Why is Si Manan called "Sima Chuck"?

Excerpted from Why I Can't See Mo Yan's Book in the Toilet.

Literary Gong Chonghao: Guo Buzhen?

Recently, a Sima said that he didn't like Mo Yan's books. Just because I had a bad toilet experience related to Mo Yan.

He vividly described the scene that day: I heard that Mo Yan's book won the prize, so I specially bought one to go home. He squatted in the toilet reading a book, but he couldn't stand it at all. So I come to the conclusion that Mo Yan's book is not good.

This is "normal". We often go to the online comment area, and some people comment on the looks of female stars. "Because I don't think it looks good, she doesn't look good." The logic is the same.

I don't know if Sima went to the toilet smoothly, but I was attracted by his "reading in the toilet". I can't help wondering why "watching in the toilet" is specifically mentioned instead of "on the sofa", "on the bed" or "in the study" but "in the toilet"? Can reading in the toilet inspire the ancient wisdom of mankind? Or will it make the toilet smoother?

My perspective is always so novel.

People are squatting in the toilet reading books.

I guess, just guess! People who read books in the toilet are generally efficient people.

Their time is extremely precious, but they usually have no leisure to read books. Only when they go to the toilet can they be used for reading and recycling. It can not only enjoy the pleasure of going to the toilet, but also alleviate the anxiety caused by lack of knowledge, which can be described as killing two birds with one stone and claiming that "I am a person who has read Mo Yan".

For them, time can only be used to make money, while reading literature takes a lot of time and can't get money, so-literature is worthless, comparable to toilet paper, and can only be used when going to the toilet.

Reading in the toilet may have other benefits. Perhaps, for them, "reading in the toilet" has another function-to cover up the smell! Psychology believes that people can relieve pain by diverting attention, including the pain of smelling the stench of feces.

Therefore, we can divert our attention from the smell of stool by reading. Ah, this is really great! Inherited part of the spirit of ah q perfectly. Reading in the toilet is similar to smoking in the toilet, but smoking is harmful to health. It is a great progress to cover up the smell with reading. It can be seen that we have made great progress in the past 100 years.

I understand how anxious people feel. After all, this is your psychological need. It must be hard for you to deprive it. I also understand that you use reading to cover up the bad taste. After all, this is a big leap in the history of human toilets. But I have to take the liberty to "sing the opposite": for your health, please don't read when you go to the toilet! This is not conducive to excretion! It's even not conducive to reading: going to the toilet distracts attention and greatly reduces understanding ability (I don't know if it's because Sima doesn't understand, maybe it is).

What's more, what you read is Mo Yan's book.

Mo Yan's book, I have read a long sentence, three presidents, as if playing word games with me, but I can't find a flaw, so angry. Secondly, Mo Yan sometimes laughs at himself suddenly, sometimes "plays and sings", sometimes laughs heartily, and sometimes sad descriptions make people laugh and cry. It seems that we laugh at ourselves when we want to. I think this ups and downs of reading experience is even worse for going to the toilet. Especially those who like Acura works can't tell the difference between fiction and reality. Literature that exposes the dark side will arouse his deep pain and anxiety, which may lead to traumatic nervous vomiting or diarrhea, and it is not conducive to going to the toilet.

I, for sure, will never read Mo Yan's works in the toilet. Brush lace news in the toilet at most to match "my garbage time", so that those "information garbage" and my "body garbage" are mixed together and excreted together.

Obviously, in Sima's eyes, Mo Yan's books should be equated with "lace news" and should be excreted together. So Sima is doomed not to like Mo Yan's books.

Poor literary worker

Shakespeare said that there are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand audiences. I guess many people criticize Shakespeare.

What I said is rough (but also the most practical). A work may be pearls or shit in some people's eyes, and Sima is just one of the viewers who regard Mo Yan's works as shit. Under normal circumstances, we allow flies and apes on both sides of the strait, which is part of the biological chain.

In the history of world literature, writers are always criticized the most.

Romain rolland, a pro-Soviet writer, was accused by the French literary world, Hesse was accused by the motherland of being a traitor because of his anti-war, and Chekhov, a literary giant, was criticized for being too dark and not sunny enough ... too much! Once you are engaged in literature, you should be prepared to be criticized. But different writers have different fates: the French didn't send romain rolland to the guillotine, Chekhov died young, and kept the festival before the purge. Hesse was a bit miserable, wandering around all his life and being scolded as mentally ill. ......

Of course, there are some writers who are even worse. Suicide, murder, mental illness and exile have all become historical figures. Therefore, any clever parents will not let their offspring engage in literature, which may be cool, but it may also be dangerous, so that many people with literary talent will eventually go to the factory to screw the screws.

Therefore, I assert that literary and art workers are very poor! Under a writer's glamorous appearance, it is equally pitiful!

Some philosophers also think so. As the philosopher Russell said, literature is more painful than science, because science has only one objective fact and literature has no standard answer. Therefore, writers will attract countless criticisms, but they can't do anything to those people-people can criticize you, but you must allow criticism-which is a bit like advanced PUA. In short, it is all your fault. If you refute it, it is that you are not broad-minded enough.

This eventually led to even schizophrenia, personality disorder, mental retardation, personal vendetta, selfish people, flatterers, flatterers, thieves and so on can step on one foot. But! People can't let mental illness disappear from the earth just because they criticize a work.

Oh, poor thing!