Excerpts from "Why Can't You Squat in the Toilet and Read Mo Yan's Books"

Literature Gong Chonghao: Guo is not cowardly?

Recently, a certain Sima said that he I don’t like Mo Yan’s books. Just because I had a bad toilet experience related to Mo Yan.

He vividly described the scene that day: Hearing that Mo Yan’s book had won an award, he bought a copy and took it home. He squatted in the toilet and read his book, but he couldn't read it at all. So I came to the conclusion that Mo Yan’s book is not good.

This is "normal". We often see people commenting on the appearance of female celebrities in online comment areas. "Because I don't think she looks good, so she doesn't look good." The logic is the same.

I don’t know if Sima went to the toilet smoothly that time, but I was attracted by his “toilet reading”. I can't help but wonder why "watching in the toilet" is specifically mentioned, not "on the sofa", "on the bed", or "in the study", but "in the toilet"? Could it be that reading in the toilet can stimulate the ancient wisdom of mankind? Or will it make going to the toilet smoother?

My perspective is always so novel.

People squatting in the toilet and reading

I speculate, just speculation! People who read in the bathroom are generally productive people.

Their time is extremely precious, and they usually have no time to read. They can only read during "garbage time" such as going to the toilet. By recycling it, they can not only enjoy going to the toilet, but also relieve their usual inattention. It can be said that the anxiety caused by lack of knowledge can be said to kill two birds with one stone, and it can be said to the outside world that "I am a person who has read Mo Yan."

For them, time can only be used to make money, and reading literature takes a lot of time and they can’t get money, so - literature is worthless, comparable to toilet paper, and can only be used when reading literature. Only used when going to the toilet.

Reading in the toilet may have other benefits. Perhaps, for them, "toilet reading" has another function - to cover up the odor! Psychology believes that people can relieve pain by diverting their attention, which of course includes diverting the pain of smelling feces.

Thus, we can divert our attention from the smell of stool through reading. Ah, this is really great! Perfectly inherited part of Ah Q’s spirit. Reading in the toilet is similar to smoking in the toilet, but smoking is harmful to health. Using reading to cover up the odor is a big improvement. It can be seen that we have finally made great progress in the past hundred years.

I understand very well how anxious people feel. After all, this is your psychological need, and depriving it will definitely make you very uncomfortable. I also understand very well those of you who use reading to cover up the odor. After all, this is a huge leap in the history of human toilet use. But I have to take the liberty to "sing a different tune": For your health, please don't read while going to the toilet! This is not conducive to excretion! It’s not even conducive to reading: going to the toilet distracts attention, which greatly reduces the ability to understand (I don’t know if it’s because Sima can’t understand, maybe it is).

What’s more, what you are reading is Mo Yan’s book.

In Mo Yan's book, I once read a very long sentence, three lines long, which seemed to be playing word games with me, but I couldn't find a flaw and was so angry that I jumped up and down. Secondly, Mo Yan is sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes "adding drama to himself", sometimes uproarious, and sometimes sad in a way that makes people dumbfounded. Even if we want to laugh, it seems like we are laughing at ourselves. I think such an ups and downs reading experience is even more unfavorable for using the toilet. Especially for those who like praise works, they cannot distinguish between fiction and reality. Literature that exposes the dark side will arouse deep pain and uneasiness, which may cause traumatic neurotic vomiting or diarrhea, and is even more unfavorable for going to the toilet. .

I will definitely never read Mo Yan’s works in the toilet. The most I can do is read gossip news in the toilet, so that it can match "my garbage time", so that the "information garbage" can be excreted together with my "body garbage".

Obviously, in Sima’s eyes, Mo Yan’s book should be equivalent to “tiddy news” and should be excreted together. Therefore, Sima is destined not to like Mo Yan's book.

Poor literary workers

Shakespeare said that there are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand audiences. I guess there should be many people who criticized Shakespeare.

To put it crudely (but most realistically), a work may be a pearl or shit in the eyes of some people, and Sima is just one of them who treats Mo Yan’s works as shit. only the audience. In a normal environment, we allow the sound of flies and the crows of apes on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, which are part of the biological chain.

In the history of world literature, writers always attract the most criticism.

The pro-Soviet writer Romain Rolland was criticized by the French literary community, Hesse was called a traitor by his motherland for opposing the war, and the literary giant Chekhov was criticized for being too dark and not sunny enough... too much Got it! Anyone who engages in literature must be mentally prepared to be criticized. However, the fate of different writers is different: the French did not send Romain Rolland to the guillotine, Chekhov died young and retained his later years before the Great Purge, and Hesse was a bit miserable, wandering around and being scolded as mentally ill for the rest of his life. .....

Of course, there are some people who are engaged in literature who are even worse. Those who commit suicide, those who are killed, those who are mentally ill, and those who are in exile are so numerous that they have become numbers in history.

Therefore, smart parents will not let their offspring engage in literature. It may be very satisfying, but it may also be very dangerous, so that many people with literary talents end up having to go to the factory to tighten screws.

Thus I conclude that literary workers are very pitiful! Under the bright appearance of a writer, he is just as pitiful!

Some philosophers think so too. For example, the philosopher Russell said that those who engage in literature are more painful than those who engage in science, because those who engage in science only have one objective fact, while those who engage in literature do not have a standard answer. Therefore, literary writers will attract countless criticisms, but they can't do anything to those people - people can criticize you, but you have to allow criticism - this is a bit like high-level PUA. In short, it is all your fault. If you refute , that means you are not broad-minded enough.

This ultimately leads to the fact that even those with schizophrenia, those with personality disorders, those with low intelligence, those with personal vendettas, those who are motivated by interests, those who flatter others, those who follow the crowd, and those who croak and steal, etc., can step on one. foot. but! People cannot let mental illness disappear from the earth just because they criticize a work.

Hey, poor!