The Original Text and Appreciation of Lu Xun's "Takeism"

"Takeism" is a humorous language form of modern writer Lu Xun, which expresses an idea of attacking current politics and challenging power. It is an essay that dares to analyze culture and understand history. The following is the original text and appreciation of Lu Xun's "Fetishism" I collected for you. Welcome everyone to learn from it, I hope it will help you.

The original "take doctrine":

China has always been a so-called "closed door". No one else is allowed to come unless you go yourself. Since the door was broken by a gun, a series of nails have been hit. Up to now, everything has become a "farewell". If nothing else, I just sent a batch of antiques to Paris for exhibition recently. I don't know what will happen after that. There are also several "masters" holding several ancient paintings and new paintings and hanging them all the way in European countries, which is called "carrying forward the national light". I heard that Dr. Mei Lanfang will be sent to the Soviet Union to promote "symbolism" in the near future, and then he will go to Europe to preach. I don't want to discuss the relationship between Dr. Mei's acting skills and symbolism here. In short, living people have replaced antiques, and I dare say it is a little progress.

But none of us said according to the ceremony of "reciprocity": bring it!

Of course, it is not a bad thing to give it away directly. A person is rich in knowledge, and a person is knowledgeable. Nietzsche boasted that he was the sun, with infinite light and heat, just giving and not wanting. However, Nietzsche is not the sun after all. He's crazy. Neither is China. Although some people say that digging out underground coal is enough for the world to use for hundreds of years, what about hundreds of years later? Hundreds of years later, of course, we will become souls, or go to heaven or go to hell, but our children and grandchildren are still alive, so we should leave them some gifts. Otherwise, on the occasion of the festival ceremony, they get nothing, so they have to kowtow to each other and ask for some leftovers as a reward.

This kind of reward should not be misunderstood as throwing things. It was thrown away. To put it mildly, it can be called "sending". I don't want to give examples here.

I don't want to say "send" here, otherwise it will not be "modern". I just want to advocate that we should be more stingy, not only "send", but also "bring" for "bring".

But we were frightened by what was delivered. First, British opium, abandoned guns in Germany, then French gunpowder, American movies, and various Japanese gadgets printed with "completely domestic products". Therefore, even sober young people are disgusted with foreign goods. In fact, this is precisely because it is "sending" rather than "bringing".

So use your head, open your eyes and get it yourself!

For example, there is a poor young man among us who got a big house because of his ancestors' yin gong (let me put it this way), whether it was cheated, robbed, legally inherited or obtained as a son-in-law. So, what should we do? I think, first of all, regardless of the willy-nilly, "bring it"! However, it would be a shame to oppose the old owner of this house and hesitate to enter the door for fear that his things will be dirty; When you fly into a rage and set it on fire, you can save your innocence, but you are stupid. But because I envy the old owner of this house, this time I accepted everything, jumped into the bedroom happily, smoked the remaining opium, and of course it was even more wasteful. "Usualism" is completely different.

He has and chooses. When you see shark fin, you don't just throw it on the road to show its "popularity". As long as it is nutritious, you can eat it with your friends like radish and cabbage, but don't use it to entertain big guests; When you see opium, you won't fall into the toilet in public to see its complete revolution. You just send it to the drugstore for treatment, but you don't create the mystery of "while stocks last" Only pipes and lanterns, although different from India, Persia and Arabia, can really be regarded as the quintessence of China. If you travel around the world with it on your back, someone will surely see them, but I think everything can be destroyed except sending some to museums. There are still a group of concubines who want to ask them to separate, otherwise "takenism" may be a bit dangerous.

Anyway, we must take it with us. We want to use it, store it, or destroy it. Then, if the owner is a new owner, the house becomes a new one. However, first of all, this person should be calm, brave, discerning and not selfish. Without it, you can't be a newcomer. Without bringing it, literature and art can't become new literature and art.

June 4th.

Original explanation:

(1) China has always been the so-called "closed door". No one else is allowed to come unless you go yourself. (1) Closed-door policy: refers to the closed-door policy pursued by the Qing government. The characteristics of closed-doorism are summarized in plain language. The word "always" highlights its long history and stubbornness. Since the door was broken by a gun, a series of nails have been hit. Up to now, everything has become "farewell doctrine" (① The door was broken by a gun: it refers to the Opium War of 1840. (2) Hit the nail on the head: it refers to a series of unequal treaties signed by the Qing government with Britain, France, Russia, Japan, the United States, Germany and Italy after the Opium War. ) ["Breaking down the door to change guns" and "hitting a string of nails", the image language composed of metonymy and metaphor not only reveals the consequences caused by closed-doorism, but also reveals the reasons for farewell. The corrupt and incompetent government jumps from one extreme to the other. "Up to now", namely 1934, the reactionary Kuomintang authorities are in power; "What" means all, all "sent" out, alluding to the out-and-out traitorous nature of the reactionary Kuomintang government. If nothing else, I just sent a batch of antiques to Paris for exhibition recently. I don't know what will happen. There are also several "masters" holding several ancient paintings and new paintings and hanging them all the way in European countries, which is called "carrying forward the national light". (1 Learning art: generally refers to academic literature and art. (2) Sending a batch of antiques to Paris for exhibition: it refers to the China classical art exhibition held in Paris by the Kuomintang government at that time. ③ "Promoting national glory": 1932 to 1934. Artists Xu Beihong and Liu Haisu went to some European countries to hold China art exhibitions or solo art exhibitions respectively. "Promoting Guoguang" is the term used by Great Evening News 1934 on May 28th when reporting these news. ) [This sentence followed the previous sentence, which spread, saying that "everything is' away'", sending money, land and sovereignty, but this sentence was taken back and returned to the center of this article. "A few" and "a few" indicate that there are not many masters, few works and poor. The word "Peng" is quite meaningful and vividly depicts the slave psychology of "masters" who are respectful and flattering. "Hanging All the Way" satirizes that these "masters" are like doctors selling dog skin plasters in rivers and lakes, bragging about flattery, patrolling the city and auctioning everywhere. Quoting "Carry Forward the Guoguang" is a convenient satire on the ugly face of the reactionary Kuomintang government, and it is not ashamed but proud. In a simple sentence, with refined and vivid verbs and appropriate modifications and restrictions, it vividly depicts the servility and obsequiousness of the Kuomintang government's groveling and worshipping foreign things. I heard that Dr. Mei Lanfang will be sent to the Soviet Union to promote "symbolism" in the near future, and then he will go to Europe to preach. (1) It is said that Dr. Mei Lanfang will be sent to the Soviet Union to promote symbolism in the near future. On May 28th, 1934, Evening News reported: "Russian art circles have always been divided into realism and symbolism, but realism gradually declined, while symbolism was unanimously advocated by the ruling and opposition parties, which led to prosperity. Since artists from other countries saw that China's paintings and calligraphy were in line with symbolism, they recalled that China's plays must also adopt symbolism. Because it plans to invite China opera master Mei Lanfang and others to perform. " In response to this news, Lu Xun wrote "Who is Declining" on May 30 of the same year, pointing out that symbolism has declined in the Soviet Union, and refuting the argument that Chinese painting and drama conform to symbolism. Symbolism is a literary school that rose in France at the end of 19. Ordinary words such as "urging", "passing by" and "preaching" are also ironic. Obviously, he is betraying his country and seeking glory, but he just wants to beat his face and be the boss. I don't want to discuss the relationship between Dr. Mei's acting skills and symbolism here. In short, living people have replaced antiques, and I dare say it is a little progress. The word "in any case" leads to the general sentence of this paragraph and summarizes the characteristics of "send-away doctrine". "Progress" is a kind of irony. "Living people have replaced antiques" is not academic progress and cultural prosperity, but academic retrogression and cultural degradation. The author satirizes that the wind of "sending away" is getting worse and worse, and it is stubborn and deeper. The word "calculate" is humorous, which shows that the author disdains it. ]

(2) But none of us said, "Bring it!" According to the ceremony of "reciprocity". (1) reciprocity: courtesy focuses on giving and receiving. Shang, advocating and attaching importance to it. Ceremony: that is, etiquette. ) [The above is about the performance and progress of "sending away", and there is a sudden sharp turn here, and "bring it!" Like a bolt from the blue, it hit the "send-away doctrine" and worked wonders. This sentence also gave "giving away" a bitter irony. Isn't it often said that China is a country of etiquette, and it is "indecent to come without going"? But why only talk about "sending", but no one talks about "taking" according to the "etiquette" of "reciprocity"? ]

The first part (paragraph 1-2) focuses on the expression of "sending away" in learning arts and the flattery of its promoters, and puts forward the idea of "taking away" as opposed to blind "sending away".

To appreciate these two paragraphs, we must first understand the author's problem-solving methods. This paper takes "take-away doctrine" as the topic, but starts from "closed-door doctrine" and then shows the performance of "send-away doctrine". It was not until later that the word "Dan" was used to lead to the problem of "taking". It seems to be a big bend, but in fact it is argued from the opposite side. "Closed-door Doctrine" and "Send-away Doctrine" are opposites of "Take-away Doctrine". The author put them out first to show their performance, which laid a solid foundation for the later criticism and the negative argument of "takeaway".

(3) Of course, it is not a bad thing to give it away casually. One is knowledgeable, and the other is generous. (1) Generosity: Generosity, generosity. ) [This is irony. "Being rich" is a boast that deceives the world and confuses the people, and it is an excuse to flatter others and seek glory. "Generosity" is the black sheep's act of "generosity" to national interests. Nietzsche (1) boasted. (2) He is the sun, with infinite light and heat. He just gives and doesn't want to get it. However, Nietzsche is not the sun after all. He's crazy. Neither is China, although some people say that underground coal is enough for the world to use for hundreds of years. It is insanity to compare Nietzsche to the sun and ridicule Nietzsche's pretensions. Comparing "Pietism" to Nietzsche, people feel that those who boast of China's vast territory and abundant resources and thus advocate "Pietism" are also "crazy" who are arrogant and overreaching, and their criticism is sharp and profound. ] But, hundreds of years later? Hundreds of years later, of course, we will become souls, or go to heaven or go to hell, but our children and grandchildren are still alive, so we should leave them some gifts. Otherwise, when it comes to the festival, they can't come up with anything, so they have to kowtow and congratulate them and ask for some leftovers as a reward. (1) Cold roast of leftovers: eat leftovers and borrow alms from powerful people. Roast, broil, barbecue. In a few hundred years, of course, we will become souls, or go to heaven or go to hell. There is a thorn in the words here, implying that you have done so many "good things", and of course you will go to heaven in the afterlife, and we sinners can only go to hell. Outstanding humorous ability and excellent satirical art are repeatedly displayed in these paragraphs. "Congratulations on kowtowing" depicts the servility, flattery and shameless heart of the conquered. Leftover Soup not only depicts the tragic experience of the conquered people who have no livelihood and beg for a living, but also vividly reveals the fact that imperialism dumped surplus products to colonial and semi-colonial countries and carried out economic aggression after draining the blood and sweat of colonial and semi-colonial people. "Reward" naturally does not mean reward or reward, but satirizes the ignorance, shamelessness, stupidity and hypocrisy of Kuomintang reactionaries in the face of imperialist malicious alms. This sentence vividly reveals the essence of "sending away" national subjugation and endangering future generations. ]

(4) This kind of reward should not be misunderstood as something thrown. It was thrown away. To put it mildly, it can be called "sending". I don't want to give examples here. (1 crown: the provincial language of "high-sounding" means very decent and majestic. Crown, ɡ u ā n meters n, originally refers to the hats worn by ancient emperors and princes. ② I don't want to give an example here: it implies the surplus wheat, flour and cotton shipped out according to the "cotton and wheat loan" agreement signed between the Kuomintang government and the United States in 1933. ) ["Unwilling to cite" actually implies that the reactionary Kuomintang government is not allowed to point out, and conveniently exposes the cultural autocracy policy of the reactionary Kuomintang government; And this kind of writing method of saying half a sentence and leaving half a sentence, if you want to say it, can best stimulate readers' interest in getting to the bottom of it and play a role of silence over sound. ]

(5) I don't want to say "send" here, otherwise it won't be "modern". (① modern: the transliteration of the English word "modern", which means "modern" and "fashionable". ) [here literally alludes to the so-called "modern" style that prevailed at that time, and also alludes to the reactionaries' "prosperity" and selling the country for glory, which can be described as killing two birds with one stone. I just want to advocate that we should be a little more stingy. Besides "sending", we should also "take" for the sake of "taking". [Here, with the derogatory terms of "rich" and "generous" mentioned earlier, the method of derogatory terms is adopted. "Advocating" is by no means instructing or inciting others to do bad things, but telling the truth with confidence. "stingy" is not petty, but means "cherish", which shows the correct attitude towards national property and cultural wealth. The article is praised for a while and praised for a while, which greatly enhances the irony and sense of humor of the language. ]

The second part (paragraphs 3-5) mainly criticizes the "send-away doctrine", exposes the slave owner relationship between senders, distinguishes between "throw-back" and "throw-back", and puts forward the argument of "take-away doctrine".

To appreciate these paragraphs, we must have a deep understanding of the art of refutation. Lu Xun first punctuated the words and criticized the "send-away doctrine" to the point, and then stood in it and put forward the idea of "send-away doctrine". The above-mentioned "closed-doorism" and "send-away" are the opposites of "send-away", but the harm of "closed-doorism" is well known, so let's leave it aside for the time being, and this part is devoted to criticizing "send-away".

"Send away" is a big topic. How can we criticize a short paragraph? The first is the clever choice of angle. Aside from other problems, the author only starts with the harm of "sending away", with a small angle and to the point. Secondly, the rebuttal method is ingenious. At the beginning, the author used the word "of course" to make a false statement for "sending away". "Of course, just send out is not a bad thing. One is rich and the other is generous. " This is to suppress the old and promote the new, playing hard to get; Then it leads to Nietzsche's boasting about the sun, and further finds the basis for "sending away". If it goes up again, the higher it goes, the worse it will fall. When the "send-away doctrine" was brought to the extreme, the pen suddenly turned, "However, Nietzsche is not the sun after all, he is crazy." Since then, Nietzsche has been compared with China. Taking the rich coal as an example, it shows that China is not the sun and cannot be "infinite in light and heat"; Giving people away blindly will only harm future generations. The absurdity of the result proves the absurdity of the starting point by reducing to absurdity. In a short essay, the author skillfully uses various rebuttal methods such as evasion, analogy, examples and reduction to absurdity, which fully exposes the absurdity of "sending away". This is the most wonderful passage in this article, which shows Lu Xun's superb debating ability.

After criticizing "send away", the author immediately turned to criticize the other opposite of "take away" and distinguished the difference between "throw away" and "throw away". "Toulai" is a neutral word, which refers to the unintentional and aimless giving. You can accept it or not, both sides are equal. "Throw it away" is like "accidental food". You have no right to choose whether you want it or not. Giving and receiving are unfair, with the nature of discrimination between master and servant and personal insult. "Sending" is just a grandiose statement. Through the analysis of the concept, the essence of "sending" is revealed, and at the same time, it is explained that we should not generally oppose exchanges with the West, but accept equal and reciprocal "throwing" and oppose unequal and aggressive "throwing".

The article deeply criticizes the "send-away doctrine" and initially reveals its essence, so it shows its own point of view: "I just want to argue that we should be a little more stingy, and besides" send-away ",we should also" take away "for the sake of" take-away doctrine ". This argument is very strict, not to say that you can't "send", but you can't just "send" and "send" indefinitely, but "send" at the same time.

But we were frightened by what was sent. First, British opium, abandoned guns in Germany, then French gunpowder, American movies, and various Japanese gadgets printed with "completely domestic products". Therefore, even sober young people are disgusted with foreign goods. In fact, this is precisely because it is "sending" rather than "bringing".

(7) So we should use our brains, open our eyes and get it ourselves!

The third part (paragraphs 6-7) focuses on revealing the true face of "take", drawing a clear line between "take" and "take" and revealing the essence of "take".

These two paragraphs further criticize the concept of "sent here" from above. Here are typical examples, which prove that all "sent here" are "leftovers" with conclusive facts, and the image language reveals the reactionary nature of imperialist economic aggression and cultural aggression. "Frightened" describes the despicable behavior of imperialism to the point of outrageous. "The horror of foreign goods" is the result of "sending", which makes some people, even sober young people, have a blind xenophobia tendency. In fact, this sentence points out that foreign goods have dross and essence, "sending" is dross, and "bringing" may be essence. So the article concludes: "Use your head, keep your eyes open and do it yourself!" "Use your head" means to adopt an analytical attitude towards foreign goods, "keep your eyes open" means to have courage and boldness of vision, and "take it yourself" means to have the spirit of actively deciding what you want or not according to your own needs.

What attitude should we take towards foreign cultures? Only when the article is written here can I put forward my own views completely, from "taking" to "taking doctrine" to "using your head, opening your eyes and taking it yourself", step by step and deepening.

It is particularly noteworthy that the article has deepened our understanding in criticizing erroneous views. Starting with "closed-doorism", this paper puts forward the concrete expression of "sending away" and leads to the word "belt". Then deeply analyze the harm of "sending away" to expose its absurdity, theoretically reveal the essence of "sending away" from conceptual analysis, and further put forward the idea of "taking away"; Then put forward typical cases, continue to expose the aggressive nature of the "faction" and criticize the naivety of blind xenophobia. At this point in the article, "closing the door", "sending away", "sending away" and "exclusion" all criticize all viewpoints that are opposite to "sending away" and expose their harm and essence, so they put forward their own opinions completely: "So we should use our brains, open our eyes and get it ourselves!" This kind of writing method, which stands without breaking, stands without breaking, goes deep at different levels and keeps digging, makes the writing twists and turns, and there are many discussions, which is worth learning and learning from.

(8) For example, there is a poor young man among us who got a big house because of his ancestors' yin gong (let's not talk about this problem for the time being), regardless of whether he was cheated, robbed, legally inherited or obtained as a son-in-law. (1) Yin Gong: Superstition says that people who do good deeds will be rewarded in the underworld, which can benefit future generations. Lu Xun killed a horizontal gun here, hitting the Kuomintang reactionaries headed by Chiang Kai-shek and others. The so-called "being cheated and robbed" is an allusion to Chiang Kai-shek. First, he cheated Sun Yat-sen's trust and became the president of Whampoa Military Academy. Then he usurped the victory of the revolution by crowding out and suppressing the * * * production party. Therefore, in this article and other articles, Lu Xun repeatedly satirized that his world was "cheated and robbed". The so-called "being a son-in-law" is generally said to satirize the crescent poet Shao, saying that he became the son-in-law of a rich man and showed off to others. ] So, what should we do? I think, first of all, regardless of the willy-nilly, "bring it"! However, if we oppose the old owner of this house and are afraid that his things will be dirty, we will hesitate to walk in the door. When you fly into a rage and set it on fire, you can save your innocence, but you are stupid. (1) Coward: A weak person. Ah, Qin, however, because I envy the old owner of this house, I accepted everything this time, jumped into the bedroom happily and sucked the rest of the opium, which was of course a waste. (1) Stumbling: limping. Come on, Bi Er. ) and "takenism" is completely different. By criticizing three wrong attitudes towards cultural heritage, it is pointed out that the first essence of utilitarianism is: take (possess). ]

(9) He possesses and chooses. When you see shark fin, you don't just throw it on the road to show its "popularity". As long as it is nutritious, you can eat it with your friends like radish and cabbage, but don't use it to entertain big guests; When you see opium, you won't fall into Mao's toilet in public to see its complete revolution. You just send it to the pharmacy for treatment, but you can't get the mystery of "while stocks last". (1) Shark's fin: A kind of precious seafood, made from dried shark's fin. (2) Therefore, this refers to the means of covering up the truth and confusing people. ) Only pipes and lamps, although different in form from India, Persia and Arabia, are really national quintessence. If you travel around the world with it on your back, someone will surely see them, but I think everything can be destroyed except sending some to museums. (1) Persia: the old name of Iran. ② Arabic: generally translated as "Arabic". (3) National quintessence: originally refers to the essence of national culture, here is irony. There are also a group of concubines who want to ask them to separate, otherwise "takeaway ism" may be a bit of a crisis. Analysis of cultural heritage has both essence and dross, which can neither be completely absorbed nor completely abandoned, indicating that the second essence of takenism is: choice. ]

(10) anyway. We want to use it, store it, or destroy it. Then, if the owner is a new owner, the house becomes a new one. However, first of all, this person should be calm, brave, discerning and not selfish. Without it, you can't be a newcomer. If we don't take it, literature and art can't become new literature and art. This paper analyzes the relationship between taking it and innovation, and explains the third essence of taking it: innovation in breaking and inheriting. ]

The fourth part (paragraph 8- 10) expounds the specific connotation of takenism. When criticizing the wrong attitude towards Chinese and foreign cultural heritage, the author points out that the essence of "takenism" is "possession", "choice" and innovation.

The outstanding characteristics of these paragraphs are to use metaphors to explain reason, turn abstruse into simple, abstract into concrete, boring into funny, unfamiliar into familiar, thus enhancing the image and appeal of these essays. How to treat Chinese and foreign cultural heritage is an abstract and difficult topic, and the imperial monograph is difficult to exhaust its purpose. Mr. Lu Xun simplified the complex and lifted the weight easily, comparing Chinese and foreign cultural heritage to a big house. "So, what should we do?" The author first put forward positively, "anyway,' bring it!'" "Emphasize that" bring it "should be bold and resolute, and don't be timid and hesitant. Then negative metaphor criticizes three wrong attitudes towards cultural heritage: calling escapers who are afraid of learning, pollution and possession "cowards"; Nihilism that cuts off history, blindly rejects, flaunts innocence and opposes inheritance and possession is called "idiot"; Compare the right-wing retro school that worships and fully inherits to "waste". The metaphor is novel and interesting, the irony is profound and sharp, and the reasoning is clear and clear, which makes people unforgettable and memorable.

After emphasizing that cultural heritage must be "taken" and "occupied", the article further discusses that cultural heritage must be "selected". "Shark's fin" is a metaphor for the essence of cultural heritage, and it should be "eaten"; "Opium" is a metaphor for the coexistence of essence and dross in cultural heritage, and it is necessary to turn harm into benefit; "Smoke pipe", "smoke lamp" and "concubine" are metaphors of dross in cultural heritage and should be "destroyed" (only a few are left to museums). These three metaphors explain how to treat cultural heritage in simple terms.

Finally, the relationship between inheritance and innovation is discussed. In a word, this sentence takes care of and deepens "possession and choice" and emphasizes selective inheritance again. The sentence "then" shows the significance of inheritance to innovation from the front, and inheritance will lead to innovation. However, this sentence shows how to inherit selectively. The last sentence illustrates the significance of inheritance to innovation from the opposite side. Without inheritance, there will be no innovation.

It is worth noting that the first few paragraphs of the article discuss how to treat foreign cultures, and these paragraphs talk about how to treat ancient cultural heritage. The front and the back seem to be out of touch, but in fact they are closely related, because the spirit of the two is completely consistent.