Comment on a Letter Disagreeing with the Criticism of Hu Feng’s Literary and Artistic Ideas (March 4, 1953)

Comrade Xiong Fu: Please look into this matter[3] and report back to me[4]. Mao Zedong March 4 Based on the manuscript.

Notes [1] Hu Feng was then a member of the National Committee of the All-China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and a director of the Chinese Writers Association.

[2] Xiong Fu was at that time Deputy Secretary-General of the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee.

[3] On February 25, 1953, a person signing as “An Ordinary Literary and Artistic Worker” wrote to Mao Zedong, describing the situation of a symposium convened by the China Literary Association on January 29, 1953, to discuss Hu Feng’s literary and artistic ideas among leading figures in the literary and art circles, as well as his own feelings. He stated that he did not understand the criticism of Hu Feng’s ideas and felt oppressed and troubled.

[4] In accordance with Mao Zedong’s instruction, Xiong Fu submitted an investigative report on this matter to Mao Zedong on April 8, 1953. The report noted that Hu Feng had come to Beijing last July, seeking out Zhou Yang and Ding Ling, and also writing a letter to Premier Zhou, requesting a discussion of his literary and artistic views. At that time, Premier Zhou instructed the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee to take charge of handling the matter. The Propaganda Department subsequently held four symposia, subjecting Hu Feng’s literary and artistic ideas to comprehensive criticism, hoping that he would humbly listen to others’ opinions and conduct a self-criticism. Although Hu Feng verbally expressed willingness to consider these points, in practice he continued to defend his erroneous views from various angles. Consequently, the Propaganda Department assigned He Qifang, deputy director of the Institute of Literature at Peking University, and Lin Mohan, deputy director of the Literary and Artistic Division of the Propaganda Department, to write articles publicly criticizing Hu Feng. To avoid startling the literary and art circles, it was decided that, prior to the publication of the critical articles, Lin Mohan would deliver a report to leading cadres of various literary and artistic organizations in Beijing, outlining the background and details of the criticism of Hu Feng’s literary and artistic ideas. This was the “symposium” convened by the Literary Association on the evening of January 29 at the Ministry of Culture. Originally intended as a briefing session, it was labeled a “symposium” to make it sound more informal; however, the discrepancy between the title and the actual content gave the letter writer the impression that no one was allowed to speak. This was indeed a shortcoming. Following the publication of Lin Mohan and He Qifang’s articles criticizing Hu Feng’s literary and artistic ideas, the general response within the literary and art circles was that the criticism was correct and incisive. Before the public criticism of Hu Feng, both the Literary Gazette and the People’s Daily had received numerous letters from readers either criticizing Hu Feng’s literary and artistic ideas or reflecting on their own susceptibility to them. Many of the arguments put forward in Lin and He’s articles had already been voiced by readers, though presented in a more systematic manner. Nevertheless, a small number of readers remained dissatisfied with the criticism or disagreed with its specific points. Over the past two years, there have indeed been many shortcomings in general literary criticism, such as oversimplification, taking passages out of context, a lack of artistic analysis, and an emphasis on fault-finding rather than encouragement. These problems were pointed out last year in an editorial in the People’s Daily commemorating the tenth anniversary of the publication of Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art.” More recently, this tendency toward “leftist” excesses has begun to abate, but at the same time, a certain sluggishness has emerged in literary criticism. We have taken note of this issue and the Literary and Artistic Division is currently collecting materials and studying ways to improve literary criticism work.