response

In Professor Leo Lee’s article, he tries to seek the Lu Xun’s “modernity” from both traditional Chinese literature and some western works. But “modernity” in Lee’s usage, as in his other works, its connotation is not very clear. Insofar as Lu Xun’s works are concerned, Lee lauds their “modernity” in terms of the new techniques of expressions and the intention of iconoclastic thrust, which are named “creative writing” and “sense of originality” in Lee’s own words. But I argue that the “modernity” in general not only can be interpreted from the novelty of the form, but also needs an investigation of its content (such as its technological elements) and philosophical meanings. In other words, the “modernity” doesn’t equal to novelty (or creativity) and counter-tradition in the form. Instead, it has other standards, which urge our interpretations of the literary works to a more complicated extent. Also, the difference between the “western modernity” and “Chinese modernity”, and the characteristic of Lu Xun’s “modernity” need to be noticed.