Narrative Criticism In Lu Xun's Diary Of A Madman

2419 Words5 Pages

Lu Xun’s Diary of a Madman was China’s first real major modern short story. Xun unusually avoided traditional short story writing techniques. He tends to stray from the omniscient narration and replaces it with the author’s subjective, personal point of view. This can be seen as untraditional because it was almost completely unprecedented in Chinese literature of this era. Xun’s ‘I-narration’ (“at school I had been close friends with two brothers whose names I will not omit to mention here.”(p.21) This provides an effective way of further distancing himself from the text and creating a reading of the diary, which allows readers to form different perspectives on the literature. It could be argued that this is slightly ironic as he cleverly …show more content…

These memories have the quality of a personal memoir, however they are largely fictional in that he did not actually experience them. However, this does not take any credit away from his work. Critics such as Frank O’Connor declare the event “central to his art”. Furthermore, in 1931 Babel sent his own mother a package full of the stories and he added the note: “All the stories are from the childhood years, with lies added, of course, and much that is altered." Diary of a Madman can be seen to be an indirect criticism aimed at the youth, intentionally attempting to rewire their mindset. Lu Xun’s diary, inspired by Nikolai Gogol’s Diary of a Madman was arguably one of the most influential pieces of literature that caused talk among the younger generation in China, before the May Fourth Movement. The story’s narrative reliability is further questioned by the collapsing mental state of the protagonist. Lu Xun chooses to employ a madman as the voice of his political discontent. Literary critic Chinnery however, criticizes Xun’s use of the madman as a way of voicing his political discontent. He highlights the fact that using …show more content…

The enigmatic ending of the short story: “Save the children!” (p. 31) may be in line with the youth ethos of the May Fourth thinkers. These revolutionaries called for the creation of a completely new Chinese culture that would be based on globalised western standards, especially within the fields of democracy and science. Beyond its addressing of a specific historical situation, the story is marked by a deep sense of and feeling for the deceptions often involved in human social life. The narrator questions the nature of these occurrences and asks “So its wrong? Then why is it going on?” (p.27) He falls back to his reliance on history in order to distinguish the lines between what has happened for the last “four thousand years” (p. 31) and further insinuates that although cannibalism has been a part of history and is “written in all the books” (p. 27), “does that make it right?” (p. 27) The constant asking of questions further illuminates the narrators struggle to accept what is happening, this is key to the structure of the diary. In accordance to the narrative structure of both texts, Russian literary Critic Zsuzsa Hetényi also writes on Babel’s novel of the importance of examining the structure. He comments on the importance of investigating “the storyteller’s position and the highly complex narrative relationship between the author

Open Document