Such
a Warrior
Lu
Xun 1925
Tr.
Huiwen Zhang 2012
There has to be such a sort of warrior
—
No longer ignorant as African natives who
nonetheless bear shiny rifles; nor beaten as the Chinese Green Troops who
nonetheless wear pistols. He has no
armor that prays to cow-hide and scrap-iron for help; he has only himself, but
seizing what barbarians use: a single-throw spear.
He walks into a formation of nothingness,
where all that encounter him face him with the same nod. He is aware that this nod is precisely the
enemy’s weapon, a weapon that kills without spilling blood; numerous warriors have
been nullified here, just the same as cannon balls: they render the brave
unable to engage their power.
But he hoists the spear.
They all vow in the same voice that
their hearts are in the center of their chests, unlike the rest of left-side-hearted
humankind. They all place on their
chests a heart-protecting bronze mirror, in order to testify their firm faith
that the heart is in the center of the chest.
But he hoists the spear.
He smiles, aims to the side for a single
throw that does strike right into the den of their hearts.
All collapse to the ground; yet left
behind is only a garment, inside of which, nothingness. The thing of nothingness has fled away in triumph,
for at this moment the warrior stands convicted of slaughtering the
philanthropists and their like.
But
he hoists the spear.
He walks in vast strides through the
formation of nothingness, encountering anew the same nod, every kind of banner,
every form of garment…
But he hoists the spear.
He, after all, ages, wilts, and
perishes in the formation of nothingness.
He, after all, is no longer a warrior.
The thing of nothingness, however, triumphant.
Under such circumstances, no one
hears the war cry: peace.
Peace...
But he hoists the spear!
render the brave unable to engage their power.
ReplyDeleteWhen two strangers meet for the first time, they may fear each other because neither is sure of the other's intentions. To ease this fear they shake hands, a gesture of peace intended to show that neither person is holding a weapon. These days nodding has replaced shaking hands in many casual situations - you nod at me, I nod at you, now we have established a sort of mutual trust and peace treaty. I think this may be why the nod nullifies warriors... the formation nods first, extending their empty hand. The formation has no weapons. But it is exactly this weaponlessness and quick offer of peace that "renders the brave unable to engage their power", because most warriors will not attack this seemingly compliant unarmed opponent. They will nod back and be nullified. But this "sort of warrior" is one who recognizes that the nod is an attack - because peace is a victory for the opponent, whereas constant struggle is a victory for the warrior.
I see many soldiers; could I but see many warriors! "Uniform" one calleth what they wear; may it not be uniform what they therewith hide! Ye shall be those whose eyes ever seek for an enemy—for your enemy... Ye shall love peace as a means to new wars—and the short peace more than the long.
"He smiles, aims to the side for a single throw that does strike right into the bottom of their hearts."
ReplyDeleteI have read this many times through now, but every time it is this line which haunts me more than any other. In particular, "right into the bottom of their hearts" lingers on in my head. Something about Lu Xun's word choice here is unsettling; it is as though he is giving the reader a hint but wrapping the hint in overly-decorated figurative language. What is the purpose in him describing where in the heart the spear strikes? What is the significance of wounding "the bottom of their hearts"?
This line stirs such imagery that when I read it my immediate reaction is to picture a bucket—playing some sort of coin-toss game where the player tosses the coin up so that it may fall, as he aimed, right back down into the bottom of the empty bucket.
I believe that the openness of Lu Xun's language with his use of "right into the bottom" purposefully foreshadows the futility of the warrior's attempt. The spear "does strike right into the bottom of their hearts" and not through their hearts because their hearts are empty—though it hits the right spot, there is NOTHING for it to strike other than the unfulfilling bottom or outer case—"bucket"—of their hearts. The spear passes through where their should be something (blood, humanity), but only strikes more of the same as the "banners," "garments," and outer, meaningless—nothingness.
I apologize for the format, but these are my first (mixed with my second) thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThere “has to be” – why? is this hope? or is it necessity? The sentence never finishes, so which of the two kinds of warriors does he refer to?
Armor and modern weapons are cowardice? No longer a true warrior.
“Formation of nothingness” – does that mean empty aggregation? That the shape is nothing?
That the shape is the only thing and that it is comprised of nothing?
“Spear” is half of “conflict.”
“Nod” as weapon – bloodless slaughter? (Bloodless slaughter at end, when none are left.)
“Nullified” – rendered useless? worse than bloody death? rendered obsolete, like cannons?
Are the banners justification or reminders of what they could be if not warriors? or are they not really warriors but pretending to be?
Hearts centered in chest – steadfast and sure, balanced and neutral, but really ignorant to believe so because no human can be?
“But he hoists the spear” means something different every time – but creates contrast from preceding sentence/idea
Who is he that throws and knows where the heart truly lies? The true warrior? How to distinguish true warrior from false throughout? The lines are softer and more subtle than they would seem.
Their clothes are empty once they die, more nothingness.
The true warrior is accused of murder, not victory. They were not warriors. But they did choose to play the warrior’s game.
He wilts and perishes with nothing left to fight against – bloodless slaughter.
Fight against something – only strong stances, ideologies disguised as warriors…
My first reactions to the poem, or the main points I was struck by when reading it for the first time:
ReplyDeleteMost importantly I was intrigued by the distinctions Lu Xun made between the warrior and those he was fighting against. The banners the warrior's opponents held seemed to symbolize each kind of trait they were upholding, and their deeply-rooted professions as scholars and nobles led them to act defensively in the story. They fought as if they had something to lose, and were immediately defeated by the warrior's single throws of a spear, which was the only thing the latter had apart from the nothingness that can draw back to other poems Lu Xun made.
Nothingness appears to be described in positive qualities here, as the warrior has nothing to lose apart from his spear, which he easily tosses away to tear down those who think they have something to lose. Once the warrior discards the spear he essentially becomes this nothingness, and this absence of needing to concern oneself with material things might coincide with a belief that such qualities can get in the way. Lu Xun ending this poem by claiming that peace is what the warrior promotes signifies that this nothingness might be true peace, and given the nature of the warrior's unnatural power and the depictions of those he fights this makes sense.
James Amstutz