1. On Doggerel

In the preceding discussion, I didn't address the matter of diction. Since the poems were written very quickly — dashed off and posted immediately — there must be room for improvement in the diction (I'm not talking about the presence of English letters). Mainly, the parts that should be earthy could be even earthier, and vice versa. This leads to the broader question of so-called doggerel. My principle: the best is whatever is placed in the right position. Doggerel is absolutely fine. In a poem like this one, if what the Strongman says weren't oily, it wouldn't be right. As for standalone doggerel, as long as the content fits, why not? The prejudice against doggerel comes from the so-called aristocratic tradition of poetry, but this tradition has no particularly special justification.

Note: A text has no meaning — or one could also say a text's meaning is infinite; garbage is a kind of meaning too. Interpretation, including the author's interpretation, is always superfluous. Just take it as a joke and let it pass with a laugh. (Excuse me, miss — is that a Faye Wong song? Also, I'm rather old-fashioned — does MM mean what I currently think it means?)

Toward malicious people, studying without criticizing, observing without commenting is undoubtedly the best attitude. Just let them live and die on their own, reaping their own karma. Otherwise, once entangled, they'll cling relentlessly and cause no end of trouble. This is also my attitude.

Thanks to the magnanimity of the authorities, I once again have the right to speak. To avoid further incidents, from now on my posts will forever follow this thread like following the Party — never opening a new thread, never replying to anyone else. If someday the authorities find it amusing to ban me, I won't have the slightest complaint and will continue playing along. Otherwise, I'll just talk to myself until the authorities bring down the axe.

Through this thread, I hope to discuss some issues related to poetry, writing whatever comes to mind. As for creative works — those will be put on hold for now. Although I know the style that people here prefer, and although I've previously written large quantities of similar work, I've come to feel that what generally grows on ancient corpses is just corpse-worms — unless you grind the corpse up and bury it in soil as fertilizer, in which case it might grow something different. What is the soil? The present moment's conditions and circumstances. Furthermore, don't worry about others calling us ruthless — if future generations can grind you up to use as fertilizer, that's truly a great honor. Looking up and down across thousands of years, how many are worth that?

I spent the whole afternoon practicing "Pourquoi me réveiller" — now I finally have time to write about doggerel. Actually, before coming here, I had never written doggerel. What I wrote before, I believe, didn't have a drop of oil in it. But after arriving here, I don't know who awakened that root — it just wouldn't stop flowing. If at first it was just messing around, later it became more serious, even for the pieces dashed off in a few minutes. (Stuff wrung out by squeezing every last drop of brain juice is basically never going to be good doggerel.)

Regarding doggerel, I feel that in terms of concept, it's no different from writing non-oily verse. Anything can be given an oily treatment. The key is that the angle of approach must be right. Doggerel is harder than non-oily verse in one respect: it requires a sense of humor. If you're too balanced and staid, it's hard to get oily. Doggerel must be free-spirited — above and below heaven and earth, everywhere you look is spring.

Also, doggerel equally demands attention to diction and word-choice. For example, one piece I posted: "Xiaoren asks the moderator — which words cannot be uttered / in the grand mansion with deep gates — what kind of tree should be planted / if one plants wrong — will one be reported to the authorities / my ears have been hard of hearing all my life — can't hear the drum before the hall / blind and cannot see — the rules and squares on the pillars / I only feel the road ahead is dark — as if there are knives and axes / in short, for us common folk — left or right, it's all suffering."

The last line was originally written as "whether the dynasty rises or falls, it's all suffering" — but the moment I posted it, I felt it was wrong. Too much like that famous Yuan qu. I immediately changed it to "left or right, it's all suffering." This made it much more modern — and in an earlier era, it might have gotten me in trouble. Getting in trouble is good — it proves that "left or right" is absolutely crucial here. Without those two words, everything before them is wasted. I won't go into specifics — trouble with poetry is fine, but commentary is best avoided. Though at the time, with swords drawn and bows bent, probably no one noticed this point. If doggerel merely targets one time and one place, it's too boring. The present moment is just an occasion — if you can be neither-attached-nor-detached, both-attached-and-detached, then it's different from rhymed cursing.

Four appended pieces:
The prophet dies before his time — a hundred generations leave their branches — fooling people and fooling ghosts — everywhere playing at miracles
The Human King and the Demon King — who among them doesn't serve the people? — It's just that when it's time to pay the bill — they want copper and they want silver
Can poetry reach the heights of Yellow Crane Tower? That's beyond my ability — democracy and freedom are all detestable — ghosts and monsters, humans and demons each have their preferences — which Enlightenment figure can serve as a beacon?
After three rounds, none have scored — could work as a Viagra sales manager — chickens, ducks, cows, sheep, pigs, mules, horses — from today, all under heaven are one family

Yesterday I spoke about the importance of humor in doggerel — today let me expand on that. In a sense, Chinese people are relatively lacking in humor, especially the older generation, or rather, those who consider themselves destined to bear heaven's great mission. For them, humor is even harder to achieve. Following the standard Chinese literati approach, the best way to take something down is to push it toward the vulgar end. Consider: Confucius the Second was so refined that listening to music made him lose his appetite for meat — but who has investigated what he was actually listening to? Faye Wong? A concubine? Whatever — even if he was listening to "The Eighteen Caresses," it would still be refined, because he's the Old Second.

I won't get into refined versus vulgar, but I know that the line above about "the Old Second" will certainly be regarded by his descendants as lowbrow humor rather than true humor. Some say humor is related to wisdom — I'd rather say humor is related to life's present moment, or that humor and poetry are of the same substance. For doggerel, humor is indispensable. Doggerel without humor is like soup without salt.

Literati always like to draw boxes — just like Shanghai gangs, once the lines are drawn, you can unite and confederate with those inside. Anyone outside the lines is an outsider. I think this is perfectly normal. Nowadays people are living longer and longer — they can even be frozen and cloned — it takes so long to finally die. Without some games to play, how would they pass the time?

Continuing the earlier topic. Doggerel naturally also requires attention to prosodic rules. My feeling is that pentasyllabic verse is the better form for doggerel — this is evident from the doggerel works that have been passed down through the ages. For heptasyllabic verse, the quatrain form is best. Without special reason, it's best to strictly observe tonal rules — this relates to musical rhythm. Pentasyllabic verse, on the other hand, doesn't demand such strict prosody — it's better to develop its own inherent music. As for rhyming, I absolutely follow the Pingshui rhyme system, and don't cross-rhyme between neighboring rhyme groups. There's no particular reason for this — it's just more fun. For southerners, the Pingshui rhyme system is definitely more harmonious than modern rhymes. Let me say something that will offend many: modern Mandarin is merely a result of the decline of the Han people. It's rather the former wilderness regions that have preserved traces of ancient and medieval Chinese pronunciation. "Western wind, the fading light of sunset — the imperial tombs of the Han."

Yesterday I mentioned the issue of literati. Let me continue today. Under China's current system of separating arts and sciences in education (not to mention the old imperial examinations), the scientific literacy of literary people is basically still stuck in the 17th or 18th century. Look at the way they argue — their application and understanding of logic doesn't extend beyond Russell's Paradox. This is a long story; I'll say more when I have time. In a word: if you're not yet too old to move, a good study of mathematics and physics would be very beneficial. Go understand the latest advances in human thought in the sciences — they have already far exceeded what most people can imagine. Without understanding these things, any talk of post-modernism, emptiness and existence, Mahayana and Hinayana, is simply a joke.

Today I won't say anything offensive — I'll continue discussing one technique of doggerel: argumentation. Since at the time I insisted on using doggerel to respond to all replies, I do have some practical experience in this area. According to that worn-out saying of the sage Du Fu, in using doggerel for argumentation, there absolutely must be no wasted words. Imagine: sometimes you have to respond to a long, sprawling essay with just twenty characters — if you can't seize the crux, it's going to be very hard. In actual practice, the four-line form is generally best — it's more powerful. I've also tried eight-line forms; the overall feeling is that the force is somewhat dispersed. Four lines are better. With four lines, there are several approaches:

One: All four lines are responses. The easily occurring flaw is that it's too scattered — whether it works depends on your binding craft. Example:
In the human world, life's grievances are empty — wine, lust, wealth, fame — desires all differ. Why does Eden have its forbidden fruit? Who seeks sin, dreaming in heaven?

Two: The first two lines respond, the last two lines swing open. This tends to be rather direct and powerful. Example:
When nature is frequent, thought grows frequent too; when thought is frequent, the tongue grows poor. Heaven and earth are but a single sheet of paper — each character, a star.

Three: The first two lines open with something ethereal, the last two lines respond. This also works well. Example:
Spring comes but flowers won't bloom; rain scatters but birds still cry. The moon surges through the waters of a thousand rivers — who can say what is high and what is low?

Four: All four lines are written in the ethereal register, but together they form a response. This is more subtle. When done well, the effect is excellent. Example:
Climbing the west tower alone, the moonlight cool; Jinling spring rain drips on red blossoms. A thousand years of refined scholars across the divine continent — winning a landscape ten thousand miles long.

Of course, there are many other possibilities. Generally speaking, any instruction in "how to do it" is rather laughable. If you're interested, just practice more and you'll naturally develop a feel for it. Everything else is useless.

The reason I discuss doggerel so tirelessly is, first, because I believe it has every right to exist, and its subtleties are not so different from those of so-called authoritative, canonical poetry — the key is whether it's used in the right place. Second, the colloquialization of doggerel holds significance on the linguistic level. If poetry is only a small-circle activity, if poetry is only worms growing on ancient corpses, if poetry is only a string of stuff ejected from the tip of a pen, then the exploration of colloquialization wouldn't necessarily be essential. But in all poetic forms, there are similar possibilities for exploration.

For my fellow recitation brothers and sisters of the 1980-plus-or-minus-X generation: we don't carry too much baggage. Confucius the Second is not a hurdle. Ecstasy is not a hurdle. X-parties are not a hurdle. Don't let yourself be tripped up. Just like playing a video game: first, look at what tricks the predecessors had. Don't make gods out of them — they didn't have that many moves either. Seek out what still resonates with the present from those old masters. Grind the corpses to dust, turn them into soil, and something with color will grow. Write what computers can't write. Write what corpses can't write. Write about the present. If others are out, that's their business. If we're in, is that a crime?