In The importance of living (1937) Lin Yutang (1895-1976) tried to approach Chinese culture and traditions to North American readers, at those times when internet did not answer every single cultural question that humanity has. Yutang, who lived in Europe and in USA, always maintained a strong bond with his origins, for that reason Confucianism and Taoist traditions are intrinsic parts of his ideas and discourse. In the book, there are many points that I disagree with, of course, we are talking about a book that represented particular values that maybe today should be argued, but I think at least that Yutang’s intentions were valid since is natural that a immigrant want to explain his roots and his point of view.

There is a part f the book that is called “The art of writing”. In this part, Yutang call to young writers to fell more than to think, and go deep in their selves and try to find something profound to say, to write, not be concern about grammar, but try to find deep inside a personal and natural reason to write. He also recommend to find a favorite author and read it very well, so you can fallow him or her as a Master. During the whole reading, he also offers some advise  so they can start to think as a writers. One of his observation is:

“Hay dos minas del idioma, una nueva y una vieja. La vieja mina está en los libros y la nueva en el idioma de la gente común. Los artistas de segunda categoría excavan las viejas minas, pero sólo los artistas de primera calidad pueden obtener algo de la mina nueva” ♣ ♠

I find interesting that we usually can discover this two mines in great novels. For instance, in Don Quijote de la Mancha, trough the voice of Sancho and through the voice of Quijote; or we can also hear them in Falstaff and Henry, in  Henry IV by Shakespeare.

Moreover, I can easily relate Yutang’s ideas with Bajtín’s. In this fragments of his readings (“Discourse in The Novel” and “Rabelais and His Word”) the Russian critic develop at least two concepts related with the second mine.

The first concept is dialogism.  The dialogism allows us to hear many voices on the novels, allow us to read and hear different cultural backgrounds and let us see the humanity that relies in the novel.  In that order of ideas, Bajtín is aware that novel, as an hybrid genre, should contain those different voices that represents different social class, and it could be a mirror of how society is built, and how the different sound registers implies that local or common languages establish, also, different types of communications. Bajtín, perhaps, is not saying that there are only two mines but many whence the novelist should nurture his writing. Later, the Russian critic explains how this dialogism is related to society:

“[…] language is heteroglot from top to bottom: it represents the coexistence os socio-ideological contradictions between the present and the past, between differing epochs of the past, between different socio-ideological groups in the present, between tendencies, schools, circles and so forth, all given a bodily form. These “languages” of heteroglossia intersect each other in a variety of ways, forming new socially typifying “languages” (676).

I also think that is really important what Bajtín notes about the carnival. Described, by Bajtín, the work of Rabelais becomes an important presence that let us remember in which conditions the society could be travesty through the laughter. The second concept to remember, therefore,  in these readings is the grotesque, like a possibility for different social classes to criticize, analyze the social conditions and laugh at itself. Laughing and the possibility of parody our reality, let us realize that the system is not fair and it should be questioned. So, is like a ironic laugh. But also laugh unifies, has Bajtín says, and in that way shows a society that, in way, could be seen more equal.

I know Bajtín’s objective differs a lot from Yutang’s, but when I was reading Bajtín’s ideas I thought that maybe some writers should read his analysis, and how the dialogism and the grotesque could illuminate a work of art. I know is not an easy task but is good to think about it.

Coda:

After reading Marx I was absolutely depressed. He noticed in the Nineteenth Century (!) that the reality of industrial era was unfair, unequal and how the worker class or proletariat was submitted to the capital and the market. Today, more than one hundred fifty years after his analysis, there are still slaves, unequal salaries, worker classes it the worst conditions, global iniquity… Are we really evolving or not? Is there a way for making a social change that in the future will represent something for this unfair society? I doubt it.