Writing to Defame
Zhou Zuoren

Abusive writings falls into two broad categories, of just the same kind as Emperor Hui of Jin's question about the croaking of frogs elicited: for official purposes and for private purposes. The private category can be further divided into two streams, namely (a) negative, that is vengeful abuse, and (b) positive, that is enterprising abuse. In fact there is another kind of abuse, which is counter-abuse, done in self-defence, but I have not included that, because in my definition "abuse" has to represent an initiative: passive abuse does not count. Vengeful abuse may be negative, but still it is not passive, for to suffer humiliation is one thing; to use abuse as a means to seek satisfaction when one is otherwise the helpless victim of humiliation is another thing again, as may be seen in the case of Ah Q, who when given a thrashing, fell back on saying that the person who beat him was a dirty rotter, and thereby managed to simmer down.

As a famous Chinese gent has remarked, from the simple fact that somebody publishes a lengthy plaint in a newspaper you can deduce that the person in question has without doubt been worsted (though it does not follow, mind you, that he is in the right or the innocent party) and, not having the strength to carry on the struggle, will straightway lapse into silence after this tearful tirade. This kind of vengeance is really very sad: as a form of vengeance is not nearly as effective as the short sharp stab of the ruffian's knife, but we have to acknowledge that many apparently tough but actually soft-centred people who are not willing to swallow a bitter pill but on the other hand shrink from do-or-die contest have resort to this practice. Like the irregular ejaculation proscribed by the Buddhist scriptures, it is not to be taken as an example to follow, but on the other hand is scarcely anything really unpardonable

"Enterprising abuse" might at first sight be more perplexing, because the term is of my own coinage, although the thing itself is by no means new, and in fact is very widespread: it might well be several times more common than vengeful abuse, for all I can tell. This form of abuse has been called by some "ladder climbing," by others "head borrowing." The method is extremely simple: it just requires the selection of one or two people with some standing in society and the heaping of virulent abuse on their head; whether the abuse is deserved or not is entirely beside the point, it suffices simply that people should know that such-and-such a person has been upbraided in such a way by me. Supposing that a certain person is five feet tall, if I stand on his head, then naturally I should be taller, at the very least I would have to be five feet plus.

Now if the person in question takes no notice, I am actually none the worst for it; if he makes a riposte, then that is proof more positive that my attack struck home: either way one has gained an advantage. As the risks are small and the gains many, this form of abuse is quite commonplace. For any youth who wishes to break into the literary or intellectual world, the method could not be simpler: just find someone to be your ladder, and take the few steps needed to climb onto his head. In other people's eyes (or in your own perception) you will indeed stand tall, although inevitably there are drawbacks: this practice is basically the same as claiming some rich man as your father, the difference is only in the degree of brazenness. It is, let's face it, really rather pathetic. Another thing is, you have to choose your target well, you have to find someone of stature in the literary or intellectual world for it to work. A dwarf would be undesirable enough, but if you were to carelessly light upon someone who was below par, whose head was only level with the ground, and thought to achieve celebrity by standing on his head, it would not only be entirely ineffective, but also a waste of effort: it would truly amount to "failing to steal the chicken, and losing your bait into the bargain." Although those who take up "enterprising abuse" are mostly very clever, such reverses are nevertheless hard to avoid, which shows that underhand tricks don't prove winners every time.