After reading Wolf Totem

After reading Wolf Totem [two sample articles in total] fan Wen1: & lt& lt; Wolf Totem & gt& gt; The book has been hot for more than a year, and it's a little late to write comments now. Because I always had doubts about the current popular commercial speculation. Until I found that many people had read it, I decided to read this "wonderful book" praised by the media. So some ideas are stuck in the throat and don't spit out. First of all, as a novel, the literariness of this book really can't be flattered. In fact, since the author is not professional enough, good ordinary readers can fully understand and forgive his poor writing skills. However, the author is unable to integrate the views expressed in his intention into the plot of the story, so he often inserts a large paragraph of discussion after a paragraph of description. The technique is so simple that he can only use sentences such as "a", "B", "a", "C" and so on. The novel is not a thesis. These large sections of blunt sermons roughly interrupt the readers' continuous reading and forcibly substitute the author's point of view into the readers' thinking. The fun and thinking right in reading disappear, and even ordinary readers can't stand it. However, the author is still unable to fully and clearly clarify his point of view, so he has to take the lead in the end and start a pseudo academic report - the reason why the pseudo word is used to describe it is that this text is just a seemingly learned academic report. This style can also be published as a novel. I understand the reasons for the depression of Chinese novels at this stage. In my opinion, this book is more like an academic paper with too long arguments. If the thesis part of the work is omitted, the book can be called a good novel describing the customs of the grassland. Reluctantly, because the writing level of the book is general. Reading the book completely, the wolf highly praised by the author not only failed to infect me, but also affected the image of this lonely and arrogant animal as a symbol in my mind. The plot of the novel is unusual. Even if it is a good novel. It doesn't matter whether the grassland customs conveyed in the book are true or not. Whether the plot is true or not is not the standard to evaluate the merits of the novel. At least it can be read as a fantasy novel. The characterization in the novel is vague or even false. First look at the Mongolian characters that the author focuses on depicting. The first wise man in the book, old bilge, knows at a glance that he is just a symbolic symbol. The author has made up a tool for preaching. The specific reason is beyond my ordinary amateur reader. I can feel it as long as I have read dozens of novels. There is such a wise old man in real life, but the author portrays him as a novel character, which is very false. Since he is just a man without culture and slave origin, how can he always discuss and communicate with the protagonist about the comparison of Chinese and Mongolian culture and say so many wise words? After the warrior Batu appeared in the battle to defend the horses, there was no play. He created a tiger head and a snake tail. I always thought I could see more and more wonderful stories about him later, but I guessed the beginning, but I didn't guess the end. The completely unexpected plot of the novel has the flavor of O. Henry. In fact, the author can express the Mongolian People's bravery, boldness and magnanimity through his description, rather than blindly singing praises, which is called novel technique. Only gasmai and Bayar, although they don't have much play points, have distinctive personalities and leave a deep impression. As for the Han hero in the novel, his image is pale and flat. He does not feel the ups and downs in the years described in this book. He is not like an educated youth, but more like an old cultural comparative scholar. Secondly, let's take a look at the arguments, arguments and discussion methods in this academic paper. Those arguments such as environmental protection and ecological balance are not new, but they are absolutely correct. I want to support them with both hands. However, the point of view is right, but the implementation method needs to be discussed. Even experts can not easily find a solution to these problems, and this is not the central idea of the author. The main purpose of this book is nothing more than the theory of blood lineage. The rest is only the inevitable manifestation of a noble race（ 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) this view is not new. There was a notorious bloodline theory in Nazi Germany as early as World War II. The Jewish nation is a lowly and inferior "scum" and "parasite", which must be eradicated and the world ruled by the noble Aryan Germanic people. I don't find any essential difference between the theory of nomadic nationality and the theory of Nazi descent. Moreover, the author has repeatedly mentioned that the extension of Chinese civilization is all due to the continuous "blood transfusion" of wolf nomads to sheep farming Han people, which is short of directly saying the word "bloodline theory". The Han nationality does have many shortcomings, which need deep reflection. However, does this criticism and reflection mean a strong praise for nomads? The author attributes all positive things to the contribution of wolf nomads in the blood, and all negative situations to the so-called sheep farming Han nationality. The prosperity of Han and Tang Dynasties was due to the "wolf nature", especially the nomadic lineage of the rulers of Li and Tang Dynasties; The military weakness of the song and Ming Dynasties was due to the "sheep nature", and the weakness of the modern Qing government to the western colonists was also due to the degradation of its wolf nature. There are two main methods used by the author to discuss this arbitrary, simple and absurd logical point of view. First, the law of presumption of guilt. Like the presumption of guilt in justice. The author owes the reasons for all positive things to the prairie wolf, and then infers how excellent and perfect the nomadic people who really pass on the prairie wolf. The author's rich imagination is amazing. For example, when the author saw that his pet wolf was extremely frightened as soon as he left the earth, he thought of Aetna, who could not leave the earth mother in Greek mythology, and inferred that the "nomadic Aryan Greeks" probably had a wolf before compiling this myth. And further claimed that this myth had had an important impact on both the East and the West. The myth may have extensive and in-depth influence in the west, but its influence on the East is unknown. For another example, it is inferred that the reason why nomads learn to train horses is that they happen to catch a wild horse that has been cut by Wolf teeth but is lucky to survive. Therefore, the content of this page is pushed for you by "read. 4hw. Com. CN". And casually concluded that the difficulty of this technology is much more than the domestication of wild rice by ancient farmers, and its contribution is far more than "the four great inventions of the Chinese people". This kind of learning method and attitude makes me admire that all five bodies have been thrown to the ground, which is the true story of the first half of Mr. Hu Shi's method of "bold assumption and careful verification". The words used in the discussion are full of emotion and have the language style of aunt Qiongyao (please read this word three times) in recent TV dramas. At the same time with the presumption of guilt law is "used by me", that is, regardless of history, only choose the part favorable to its argument, not to mention whether it is history. The author claims to be well versed in Chinese and Western learning, pointing out history and quoting classics. I am willing to bow down to this. Most of my history knowledge comes from the history classes in primary school and junior middle school. I haven't learned anything for many years and forgot most of it. The author has not read all the historical materials cited, and some of them do not even know the title of the book. But my remaining historical knowledge can at least remember how the Han sheep represented by Yue Fei, Wen Tianxiang and Yuan Chonghuan bravely and tenaciously resisted aggression at that time. Without mentioning anything about this, the author wantonly publicized how cowardly the Han government was at that time and how weak and vulnerable the Han people were. Did the surrender of the Northern Song government to the Jin people negate the character and resistance of the whole Han people? Does the author think that this history has been tampered with by biased Han scholars? Then, how to explain the fact that the weak Han nationality made it take decades for the "bravest and wisest" Mongolian people in the world to conquer[ 1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] when the Mongol Yuan Regime attacked the Southern Song Dynasty, it encountered tenacious resistance that is difficult to see in other parts of the world. Mengge, the Mongolian Khan, died in Sichuan. In successive years of war, the people in the central plains were slaughtered by 1 / 2 to 1 / 3, about 30-50 million people, and the Dangxiang nationality in Xixia was basically destroyed. be careful! This is not the number of military deaths in the war, but the number of civilian deaths slaughtered. In such a large-scale massacre of civilians, even the Manchu and Qing Dynasties, which later created the "Yangzhou ten days" and "Jiading three massacres", will be defeated. Even if modern methods are used later, the Nazis who slaughtered 6 million Jews will be ashamed. Because of the tenacious resistance of the "weakest" Southern Han people, when the Yuan Dynasty forcibly divided the world into four classes, the Mongolian rulers retaliated and set the status of the Southern Han people to the lowest. The majority of the Han people were reduced to slaves oppressed by cruel exploitation and lived a miserable life inferior to pigs and dogs. At that time, the massacre, rape and looting of people everywhere, the destruction and retrogression of world civilization caused by the Mongols in the process of conquering the world were countless, which could not be denied by the author's words. The author cannot deny the above history, so he has to skip it or claim that it is a slander of a biased nation. The author is erudite and knowledgeable. Forgive me for my shallow knowledge. I have never seen this method of learning. The author claims that the "cowardly sheep disease" of the Han nationality can only be treated by "wolf blood input", although the process is painful, it is absolutely necessary. This logic, which openly preaches the rationality of looting and the merits of rape and massacre, is very similar to the logic of some Japanese robbers in recent years - isn't it because of Japan's invasion that the people of Asian countries overthrew the colonial rule of Western imperialism at one fell swoop? The author always talked about the massacre and rape of Han people and the destruction of civilization at that time, saying that it was absolutely necessary. However, he was deeply condemned and tortured by "this blood debt" for having "ruined the happiness and freedom of seven little wolves with noble blood", and "he could hardly face the bloody crimes of his youth for this most autocratic and authoritarian evil." I really can't understand the author's Logic -- if it's also called logic -- is the life of tens of millions of Han people less precious than that of seven wolves?! This argument has been vicious and different from human beings. I have nothing to say about the language of non-human race. In addition, the author's thinking is confused and contradictions are everywhere. Clearly, the rulers of Mongolia and Yuan Dynasty completely rejected sinicization, even promoted farmland to pasture, and did not use Confucianism to govern the country at all. However, the author claims that the decline of the Yuan Dynasty was the super large farmland in the Han region, which softened the wolf nature. Due to the weakness of this "blood transfusion", the farming sheep became stronger and drove the wolves back to the grassland. However, because the recipient was always weaker than the donor, the Ming Dynasty could not conquer the Northern Yuan Dynasty. Since the strengthening sheep is still weaker than the softening wolf, how did Zhu Yuanzhang defeat the rulers and establish the Ming Dynasty? How to explain that the Qing Dynasty, which used Confucianism to govern the country, could rule for a long time? How can the so-called measures to prevent the softening of national character in the Manchu and Qing Dynasties compare with that in the Mongolian and Yuan Dynasties! I can't understand this chaotic logic. For another example, the book repeatedly emphasizes that the Mongolian nation is the most intelligent nation, but it borrows old man bilig to say