Revenge II--Interpretation Part I

Exploring Lu Xun’s Revenge II

Reading Club Session 2

Huiwen (Helen) Zhang[1]

The Title

Recurring questions: whose revenge on whom for what with what consequences?

New questions: in what respect from what perspective to what degree for what purpose are Revenge I and Revenge II related?

The exploration of Revenge I warned against the expectation of a predictable revenge story. 

Paragraph 1

Because he believed himself the Son of God, the King of Israel, he was to be nailed to the cross.

“Because”: an abrupt, arbitrary, forceful, and mind-striking way to start a story.  It implies a preceding question, a missing clause or an erased back story, while at once providing an answer, offering an explanation or anticipating an outcome, all of which due to the lack of preparation are imposed on a reader regardless of whether he cares.

“Because”: a reminder of the ambiguous “therefore” in Revenge I that implies either an utterly absurd transition (fake causation, pseudo-argument, parody of linear narrative) or super-logical reasoning (subtle connection, elemental echo, revelation of an inconvenient truth)—or both.

“believed” instead of “was”: not because what He was (became, proved to be, etc.), but because what He himself believed (thought, assumed, etc.)—what matters is not the truth, but the perception of truth. 

Two types of perception—perception of oneself and perception of others: how did others view Him?  Did they also believe Him the Son of God?  

“the Son of God, the King of Israel”: both a betrayal of the back story—the biblical narrative of Jesus—and a denial or reversal of its original message—“revenge” was not at all associated with Jesus.  Hence the reader’s shock when looking back at the title. 

For this reason, Revenge II is more provocative: while Revenge I occurs in an imaginary landscape (“the vast wilderness” as the multiple stage), Revenge II departs from an iconic scene (the crucifixion of Jesus) loaded with common knowledge and conventional beliefs.  The latter is much less tolerable than the former as the setting of a subversive story.

“he”: “Jesus” or “Christ” never explicitly appears in the text.  The choice of a pronoun over the exclusive name grants the narrative a broader and more comprehensive range of allusions and references.  The reader is encouraged to set himself free from established biblical interpretations while at the same time being constantly reminded of them.  Instead of being taken for granted, they build a navigation system of explanations and assessments.

“he” also highlights the singularity, isolation, and eccentricity of the main character to provide a further figure in Lu Xun’s “Gallery of Loners,” which features the Wanderer, the Shadow, the Dead Fire, the Loner (the wounded wolf), the Madman, the Fighter, etc.  Most of them have no names.

“was to be nailed to the cross”: sounds less like a passive submission than a resolute decision—a decision out of faith.  “To be nailed to the cross” sounds to be part of the self-belief or self-assigned mission. 

This also completes the sentence begun with “Because.”

Revisit the whole paragraph—

Third-person narrative: unlike many other pieces in Wild Grass that engage a first-person narrator, Revenge II follows Revenge I’s third-person narration.  

The distance created this way can be both authentic and deceptive.  The author’s self-projection (self-identification, self-portrayal) is possible.

Opening strategy: based on a biblical tale, yet starting from the middle—why the fragment (or the cut, like the opening of Revenge I)? 

Deleting a string of back stories (including those of Pilates and the mass), so that the significant character/moment stands out.  The reader has no choice but to concentrate on “him” and his particular, irreversible situation.

Overall tone: of comments rather than of storytelling; distant rather than intimate; critical rather than neutral; skeptical rather than empathetic. 

This includes self-observation, self-criticism, self-projection, self-skepticism, and realization of self-deception.

Critique on: arrogance, self-assigned mission and tasks, self-assumed independence, importance, and influence.

Superstition and its political abuse: a reminder of Hong Xiuquan (1814-1864), the self-proclaimed brother of Jesus who started the Taiping Rebellion and founded the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. 

A doubt upon historical and contemporary heroes and the optimistic faith in them.

Argument (temporary): you pay the price for your belief, naturally and inevitably, even if the price is impossible.

Paragraph 2

Soldiers clothed him in a purple robe, put on him a thorn crown, celebrating and congratulating him; they took a reed to beat his head, spat on him, kneeled to worship him; once the mockery came to an end, they stripped him of the purple robe, left him clothed as he was.

Confrontation between the soldiers and Him: no third party (yet) involved. 

The reader has to fix his gaze upon their interaction, which at first glance seems to be the soldiers’ action and His reaction—a contrast between aggressiveness and passivity, explosion and introversion.  Looking back at Paragraph 1, however, the reader realizes that the whole thing can actually be His choice: He decided to be nailed.  Hence, what is interpreted as passivity and silence can also be interpreted as activity and manifestation.    

Compared to the Chinese translation of the Bible: Mark 15 (referred to by Lu Xun): almost a word-for-word copy (see below, quotes in green)—

¹⁵ And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

¹⁶ And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.

¹⁷ And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,

¹⁸ And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

¹⁹ And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.

²⁰ And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.

However, the isolation of the scene blows up the conflicting gestures of the soldiers: clothe and crown—celebrate and congratulate—beat and spit—kneel to worship—strip. 

Do the seemingly paradoxical actions only illustrate the soldiers’ mockery or somehow imply the ambivalence of their altitude towards Him (which recalls the question concerning the perception of others: do others believe Him the Son of God)?

Can the ambivalence come from Him—the direct receiver of those actions, the narrator—the indirect receiver or commentator of those actions, or the reader—the observer of both those actions and the perceptions by multiple parties of them?

Paragraph 3

Behold, they were beating his head, spitting on him, worshiping him…

Compared to the Bible: Mark 15 (see below): a created repetition—

²⁰ And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.

²¹ And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

²² And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

²³ And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

Reinforce the “beating—spitting—worshipping”:

1.     Highlight anew the paradox or ambivalence of the soldiers’ actions: if the reader misses it in Paragraph 2, he has to confront it now.

2.     “Behold” combined with “-ing”: focus on the happening, the present, and the on-going process: increased immediacy.

3.     Force a flashback that instantly denies the preceding sentence, “once the mockery came to an end”:  Does this mean that the mockery would never come to an end because it would be repeated once and once and once again?  Note the punctuation:“…”

Denied at once is also the linear narrative: deviation from the biblical chronology.

4.      Suspend the crucifixion: not through new introductions of Simon and Golgotha, but through repeating the mockery itself.

“Behold,”: a reminder of the language, form, ton, and style of the Bible and Nietzsche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra (“Siehe,”):

Nietzsche on his Zarathustra: “Luther’s language and the poetic form of the Bible as the foundation of a new German poetry: this is my invention” („Die Sprache Luthers und die poetische Form der Bibel als Grundlage einer neuen deutschen Poesie: das ist meine Erfindung“).

In what sense does Lu Xun, the translator of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra and the reader of the Bible, use the word “behold?”

Whose voice is this?

The narrator—a pair of eyes gazing at the interaction between the soldiers and Him, eyes through which the reader views the scene? 

He—both the receiver/object and the examiner/commentator of the soldiers’ actions, capable of jumping out of himself/his situation to look down from above?

Paragraph 4

He was unwilling to drink the myrrh-mixed wine, aiming to get a distinct taste how the Israelites treat their Son of God and for a relative eternity to pity their future yet hate their present.

²³ And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

²⁴ And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

²⁵ And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Compared to the Bible: Mark 15: ‘irrelevant’ details (garments) deleted; ‘relevant’ explanation why “he received it not” added—irrelevant/relevant to the message of Revenge II.

Where the Bible meanders, Revenge II jumps (Paragraph 1).

Where the Bible moves forward, Revenge II slows down (Paragraph 3).

Where the Bible skips, Revenge II explores and expands (Paragraph 4, 6).

“Unwilling”: unwilling to receive sympathy/alms (“myrrh-mixed wine”), like the Beggar? Unwilling to follow/obey, like the Shadow?  Unwilling to fulfill others’ expectations/wishes, like “the two of them” in Revenge I?  Unwilling to forget or be forgotten, to forgive or be forgiven, like the “I” in the Kite?  Instead, willing to experience "a distinct taste," like the dead in the Epitaph, or a scene, like the “I” in Dead Fire as well as A Wonderful Tale?

Matthew 27:

³⁴ They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

Luke 23:

³⁶ And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

³⁷ And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

Among the biblical narrations of the same incident: Luke 23 does not mention whether Jesus accepted the drink; Mark 15 mentions Jesus refused the drink with no explanation; Matthew 27 gives a vague explanation as if Jesus did not like the taste.  In Revenge II, His unwillingness—His will—stands out.

“Unwilling” recalls two other persistent, determined, strong-opinioned ‘loners’ in Lu Xun’s writing, the Shadow and the Wanderer:

The Shadow, “unwilling to wander between dark and light” yet nonetheless wandering between dark and light: “I but raise an ash-black hand for now as if to empty a glass of wine.  When the time comes and I no longer feel the time, I will go far away alone.”

The Wanderer, “unwilling to drink anyone’s blood, no matter whose”: “I hence have no choice but to drink some water to replenish my blood.”

“aiming to get a distinct taste”: behind His decided unwillingness a desire for a distinct taste.  A flashback to the “myrrh-mixed wine”: Is its purpose to calm, sooth, and numb?  Does this show the soldiers’ sympathy (hence related to their ambivalence)?  Or, a question from the opposite direction: can His refusal of the wine/numbness be His revenge?

The desire for a distinct taste recalls the dilemma in Lu Xun’s Epitaph:

“… dug out my heart to eat, yearning to know its true taste. The torment too ruthlessly intense, so how to know the true taste? ... once the torment dulled, ate my heart tranquilly. Already too stale, so how to know the true taste? …"

Considering the above-mentioned impossibility of “the true taste,” how could He get a distinct taste “how the Israelites treat their Son of God” (which is not identical with the crucifixion/suffering) while being treated by them, i.e. crucified?  Concerning intertextuality, is Revenge II a confirmation of the ‘mission impossible’ revealed in the Epitaph or the opposite scenario—its fulfillment?

“for a relative eternity to pity their future yet hate their present”: odd. 

What is “a relative eternity?”  Relative to what?  What is the reference?

Is His eternity of pitying and hating longer without drinking the myrrh-mixed wine?

Or a reversal of the Bible that is chronologically specific?  Revenge II features a non-linear narrative (cf. the forced flashback in Paragraph 3) that indicates the revised nature of the happening: less a historical moment than a continued/reoccurred tragedy.  From this view, the opening cut (“Because he believed…”) implies that the story is a fragment of an on-going process, a scene emerging from a circle.

One measure of time used to relate to other measures of time—

The time seems to switch in possession: “for a relative eternity” relates to Him; “future” and “present” relate to others. 

Paragraph 5

All around was hostility, all deserving mercy, all deserving damnation.

Suspension: A silent, eventless, contemplative moment—continued exploration that is absent in the Bible.

“All around”: Who is in the center, perceiving and confronting “all around?”  Who observes and speaks—the narrator, He, God, or the reader?

“all around”: one of Lu Xun’s characteristic setting—

The Beggar: “A breeze rises.  All around is dust.”

Dead Fire: “But I suddenly tumbled into an ice valley.  All around, above and below, there was nothing that was not ice-cold and green-pale.”  
The Kite: “I would do better to go and hide in the harsh winter of solemn desolation; but all around is in any case harsh winter, already providing me extraordinary severity and chill.” 

“hostility”: not “enemy(ies)/foe(s)”—Better or worse?  Less or more threatening?

Compared to Lu Xun’s Such a Fighter: “He walks into an array of nothing, where all that encounter him face him with the same nod.  He knows this nod is precisely the enemy’s weapon, a weapon that kills without spilling blood; numerous fighters are all nullified here, just the same as gunfire, making a warrior unable to engage his power.”

And Hope: “I have no choice but myself to wrestle the dark night in the emptiness...  But where again is the dark night?  Now there are no stars, no moonlight, not even laughter’s elusiveness or love’s soaring dance; the young people are very much at peace, so that in front of me there is not even a real dark night. “

“all deserving mercy, all deserving damnation”—

“mercy” vs. “damnation”: a paradox—fundamental to Christianity or to Lu Xun? 

In the Bible: damnation and mercy do not exist at the same level: all deserve damnation, yes; but not all deserve mercy—rather, mercy is bestowed.

For Lu Xun: only paradoxes are reliable, for instance—

In Epitaph: “…in the heated frenzy of a grandiose choir, froze; in heaven saw the abyss. In all eyes saw nothingness; in hopelessness found salvation…”

In Hope: “Despair is as hollow and deceptive as hope!”

Or here in the previous paragraph: “pitying their future yet hating their present.”  Is the paradox of mercy/damnation an echo of the paradox of pitying/hating?

“all”: what does “all” refer to, i.e. who deserves “mercy and damnation”—the enemies/the soldiers etc. (concrete, tangible, recognizable) or the hostility (abstract, intangible, atmospheric)?

Further, whose mercy and whose damnation does all deserve—His, God’s, the narrator’s, or the reader’s?  Is the paradox in addition a parallel to the ambivalence revealed in Paragraph 2?

Paragraph 6

Ping ping.  The tip of a nail penetrated the center of the palm, they would soon nail to death their Son of God; pitiable people, ho, made him hurt tenderly. Ping ping.  The tip of a nail penetrated the back of the foot, smashing to pieces a bone, and anguish penetrated heart and marrow.  Yet they themselves were nailing to death their Son of God; damnable people, ho, this made him hurt blissfully.

“Ping ping”: use onomatopoeia to help create the setting and give aural as well as visual clues about the surrounding and the happening.  Cf. Lu Xun’s other writings—

Autumn Night: “‘Caw!’  With this shriek, a night-roving evil bird flies by.”

“The glass of the rear window tinkles, ping ping; there are many tiny flying bugs bumping about.  Not long after a few break in, probably through the holes torn in the window paper.  Once they break in, they bump anew on the glass lamp shade and cause it to tinkle, ping ping.” 

Dead Fire: “‘Ha-ha!  ... Dead flame, now at last I’ve just caught you!’”

“‘Alas!  Then I would burn out!’ … ‘Alas!  Then I would freeze to death.’”

“‘Ha-ha!  You shall never meet the dead fire again!’  I laughed triumphantly, as if I had wanted it just that way.”

The Shadow’s Farewell: “I am unwilling!  Woo-hu-woo-hu, I am unwilling, I’d rather wander in the middle of nowhere.”

Compared to Mark 15: where the Bible hurries and neglects, Revenge II stays and investigates.  Not only differentiate the nuances of His pain—“hurt tenderly” vs. “hurt blissfully,” but also explore the possible causes of the nuances—“pitiable people, ho, made him hurt tenderly” vs. “damnable people, ho, this made him hurt blissfully.”

Differentiating the torment, from both the standpoint of the tormented (Him: tender/blissful) and the standpoint of the tormentor (the soldiers: pitiable/damnable), echoes “aiming to get a distinct taste how the Israelites treat their Son of God” (Paragraph 4).

“they would soon nail to death their Son of God” vs. “they were nailing to death their Son of God”: another hint of the non-linear narrative of Revenge II.

Explanation 1: not the pitiable and damnable people, but the fact that they are or prove to be pitiable and damnable: if the reader hesitates in “pitiable people, ho, made him hurt tenderly,” he is certain in “damnable people, ho, this made him hurt blissfully.”  Writing strategy: misleading and reorienting prompts!

Explanation 2: Lu Xun’s novella, The True Story of Ah Q can be read, above all, as a critique on the so-called “spiritual victory”:

Cf. Wiki entry: In modern Chinese language, the term the "spirit of Ah Q" or "Ah Q mentality" is used commonly as a term of mockery to describe someone who chooses not to face up to reality and deceives himself into believing he is successful, or has unjustified beliefs of superiority over others. It describes a narcissistic individual who rationalizes every single actual failure he faces as a psychological triumph ("spiritual victory").

Within this context, can His transforming/translating/transcending (or His attempt to transform/translate/transcend) the torment be interpreted as an extended example of that “spiritual victory”—an infamous national character of Chinese people diagnosed by Lu Xun? 

“ho”: beyond the above-mentioned function of “ping ping,” this “ho” raises the question: who sighs?

He, the tormented: remain silent except sighing out of pain, pity, and hatred/curse.

The narrator, close to Him: intrude and interrupt occasionally with an analyzing gaze/voice.

His other self: while the first He is suffering (in pain), the second He is observing (off pain), similar to the commenting narrator.  There might be a cognitive framework of His that is able to filter out the pain and transform the nature of His whole experience (from physical torment to spiritual comfort?).

The empathetic reader: prompted to take a stand and become involved; self-identification with either Him or the narrator or varyingly. 

A voice resembling the Greek chorus.

…

Revenge II: not only non-linear, but also multi-layered narrative—contradiction in time and view/voice.

“The tip of a nail penetrated the center of the palm” & “The tip of a nail penetrated the back of the foot, smashing to pieces a bone, and anguish penetrated heart and marrow”: added lines to the biblical tale; like a close-up in a film, they magnify the details and prolongs the torment.  The graphic cruelty recalls the corporeal portrayal and analysis of the bloody slaughter in Revenge I. 

Intertextuality: Paragraph 6 inevitably recalls the Nirvana (type 2 & 3) in Revenge I:

“But if using a sharp-pointed sword, one single strike, piercing the peach-red, tenuous skin, bright red hot blood will spray arrows and with all its warmth immediately flood the slaughterer; then, touching him with icy breath, showing him pale lips, will cause him to lose all his humanity and gain life’s soaring, climaxing Nirvana; as for the slaughtered, he himself will be perpetually immersed in life’s soaring, climaxing Nirvana.”

In this light, can His “tender” and “blissful” pain His revenge on His tormentors and at the same time His perpetual, soaring, climaxing Nirvana?

This interpretation is in violent contrast to the interpretation in the light of Ah Q’s method of “spiritual victory”!  Can two so strongly competing interpretations coexist—be tolerated and even encouraged—in one and the same text??

A fleeting thought: Ah Q’s “victory” can be considered (by himself and the reader) revenge, but not in the sense of Revenge I.

Paragraph 7

The cross arose; he was suspended in the void.

“cross”: any other (figurative) meaning in addition to the instrument of crucifixion, trial, and mission?

“The cross…; he…”: singled out and isolated from the surrounding (soldiers, passers-by, scribes, priests, etc.)—an echo of the abrupt opening: a selective, suggestive camera angle that prompts the reader to focus on specific objects

“suspended”: ambiguity—cf. Oxford Dictionary:

To hang, hang up, by attachment to a support above.

To cause to depend; to regard as dependent, ‘make’ (a thing) depend, upon.

To hold, or cause to be held up, without attachment; to hold, or cause to be held, in suspension.

To keep (one's judgment) undetermined; to refrain from forming (an opinion) or giving (assent) decisively.

To keep in a state of mental fixity, attention, or contemplation; to rivet the attention of; to keep in suspense, uncertainty, or indecision.

               Suspended are not only His body, but also His mind?

“void” (xu-kong) as well as “empty/emptiness (kong-xu)”: two of Lu Xun’s key words—

Wild Grass. Dedication: “When I am silent, I feel whole; once I open my mouth, I feel empty.”

Hope: “I have no choice but myself to wrestle the dark night in the emptiness.” 

The Shadow’s Farewell: “You are still expecting a farewell gift from me.  What on earth can I bestow?  Nothing, only the dark and the void as usual.  Yet I nonetheless want it to be only the dark, so that it may vanish in your white day; yet I nonetheless want it to be only the void, so that it shall never take a place in your heart.”

Question: does “the void” include or exclude “the cross?”  What kind of presence does “the cross” have to Him (in whose eyes)? 

“suspended in the void”: paradoxical or inevitable—

Paradox: does the physical suspension not require something (instead of the void/nothing/emptiness) as a support to depend on?

Necessity: only in the void can He be mentally suspended, because He has no home to go/return to, nothing to belong to.

            Free association: “Christ of Saint John on the Cross” by Salvador Dali

                        The cross, too, is suspended in the void!

Intertextuality: Lu Xun’s self-reflection:

Behind the Grave: a historical “go-between” who no longer belongs to the past (due to his vision of the future and his subversion of tradition) yet will never belong to the future (due to his relation to the past and his subversion of new tradition).

The Shadow’s Farewell: a wanderer “in the middle of nowhere,” claiming: “If there is something in Heaven that I do not fancy, I am unwilling to go thither; if there is something in Hell that I do not fancy, I am unwilling to go thither; if there is something in your future Golden Age that I do not fancy, I am unwilling to go thither.”

Further reference— 

Epitaph: “…in the heated frenzy of a grandiose choir, froze; in heaven saw the abyss. In all eyes saw nothingness; in hopelessness found salvation…”

Hope: “Despair is as hollow and deceptive as hope!”

Question: Are all thinkers way beyond their time (such as Nietzsche & Strindberg) “suspended in the void?”

Cf. Nietzsche: Also sprach Zarathustra: Der Schatten—

„Diess Suchen nach meinem Heim: oh Zarathustra, weisst du wohl, diess Suchen war meine Heimsuchung, es frisst mich auf.

„Wo ist – mein Heim? Darnach frage und suche und suchte ich, das fand ich nicht. Oh ewiges Überall, oh ewiges Nirgendwo, oh ewiges—Umsonst!“

Also sprach der Schatten, und Zarathustra's Gesicht verlängerte sich bei seinen Worten.

Hollingdale’s translation—Thus spoke Zarathustra: The Shadow—

“This seeking for my home: O Zarathustra, do you know this seeking was my affliction, it is consuming me.

“Where is—my home?  I ask and seek and have sought for it, I have not found it.  Oh eternal Everywhere, oh eternal Nowhere, oh eternal—Vanity!”

Thus spoke the shadow, and Zarathustra’s face lengthened at his words.

[1] My lively gratitude to Bryce Sapp, James Amstutz , Kristin Love, Mary Caro Franko and William Hall for their dedicated, unique, and inspirational contributions to the night discussion on January, 31, 2013.