On Fang-Mei Lin's Interpreting Chung-Yao's Kingdom of Love[1]: In Search of A Comprehensive Model for Modern Romance, Its Readers, and the Phenomenon of Reading Romance
小卡

        In Taiwan, 「yan-ching hsiao-shuo[2],」 a kind of Chinese fiction that elaborates on the subject of romantic love and lovers, has developed two definitions.  In a broad sense, it includes all fictions that deal with the theme of love and affection, following the centurial tradition kept mainly by female writers[3].  These writers might have been criticized for not taking the responsibility of 「instructing and lecturing the public」, but the literary value and techniques in their works are still recognized.  The more recently developed 「yan-ching hsiao-shuo,」 however, does not enjoy a literary reputation comparable with its popularity.  These 「easy books」 circulated in book rentals use romanticized and exaggerated love stories so as to attract (mostly female) readers who would care for a little light reading once in a while.  This kind of 「yan-ching hsiao-shuo,」 also called the 「luo-man-shi hsiao-shuo[4],」 is kin to the modern North American romance, and suffers a similar fate of being rejected and despised by the 「mainstream intellectuals.」  Yet between the two kinds of 「yan-ching hsiao-shuo」, marking the transition of the Chinese romance, stands an influential and specific writer named Chung-Yao.  Contributing fifty novels, fifty adapted movies, and nine serial dramas, the writer was at one time very important to both Taiwanese book-market and the television network, and was all the more a controversial figure not only to the reading public but also to the academic circle.  Therefore famous feminist and scholar of media studies Fang-Mei Lin discusses this 「Chung-Yao phenomenon」 in her book Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of love, which, even at such a time when Chung-Yao is no longer popular, is still an imperative text to study if we want to know how Chinese romance is produced, received and evaluated.  And in order to track the trajectory of modern romantic love in Taiwan, we need to examine how and why Lin inquires into this Chung-Yao phenomenon especially when we see the thriving of North American romance and the study of it.

        Two main axes of Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of Love are the textual analyses of Chung-Yao romance and the investigation of the mode and market structure of its production.  Through lengthy detailed textual analyses Lin comes to  the conclusion that most of Chung-Yao』s romances deal with the same theme of 「the conflict between romantic love and family love,」 which is revealed in the protagonists』 struggle and compromise with parents who object to the young people』s love relationship.  On this axis Lin differentiates between the inner and outer problems of love, the former being the essential contradiction between two parts of a love relationship and the later being the opposition and hindrance that come from outside this relationship.  Lin also uses a few pages presenting the historical background and societal conditions of the rise of romantic love in Chinese societies, attributing it to the trend towards individualism and autonomy triggered by the 「May Fourth Movement.」  The other axis stretches along the discussion of how the culture industry and the interaction among the writer, the reader and the publisher exert influence on the production of romantic novels.  Lin observes how a writer』s gender, birthplace, and literary group can mark his or her reputation, how literary criticism system stratifies 「vulgar」 and 「refined」 literature, and how the border of literary hierarchy becomes gradually blurred by new mode of marketing—publicity, chain bookstores, and best-seller charts—and new mode of production—diversification, specification, and efficiency.

        As a defender of Chung-Yao』s romance  as well as the popular culture, Lin』s first target to dialogue with is Ao Lee.  In the sixties when Chung-Yao just started her spotlighted literary life and when literary criticism still worked on rigid borderline between vulgar and refined literature, Lee has written an article[5] 「blaming Outside the Window[6], Chung-Yao』s successful debut, for its traditional, conservative and patriarchal ideology which restrains the young people』s freedom of love and sexual potency (Lin, 87-90).  Before getting into dialoguing with Lee, Lin writes a whole chapter[7] discussing the notion of romantic love and arrives at a conclusion that Chung-Yao』s romantic love is different from that emancipating romantic love of the May Fourth Movement:

During the May Fourth age, the notion of love is a public ideology and a rebellion against Chinese patriarchy. […] Romantic love could be defined as a revolutionary notion, which emancipates the young from out-of-date formalities of unconditionally obeying the elder and repressing the self. 

On the contrary, Chung-Yao』s romance belongs completely to the private sphere.  She absolutely describes love from women』s angle.  Furthermore, it is a female vision of man-woman relationship, in which the man is prescribed to some obligations to assure the woman』s bliss. (80)

This distinction is apparently a preparation for refuting Lee in the next chapter.  What Lin does is to move beforehand Chung-Yao romance out of Lee』s battlefield by categorizing romance as essentially female, private, passive and therefore immune from Lee』s later 「politicalized and pan-culturalism attacks.」  By 「pan-culturalism」 Lin means radical intellectuals』 inclination towards 「relating their criticism and accusation of Chinese culture and even speaking in an anti-tradition tone when any specific issue is discussed」 (Lin, 103).  Next the feminist quotes several critics and concludes that dissidents like Ao Lee 「concur with each other that literary criticism should aim to enlighten readers and teach what is real and what is hypocrite ideology」 because they 「desire for the transition from traditional patriarchal culture to modern democracy」 (Lin, 107). 

         After pointing out the intellectuals』 「politicalized and pan-culturalism discussions about literature and art」 (107), Lin proceeds to criticize those male intellectuals—mainly Ao Lee—for their sexism.  Lin thinks that while 「Lee taunts [Chung-Yao] with the values of 『virginism』 and 『spiritism』 articulated in Outside the Window and advocating a kind of love combining the soul and the flesh, no one of the progressivists can come to mention the double standard of sexual norms applied to men and women or criticize the sexual oppression and repression from men to women [revealed in the romance]」 (108).  Lin goes on arguing that politicalized ideology is responsible for Lee』s disdaining the 「maiden literature[8]」 writers』 narrowed subject of writing: 「the 『maiden literature』 becomes a sacrifice of the deep-rooted conflicts and hostility between official writers and dissidents」 (108-9).  Finally the feminist protests that 「for a long time we have lacked a female point of view when we inquire into the inner meaning of female literature and instead we have always explained away with 『the fooled-public theory』 the prevalence of female literature and the falling of serious literature」 (109).

          To sum up, Lin asserts that the 「maiden literature」 or Chung-Yao』s romance should be read or interpreted in minute detail through investigating how women really feel about the novels rather than within the frame of politicalized patriarchal ideology.  Two problems of Lin』s tactics are shown here.  Firstly, Lin evades dealing with the problem of sexual repression Lee proposes by calling Lee a sexist, but towards the end of the book as a feminist Lin still has to vaguely admit that Chung-Yao』s romances 「are centered on women』s resignation and compromise […] and consequently strengthen patriarchy」 (268).  After criticizing Lee for sexism from a feminist position and then reluctantly accepting Lee』s attack also from a feminist position, Lin slides herself away from the mainstream feminist position and emphasizes that it is 「not proper to make romance instrumental for feminists going into cultural politics」 (283-4).  While attacking Ao Lee she appeals for a non-ideological textual interpretation of the romance yet still holds onto her own feminist ideology saying that Chung-Yao』s romance is 「disadvantageous to the popularization of feminism」 (266).  This positional sliding occurs around in the book.

         The second problem is that we do not see Lin herself investigate or present in her book how female readers really feel about their private reading.  Instead, half of the book is the feminist』s own interpretation of Chung-Yao』s texts because she believes that 「from their [textual] analyses of romance, feminists can appreciate the female desire and all kinds of struggles and efforts derived from it」 (266).  American scholar Janice Radway has a different way of treating this subject.  Radway puts her emphasis on studying 「the act of reading.」  If there is a textual analysis or an objection against patriarchal ideology revealed in some novels, it is emanated from the interviewed reader.  Radway finds that romance reading gives women a chance of escaping awhile from onerous duties and entering a proprietary world in which they feel accepted and satisfied.  In Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of Love Lin quickly jumps to a similar conclusion that 「the genius of romance lies in portraying an ideal world where women are respected, cherished, accepted and approved」 (159).  But actually she has done only a small amount of eight pages』 discussion about some young readers』s response to Chung-Yao』s romance.  On the other hand, Lin oddly opposes to the idea of viewing romance reading as a resistance to patriarchy:

If we read her works in an 『authentic』 Chung-Yao style way, […] slim is the possibility of achieving a resistant or subversive interpretation.  Radway repeatedly emphasizes in her research that the housewives』 act of striving for private time for reading temporarily away from family duties is itself a resistance of patriarchy. […]

What we should carefully consider is whether such observation is too rose-colored and exaggerating the meaning of 『resistance』? (279-80)

Lin thinks that the use of the idea of resistance should not be arbitrary.  She cites Giroux[9] and agrees 「only the challenge to existing system by a collective action can be called resistance.」  「Even if the romance itself or the circumstances of reading have the subversive potential,」 it is still not the same to Lin (280).  However, we see Lin』s underlying reluctance.  She shifts the focus to a discussion of 「the definition of resistance」 and evades admitting the 「active and positive」 element that Radway is really saying.

          Why is Lin so reticent about romance reading』s function of resistance?  The methodology she uses may answer this question.  Lin applies New Criticism rather than the Reader Response theory because she wants to reserve to herself the power of interpretation.  She admits 「only how to communicate with not the general female public as a feminist but the male intellectuals」 is her focus (284).  Although she dashingly claims that 「signification is formed along the trajectory of interaction among many analytical units, such as the text, the reader, the culture industry」 (35), readers, the source of significance, are kept out.  While gaining the conclusion that the distinction of popular and refined literature is a result of struggles among intellectuals, Lin still adopts the role of an elitist interpreter who is actually fighting for the right of interpretation.  Lin cannot believe in the readers』 resistance because she does not believe in their ability to 「interpret the inner meaning right.」  To the contrast, Radway places herself along with the actual readers investigating preferred storyline and their gains and returns them the right of interpretation; then the establishment of romance』s good reputation is possible. 

         Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of Love contributes a lot to the study of vulgar/popular literature in challenging the traditional distinction of popular and serious.  It confirms an important fact that 「the inner textual quality of a work can not fully decide whether it belongs to the refined literature or the vulgar literature.」  The decision is 「a dynamic process of labeling,」 and the labeling is due to an act of 「exclusion and securing territory」 (197).  It is clear that Lin makes efforts to do Chung-Yao justice by pointing out the operation of ideology.  But does this book do as well justice to the readers and the general romance, especially the recently rising one—the luo-man-shi hsiao-shuo?  On 7 March 2001 Legislator Ching-An Lee interpellated the minister of education about the 「flooding」 of pornographic romance.  Very much like Chung-Yao』s romances in the sixties and seventies, the new romance is now severely condemned for 「polluting young women with its filthy and immoral content.」[10]  Though the new romance is still a part of the popular culture, this time we find Lin』s interpretive model no good here.  It would be meaningless to try to make a painstaking textual investigation and achieve an inductive result of the numerous diverse romantic fictions of different authors circulated in the market.  Lin』s conventional feminist story of sexual oppression is not effective either in explaining why readers of new romance enjoy and expect the so-called 「sexist」 sex scenes.  In a word, to 「interpret」 by the intellectual herself is not enough.  Only focusing on the processes of signification can really help with the construction of a comprehensive frame of romance and popular culture.

---

Bibliography

李敖 [Lee, Ao]. 〈沒有窗，哪有窗外？〉.《文星》93期. 1965年：頁4-15.

林芳玫 [Lin, Fang-Mei]. 解讀瓊瑤愛情王國 [Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of Love]. 臺北：時報文化. 1994

瓊瑤 [Chung-Yao]. 窗外 [Outside the Window]. 臺北：皇冠. 1963. 

Radway, Janice. Reading the Romance. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1984.

　

---

[1] This translation of book title is mine.  I intend to  parody  J. Radway』s Reading the Romance.  

[2] Transliteration of 「言情小說.」  

[3] Better known as The Mandarin and Butterfly School. 「鴛鴦蝴蝶派」  

[4] Transliteration of 「羅曼史小說,」 meaning 「romantic novel.」  

[5] 李敖 [Lee, Ao]. 「What Is Outside the Window Without the Window?」 <沒有窗，哪有窗外？>. 1965.  

[6] 瓊瑤 [Chung-Yao]. 臺北：皇冠. 1963.

[7] Lin. 「Chapter two: The Dual Faces of Romantic Love: A Reformative Consciousness and A Female vision.」 Interpreting Chung-Yao』s Kingdom of Love. 60-81.

[8] Translation of 「閨秀文學.」  

[9] Giroux, H.A. 1983. 「Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis」. Harvard Educational Review. 53:257-93.[10] 張錦弘. 聯合報. 「李慶安：色情小說污染女學生」. 2001 March 8.