All Those Who Pontificate About "Johns" Are Ignoramuses!

2006/5/9 21:30:33

Seeing the equally infantile left and right tearing at each other once more over "johns" (piao ke), I cannot help but say a few words in defense of the "johns." Strangely, the term "john" (piao ke) probably only became a pejorative after the prevalence of garbage vernacular Chinese — which could serve as yet another powerful argument for indicting vernacular Chinese. And all those who pontificate about "johns" are ignoramuses poisoned by vernacular Chinese!

Anyone familiar with the history of Chinese literature should know that China's finest writing is connected to "johns." Little Du's "Ten years, awaking from a Yangzhou dream, earning only a fickle name in the pleasure quarters" — this kind of elegance is naturally beyond the comprehension of ignoramuses. And the poetry of Liu Rushi proves that the pleasure quarters connected to "johns" can indeed brew the world's most beautiful writing.

Just as everything is vulgarized in the plague of mass culture, "johns" are no exception. When the standard for being a "john" has been lowered to the level of today's universities, the "john" has lost its original face. But this has nothing to do with "johns" per se — otherwise, any word in the world could face the same accusation, including the word "accusation" itself.

The caliber of "johns" represents the caliber of an era. The reason the Tang and Song were great is precisely because they had these great "johns": Li Bai, Du Fu, Han Yu, Li Shangyin, Du Mu, Su Shi, Xin Qiji, and so on. Of course, the Tang and Song still had their shortcomings — namely that "johns" were presumed to be men. This was a limitation of the times. When this presumption is no longer presumed, the times can advance further. Additionally, liberating "johns" from the vulgarization of mass culture so that "johns" can truly "john" again, and recapturing the glory of the Tang and Song — this too is a direction that needs current effort!