GEORGE ORWELL AND LU XUN by He Guanghua A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MA (Honours) School of English Faculty of Arts University of New South Wales February 1992 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis stems from a conversation with Professor Michael Hollington, School of English, University of New South Wales - to him my deepest thanks for his knowledge and insight from which I have immensely benefited, and not least his great patience which is much needed in this work. I am grateful to the following people who have been of great help to me during my work: Professor Mary Chan of University of New South Wales, Professor John Cleverley of Sydney University, Dr. Bruce Johnson of University of New South Wales, Mr. Tom Cappie -Wood and Mr. John Holman for their encouragement and reading my manuscript and suggesting many improvements. I am specially· indebted to Mr. Chiu-yee Cheung of Sydney University from whom I received much assistant and generous help in my work, from discussing every idea in the writing to resolving many related computer problems. I acknowledge with gratitude the support from the Harbour Foundation and Harbour family, in particular their youngest son Daniel, to enable me to pursue this study. Finally I am grateful to my husband Mr Huang Jianshe in Wuhan, China for his constant encouragement and support. He Guanghua 28 February 1992 Table of Content Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Historical Background of the Thirties 10 Chapter 3 A Comparison Between the Genesis of The Two Writers 47 Chapter 4 Their Scepticism in LiteraryForm -A comparison Between Animal J<'arm and "Curbing the Flood" 107 Chapter 5 Conclusion 146 Appendix A Comparative Chronology of George Orwell and Lu Xun 151 Abbreviations 158 Bibiography 159 Chapter One Introduction In the search for a better society and more rational human relationships, socialism has been alluring to intellectuals oJseveral generations. However, intellectuals are difficult to win over. First of all, their longing for a better society grows out of a critical attitude towards the existing society of their times. One could say that intellectuals are born to be critical and that no one who lacks a critical mind deserves the label "intellectual".1 It is perhaps of the essence of intellectuals to lose faith when the supposed dream comes true. Literature and politics are in constant conflict, as both George Orwell (Eric Blair, 1903-1950) and Lu Xun (Zhou Shuren, 1881-1936) observed; because governments want to maintain the status quo and writers usually want a better society, they are frequently at odds with each other. It is a permanent conflict which one can win and for which no one can be blamed. But it is not the intention of this thesis to discuss these issues in the abstract: the point is, simply, that I find that this conflict is to be observed in George Orwell and Lu Xun. Their critical attitude towards their time and society produced in them a turn to the left, but the same critical attitude also 1 There are different implications of the word "intellectual". But "in general, one can say that the intellectuals are the custodians of the tradition of creative and critical thinking about the normative problems of their society and the effort of men to relate themselves to symbols of meaning outside their imediate self-interest and experience." Alan Bullock and Oliver Stallybrass (ed.), The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, London: Collins <1977), p.315. See also Raymond Williams, Keywords, Fontana 0979), pp. 140-42. 1 forbade them from being assimilated into the communist party. They remained "fellow travellers", or even critical "un-orthodox" left-wing writers. Because George Orwell and Lu Xun had critical minds, their conflicts with the ideals of their times, namely the Soviet model of socialism and the communist party apparatus, also had the effect of revealing some fundamental problems in human society which cannot be solved by means of political revolution or reform. These conflicts will live on beyond the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and USSR. It is possible that some common characteristics of left-wing writers will be revealed through the comparison of George Orwell and Lu Xun in the process of demonstrating how they became attached to the ideal of socialism and later disillusioned with it, and how they developed insights into the monster which grew out from the dreams of their forerunners. We may first ask what justifies a comparison between these two writers? First of all, they are among the most influential and controversial writers of this century, with reputations rising steadily since their deaths. Their writings have been translated into many languages and widely read throughout the world. Today, scholars' interest in George Orwell and Lu Xun is still on the increase, despite the past achievements of research into their work. In their turn, they have been compared with many other writers. George Orwell for examples has been compared with Charles Dickens,2 Huxley,3 Zamyatin,4 2 Gordon Beadle, "George Orwell and Charles Dickens: Moral Critics of Society", Journal of Historical Studies, 2 (1969-70), pp. 245-55. 3 Stephen Greenblatt, Three Modern Satirists: Waugh, Orwell and Huxley (New Haven, 1965), pp. 37-73. 4 E.g. Gorman Beauchamp, "Of Man's Last Disobedience: Zamyatin's We and Orwell's 1984 ". Comparative Literature Studies, 10 (1973), pp. 285-301. 2 and with Koestler;5 in the case of Lu Xun, parallels have been drawn between Lu Xun and Russian writers,6 Japanese writers,7 the English poet Byron,8 and the German philosopher Nietzsche. 9 However, as far as I am aware, no comparison between Lu Xun and George Orwell has been undertaken. This thesis will be the first to attempt to compare the similarities and differences between these two prominent writers. Yet a comparative study of them offers many challenges because of the fact that George Orwell and Lu Xun came from different cultural backgrounds and lived in different political situations: the former in the West, in the imperialistic Empire of Great Britain, and the latter in the East, in the semi­ feudal and semi-colonial society of China. It is most unlikely that they knew or had ever heard of one another. Under these circumstances, questions may 5 E.g. Jenni Calder, Chronicles of Conscience: A Study of George OrweU and Arthur Koestler, London, 1968. 6 E.g. Han Changjing, Lu Xun yu Eluosi gudian wenxue (Lu Xun and Russian Classical Literature), Shanghai Wenyi Chubanshe (1981); Wang Furen, Lu Xun qianqi xiaoshuo yu Eluosi wenxue (Lu Xun's Early Short Stories and Russian Literature), Xi'an: Shaanxi Renmin Chubanshe 0984). 7 E.g. Sun Xizhen, "Lu Xun yu Riben wenxue" (Lu Xun and Japanese Literature), in Lu Xun yu Zhong-wai wenhua de bijiao yanjiu (The Comparative Studies Between Lu Xun and World's Culture), Beijing: Zhongguo Wenlian Chuban Gongsi (1986), pp. 391-403. 8 Chen Mingshu, "Lu Xun yu Bailun" (Lu Xun & Byron), in Lu Xun yu Zhong-wai wenhua de bijiao yanjiu (The Comparative Studies Between Lu Xun and World's Culture), op. cit., pp. 328-335. 9 E.g. Chiu-yee Cheung, Nicai yu Lu Xun sixiangfazhan (Nietzsche and the Development of Lu Xun's Thought), Hong Kong: Qingwen Shuwu (1987); "Lu Hsun and Nietzsche: Influence and Affinity after 1927," Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia, 18/19 (1986- 87), pp. 3-25. 3 arise about the validity of this study. I would defend the comparison by making reference to the theory and practice of comparative literature. First of all, comparative literature studies can be divided into several branches: comparison between two writers in different times or countries or cultures, between literary movements in different countries or cultures, between literature and other disciplines, thematic (Stoffgeschichte) comparison, etc.10 For obvious reasons, I confine myself to the discussion of a comparison between two writers in two different cultures. Within this category, there are two major approaches: the study of influence and the method of rapprochement. It would seem that the difference between these two approaches lies in whether there is or is not a certain contact between the source of influence and the writer or his/her work(s) influenced. If there is some kind of contact, then an influence study can be established. Alternatively, the method of rapprochement may be applied to isolate "analogies without contact".11 According to A. Owen Aldridge: The vast majority of studies in comparative literature at the present time are devoted to an exploration and presentation of resemblance in particular works of -\ lO See Ulrich Weisstein, Comparative Literature and Literary Theory: Servey and Definition, tr. William Riggan (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), pp. 3-28; Jan Brandt Corstius, Introduction to the Comparative Study of Literature (New York: Random House, 1968), p. 21ff; S. S. Prawer, Comparative Literary Studies (London: Duckworth, 1973), pp. 1-73, 99-165. 11 A. Owen Aldridge, "The Purpose and Perspectives of Comparative Literature", in A. Owen Aldridge (ed.), Comparative Literature: Matter and Method (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1969), p. 5; Ihab H. Hassan, "The Problem of Influence in Literary History: Notes Towards a Definition", The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. XIV:1 (September 1955), p. 68. 4 two or more national literatures .... the majority concern works by authors who have had no direct contact with each other and who may not even have been aware of each other's existence. 12 The idea of resemblance studies, though we may also discuss some problems of influence, would seem to provide an adequate justification for the approach adopted in this thesis.