Book Review

My Rating on Douban: 4/5.

Different stories have varying degrees of appeal. After reading "The Great Temple Without Snow All Year," I gave it a score of 5, resonating deeply. "Rebecca" also received a 5; it was the first time I understood a primary school classmate and realized how fortunate and happy I am. "Serial Confiscation" earned a score of 4.5, thoroughly enjoyable, but the missing 0.5 was due to the Yans' family "pure evil," a departure from humanity's complexity, and the lingering feeling that the author still subtly played God, creating an unreal sensation. "Flooded Blue Bridge" received a score of 3, with emotions and technique overshadowing textual value. "Story King" earned 4 points, successfully evoking some unpleasant memories. "Tiger's Grave" got a score of 2.5, with a taste of new concept composition. "Apprentice" received 4 points; I liked the emotional turning point in the middle. "Strange Door" got 2 points; avoid imitating the northeastern narrative of the three old men in front; it's both foul and long. "A Lump of Solid Ice" got 5 points; I love Yang Zhihan's imagination, the cruelty in romance, and the romance in cruelty. Overall, I liked it; just stay away from the parts that are too superficial.

Evaluation as a "Northeastern Literary Renaissance Contributor"

Douban's currently highest-rated short review suggests that this book is not northeastern enough, comparing it with the likes of Shuang Xuetao, Ban Yu, and Zheng Zhiquang. Subsequent comments engage in a heated argument over this review, with many accusing the editor of haphazardly associating the book with the "Northeastern Literary Three Masters" to boost attention.

Interestingly, if we dissect the wording, the term "contributor" actually implies that Yang Zhihan is "continuing" northeastern literature rather than being possibly the "fourth person." There's a subtle connotation of "passing on" and "being different from now." The interesting part is: 1. Do readers also share this perception after finishing the book? 2. Did the editor intentionally use this nuanced term to generate attention?

For the first question, my feeling is "yes." Yang's works are fundamentally different from the Northeastern Three Masters; she writes about the children of the generation affected by corporate restructuring, closer to our generation born in the mid-90s. Reading the highly praised short review on Douban again, despite disagreements, there is an unexpectedly unanimous view on this point.

Regarding the second question, did the editor intentionally create this discussion for attention? I think so. Two interesting "evidences" support this claim: 1. The book swiftly changed its waistband after receiving the award from Bao Bao's Ideal Country - the first award is more eye-catching than the Northeastern Literary Renaissance, and the editor doesn't seem to think reviving Northeastern literature is necessary. 2. Hou Qinghao (editor's name) wrote different articles for different media, showing contradictory perspectives—writing for Qilu Evening News emphasizes "women" as a keyword, riding the feminist trend in September 2022; writing for Beijing Daily emphasizes ice and snow as important elements, with a subtle and secretive entry point as a feature. In an interview after Bao Bao's award in October this year, he said, "Writing from a male perspective does not feel awkward, and this cross-gender ability is rare." It seems he has covered all bases.

The last sentence in Hou Qinghao's article for Beijing Daily:

In the near future, she may become a noteworthy contemporary novelist. More likely, she and her fellow writers will give new meaning to the "Northeastern Literary Renaissance," showing people a younger Northeast.

Hou Qinghao's stance on whether Yang Zhihan is the "fourth person" is clear: they are not even writing about the same generation.

In my opinion, Yang's potential may even surpass the Three Masters—95s are about to become the main consumers. For this generation, are the stories of the older generation more interesting or our own stories more attractive? Yang Zhihan is like China's Sally Rooney.

Finally, is the editor unfairly criticized? Not at all. I'd be frustrated too if I were blamed for setting expectations that are easily misleading. However, seeing the intense discussions on Douban and the book finally gaining popularity, the editor is probably overjoyed; all I can say is that the editorial industry is indeed full of surprises, and his efforts are evident in writing different articles for different media.

(Translated by ChatGPT 3.5)

书评

豆瓣

我的豆瓣评分: 4/5分。

不同篇幅喜欢程度不一样，看了《大寺终年无雪》，5分，共鸣；《瑞贝卡》5分，第一次理解一个小学同学，也第一次意识原来自己这么幸运和幸福；《连环收缴》 4.5 分，酣畅淋漓，缺的0.5是燕一家的“纯恶”脱离人性的复杂、以及作者依旧隐隐扮演天道写死这一家所带来的不真实感；《水漫蓝桥》，3分，情绪和技巧大于文本价值；《故事大王》 4 分，成功勾起了我一些不好的回忆；《虎坟》2.5 分，有点新概念作文的味道了；《出徒》4分，喜欢中间那个情绪转折；《邪门》2分，不要去模仿前面三个老男人的东北叙事啊，又臭又长；《一团坚冰》5分，爱死了杨知寒的想象力和浪漫中的残酷以及残酷中的浪漫。总体是喜欢的，再远离些省力浮浅的部分就好了。

“东北文艺复兴接力者”评

豆瓣现在最高赞短评是说这本书不够东北，拉双雪涛、班宇、郑执强行比较；接下来几条评论掐架这条评论，以及更多评论开始指责编辑胡乱写书封”继东北文艺三杰后，东北文艺复兴接力者“。

很有趣的是如果硬要掐字眼，“接力者”这个词其实是在说杨知寒去“接续”东北文学，而不是说她可能是“第四人”。接力有种“传下去”+“跟现在不一样”的隐晦含义。那么有趣的点是：1. 读者读完这个书也是这样认为的吗？2. 编辑是故意用这么细微区别的词硬拉上东北三杰来引起关注度的吗？

第一个问题，我自己的感觉是“是的”，杨的作品跟东北三杰根本不是同一个书写场域，写的不是受到企业改制摧残的那一代人，而是他们的子女，更贴近我们这一代 95后的这代人。再看一遍豆瓣高赞短评：互相吵，但是这一点上观点出奇地统一。

第二个问题，编辑是故意这么干引起话题讨论度的吗？我觉得是的，找到两个有趣的“证据”：1. 从宝珀理想国发奖给这本书，新批次的书火速更换腰封——宝珀首奖比东北文艺复兴更抓眼球，编辑也不觉得非得去复兴那东北文艺不可；2. 侯擎昊（编辑名）给不同媒体写的稿子，可真是见人见鬼说不同话——写给齐鲁晚报的稿子说“女性”是关键字，22 年 9 月发的狂蹭女性主义的风潮；写给北京日报的稿子说冰雪是重要元素，细小而隐秘的切入点是特色；今年 10 月宝珀获奖之后采访，他又说：用男性第一视角书写没有违和感，这种跨越性别的能力是难得的。合着话都给这大哥说完了哈哈哈。

侯擎昊北京日报的稿子里的最后一句话：

在不远的将来，她或将成为当代小说作者中值得关注的一位。更有可能的是，她和她的作家同行们将为“东北文艺复兴”赋予新的含义，那就是人们看见了更年轻的东北。

侯擎昊对杨知寒是不是“第四人”根本就是门清：写的根本不是同一代人。

在我看来，杨的潜力甚至比三杰更大—— 95 后马上就要成消费主力了，对这一代人而言，是老一辈的故事更有趣还是我们自己的故事更吸引人呢？杨知寒就像是中国的 Sally Rooney。

最后，编辑被骂的冤不冤呢？一点不冤，设置容易误导的预期搁我身上也生气；可编辑看到豆瓣激烈讨论、书终于出圈估计开心得嘴都合不拢了，只能说编辑这行业还真是卷得飞起，从他给不同媒体写角度完全不同的稿子就看出来他有多努力了。