Close Reading of Such a Warrior
Huiwen Zhang**
P 1: There
has to be such a sort of warrior —
“There has to be”: The text opens in a
commanding, arbitrary tone. If “there will be,” then the arrival of “such a
sort of warrior” would be a universal necessity. Here, the narrator promises nothing, predicts
nothing, guarantees nothing. He
unsettles and provokes with an unexplained assertion, to which the reader has to
respond—with questions, doubts, disagreements, objections, counter-arguments, etc.,
such as “Why does there have to be such a sort of warrior?”, “What if they
never come into existence?”, “What circumstances require and enable their
emergence?”, “What circumstances threaten and eat away their existence?”, “Are
those circumstances one and the same?”...
The opening line is a challenging call.
“such
a sort of warrior”: in comparison to the title, “such a warrior”: an
individual—>a type, character, or nature; singular—>potentially plural;
general, random, open—>specific, definite, exclusive.
P. 2: 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.
“nonetheless”—
African
natives/the Chinese Green Troops: ignorant and beaten yet equipped with modern weapons
He/a
representative of this “sort of warrior”: enlightened and energetic yet equipped with the primitive weapon
(Superficially advanced) civilization
vs. (unfashionably retained) primitiveness
Physical
advantage vs. mental superiority
“prays to […] for help” vs. “has only himself”:
African
natives/the Chinese Green Troops: pray for help to armor that prays for help to
cow-hide and scrap-iron = double dependence
He/the
warrior: “has no armor,” pray for help to nothing = naked independence: a
reminder of the “stark naked” couple in Revenge
I
Dependence & insecurity vs.
self-reliance & self-confidence
Appearance vs. essence
“single-throw”: Why the emphasis, not simply “a spear”?—To
magnify the warrior’s readiness/alertness, determination/resoluteness, precision/vision,
economy/effectiveness.
P. 3: 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.
“formation of nothingness”:
“nothingness”:
unlike “nothing,” “nothingness” is something—something that presents itself as nothing or pretends to be nothing: shrewd, deceptive, foxy,
uncanny; present yet shapeless, perceptible yet intangible.
“formation”:
collective, systematic, military; deliberately, strategically, and tactically
ordered; physically, mentally, and ideologically uniformed. The power of a formation does not lie in the
individual, but in the collectiveness, order, and uniformity.
“formation
of nothingness”: Qian Liqun’s explanation (tr. by Huiwen Zhang from Qian: An Expedition of the Mind):
“Manifest
is the hostile atmosphere that besieges you; yet it is impossible to identify your
enemy, hence impossible to differentiate friends from foes or to create a
formation of your own. You repeatedly
and permanently run into all kinds of ‘blind alleys,’ yet they are formless. This is the ‘formation of nothingness.’”
“In China everywhere are ‘blind alleys,’
yet formless, like ‘ghost-knocking-on-the-walls’ [i.e.: ‘enter nowhere’], so
that you repeatedly and permanently run into them.”
“all
that encounter him”: not “all who
encounter him” or “all the people
that encounter him.” Each element of
“all” is a “thing of nothingness.” “All” itself is the “formation of
nothingness.”
“the
same nod”: confirm the origin of
the formation’s power—uniformity and solidarity. Also, “nod,” not “face,” is central here:
their looks do not matter; their gesture (body language) and altitude matter.
“nod”
& “cannon balls”: establish or
secure a distance, then attack from a distance.
They both share two features: 1. “kill without spilling blood;” 2.
“render the brave unable to engage their power.” These are features of modern or ‘civilized’
killing by the weak and coward, in contrast to the barbarian or ‘primitive’
killing by the strong and brave, which demands blood and body power (as
portrayed in Revenge I).
“kill
without spilling blood”: an unchanged Chinese idiom, “destroy a person by
smooth strategy” (sha-ren bu-jian xue),
emphasizing the evil deception of the weak.
“[render]
the brave unable to engage their power”:
a revised Chinese idiom, “talents or brave men have no scope for
displaying one’s abilities” (ying-xiong
wu yong-wu zhi di), emphasizing the helplessness and untimeliness of the
brave.
Cf. Bryce: “When 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.”
(complete
comment: http://sophia-weisheit.blogspot.com/2013/02/such-warrior.html)
P. 4: Above
those heads is every kind of banner, embroidered with every form of grand title:
philanthropist, scholar, writer, elder, youth, nobleman, gentleman… Beneath those heads is every form of garment, embroidered
with every style of grand pattern: knowledge, virtue, national legacy, public
opinion, logic, justice, Eastern civilization…
“Above those heads” & “Beneath those
heads”: in cooperation with “the same nod”: additional, enhanced deception
of the deceptive nod.
“banner embroidered with […] grand title”
& “garment embroidered with […] grand pattern”:
1.
Revenge I: “Passers-by hurry here
from all directions […]. Their clothes
are all pretty.” For both: no
description of the body, because it is hidden inside of the garment/clothes.
2. Although “every kind of,” “every form
of,” and “every style of,” universal is the “grand.”
P. 5: But
he hoists the spear.
“But”: in spite of the grand: the warrior sees through it. This line will be repeated multiple times as
a recurring leitmotif.
P. 6: 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.
“all
vow in the same voice”: highlight one more time the formation’s uniformity
and order.
“their
hearts are in the center of their chests”: remind of the geocentric model
in astronomy, according to which earth is at the orbital center of all
celestial bodies. As long as the view is
dominant, those who question or deny it will be punished.
“left-side-hearted”: the Chinese phrase
used by Lu Xun, pian-xin (slanting, leaning,
shifted, lopsided, unilateral, one-sided… + heart, mind, soul…), normally means
“prejudiced, biased.” Here, Lu Xun
reverses its negative connotation: a warrior must take his stand, the same as
humankind’s inevitably left-sided heart.
From this point of view Lu Xun also names
one of his earliest articles “wen-hua pian-zhi lun” (hitherto tr. as: On Cultural Paranoia, On Cultural Extremes,
On Cultural Extremities, On Cultural Deviation, On the One-Sided Trends of
Culture, On Imbalanced Cultural
Development, etc.), arguing that a competitive civilization cannot do
without “bias and extreme” and that only through a shifting lane can a culture
achieve supremacy.
“bronze
mirror”: the same as “banner” and “garment,” to deceive others (and themselves?)
“testify”:
the Chinese original, zuo-zheng,
literally means “serve as a witness in court.”
It implies confrontation, interrogation and conviction. Intertextuality: Wild Grass. Dedication: “I, with this single handful of wild grass
between light and dark, life and death, past and future, dedicated to friend
and foe, man and beast, loved and unloved, testify.”
“their firm faith”:
1.
Remind of the opening of Revenge II,
“Because he believed himself the Son
of God, the King of Israel, he was to be nailed to the cross.” What matters is
not truth or fact, but belief or
faith.
2. It is not clear whether their faith is
honest or hypocritical. Read back: do
“those heads” honestly believe the “grand title” and “grand
pattern” embroidered in their “banner” and “garment”? Do they use something they themselves do not believe to “testify”?
P. 7: But he hoists the spear.
A
word-for-word repetition of Paragraph 5—
1:
consistency of the warrior: then he sees through the grand appearance, now he
sees through the uniform “vow” and uniform “testimony.”
2: textual illustration of the text’s
message: the ‘eternal return’ as the ultimate affirmation. More later.
P. 8: He
smiles, aims to the side for a single throw that does strike right into the den
of their hearts.
“He smiles,”: not “He aims with a smile.” Instead of presenting the “smile” as a
secondary, accompanying gesture, the narrator grants the “smile” priority,
solitude, and suspension. It fore-shadows or pre-tunes the warrior’s action and prompts the reader to ponder the
possible reasons and meanings of this “smile”:
1.
The warrior’s response to the formation’s uniform “nod”: different, singular.
2.
His response to the formation’s “vow” and testimony: silent, wordless.
3.
His calmness and contemplation; no hurry, no rush: not “hoist the spear—aim and
throw,” but “hoist the spear—smile—aim
and throw.”
4.
His self-conscious superiority to the formation: in His eyes it is laughable. He sees with His penetrating eyes through its
gesture, armor, and speech.
5. His confidence and anticipation of a
triumph over the uncanny formation.
“aims
to the side”: in order to testify His faith that the heart is not in the center of the chest, that the
uniform vow of the formation is false.
“a
single throw”: echo of Paragraph 2: determination, precision, and efficiency. Moreover: with “a single throw,” the warrior
takes care of the entire formation: He perceives and treats the “formation of
nothingness” not as an array of individuals, but as a single whole.
“that does strike”: not simply “strikes,”
as if what happens is unexpected and surprising. To whose surprise or against whose
expectation? Two interrelated
possibilities:
1.
To the surprise of the “formation of nothingness”: “all that encounter him”
assume that “the same nod” with which they face the warrior will spoil and
disarm Him, so He will never attack them.
Even if He will, “the same voice” in which they vow and the same “bronze
mirror” with which they testify will distract and deceive Him, so He will only aim
at “the center of their chests.” His
side-targeted single-throw astonishes the formation because all its strategies
fail.
2.
To the surprise of the reader: if up to this moment the reader has not yet seen
through the formation’s appearance, he must be astonished here and compelled to
take the warrior’s side.
Indeed, “one has to take sides—if one is to
remain human” (Graham Greene). So is the
left-sided heart; so is the one-sided development of culture.
“right into the den of their
hearts”: why not “right into their hearts”?
Cf. Mary Carol: “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 there should be
something (blood, humanity), but only strikes more of the same as the
‘banners,’ ‘garments,’ and outer, meaningless—nothingness.”
(complete
comment: http://sophia-weisheit.blogspot.com/2013/02/such-warrior.html)
Back to our reading of “does strike”: the 3rd, most
disturbing possibility—
3. To the surprise of the warrior: He “aims
to the side for a single throw” because He realizes that the “formation of
nothingness” is His foe, whose nod, vow, and testimony are all false: its heart
is located just like “the rest of
left-side-hearted humankind.” What He
does not realize, however, is that His foe has only a “den of the heart” (the
literal meaning of Lu Xun’s word choice, xin-wo),
inside of which, no heart at all.
P. 9: 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.
“yet
left behind is only a garment”: “yet” resonates the unexpected outcome
implied in “does strike;” “only a
garment” resonates the surprise of the empty “den of their hearts." Altogether
an alarming confirmation of the 3rd possibility above: the warrior’s
wisely-targeted single throw does not outsmart the formation. On the contrary, the formation outsmarts Him.
“inside of which, nothingness”: Lu Xun’s
wording, wu-wu, literally means both “nothing”
and “nothingness.” However, our exploration
of Paragraph 3 (see above) draws the conclusion that the related wording, wu-wu zhi zhen, can only be translated
as the “formation of nothingness,” not “formation of nothing.” Because “nothingness” is something: a formless blind alley or an aggressively besieging
atmosphere, for instance.
Here, inside of the only garment left
behind, there cannot be “nothing” either, but has to be “nothingness.” It is a shapeless yet significant presence that
laughs—with the voice of the uncanny and undefeatable—at the warrior and His
futile attack.
“the
thing of nothingness”: additional evidence that “nothingness” is not
nothing, but an intangible and evasive something.
“fled
away in triumph”: at first sight paradoxical. Isn’t it common that one flees away in defeat and humiliation, and one stands in triumph and glory?
“for at this moment the warrior
stands convicted of slaughtering […]”: “for” offers an apparent explanation
of the paradox. “The warrior stands
convicted” tells the other half of the outcome, seeming to reverse the paradox:
isn’t it logical that one must be convicted of manslaughter?
But
the logic again is deceptive, for the warrior’s spear only strikes into an empty
den of the presumed hearts; He only slaughters an empty garment of the presumed
human beings. The formation of
nothingness presents itself as an array of center-hearted
and grand-titled human beings. The warrior sees through the lies about their
central hearts and grand titles; but He fails to recognize that the formation
of nothingness is, after all, or above all, inhuman. The warrior is insightful enough to penetrate
the formation’s hypocrisy; but He is too human to triumph over it.
Obviously, the formation of nothingness
dominates the world. Its logic, no
matter how paradoxical and hypocritical, is the only logic. Therefore, the warrior—different, singular,
and insightful as He is—must be and can be legally
slaughtered to assure the formation’s
eternal life.
Back
to our reading of “does strike”: we
are prompted to revisit and revise the 1st temporary interpretation
(see above): the warrior’s side-targeted single-throw astonishes the formation, because it initially assumes that either
its “nod” would spoil and disarm Him or, if He nonetheless attacks, its “vow”
would distract and deceive Him.
Now a new possibility emerges: the
formation knows from the very beginning the warrior’s extraordinary abilities—not
only of what He is capable, but also
of what He is incapable. Therefore, the formation sets Him up: from the nod
and vow through the single throw to the conviction for manslaughter.
P. 10: But he hoists the spear.
A
word-for-word repetition of Paragraph 5 and 7:
The
power of “But”—the will power of the
warrior—has been increasing: the first time He hoists the spear despite the formation’s nod, banner, and
garment; the second time He hoists the spear despite its vow and bronze mirror; the third time He hoists the
spear despite its triumph and
verdict, i.e. despite His own defeat
and conviction.
However,
the repetition also raises a question: how can the warrior, already convicted,
hoist the spear anew? Two possibilities:
1.
Another warrior of “such a sort” arrives and confronts the formation. The narrator uses “he” to indicate the shared
faith, ethic, and will of the two warriors.
2. The same warrior survives His
conviction, overcomes His defeat, and hoists His spear anew.
P. 11: He walks in vast strides through the formation of
nothingness, encountering anew the same nod, every kind of banner, every form
of garment…
A
revised, condensed repetition of Paragraph 3 and 4:
“in vast strides”: this added detail
enlarges the warrior’s fortitude, boldness, nobility, and vitality.
“walks […] through” (changed from “walks into”): this revision illustrates the
warrior’s unstoppable advancing in the resistant formation.
“anew”:
this adverb emphasizes the nature of the formation’s pretend—monotonous yet
enduring, unchanged because unchangeable.
Back to the previous question (cf. P. 10):
both possibilities remain; but the 2nd is preferable, because it enables
the warrior—His character and His war against the formation—to develop.
P. 12: But he hoists the spear.
A
word-for-word repetition of Paragraph 5, 7, 10:
“But”:
if the warrior remains the same, He starts over, despite everything.
P. 13: 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.
A
striking contrast to Paragraph 11: fortitude & vitality–>degradation
& fragility.
“ages, wilts, and perishes”: prompts
that support the 2nd possible response to the question raised by P.
10: the same warrior hoists the spear anew despite
being convicted of manslaughter. He
overcomes His defeat and starts over.
The circle of failed—renewed—anew failed—anew renewed... attempts
continues. His mind grows; His character
matures; His spirit endures. But His
body “ages, wilts, and perishes.”
The short textual distance between P. 11
& 13 accelerates and dramatizes the warrior’s aging. As if in the twinkling of an eye, He devotes
His whole life to fighting the formation of nothingness—in vain.
“after all […] after all”: in
the Chinese original, the phrase zhong-yu
has double meanings:
1.
finally, ultimately, in the end: the warrior is born for the formation and dies
for it.
2.
nevertheless, after all, despite everything: the warrior is, however
extraordinary, human.
The double insertion of the phrase intensifies
the ambiguity and tragedy.
“no
longer” vs. “however”: He who time and again “hoists the spear”
eventually ceases to be a warrior because of His humanity. The thing of nothingness that time and again
“flees away in triumph” eventually stays triumphant because it has no heart.
P. 14: Under such circumstances, no one hears the war cry:
peace.
“such
circumstances”: law and order of the formation of nothingness—circumstances
that predetermine the result of any war against it. In addition, a response to the questions
raised by the opening line: why does there have to be such a sort of
warrior? What circumstances require
their emergence? What circumstances eat
away their existence? Are they one and
the same circumstances?
“no
one”: everyone has converted to the formation and becomes integrated into it—becomes
a thing of nothingness.
“peace”: an intertextual echo of the
opening of Better Hell Lost:
“I
dreamt of myself lying on the bed, out in a desolate suburb, next to Hell. All ghosts’ moaning is invariably low, yet
ordered, resonating with flames’ roaring, oil’s boiling, and steel tridents’
trembling, creating an intoxicating supreme symphony—an announcement to the
three kingdoms: peace reigns.”
The formation of nothingness’ law and order
resembles that of Hell.
P. 15: Peace...
One-word
paragraph.
(cf.
“Dust…” in The Beggar: http://sophia-weisheit.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-beggar.html)
A
capitalized repetition of the last word of the preceding paragraph: as if “peace”
truly and eternally reigns.
Had
the text ended here, it would be a manifestation of the ultimate triumph of the
formation. That way the opening line would
be difficult to defend: why does there “have to be such a sort of warrior,” if
His defeat (by the thing of nothingness) is predetermined anyway?
Since, however, this paragraph is not the
last one, it serves actually as a suspension:
as if the intangible atmosphere of devastating violence, cynicism, and nihilism
approaches close to anyone who stays human and refuses to covert.
P. 16: But
he hoists the spear!
A
word-for-word repetition of Paragraph 5, 7, 10, & 12, except for “!”:
“he”: an achronological back-and-forth
similar to Revenge II: the warrior
“ages, wilts, and perishes” in Paragraph 13; yet here, as if reborn or
resurrected, “he hoists the spear” anew.
This last-moment posture shows that, however aged and wilted, He is
unwilling to be suffocated by the besieging atmosphere. Though “no longer a warrior,” He is nevertheless determined to use His last
breath to declare war against His foe—the formation of nothingness, even without
the least hopes of victory.
From
this point of view, the ending is a double echo of Hope (aesthetically and thematically), where the Petǒfi quote is repeated at the end of the text
with a changed punctuation from “.” to “!”—
“Despair is as hollow and
deceptive as hope!”
At
the same time, this ending also prompts the reader to reconsider the possible
reason and meaning of “He smiles, aims
to the side for a single throw that does strike right into the den of their
hearts.” The 6th, most
intriguing explanation emerges (1-5 see Paragraph 8):
6.
The warrior, though without expecting the formation’s empty den of hearts,
intuits that He has been caught in it and will eventually be ruined, because He
does not belong to it, refuses to covert to it, and disapproves its uniform,
hypocritical, and nihilistic altitude.
The
warrior’s smile implies His instinctive recognition and serene acceptance of His
predestined, irreversible tragedy. He
does not laugh, shout, or cry, but smiles like an introverted, delicate poet:
untypical of a “warrior,” sensitive and vulnerable. His smile is a sigh—sad, but not desperate;
disillusioned, but not dispirited.
The
warrior’s smile has less to do with His self-aware superiority to the formation
than with His unconditional persistence in defeating the undefeatable and with His
uncompromising affirmation of war against uniformity, hypocrisy, and
nihilism. His smile is an ultimate Yes to self-imposed ‘mission impossible,’
which is not based on His arrogance or self-deception, but on His warrior ethic
and will power.
** My lively gratitude to Bryce
Sapp, Mary Caro Franko, Joshua Pauls, and William Hall for their dedicated,
unique, and inspirational contributions to the night discussion on March 7,
2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment