108 Heros from shui hu zhuan(Outlaws of the Marsh), Japanese oil

Hey Liu Ce,

    Do you mean argue with them and not with you?

Peace,

Michael

11-17-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    you wrote, "Did Jinyong try to make his main characters similar?  I think the answer is pretty clear to anyone that have read his novels.  Xiao Feng and Guo Jing both know the same Kongfu (actually, Xiao Feng knows the complete Xiang Long 18 Zhang and not Guo Jing) but these two characters are different from name, looks, intellegence and so on.  Most importantly when you read about Xiao Feng, you won't think "oh, this is sort of like Guo Jing"."

    You are not being clear on what you're trying to prove.  The reason you say that Guo Jing doesn't remind one of Guo Sheng is that Guo Jing is a completely different character despite an express relation is made.  Yet you don't say the same about Lu Fang, who is a completely different character from Lu Bo, with express relation to Lu Bo.  Let me make a sort of chart to show you what I mean:

Guo Jing and Guo Sheng:

No similarity in personality traits.  Only an express relation is made regarding ancestry.  Guo Jing can be Liu Jing and there won't be a difference.

Lu Fang and Lu Bo:

No similarity in personality traits.  Only an express relation is made regarding Lu Fang being a fan of Lu Bo.  Lu Fang could've been a fan of Xiang Yu and there won't be a difference.

    Yet for the former you say that he won't remind one of Guo Sheng, while the latter reminds you of Lu Bo.  You can't have it both ways, Hansioux.  Either both were copies or neither was.

    You wrote, "And you are avoiding the point.  The point is you mentioned before I can't just say one character is a wannabe of another because they belong to the same catagory, so they are bound to be similar.  But the fact is those their action might belong to a similar group, but they don't have to make you feel that they similar."

    I did not avoid that point at all.  The only argument you have against what I said was that you FEEL that they remind you of 3K characters.  I've repeatedly given you my counter argument: you can't use personal feeling as an objective proof.  One thing I haven't noted: even characters that are similar due to belonging to a type is also extremely far and in between.  Wu Yong is one.  Soong Jiang, may be.  That's about it.

    you wrote, "If you want to generalize to that point, you may say all the characters in any classical novels are human, they all have feelings (most of the time), they all eat drink and sleep, therefore they are all immitating the other.  But just because they are all Xia, or advicer they can still be different and let you feel they are not related at all."

    Non sequitor.  I didn't generalize to that point.  You're exaggerating my argument, and in doing so you are not addressing my argument at all.

    you wrote, "I have said that Outlaw created a lot of unique characters and I loved it for that.  I never denied the uniqueness of these characters.  I have brought that up several times."

    Which is precisely how you shot yourself in your foot.  We have here, by your admission, a large crew of unique characters.  We also have a core story, a group of central characters, some central themes, that have nothing to do with 3K.  We have 4 (!) heroes out of 108 with express relation to 3K, and with the exception of Guan Sheng, the other 3 are only superficially related.  We have one or two heroes who might belong to character types from 3K.  Aside from the 108 heroes in question, there are hundreds other characters in Outlaws.  And you mean to tell me that Outlaws is a wannabe of 3K, and its author tries to make another 3K.  That makes no sense.

    You wrote, "On the other hand I have also said a story or a character doesn't have to be exactly the same for it to be a wannabe story or character"

    Which story to be exact?  you gotta be clear on that.  if you want to say that Guan Sheng and his story is a 3K wannabe, I might agree.  but Guan Sheng and his story makes up of probably less than 1% of Outlaws.  Furthermore, Guan Sheng and his story is not central to Outlaws (if you replace Guan Sheng with someone else, the story won't change significantly.  note: I like Guan Sheng, so of course I wouldn't wanna replace him.)  Remember you said, unequivocally, Outlaws is a 3K wannabe.  It's like saying someone is a Catholic because he's been to Mass once in his life.  it makes no sense.

    you wrote, "My point is how did you know that Chu Gong has beard like Guan Yu?  How did you know that Lu Bo dressed and wanted to be Lu Bu? Because in the novel it mentions it.  These character wanted to be 3K characters.  They wanted to be 3K characters because the creaters of the story wanted to to write them that way.  Outlaw wanted you to make those connections."

    Agreed.  But how does that make Outlaws a wannabe of 3K?  Your argument is now as senseless as it is confusing: first you said Outlaws is a wannabe of 3K.  Now you said a few heroes are wannabes -- I have no problem with saying that Guan Sheng is a wannabe of Guan Yu, cuz that's almost undeniable.  Chu Gong?  I'd say to an extent.  Lu Fang?  difficult, but I can live with it.  Lin Chong?  no.  that's 4 out of hundreds of Outlaws characters, even counting Lin Chong.  What are you trying to prove here?  Are you proving that the authors used a few things from 3K to embellish a few of his characters?  That's already discussed and agreed.  Or are you trying to say that Outlaws, unequivocally, is a wannabe of 3K?  That's clearly impossible.  It's like saying I'm White if I'm 1/128 Caucasian.  Remember, you said, Outlaws is a wannabe of 3K, so I'm not twisting your words here.  (read your second post on the first page.)  If by that you mean 1% of Outlaws copied 3K, then what you said originally is grossly inaccurate.

Peace,

Michael

11-4-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    The links are worth visiting indeed, and thanks for the links.  I'm glad that I looked at the second one because it reminds me of an important piece that I haven't talked about: Suan Wo Wei Shi, presumably the original "template" of Outlaws.  The basic story line can be found there.  Interesting to note: nothing about 3K that I'm aware of.

    Now I have with me a list of Yuan dynasty dramas about Outlaws: twelve of them concern Li Guai, and we can pretty much rule out 3K imitations in these ones.  One is about Wu Song fighting a tiger.  One is called "Sick Yang Xiong."  I have no idea what this one is about (Yang Xiong is called "Sick Guan Xuo" -- incidentally Guan Yu's son.  But who is "Sick Yang Xiong?")  Two are about Yang Qing.  One is about Guan Sheng, Xu Ling, and Hua Rong rescuing a sworn sister.  One is about Chang Xun.  Only in the story about Guan Sheng can I presume to find something about 3K.  "Sick Yang Xiong" might have something about 3K, as Yang Xiong is called "Sick Yang Xiong," but since I haven't seen it or a summary of it, I can't say that it does.

    So let's look at the Guan Sheng story.  It's about Guan Sheng, Xu Ling, and Hua Rong being sent on a mission to gather military intelligence.  The three heroes, one after the other, sought shelter in the home of a stranger, and there they meet a righteous woman called Li Chien Jiu, and swore brotherhood with her.  Later Li was falsely accused and was arrested, so the three heroes rescued her.  Now, I don't see any 3K reference here either: another hero like Lin Chong could've subsituted Guan Sheng and the story probably wouldn't change.

    Your examples actually argue against your argument, because it seems that in the earlier stages of the development of Outlaws, the story was even less like 3K.  Now if you were to argue that it's the other way around, that the story later became a wannabe of 3K (that was actually your original point, as I remember,) then we come back to what we've been focused more on -- the novel that was popular.

    you wrote, "I have given the reason why I do not want to give examples.  We all know who these similar characters are.  In fact you named most of them without me ever needing to mention them.  Do you ever think about why you feel the need to defend these characters?"

    It seems as though you had no interest in reading what I wrote about these characters.  (What charges are you bringing against these characters that I have to defend them anyway?  I'm confused.)  What I did was explain that, except Guan Sheng, all of these characters are superficially related to 3K, and their relation to 3K did not booster them (therefore your idea that it "made them interesting" is not correct,) and that these relations are not essential to the story at all (therefore your idea that Outlaws, as such, is a wannabe, is not correct.)

    you wrote, "My reason as previously stated is the character doesn't need to be exactly the same to be wannabe.  And you agreed with that point."

    I did not agree with that point.  You are rearranging the terms here to put words into my mouth.  I said: 1) Outlaws copied elements from 3K, and 2) Outlaws is not a wannabe of 3K.  You are equating "having copied anything" with "wannabe."  I have also explained why such copying did not make Outlaws a wannabe of 3K, and I brought up many reasons, few of them addressed by you.

    you wrote, "You wanting to find a text in the book that says "This character created because I want it to attract 3K audiance" is not relavent."

    I said no such thing.  I said you need to find evidence that the authors of Outlaws wanted to write a book like 3K.  There is no need for such a statement.  You claim to know what the authors intend.  So find evidence.

    you wrote, "The point is there's just one too many of these Outlaw character reminds you of the 3K characters."

    Let's make something clear here.  The characters who are actual references to 3K are overt references (like those with 3K characters' names as titles, or Guan Sheng who was expressly said to be a descendant of Guan Yu) turn out, with the exception of Guan Sheng, not to be borrowed characters at all.  Lu Fang is nothing like Lu Bo except trying to dress like him and use a halberd like him.  If a story has a character who is a superman fanatic (Lu Fang is pretty much a Lu Bo fanatic) and dresses like him, no one is gonna say that the author stole superman's character.  Lin Chong turned out to be a very different character from Chang Fei.  One more I forgot to mention is Chu Gong who, interestingly enough, has Guan Yu's title and has a long beard like him (but come on, you mean to tell me that Outlaws is a wannabe because one character has a beard and title like Guan Yu?)  I just counted, there are four characters total that are express reference to 3K.  Only one of these characters is essential to the story.  there are a total of 108 heroes.  Let's be honest here.  we're not talking about whether Outlaws are using things from 3K.  But does using anything from 3K makes Outlaws a wannabe?  If so, I don't think there is a fictional work that isn't a wannabe.  And let's be more specific here: if the authors of Outlaws, as you strongly feel, try so hard to write another 3K, I must say they have completely failed, because 4 out of 108 as expressed references to 3K is even trying at all.

    you wrote, "You can bring up Jinyong and all the Chinese novelist and generalize that if they create a type of character, then by my standard they are 3K wannabes.  However when you think Yang Guo, or Guo Jin, or any of these characters, you won't associate them with other works.  Because they are too unique."

    Lin Chong is pretty unique, more unique than Linhu Chong if you ask me.

    you wrote, "By your "generalization" most of Jinyong's characters belonged to the "Xia" catagory, but no one will associate Lihu Chong with Yang Guo or Zhang Wu-Ji with Guo Jing, because Jin Yong don't want you to have that kind of connections."

    And you can tell me that he doesn't want me to make that kind of connection because you know Jin Yong?  You are still trying to prove your points with how you feel.  You need more than that.

Peace,

Michael

11-3-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    I cannot view Chinese on this computer, so I'll check out the links at home.  Thanks for the links, but I've already read plenty of studies on Outlaws, such as the one by Hu Shi.  Your links are nonetheless appreciated.

    you wrote, "You are making assumption that these character are only added in the book to fill the 108 number to match the astrological number.  However the story of Outlaw did not jump from Soong Jiang and 36 to 108.  It slowly increased.  In fact by the time of Mongolian rule, it was 72 heros."

    I never said it jumped from 36 to 108.  The process took place over time.  Yet that's not the point anyway.  The point is that these characters have a astrological significance, and I don't think you'd suggest that this happened by accident.  If it's done on purpose, then my point stands.

    you wrote, "In fact the novel has many versions.  From the 120 chapter version, to the more popular Jin Sheng Tan edited 70 chapter version.  A lot of these stories were created by popular Shou Shu artists.  However some of these stories might be fun on their own, but pretty useless in the book.  The original author, who ever he is, have picked out the stories that he thought was more relavent to the point he wanted to carry accross.  Then Jin again cut a lot of the stories to carry his point accross."

    Are you saying that a hardcore fan of Outlaws like myself would not know any of this?  =)  I'm familiar with this history of the development of the novel.  However, this has nothing to do with our issue at hand.

    you wrote, "I have always said it is my opinion that it is a wanna be.  In fact I said that somewhere on page 2."

    I know that.  It's precisely what I'm arguing against.

    you wrote, "But you have been taking the "book" as the only and the correct version of Outlaw."

    I did not say that.

    you wrote, "But to me, Outlaw study is something connected with the history that spawned the story and the developement of the story alike."

    Okay.  I still don't see how this proves anything you're trying to prove.  I've already stated that Guan Sheng is a duplication.  No other character, however, is copied in such a way, regardless of which stage of the development of the story.

    you wrote, "I am sure some of these heros where created to match the numbers.  But I also believe when these characters were created, they had their stories from the Shuo Su artists.  Whether these stories were kept by the people holding the pen is another matter.  But basing on the book and conclude that these characters didn't have stories is a lot unfair."

    Not to nitpick, but it wouldn't be a matter of fairness here.  For one to take such a position one isn't making unsupported claims (as you did); at most he's making an arbitrary preference for which work to examine.  If the work under question is the final product of the novel, that's his choice.  Furthermore, if you call that unfair, its' opposite preference is just as unfair -- why any preference in the first place?  I have made no such preference myself (I don't know why you presumed that I do.)  As far as I'm concerned the whole of the Outlaws legends (folklores, dramas, novel) is not an effort to "become 3K."  Such a theory makes no sense whatsoever, as the central subject matter, the core characters, and the salient features of Outlaws have no relation to 3K.  Granted that some "subplots" that some local artists did were a 3K wannabe (may be there's a Guan Sheng story,) and I've yet to actually see one, that doesn't mean that Outlaws, as such, is an effort to become 3K.  If someone wrote a spinoff novel of 3K, and in it adopted Outlaws elements, does that make 3K, as such, a Outlaws wannabe?  You still haven't given me one workable example besides Guan Sheng, which I already noted repeatedly as an exception.

Peace,

Michael

11-3-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    You aren't reading my posts carefully enough (this explains why you still haven't addressed my points.)  I'm familiar with that story about Li Guang, and it's PRECISELY why I said he wasn't famous for accuracy in archery (so yes, I DID mean the latter.)  Shooting an arrow into a rock is not accuracy.

    you wrote, "This is what I am talking about.  These characters were created for what?  Just so that audiance perhaps from 3k would be interested in the Outlaw story."

    I can't imagine anybody being interested in Outlaws because of Lu Fang and Guo Sheng =)  These characters weren't created out of the blue by the author.  If you're familiar with the structure of the story at all, you'd know this: the authors tried very hard to make 108 characters in order to match the astrological number.  The goal is obviously not to create characters after 3K characters to attract readership, rather, the goal was to add up to a certain meaningful number that became gradually associated with the Outlaws legend.  (As you well know, it started with Soong Jiang and 36.  Somehow Soong Jiang beame one of the 36.  And to match with astrology, 72 are added.  You are placing the cart before the horse when you said Lu Fang was added so Outlaws can have some 3K character; instead, 3K element was added here not as a goal, but as a means: the author wasn't trying to write another 3K; he merely wanted to meet the quota of characters.  See more explanations below.)

    you wrote, "Remeber, in the Shuo Shu form, each chapter has to be able to attract people to listen.  Because they tell a chapter of the story everyday.  They can not depend on people to keep coming back for more stories, they needed to attract new audiance on the fly."

    You inadvertently shot yourself on your foot here.  There isn't a chapter devoted to the story of Lu Fang and Guo Sheng.  They were recruited while Soong Jiang and gang were en route to Liang Shang Po.  This little incident of Lu Fang and Guo Sheng really didn't add anything to the story.  (Incidentally another strange literary device of Outlaws -- writing a lot of subplots that really begin and end right there with little impact on the story.)

    you wrote, "The difference between Jinyong stories to Outlaw and Outlaw to 3K is that when you read about LinHu Chong, you don't connect his image with Wu Song.  When you think about Guo Jing, you don't connect a semi-ADD child to Guo Sheng."

    Connecting Linhu Chong to Wu Song was precisely what I ended up doing though, so you can't say "you don't connect their images."  And as much as people easily forget that Guo Jing is Guo Sheng's descendant, people easily forget that Lu Fang is an imitator of Lu Bo, because that fact had very little impact at all on Lu Fang or the story itself.  You can't have it both ways, Hansioux: Guo Jing's tenous relation to Guo Sheng is exactly as tenous as the relation of Lu Fang to Lu Bo (the latter is even less essential, as they weren't said to be related by ancestry at all.)

    You wrote, "But when you read about Guan Sheng, you think of Guan Yu.  When you read about Lu Fang you think about Lu Bu.  Others like connection to Li Guang and such makes you aware of the connection.  That is where the difference is.  Whether the creater of the story make the point for you to connect these figures."

    No argument about Guan Sheng's case.  I've repeatedly said that it's the only exception I can think of.  The other examples, however, like I said, do not hold up: other than a user of halberd and a wearer of red, Lu Fang is a very long shot from Lu Bo (Lu Fang is a third string fighter, Lu Bo was arguably the best of his time.)  Hua Rong's relation to Li Guang was even less meaningful (Hua Rong was more of a quarterback who throws 80 yards downfield while Li Guang was more like a quarterback who throws powerful and short bullet shots, if you understand football analogy =) )  Btw, in case you haven't noticed -- you have completely drifted away from your original statement.  Right now you're no longer proving that Outlaws imitate 3K, but rather, you're saying that it really imitates many things from Han legends to Tang legends.  You've oversimplified things, but you did bring up a remarkable point, but more on this later.

    you wrote, "Then again, I have always stress from the beginning.  It is my personal feeling that Outlaw tried very hard to be something more like 3K by putting all these characters that the story can really do without into the story.  Whether you think so or no is not important to me, because everybody feels differently about a book or a movie."

    That explains it.  It's a personal feeling.  I've had that feeling at first, cuz I think of Liu Bei when I read about Soong Jiang, etc, but then I realized something: I made that association because I was first heavily acquainted with 3K -- 3K took a priority, and everything else that comes later would naturally remind me of 3K whenever similarities arise.  I'm glad that you admit that it's a personal feeling, because you never proved your points with evidence.  However, whether the author tries to do something or not can be shown from evidence.  It's not merely a matter of "feelings" on the part of the reader; it can be rationally demonstrated.  You have not demonstrated it.

    you wrote, "For example, a really nerdy example, there are people saying that B5 is very similar to LOTR.  One might point out all the differences between these two fictional creations, but if someone sees enough connection to feel that the creator of B5 took a lot of the ideas from LOTR, then that's just the way the story can make people feel."

    Well, our topic is pretty nerdy anyway.  I'm quite disappointed that you failed to bring any concrete examples.  I thot this discussion would get interesting.  All the "one might point out," "one possibly would feel" really aren't examples at all.  Is it really that Outlaws tried to be 3K, or is it something that you already assumed before examining this claim?

    you wrote, "You mentioned 3K created some character types for that generation of novels.  But in Da Ming Yin Lie Zhuang, you won't feel that Liu Buo Wen is a copy of Zhuge Liang, or Xu Da is a copy of Zhao Zi Lung, because the creator of that story didn't want that connection.  So you can't really say because it's a type, so all the characters from novels of this era that belongs to this type make you feel that it's a copy of 3K character.  That is simply not true."

    I haven't read Da Ming Yin Lie Zhuang, but the same problem happens here again: just because you don't feel that connection doesn't prove anything at all.  Is Liu Buo Wen a military advisor?  If so he belongs to that type.  And the more I'm acquainted with Outlaws the less relation I draw between Zhuge Liang and Wu Yong.  "That is simply not true" should be rephrased as "I just don't feel that way."  I need proofs, not how you felt.

    Now, I said I'd explain something.  The fact that Outlaws adopted figures from such a variety of legends strongly support something I discussed earlier: referencing to popular, salient character types.  It's like how Simon in Lord of the Flies is a Christ-like figure -- Christ, besides being a religious icon, is a salient character type: characters that sacrifice themselves for the good of others are a reference to this character type.  What do people like Li Guang, Guan Yu, Shi Ren Guai have in common?  Besides being valient warriors, they are celebrities in the collective consciousness of the people.  In other words, they are character types that, when referenced, communicate something to the readers.  Another thing you failed to notice and I forgot to mention is something very obvious: everyone of the 108 heroes has a title.  These titles are particularly helpful since you have a lot of heroes to remember.  Yet you can't have all the titles about natural phenomena or animals, what better titles than those that reference to familiar character types that everybody relates to right away?  So here's a clear blow to your theory: if Outlaws tried to be 3K in order to be "interesting," then it did a terrible job, because those elements from 3K are so unimportant that they don't come to mind easily.  In fact, I thought the reference to Lu Bo was extremely unhelpful -- if Outlaws really tried to boost its story by getting help from 3K, it should have Lu Fang being as valient as Lu Bo at least.  What Outlaws did with 3K characters is kind of like how Cantonese cop dramas sometimes give nicknames to unimportant characters -- made it interesting?  well, worth a chuckle or two, but interesting, hardly.  The daunting task of Outlaws is therefore not trying to become 3K -- rather, it's something else: it's trying to meet the roster of 108 people and still be able to tell one from the other.  Adopting famous character types are merely a means for that purpose -- you have therefore placed the cart before the horse.  (Appendix: as I said many times, Guan Sheng is a sole exception.  The five tiger generals classification is related to that; and then the classification of other heroes into 8 "knights," 10 footmen, etc., is an extension of that.  This does make Outlaws interesting, but it's also a numbering scheme, a big issue that the authors of Outlaws had to face.)

Peace,

Michael

11-3-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    You're still asserting without giving specific examples.  What you can do is describe similarities between a character from 3K and a character from Outlaws, and describe similiarites between a character from Outlaws and a character from a Jin Yong novel.  I opine that you are, without justification, overrating the similarities of 3K and Outlaws.

    I'll go first.  Let's say Zhuge Liang and Wu Yong.  Both are masterminds behind their operations.  Both had spiritual qualities (Zhuge Liang performed a ritual praying for wind; Wu Yong was, I think, a Taoist practitioner.)  Differences are that Zhuge Liang was more scrupulous with morals (such as feeling sorry for massacring opponents,) while Wu Yong did not whince at murdering a child.  The former was sage like, the latter was more of a gangster.  Zhuge Liang is a type for Wu Yong -- the advisor type.

    Now let's say Wu Song and Linhu Chong.  Both were brilliant fighters.  Both were alcoholic.  Both had a way with women.  Both had a nonchalant attitude about ettiquette.  Differences are that the former was much more cruel, the latter much more child like.  The former was more masculine, the latter was love struck (a reflection of the attitude about romance in different time periods of authorship.)  The former was not as "nosy" as the latter (in this regard Linhu Chong was similar to Lu Shi Shen.)  Both were wandering "Hsiah"

    Now, let me address your last post: references to certain ancestors did very little to embellish the characters of Outlaws.  Guan Sheng appears to be the sole exception here.  The rest of the crew were either not related to people in the past (like Soong Jiang,) or if related, such relation had little relevance (Yang Chi's story really wouldn't change a bit if his name is Chen Chi or something,) or characters that had so little relevance to the story that relating them to a past figure merely gives them a identification of sorts (like Lu Fang and Guo Sheng -- they are so unimportant that their relations to the past figures really just help the readers tell them apart.)

    So there goes your "inadequacy" theory.  Let's do a mental test here: if it is the inadequacy of characters that led the author to embellish them with relation to past figures, then such embellishment would have significant effect.  But with the exception of Guan Sheng, there is no such effect at all.  Hua Rong's relation to Li Guang was tenuous (the latter wasn't known for accuracy of archery,) Lin Chong's personality differ too greatly from Chang Fei that people forget that he even looked like him; Yang Chi did not even use the famous Yang spear.

    Now, you said Guo Jing's relation to Guo Sheng is nonessential, and how is this any different from Lin Chong's relation to Chang Fei, Hua Rong's relation to Li Guang, and Yang Chi's relation to Yang Lin Gong?  Unless you succeed in giving concrete examples, you have to admit that, in this particular regard, Outlaws's similarity to 3K is comparable to Jin Yong's novels similarity to Outlaws.

    I look forward to more specific examples in your next post.  Otherwise you only appear to be making assumptions, to the point that I've begun to doubt whether you've read Outlaws carefully at all.  btw, remember to vote.

Peace,

Michael

11-2-2004

Hey Hansioux,

But in my last paragraph I still argued the same thing, no less than before: typological simiarlities are still a long shot from being exactly the same.  Whether or not they are exactly the same is a moot point, however.

You did alright in terms of eloquence =)  It's the substance that matters anyway, and it's the substance of your posts that I argue against.  The problem is that using established types of characters is a rule of fictional literature of all time: 3K did it no less than Outlaws, or basically any work of fictional literature.  The reason is that authors of any given time could only feasibly create characters based on the categories of the time.  (Note: I said 3K might have created certain character types, but it's also possible that 3K and Outlaws both employed character types from another source.)  The point here is that, if this is a form of copying, then all works of fictional literature had copied.  But it is humanly impossible to create character entirely out of the blue, and if this were possible, such characters would not "make sense" to the general population.  Let me give you an example of what I mean: let's say you're to write a story about a hero.  In order to connect with your readers, you need to give to this hero qualities that are familiar to the readers as heroic qualities, and this hero would inevitably have similarities with other heroes of other stories.  Since this is the basic mechanism of any fictional writing, it is unfair to say that Outlaws is a wannabe because of it -- because practically all fictional works are wannabes, and if that were so, it's superfluous to say Outlaws is a wannabe.  It's like pointing out that I'm a human being.

I'm afraid that influence goes much beyond the first book.  Outlaws created certain character types that Jin Yong continued to employ.  But like Outlaws reinvention of character types from 3K (granted that 3K is indeed the source of some of Outlaws' character types,) Jin Yong reinvented these Outlaws types into something different.  This is where originality counts: it would make no sense to create a wholly unfamiliar character type (say, you were to write about an American hero, you won't write about a wimpy guy who takes crap from people, cuz that's not how Americans define a hero,) but in adopting certain character types, a work can yet transcend by transforming these types into something new.  This is what Outlaws had done, and this is what Jin Yong had done.  If 3K in fact created popular character types, then it is the greatness of 3K, not Outlaws's inadequacy, that accounts for their similarities.  It appears that 3K was one of those monumental works that influenced a generation of literature, and Outlaws was among them.  Since all fictional works inevitably built their foudations upon the popular types of their time, Outlaws cannot be said to be inadequate for adopting familiar character types -- it merely followed the pattern of all fictional works.  Like 3K, Outlaws also spawned a generation of literature (it's influence, I think, is even more far reaching than 3K.  Familiar themes in dramatic novels, detective stories, and Wushia can be traced back to Outlaws.)  By the same token, too, 3K probably was born in a generation influenced by certain great works (I believe 3K stood at the turning point between historical records and pure fictions.  History is an interpretation of facts, and inevitably created character types that would be assumed in fictions.  For example, 3K was born after an era of humiliation and triumph: of being conquered by "barbaric" nations and re-establishing a native dynasty.  The character types in 3K reflect the "character types" of this era.)  The limit of this post does not allow me to explain in further length, but the general idea is that popular character types (whether from legend, historical interpretations, or fictions) are cultural currencies that, if popular, inevitably appears in fictional works but gradually transform.  This is ultimately inevitable, as fictional works are a product of culture, and culture is not a vacuum, but a continuity of sorts.  With all this said, I go back to my original argument: Outlaws cannot be called a wannabe if it is a basic mechanism of all fictional works to build their foundations on current, popular themes.  If you call Outlaws a wannabe, then you have to call all or most popular fictions wannabe as well.  It is the unfairness of such a designation as "wannabe" that I oppose.

Peace,

Michael

11-2-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    I'm not misintepreting you here, I'm just diagreeing on the relevance of the difference between actual and fictional genealogies, because as far as the characters are concerned, they are all fictional.  (E.g.: There was a historical Liu Bei, but the fictional Liu Bei is a fictional construct in itself.)

    You wrote, "Mind you, these copied character did not just get the name or look from the original, they got their skill, their temper, their transportation,  everything."

    That's by far the most baseless assertion you've made.  Name one character that shares the skill, temper, transportation and everything else as a character from 3K.  Not Guan Sheng.  Not Lin Chong.  I don't know which character you're talking about here.

    you wrote, "These Outlaws are not great because they were related to some historic figure.  They were great because they stood up again the Soong corruption."

    Good, we get one thing out of the way.  For the record we can conclude that your argument "copying makes noble" is invalid in this case.

    you wrote, "I am not saying the book is a wannabe, I am saying when this story was being developed, it became a wannabe story because somehow these people didn't seem good enough just being ordinary rebels."

    I don't follow.  So Outlaws is or isn't a wannabe?  If you think that it became one, then you can't say that it isn't (you can only say it wasn't.)  But I'll take issue with the latter part of your statement, as I did in my last post: what makes you think that these characters were "ordinary rebels" if not associated with some historical figures?  Let's look at some example: Guan Sheng is by far the most duplicated character.  He has the look of Guan Yu.  He is related to him.  His personality even reminds one of him.  But his character is either a failed attempt to imitate Guan Yu or the author intended something else, because his personality and talents are still too different -- Guan Yu is much more talented in the arts of war, but Guan Sheng is much more humble in personality.  This is the closest that we can come to for a wannabe character, but Guan Sheng is hardly a central part of the story.  All or most central characters have no such need -- apparently they prevail as not so ordinary rebels by their own rights.  Yang Chi's reference to the Yang family adds virtually nothing to him (he didn't even use the famous Yang's spear.)  Lin Chong's resemblance to Chang Fei is so superficial (literally skin deep) that a reader probably won't be conscious of the association.  The point is that other than serving as a identifying marker, such associations with ancient figures did very little to bolster the characters (with one or two exceptions.  Guan Sheng I already discussed.  Wu Yong might be considered a imitation of Zhuge Liang, but their association is merely of type, not even of superficial appearances.)

    One thing I'd suggest, though, is that 3K might have created certain literary types, like the righteous warrior and the sagacious advisor.  But to say that using these prototypes (and countless novels did) means these novels are 3K wannabes is very convoluted, as though these authors merely wanted to write "another 3K" so to speak.  Now this might not be what you're saying, but since you never clarified what you meant by "wannabe," I'll have to rely on the conventional understanding of the term, and the conventional meaning of the term does not accurately describe Outlaws's relationship to 3K.  I believe 3K influenced Outlaws, but only similar to the way Outlaws influenced Jin Yong.

Peace,

Michael

10-29-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    You're still dodging the issue bro.  You didn't justify (but only asserted) what you suggest constitutes a wannabe at all and you went onto an unrelated subject.  The fact that I said for one thing borrowed there are tons of things that weren't borrowed doesn't mean that I said "two things aren't the same therefore none is borrowed."  If one thing is borrowed then one thing is borrowed, regardless of how different the two works are.  You're still misrepresenting me here.

    For the record, first of all, most of the rebels weren't farmers (the "farmer revolution" is clearly a late interpretation meant to justify the nationalist and communist revolution.  A careful reading of the work shows that virtually almost no one of the 108 heroes was really a farmer, unless you consider the landlords.  There was one guy, a fortress builder, who was a land tenant or something, but that's it.)  Secondly, it's noble, not nobel.      Thirdly, by relating the heroes to past figures doesn't justify their revolution, cuz none of the figures they refer to were "good rebels."  The fact that they sought an imperial anmesty was a much better "justification."  The literary device of relating them to past figures is similar to the way Jin Yong relate his characters to famous figures (Guo Jing was a descendant of Guo Sheng, Yuan Sheng Chi was the son of Yuan Shun Hwun, etc.)  It is a literary device meant to add color to the characters.  Fourthly, whether or not such literary device justifies the characters is wholly irrelevant to the issue: you still didn't address how that makes the novel a wannabe.  You merely asserted that it does.

    You wrote, "The simple fact that the farmers themselves aren't impressive enough to stand on their own, makes it a wannabe.  Because the first story teller didn't feel the story itself was good enough."

    That makes no sense at all.  That's like saying 3K is a wannabe because Liu Bei is a descendant of Liu Bang.  It's also an unjustified presumption that the author didn't feel that his characters were good enough so he threw in their geneologies.  You also might have placed the cart before the horse here: these characters related to past figures could've been so to begin with in the legends before the novel was written.  What strongly undermines your argument is that all of the most significant characters in Outlaws were not related to past figures at all: Soong Jiang, Wu Yong, Lu Shi Shen, all of them impressively original.  The author seems to be very confident about his main crew.

    You kept changing your stance here.  First you said it's a wannabe of 3K, now you say it justifies itself from many sources and not exclusively 3K.  (Your idea of "justification" is ambiguous at best.  Are you saying that the rebels need legitimacy, or are you saying that the author needs import from other works to add to the descriptions of his characters who are lack description?  The latter point is clearly untrue as I pointed out above.  The former point is irrelevant.)  And ultimately you failed to demonstrate how precisely references to the past makes it a wannabe -- references to the past are so common in Chinese literature because of the historical awareness prevalent in its culture, it is, on the one hand, difficult for any work to avoid, and on the other hand, a favorite literary device that adds entertainment value to the works..  You were mistaken, also, in noting that 3K did not make references to genealogies or to the past, because it did.  This, of course, is besides the point.  The huge flaw of your premise is that it makes virtually any work about descendants of famous people a wannabe of something else, thus discrediting many original works as long as they refer to some famous figures of the past.  Sorry, no cigar, so please try again.   

Peace,

Michael

10-29-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    You are dodging the issues.  I didn't say that Outlaws didn't copy from 3K.  I believe that it did or might have.  Your computer code example therefore did not address the issue.  Again, my disagreement is about calling it a wannabe.  You should define what you mean by wannabe first before making an ambiguous claim.  It's like calling Koreans Chinese wannabes cuz they took something from China -- now who would wanna make that claim here? =)  Just because no one here is as passionate about this (except me,) you can't make frivolous claims.

"I am not going to satisfy you with examples, because that is beyond the point.  You are trying to make a logic statement that because these two things aren't exactly the same, therefore you can't say one took something from the others."

Your stance is even worse now that you misinterpreted me.  I never made such an illogical statement.  You're twisting my words here.  I said Outlaws is not a wannabe of 3K.  I said one might have copied from the other.  I didn't say that "two things aren't exactly the same therefore one did not borrow something from another."  It's a grossly illogical statement, and I certainly didn't make it.  You distorted what I said in order to defeat my points, but since you're a cool guy, so I won't make a fuss about it.  =)  Just address my issue from now on.

Peace,

Michael

10-27-2004