Re: Phe^ bi`nh ba`i phe^ bi`nh cu?a Tra^`n Ma.nh Ha?o

[AnHai Doan <anhai@cs.washington.edu>]

Hi folks,

I actually agree with much of what anh AiViet and anh Ho Tu
Bao said. I usually find anh Tuan Pham's comments to be
interesting and sharp, and tend to agree with them. But in
this particular case I think anh Tuan Pham and a few other
overseas members have oversimplified the whole issue, and
have looked at it at a rather black-vs-while regime-vs-rebel
way of the 70s and 80s. The literature/artistic landscape in
Vietnam has changed quite a lot in the last decade, and this
issue has become much more complex.

In conducting one's life and interacting with others, there
are certain things that are morally unacceptable under any
moral code: to live without any regard to others, to betray
friendships or family responsibilities in change for
materialistic gains, to exploit others, violence, just to
name a few.

These morally unacceptable things are proliferating in
Vietnam. "DDa.o ddu+'c suy ddo^`i, xa~ ho^.i suy thoa'i" is
one of the phrases commonly used to refer to this
phenomenon. A good portion of Vietnamese literature has
addressed this phenomenon. The problem is: either they
describe it in an accurate but utterly cold,
devoid-of-any-touch-of-humanism manner, a` la Nguyen Huy
Thiep (some will argue that there is a touch of
humanism underlying NHT's writing, I don't really agree with
that); or they seem to glorify and justify it, using
whatever ta? pi' lu` reasons/theory they can come up with.

In the US, Hollywood has much been criticized for glorifying
sex and violence, thus "poisoning" the youth of America.  
Analogously, quite a lot of mi` a(n lie^`n and even some of
the best products of VNese literature seem to take moral
corruption in contemporary VN to be granted or to glorify
and justify it, thus raising concerns about "poisoning" the
youth of Vietnam. Like Hollywood products, they should be
allowed, but so should be their cricitism, no matter coming
from whom.

Tra^`n Ma.nh Ha?o didn't really write a professional
literature review a` la anh Tuan Pham's style (he has never
been known to write such things, thus anh Tuan Pham's
disappointment is understandable). Rather, his main point is
merely the wonder if CHCC is not one such glorifying and
justifying product. If so, he is concerned that the
attention that it gets and the influence that it yields can
contribute to further glorying and justifying moral
corruption, which is already pervalent in today society. He
did make his point, and he is not alone with that.

Hai.