Another logical follow-up, this time from last week’s spoken discourse. Apparently Chinese writing is more indirect, circular and ‘suggestive’ than English writing, which is more linear and structured. Am not entirely sure about this actually – that may be true of some kinds of writing (e.g. reports, academia), but surely there are many examples of English writing that follow the more obscure style; being a Literature major, I’ve certainly encountered my fair share of writing with more twists and turns than an F1 race track, and enough circumlocutions to tie one’s mind in painfully inextricable knots. This, rather unsurprisingly, is most evident in poetry, so I find it interesting that the famous Li Bai poem (don’t know the English title – something like ‘Meditations at Midnight’) was used to illustrate the ‘four-part structure’ of Qi (introducing), Cheng (developing), Zhuan (transiting to a seemingly unrelated subject), and He (closing). Similar to the previous post, I thought I would use a simple English poem to show how that same structure could be applied to it. The poet is A.E. Housman (1859–1936), who is probably as famous in English literature as Li Bai is in Chinese literature (though perhaps not as emotionally mature):
When the bells justle in the tower (Qi)
The hollow night amid, (Cheng)
Then on my tongue the taste is sour (Zhuan)
Of all I ever did. (He)
As you can see, there are clear similarities between the poems – both have four lines, both deal with a personal experience at night, and most importantly both convey that sense of the obscuring of literal meaning. I can certainly identify with the feeling expressed by the poem (though I don’t live near any bells), but looked at logically it doesn’t make too much literal sense. The four-part structure doesn’t fit Housman’s poem nearly as well as Li Bai’s, but it comes fairly close. So I remain rather undecided on the differences between Chinese and English writing, or at least on how pronounced they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your criticism of the four part structure is very valid. I must admit that I don't have any answers to your criticism either, especially with respect to the four-part structure of Chinese writing. I remember there have been some scholarly publications which challenge this notion as well (see workbin). Appreciate your perceptivenss on the issue.
ReplyDelete