Re: Thu+? nhi`n ve^` xu hu+o+'ng ...

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

Hi ba'c Tuan Pham,

I am under thirty and have spend almost half my life abroad,
both in Europe and the US. I consider myself open-minded and
liberal. You know very well that I support professionalism
as much as you do, and I fully agree with you that there is
hardly anything professional in today Vietnamese literature,
including the article by TMH, and that you can judge
professionalism just by looking at a single article.

Nevertheless, I have the feeling that you are too paranoid
-- in the sense of "nhi`n dda^u cu~ng tha^'y co^ng an" :-),
and you are underestimating the knowledge of a substantial
number of members in this forum, as well as that of TMH. :-)
They are not as ignorant of the danger of dictatorship on
thought, speech, morality, etc as you think.

Please, you don't need to beat everything down to
dictatorship and freedom of speech. There is no need to
gravely warn people about the possibility of a return to the
Stalinistic style dictatorship on literature. The
possibility, even though small, is there. But it has nothing
to do with TMH's article on Nhan Dan. It is also funny that
you keep referring to TMH as someone who borrows ba'o DDa?ng
and ba'o co^ng an to beat up his fellow writers. Sure, he
might or might not do that some time, who knows. But he's
much more than a contract killer. You will know so once you
have read some more of TMH's writings. I think you can
borrow his books from the library.

Please lighten up, and take it easy. :-) Some time a
literature discussion is just a literature discussion, and 
the strong opinion of a guy is just the strong opinion of
that guy, even if it is published on Nhan Dan. There is no
need to try to turn it into a discussion on dictatorship
on literature. Then the dictatorship of boredom and
irritation will prevail. :-)

Cheers, Hai.

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Tuan Pham wrote:

> Hi ba'c Aiviet
> 
> Ca'm o+n ba'c ve^` nhu+~ng ca'i facts ra^'t instructive trong 
> ba`i vie^'t na`y. Co`n nh~ opinions kie^?u nhu+ sau dda^y thi`,
> ahem, to^i tha^'y co' nhie^`u va^'n dde^`! :-))) 
> 
> 
> >Tra^`n Ma.nh Ha?o la` tay pha?n ly' lua^.n ba(`ng lu+o+ng
> >na(ng bi`nh da^n, kho^ng ca^`n ba'c ho.c. Ra^'t sa('c sa?o, gia?n ddo+n
> >va` kho^ng thie^'u nanh no.c anh bo'c tra^`n mo.i bao bi` tri' thu+'c
> >ho.c vi. Ngu+o+`i tha(?ng tha('n, mo+'i me? nhu+ anh kho^ng chi.u cu`ng
> >loa.i vo+'i nhu+~ng ke? ddo^.i lo^'t ddo^?i mo+'i, nhu+ng ba^'t lu+o+ng
> >( chu+~ du`ng cu?a Mai Quoc Lien).  To^i nghi~ TMH ca(m ghe't ddu?
> >thu+' ho.c thuye^'t ba bi., ddeo ki'nh kho^ng so^' gia? danh tri'
> >thu+'c. Dde^? ddo^'i la^.p la.i anh kho^ng du`ng ly' lua^.n ba'c ho.c
> >ma` du`ng mo^.t thu+' ly' lua^.n gia?n ddo+n nhu+ cu?a chu' be' trong
> >Hoa`ng dde^' o+? truo^n`g cua? Andersen. 
> >
> 
> Kinh khu?ng qua'. Ly' lua^.n phe^ bi`nh ma` cu+' du`ng nhu+~ng
> ca'i concepts chu? quan, ma^.p mo+`, dda^`y ca?m ti'nh nhu+ 
> "lu+o+ng na(ng", "ba`ng ba.c nha^n ba?n" dde^? ma` phe^ pha'n 
> ke? kha'c! Kie^?u suy nghi~ u to^'i na`y ra^'t nguy hie^?m
> va` cu~ng cha(?ng mo+'i me? hay tie^'n bo^. ho+n nh~ tha`nh
> ngu+~ "ke" xa^'u", "ke? to^'t" ma` ma^'y vi. chi'nh tri.
> ra(ng dden nga`y xu+a thu+o+`ng hay du`ng va` ba^y gio+` 
> va^~n co`n du`ng. (xa^'u == kho^ng co' lu+o+ng na(ng == 
> cho^'ng la.i to^i, etc.)
> 
> La.i co`n "lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n" nu+~a chu+'!
> The^' na`o la` "lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n"? Bo^. LN bi`nh da^n 
> thi` ho+n LN kho^ng bi`nh da^n sao? Bo^. bi`nh da^n la` co'
> ddo^.c quye^`n ve^` lu+o+ng na(ng sao? 
> 
> Nh~ quan nie^.m ma^.p mo+`, xuo^i tai ma` thie^'u ly' lua^.n
> kie^?u na`y dda~ bi. bao chi'nh tri. gia ba^'t lu+o+ng trong 
> li.ch su+? - tu+` Hitler to+'i Milosevic - lo+.i du.ng.
> DDu+a to+'i nhu+~ng toa` a'n nha^n da^n, nhu+~ng dda^'u to^',
> ho^`ng ve^. binh, nh~ ba`i tho+ gie^'t cu?a To^' Hu+~u, nh~ ethnic
> cleansing ... kho^ng ai la`m nh~ vie^.c ddo' ma` kho^ng nghi~ 
> mi`nh co' "lu+o+ng na(ng" ca?. Lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n dda~ giu'p 
> cho Mao tuye^n bo^' "Tri' thu+'c kho^ng ba(`ng cu.c pha^n".
> 
> Lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n na`y cu~ng dda^`y da^~y trong nh~ posting
> o+? SCV va` nhu+~ng cuo^.c bie^?u ti`nh anticommie witch hunt o+?
> Bolsa. Du`ng lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n, bo.n DCC cu+.c ddoan dda(.t 
> ra danh tu+` "Khoa ba?ng nga^y tho+ ma('c lu+a` CS" dde^? mie^.t thi. 
> nh~ ng` o^n ho`a trong co^.ng ddo^`ng cu?a ho.. Co' nh~ ng` dda~
> du`ng LNBD dde^? ba`o chu+~a cho vie^.c a'm sa't 1 so^' ng`
> o+? My~ bi. ke^'t to^.i la` tay sai CS. Lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n 
> cu?a TMH thi` la`m o^ng ta du`ng ba'o cu?a co^ng an va` dda?ng 
> dde^? dda^.p ddo^`ng nghie^.p, cu~ng nhu+ lu+o+ng na(ng bi`nh da^n
> cu?a McCarthy be^n My~ tho+`i 50s hay lu+o+ng na(ng cu?a bo.n
> to^n gia'o cuo^'ng ti'n tho+`i xu+a cu~ng nhu+ ba^y gio+` dde^? 
> da^.p ta('t mo.i heresies.
> 
> No'i to'm la.i, lu+o+ng na(ng la` ca'i co' the^? du`ng dde^?
> dde^? bie^.n minh cho mo.i ha`nh ddo^.ng ba^'t dung, intolerance,
> quan ddie^?m Mob Justice. Thu+? tu+o+?ng tu+o+.ng 1 he^. tho^'ng 
> tu+ pha'p kho^ng ca^`n lua^.t su+, kho^ng sa'ch lua^.t, chi? 
> ca^`n lu+o+ng na(ng cu?a ng` xu+?! Nhu+ ta dda~ tu+`ng tha^'y 
> o+? VN.
> 
> 
> >to^i thi'ch hoa(.c kho^ng thi'ch. Chu'ng la` nhu+~ng no^'t tha(ng dde^?
> >ca^n ba(`ng vo+'i nhu+~ng loa.i va(n chu+o+ng re? tie^`n, loa.i va(n ca
> >ngo+.i mo^.t chie^`u thu? cu+.u, khu'c ca?i lu+o+ng ba^'t lu+o+ng la?i
> >nha?i va` no^~i a?m a?nh vo^ duye^n ve^` su+. tro+? la.i cu?a bo'ng ma
> >Stalinism xung quanh ca'i ne^`n chung vo+'i nhu+~ng cuo^.c phie^u lu+u
> >y' thu+'c trong va(n ho.c cu?a CHU'NG TA./.
> >
> 
> Co`n nh~ ta'c gia? va` ta'c pha^?m bi. ca^'m, mo.i ba'o chi' 
> co`n na(`m trong tay chi'nh quye^`n, nh~ ca'i ddo' co' pha?i
> la` a'm a?nh hay kho^ng?
> 
> Cheers
> Tuan Pham
>