Four Classical Novels of China

[Lykren]

Has anyone read all four of the major Chinese classical novels? If so, I'd like your advice.

This summer I read The Dream of The Red Chamber (David Hawkes translation) and enjoyed it greatly. However, I'm currently halfway through The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Moss Roberts translation) and am not enjoying it much at all; I find the endless machinations tedious and predictable, and the human element which made Red Chamber so palatable to be entirely lacking.

I was planning to read all four of the classical novels, but am now having doubts. Can anyone tell me whether the remaining two, Journey to the West and Outlaws of the Marsh, are more like Red Chamber, or more like Three Kingdoms in their style and approach?

Thanks in advance.

[luhsun]

You are too young to appreciate the political twists and turns in ROTK- only old geezers apparently like the machinating ROTK(even JDI didnt 'like' it, in an earlier post), but perhaps too old to be like the chinese kids, where the heroes-to-emulate and villains-to-despise could be seen with a kid's eyes and black and white Piaget's concrete operational cognition.
Water margin is like rotk, and journey to the west perhaps even more so. Your best bet would be the plum in the golden vase if you like dream in red chamber.

[Lykren]

Thanks luhsun, I will definitely check out Plum, I have been thinking of reading it anyways.

[YesNo]

I read Journey to the West about a decade ago in translation and enjoyed it. It is a collection of action stories about a monk and his protectors, especially the monkey, on a mission to the West (India) to bring back Buddhist scriptures to the East (China). They encounter many demonic obstacles along the way.

There's a famous episode where the monkey thinks he can escape the supreme God's hand. I once saw that scene portrayed in jade and brought it to my wife's attention who knew immediately what the statue referred to. After that I read the book.

I haven't read the other three, but recommend this one.

[JBI]

I read Journey to the West about a decade ago in translation and enjoyed it. It is a collection of action stories about a monk and his protectors, especially the monkey, on a mission to the West (India) to bring back Buddhist scriptures to the East (China). They encounter many demonic obstacles along the way.

There's a famous episode where the monkey thinks he can escape the supreme God's hand. I once saw that scene portrayed in jade and brought it to my wife's attention who knew immediately what the statue referred to. After that I read the book.

I haven't read the other three, but recommend this one.

The problem with it is that it is super-repetitive. Most people read abridged versions because the middle chapters are almost all the exact same. The frame narrative and the end are famous, but the middle where they go from place to place killing things is often incredibly formulaic and dull.

[luhsun]

I think monkey is more of a political parody where the formulaic bad demons were unnameable political/court enemies cut and paste onto monkey's formulaic veni vidi vici. Rotk and water margin are read and enjoyed- monkey is not really chinese.. but more of taoist upmanship against indian buddhism with mish-mash of confucianism.
Monkey fought heaven and pissed on buddha's palm.. although he had to submit finally because the emperor was partial to buddhism, the mischievious taoist always seemed to have the final word.

[JBI]

I think monkey is more of a political parody where the formulaic bad demons were unnameable political/court enemies cut and paste onto monkey's formulaic veni vidi vici. Rotk and water margin are read and enjoyed- monkey is not really chinese.. but more of taoist upmanship against indian buddhism with mish-mash of confucianism.
Monkey fought heaven and pissed on buddha's palm.. although he had to submit finally because the emperor was partial to buddhism, the mischievious taoist always seemed to have the final word.
You are missing much of the bibliographic background. It is random and confused in structure in part because it circulated as manuscripts that people would add and subtract to before a formal printed version was actually put down. The actual compiling of the book is an assortment of various linked and alternative versions of stories.

Luo Guanzhong's edition of Romance of the Three Kingdoms is also a lot like that. It was lost until someone dug it up in the 70s, but if you look at the 240 chapter version, it reads more like a series of stories and tales than it does a coherent novel. Mao Zonggang, the person who reduced it to the 120 chapter version we now read (until the 70s, when both versions became available), basically turned the book into more of a political morality tale.

By his reckoning (as he wrote an extensive commentary to his editions), the book revolves around 3 characters, Zhuge Liang, Cao Cao, and Guan Yu. In that sense, you are focusing on three incredibly stereotyped characters, with Confucian propaganda smeared within. Cao Cao went from being a semi-evil character to a rather unnuanced villain; Guan Yu became the embodiment of loyalty and Righteousness (忠，义), and Zhuge Liang took on the form of sage-like government official embodying De(徳) and Ren（仁）, whereas in the original, he was actually more of a wizard-shaman type character, who quite literally would summon the wind.

Most readers of Chinese fiction read these translated books that do all the work for you, and then read them as if they have a coherent message, in the sense that a Western novel seems to be rooted in a tale of Morality, with a linear sort of development from Catalyst, to Denouement. Chinese fiction, however, more often than not lacks formal structure, or merely uses a structuring beginning and end as a frame for unconnected stories. In that sense, people find it rather difficult to engage with such books for two reasons:

They do not know the names or characters, so reading for the first time is learning the stories, not reading the stories, which would be how someone raised within the culture would understand it. Add to that numerous names you've never heard before, and cannot pronounce, and it makes it even more difficult.

They do not offer coherent structures, which is generally something Western readers expect. They also often do not introduce their characters properly, and make no moves to provide any background information that would help a reader understand what they are talking about.

With those two problems, it is no wonder that someone would like Dream of Red Chambers more than the others - that one, especially in the full Gao E addition edition offers more of a coherent story, and has content framed much by our contemporary understanding of fiction. It also, though using a frame narrative as allegory, has a more coherent sense of itself, with progression that is linear. For the reader who does not know the culture, it makes a lot more sense.

Take Stephen Chow's new movie on Journey to the West. It is an incredibly funny movie, with lots of jokes. But lets say someone had not read Journey to the West, how would they understand the premise of the movie? How would they get all the jokes, or understand the plot. 3 Kingdoms is very much like that, in that it sort of assumes familiarity with the time period, and generally with the characters.

The History of the Three Kingdoms as an historical text was one of the most read and critiqued of works. It was extensively written about and commented on throughout Chinese history, gesturing to it having a particularly high status amongst readers. For someone who has grown up with it, read poems that make allusions to it constantly (Du Fu's poems, Su Shi's poems and two Fu, etc.) and seen street side story tellers and opera singers perform parts of it, reading the novel is more enjoyable and a different experience than for someone who knows no Chinese, knows nothing about Chinese culture, knows none of the place names, character names, or things being quoted, and does not understand the structure.

There are they say 4 great novels of China, which is more or less true, though I would add a few more titles to the A list. However, for someone who is looking for the best of "China", it is really difficult to just pick up these novels and start reading out of nowhere. Unless you've become versed in the culture, none of this makes sense.

The same can be said for Chinese poetry, which is heavily intertextual. The basics can be grasped from reading a few books, but generally you cannot just jump into a tradition of intertextual writing in the middle and plan to understand everything. The ways of text are different than the west, and the cutting of categories are also not as clear. Without a sort of background things become difficult.

You cannot really appreciate Dante without a certain background knowledge of the Bible and Catholicism and a few footnotes to the references he makes. Chinese culture is more or less rooted in Confucian/Daoist understandings of the world (these two were not separate until the Han dynasty by my understanding), and without at least a basic knowledge of the tradition, much of the works lose their coherence.

[PeterL]

I have only read Monkey and the Dream of the Red Chamber. The former is great, even in its truncated form, and the later was some of the dullest reading I have done. Consider the audiences for which the novels were written and you will be able to figure out which you would like.

[JBI]

I have only read Monkey and the Dream of the Red Chamber. The former is great, even in its truncated form, and the later was some of the dullest reading I have done. Consider the audiences for which the novels were written and you will be able to figure out which you would like.

I wonder how well the latter translates into English, given that much of its content is expressed indirectly, and much of its nuance is in the play of language, in such forms as poetry, or word choice. Likewise, the text is not understood on the first go around, and needs to be read more than once to really catch some of its nuances properly, and its structure.

As for Monkey, or Journey to the West, the abridgement is better.

[luhsun]

Ditto the bible for us asian non-christians/jewish. Although disjointed and having multiple internal inconsistencies, most stories can stand alone and be enjoyed. I do not need to be a christian to chuckle at the fierce little coward that was elijah. Or moved by ruth abandoning all for duty and perhaps love.
Similarly, those who grew up in a chinese world would be familiar with most of the rotk characters. I wonder whether westerners would snicker at the cunningness of Hua To scrapping guan yu's arm sans anaesthesia.

[Lykren]

I knew that I was getting into something I would probably miss almost all the nuance of when I began reading translated Chinese novels, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed Red Chamber so much. So I suppose it makes less sense for me to read the older, more referential RoTK.

JBI, I seem to remember you saying you were partial to the Jin Ping Mei. Would you also recommend that to an American reader who enjoyed Red Chamber?

[JBI]

I knew that I was getting into something I would probably miss almost all the nuance of when I began reading translated Chinese novels, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed Red Chamber so much. So I suppose it makes less sense for me to read the older, more referential RoTK.

JBI, I seem to remember you saying you were partial to the Jin Ping Mei. Would you also recommend that to an American reader who enjoyed Red Chamber?

No idea, it is a rather brilliant book, but much of it is hard to digest (it's basically about the horniest of people going around stealing (or collecting) women for his personal harem, whoring around, and molesting his workers of both genders. That it is a realist novel is even more interesting, in that it actually depicts a sort of real world of China that existed. Still, it is rather long, and arguably much of the irony may be lost in translation (there is a lot of very rough sexual humor). Still, it couldn't hurt. You won't be wowed though, most likely. Chinese literature very, very rarely wows people, since it is very, very repetitive.

[Lykren]

You know, I think I will try replacing Water Margin and Journey with Plum. From what I hear it sounds as though it would be easier for me to assimilate.

It's not so much the repetitiveness that has gotten to me (though that hasn't helped) as much as it is the flatness of the style, at least as employed by the translator. RoTK seems lifeless even when describing the goriest moments. I'll not make a stab at how much of that is the translator's fault (though it possibly is entirely his fault).

[Serotonin34]

Hi, I am Chinese. Personally I think it is already a respectable success that RoTK was translated into English. It was written in Old Chinese, which was characterized by great brevity but extremely elegant structures like poetry. The cultural background may also matter a lot in understanding it.

I kind of agree with you on the 'flatness' and 'lifelessness' . I think perhaps you can just treat it like those Greek mythology stories. It is romantic but it'll definitely disappoint you if you are looking for humanity elements like in the Red Chamber. Nevertheless, it was really very very epic to me when I was young ...

[JBI]

[QUOTE=Serotonin34;1248530]Hi, I am Chinese. Personally I think it is already a respectable success that RoTK was translated into English. It was written in Old Chinese, which was characterized by great brevity but extremely elegant structures like poetry. The cultural background may also matter a lot in understanding it.

I kind of agree with you on the 'flatness' and 'lifelessness' . I think perhaps you can just treat it like those Greek mythology stories. It is romantic but it'll definitely disappoint you if you are looking for humanity elements like in the Red Chamber. Nevertheless, it was really very very epic to me when I was young ...[/QUOTE,

It was written in old modern Chinese, not old Chinese. The same way Milton is not old English.

[Serotonin34]

[QUOTE=Serotonin34;1248530]Hi, I am Chinese. Personally I think it is already a respectable success that RoTK was translated into English. It was written in Old Chinese, which was characterized by great brevity but extremely elegant structures like poetry. The cultural background may also matter a lot in understanding it.

I kind of agree with you on the 'flatness' and 'lifelessness' . I think perhaps you can just treat it like those Greek mythology stories. It is romantic but it'll definitely disappoint you if you are looking for humanity elements like in the Red Chamber. Nevertheless, it was really very very epic to me when I was young ...[/QUOTE,

It was written in old modern Chinese, not old Chinese. The same way Milton is not old English.


Right...

[JBI]

[QUOTE=JBI;1248531]


Right...

老白话，not 文言文。 big difference. Pu Songling would be the latter, despite being a later author. Generally Mao Zonggang's edition has moved the language to 17th century prose vernacular, which is no more antiquated than Water Margin, or Dream of Red Chambers, really.

[ennison]

Oh and a very Happy New Year to you when it comes JBI. I might sound ascerbic and aggressive at times but that is merely my alcohol induced critical persona. Not the Real me. Which is ...

[Vota]

To break off topic abit here, does anyone know or have any opinions on the Pearl S. Buck translation of All Men Are Brothers a.k.a. Outlaws of The Marsh? I've read that she translated some of the names wrong and I get that pissing people off, but I'm more interested in how well written her translation is vs. how close it is the other original text. I would appreciate any comments.