and Chinese poetry can be viewed here and here). He explores the discourse of “World Poetry” and highlights that translatability is indispensable in shaping the narrative towards “World Poetry”. Bei’s case, as in Owen’s argument, would be a great example of how translatability fosters his representation of Chinese poetry among the global community. He compares the translated and original version of Bei’s poems in details, and concludes:

“Bei Dao is a well-known contemporary poet in China, but he is by no means pre-eminent. By writing a supremely translatable poetry, by the good fortune of a gifted translator and publicist, he may well attain in the West the absolute pre-eminence among contemporary Chinese poets that he cannot quite attain in China itself. And the very fact of wide foreign (Western) recognition could, in turn, grant him pre-eminence in China. Thus we would have the strange phenomenon of a poet who became the leading poet in his own country because he translated well.

The international audience admires the poetry, imaging what it might be if the poetry had not been lost in translation. And the audience at home admires the poetry, knowing how much it is appreciated internationally, in translation. Welcome to the late twentieth century.”

Essentially, Owen adopts a similar western-eastern power approach as Orientalism, the dynamic process how Western’s untailored perception towards the Eastern shapes the actual changes of the Eastern. To this extent, whether Bei Dao is facing a similar representation issue as Ai Weiwei remains open to a question mark.  (Both Ai Weiwei and his poet father, Ai Qing, used to be Bei Dao’s close friends. But around 1983, Ai Qing ended the friendship with Bei Dao based on the divergence towards poetry writing. This incidence has left Chinese audience confusions.)

The last issues regarding to the representation should be Bei’s national identity—Bei now is USA citizen. There might be not be absolute relationship between one’s political identity and representation of a nation, but as for familiarity wirh China content, firstly Bei has limited visits back to mainland China, and secondly he stated that he was not familiar with circumstances in China after so many years living abroad, in one published interview. These issues might turn Bei Dao as cultural icon rather than a perfect symbol.

 Critiques on Bei Dao’s Visions

The second layer of the critiques focuses on Bei’s public comments/speeches in a broader socio and political sphere, and critically examines the values or the visions Bei is holding about the tomorrow of Chinese poetry.

Zang Di, as mentioned previously, spends around 100,000 words in contradicting Bei’s opinions as public intellectuals commenting on Chinese poetry. His arguments are emotional and sometimes radical, but there are two provoking contradictions:

Bei has made open comments on the current Chinese poetry world that, contemporary Chinese poets are giving in to the state authority and capital market, institutionalizing themselves in a uniform discourse, and squeezing out the spiritual dimensions and independent voices. He further mentioned, Chinese poetry is facing a tremendous crisis in the cage of an ironed system.

Zang interprets Bei’s opinions of Chinese poetry crisis as “an unconscionable consumption of the socio and cultural icon of Bei Dao”. He points out that Bei over-generalizes the complexity and skip the diversity of today’s brilliant younger generation. For instance, the public space for poetry sharing and discussion is witnessing the greatest spring.  He accuses Bei for his arrogant overview and elitism consciousness while at the absence in the actual Chinese poetry world. 

In an article entitled as National Cultural Renaissance—to the Readers of 2049, Bei advocates a national cultural renaissance movement. The reason for this movement is that, “tracing back to the history, the political and economic vicissitude is a vision of ephemeral, while the eternal flames of cultural innovation essentially makes a nation prosper in the long term”. The approach Bei speaks to launch the movement is that, “literature and art are keys to the national cultural renaissance movement, which includes a shift of the modern Chinese narrative to perfection attained by ancient Chinese”. Bei embraced a return to some good tradition.