Commnet-week 3

When interpreting the “Chinese pathologist” Lu Xun, both T.A. Hsia and Leo Lee indicated Lu Xun’s personal pathos, rather than the social pathos in Chinese society in Wild Grass. It seems that both of the researchers’ discontents with the literary canon established or made up by the literary historians in Communist China, which follow the opinion of Chairman Mao and assert the revolutionary aspect of his works. Both of them link up his gloomy psyche to the modernity. However, I would pay more attention to the literary tradition in Weijin period which are mentioned in Leo Lee’s book but only a few reference. Just like Xi kang or other Weijin writers whom Lu Xun worked with for a long period, Lu Xun himself probably felt the turmoil of the Republican period was a “ran shi” in which people cannot find an exit.