My Xiangsheng master recently published a book and I’ve tried to read a little every day. Reading is fun for me, as it definitely gives a sense of achievement. A single page of Chinese text will often contain twice as much information as a page of English text, and so putting down a book after reading only a few pages can still mean that my head is bursting with new ideas.
I’ve thought that it would be a worthy excersize to write down some of the ideas I run across in the book. I know that this book has no English translation, and many of its ideas about Xiangsheng and the nature of humor in China are not found anywhere in the English language. So while a full translation would surely be a valuable prospect, for now I don’t have the time, energy, or skill to tackle such a task. Instead, I am going to write some summations of the things that I learn.
Apologies for beginning this exercise in the middle of the book!
The first section I read today explores Xiangsheng’s use as satire. Ding Laoshi brings up the Republic of China, when the government currently in Taiwan ruled China, before the communist government took over in 1949. He includes a snippet from a Xiangsheng piece where the dou-gen (joke-cracker) talks about how the imported flour in the market is raising steadily in price. The price has increased from two kuai to eight, he says, because of the “Four Strengthenings,” the formal name of a government policy of the time. In the end, he says the “Five Strengthenings” policy will manage to bring the price per box down to four kuai, but instead of flour in the box, it will be tooth-brushing powder.
This piece interested me because I always assumed there were two systems preventing something like “The Daily Show” from emerging in China. The first is obviously the government’s restrictions on media, especially forms of satire that undermine the authority of official state symbols such as the newsroom. But I also thought that a second reason was because directly referring to specific policies was culturally inappropriate, that Chinese comedians and everyday people would rather attack a policy from the sides, insinuating its failures without directly calling out the policy itself.
Apparently, at least in the Republican period, this was not so. Granted, this is only one example, but it is always interesting to read a text that could be 90 years old and see such a direct style that reminds me more of the Western mode of satire than the Chinese modes I encounter now. Perhaps in the subsequent decades of communist rule, when such direct satire would have been strictly forbidden, the cultural taste for consuming such satire atrophied, and was replaced by a new taste that we see today.
Later in the section, Ding Laoshi seems to skirt around the heaviest era of the communist period:
“[The Republican Era] was a hectic time. After the establishment of the PRC, the art of Xiangsheng underwent continuous change and reform. Many pieces designed to praise the times were created. But because of the nature of Xiangsheng as an art that championed satire, the hat of satire was too heavy, and at important government events it was unacceptable.
The 20th Century Xiangsheng after 1978 produced many pieces that pointedly observed society, such as ‘Taking Photographs’, ‘The Hat Factory’, and ‘A Special Life.’…
Overall, Xiangsheng is light and happy, but also cutting and serious.”
1978, of course, was after the end of the cultural revolution, when the craziness of that decade had ended. The “reform” of which he speaks was a period when the government, in conjunction with Xiangsheng actors, worked together to create pieces that praised the government and socialism while turning the satirical elements of Xiangsheng against the enemies of the state. Anyone interested in this era and its implications should definitely read David Moser’s fabulous piece “Stifled Laughter: How The Communist Party Killed Chinese Humor”, which recounts that rather sad period in Xiangsheng (and Chinese) history.
More later! And do read David Moser’s piece, it’s really really good.
Normal.dotm
0
0
1
587
3350
Brandeis University
27
6
4114
12.0
0
false
18 pt
18 pt
0
0
false
false
false
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
7 3 13