It will mock people.

Author: Fang Lianshui
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-01-01
Features: You would mock others—someone once said this about what I write. This is partly true and partly not. It is true because my work often consists of exposing societal flaws and criticizing evil; but if one assumes from this that I only target others and completely neglect my own flaws, that would be somewhat incorrect. I am fully aware of the many ugly and inherent shortcomings within me, and given the right environment and climate, some of these flaws might even amplify or worsen. For example, if I were given the opportunity to rise in the official circles (pah, writing such critical texts and still expecting advancement in the bureaucracy—what a dream!), my inner servility might grow even stronger, and my ability to flatter and curry favor would likely improve. Corruption and abuse of power might also be inevitable. But I believe none of these should be reasons for me to refrain from mocking others or the state of affairs. They should not, either, serve as a shield for me to avoid speaking the truth or expressing my true thoughts. Mocking others while elevating oneself, and elevating oneself while mocking others—this is something I often keep in mind when writing. To think that one must be flawless before having the right to mock others would mean no one on this earth is qualified.
Your work sometimes contains veiled criticisms, and in the past, this would have landed you in trouble—this seems to have been said by more than one person. In the past, I would have been terrified by such remarks, but times have changed, and history has progressed. Of course, even now, one shouldn’t dismiss such comments outright. Because of the delayed effects of history, the shadow of the far-left still lingers in some people, so the harm caused by the "leftist" ideology still needs constant vigilance. But stepping back, even if your criticisms are truly veiled—using the past to critique the present, or alluding to one thing to criticize another—where does the problem with this abnormal form of criticism lie? Why do they resort to "veiled" attacks instead of direct criticism? Why are they afraid to critique the present or allude to the present? Why do they avoid speaking the truth and resort to circumlocution instead? Do they not wish to speak their minds or let it all hang out? The key issue still lies in our relatively constrained environment and the inadequate protection of citizens' legitimate democratic rights. Once democracy is fully established and the legal system is perfected, would there still be a need to go around the bend in our speech and writing? Only in feudal autocratic societies, or in eras dominated by far-leftism and places where the far-left shadow lingers, would such distorted modes of expression arise.
Now, we are gradually moving toward the environment of free speech as enshrined in the constitution. I believe that critiques and satirical works targeting corruption and evil will increasingly shed the abnormal phenomena of being overly cautious, holding back, being indirect, or even veiled. In reality, the sharpness and subtlety of a work vary not only with the author's character and temperament but also with the reader's perspective. The same piece of writing that speaks the truth with a bit of edge might be recognized and appreciated by those with depth and talent as a sign of shared values; those still influenced by the far-left might conclude that the author has a attitude or questionable; those who prioritize official status might see it as the sour grumbling of a frustrated intellectual unable to achieve success; those with conservative thinking might accuse such words of violating the traditions of the ancestors; while the straightforward masses would likely offer a much simpler evaluation—seeing it as satisfying to read.
During the Cultural Revolution, to encourage people to speak the truth, we promoted the "Four Fearless" campaign—fearless of imprisonment, execution, or even divorce—but in reality, few truly embraced it and few dared to speak their hearts. Everyone understood that speaking the truth would bring no good consequences, so no one was willing or brave enough to expose the emperor's new clothes. This is truly a deeply ironic tragedy of the era.
With reform and opening up, we have gradually come to realize that the "Four Fearless" campaign was merely a temporary measure to cool the pot. The real solution lies in establishing a mechanism that protects the rights of those who dare to speak the truth. With such a democratic and scientific supervisory system in place, even without the call for "Four Fearless," people would feel free to speak their minds. On the other hand, if you enforce a one-man rule or a dictatorship, even if you urge people to be "Four Fearless," they would still hesitate, because they would have every reason to believe you are setting a trap to lure them out.
Of course, the truth is not always entirely correct, and sometimes it can be extreme or even wrong. But truth must always originate from truth. Truth is the genuine expression of a person's true thoughts and feelings. Only by melting countless forms of authentic truth into one can we forge a relative truth that comes close to the absolute truth in the long river of truth. Only in a society where people can speak the truth without restraint can our cause avoid or minimize detours. Therefore, when writing satirical or critical texts, aside from requiring literary flair, what is most important is to speak the truth. Moreover, speaking what others dare not speak, and expressing what others cannot articulate, is also the hallmark of a literate conscience.