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

Hey Hansioux,

    Some of what you said was what I was talking about.  I believe Outlaws got some ideas from 3K legends, which might have become popular to a point that they are the basis for salient themes in the popular consciousness (like superman and spiderman for us today.  This is not the same as being a "wannabe," and I'd explain that below.)  Even though I believe this, we can't say that, in all cases where 3K and Outlaws are similar, Outlaws copied from 3K -- we can't say that 3K legends were popularized before Outlaws just because 3K happened earlier in history.  You're employing a faulty logic here: just because something happened earlier than another doesn't mean that the legends about the former appeared first.  It appears that 3K legends only began to become popular around Sung Yuan times with the growth of nationalism, which was also the time when Outlaws legends became popularized.  (San Guo Ji, a historical document, is certainly not the same as the wide range of legends about 3K.  I'm not familiar with San Guo Ji, but I doubt that San Guo Ji recorded things like Chang Fei's resemblance of a leopard, which could be a much later legendary input.)  As to resemblances of weapons and other things, there's no certainty as to who copied whom.  (Like Sun Quan in 3K has two body guards who carried halberds, and Soong Jiang likewise has two body guards, Lu Fang and Guo Sheng, who carried halberds.)  Needless to say that it was not quite "copying" if the same author was involved with both works.

    you wrote, "There have been novels on San Guo, not the current version, and scripts on traditional Chinese drama about San Guo before outlaw ever happened.  San Guo is embedded in the Chinese culture, even if there wasn't a novel called "San Guo Yan Yi".  That is why when the Suei Hu story started developing, they draw on San Guo stuff to make the crowd interested.  There were 108 characters, there's not need to put characters just like San Guo in the story."

    I ain't so sure if that were true.  For example, operas thrived from Yuan's time, and some 3K operas, I think, were written at that time, and that was already after the purported historical time slot of Outlaws.  Furthermore, perhaps I can break it down this way: I can understand the urge to conclude that the similarities between 3K and Outlaws were a result of the latter copying the former "obviously" because of their actual historical timing, but further analysis of the issue shows that this "obvious" premise is problematic: the problem is that those elements where they are similar were not something that had to be actual.  A fiction or legend about Julius Caesar might borrow stuff from a fiction or legend about Genghis Khan, because the fictions and legends themselves have their own time slot in history apart from the actual events they aim at describing.  (A particular legend about Julius Caesar could be formed after a particular legend about Genghis Khan, for example.)  As to the elements in which the author(s) of Outlaw made a clear reference to 3K (like Outlaws' Lu Fang's title is a reference to 3K's Lu Bu,) it is no longer borrowing something in the way Infernal Affairs 2 borrowed from the Godfather.  Rather, it's more like an author is making reference to what is probably a well known theme.  As I pointed out before about superman and spiderman, if someone has a nickname "superman" in a movie, no one will say, "this movie copied from the comic," but understand that it's making a descriptive reference.  In Outlaws, many characters are also references to famous figures outside of 3K, and I don't think you would say that Outlaws is wannabe of Han Shu because Hua Rong is called "Little Li Guang."  So my point is precisely that I find it groundless to say that Outlaws is a 3K wannabe.  (Pardon me if I'm sounding defensive.    It's a trivial issue, but it's still a pretty fascinating point for debate.)

Peace,

Michael

10-25-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    You wrote, "I probably said they copied characters from 3K."

    But that's what I'm disagreeing about.  Outlaws also had many characters that are references to figures outside of 3K: such as Li Guang of Han.  But none of these cases are copying: it's like if you write a novel and a character is nicknamed "superman" because he is a strong guy, you're not copying the superman character.

    Lin Chong, however, is an interesting case.  One might posit that Chang Fei's physical appearance (not the historical character, of course) was copied from Lin Chong's, but one poem that was written before the Outlaws novel once gave Lin Chong a nickname that refers to Chang Fei.  It would make little sense to make give him that nickname if it wasn't already a known concept that Chang Fei looked like a leopard.  One might still argue that Lin Chong was first described as a leopard head, and then Chang Fei's appearance was an imitation, and the poem came after.  So I think there are still possibilities for either scenario.  The important thing, though, is that Lin Chong's character is nothing like Chang Fei -- this actually might support the idea that Lin Chong was originally a Chang Fei wannabe, and later evolved (because it would be strange that Lin Chong started out with a fierce look of a leopard but a yielding personality.  Notice the interesting contrast that while Lin Chong feared offending his superior, Chang Fei beat his up.)  The idea of "five tiger generals" might be another imitation.  Notice that the first two of the five tiger generals from 3K are Guan Yu and Chang Fei, while in Outlaws it's Guan Sheng and Lin Chong, and Guan Sheng is very similar to Guan Yu in appearance, and Lin Chong is very similar to Chang Fei in appearance.  This seems to be another instance of borrowing.  But two examples of borrowing, both of which very superficial, among many counter examples of differences between 3K and Outlaws hardly make Outlaws a wannabe of 3K.

Peace,

Michael

10-26-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    I dunno if I'd say he's physically attractive dude.  The Chang Fei look, I think, was meant to be a fierce look.  It's very likely a literary device (Chang Fei probably looked nothing like that, since historically he seemed more like a gentleman with good caligraphy skill.)

    I don't object to using the word "copy," my main disagreement, which you still haven't addressed, is to say that it's a wannabe of 3K.  I think it's safe to say that it has some influences from 3K, but Hong Lou Meng was also said to be influenced by Jin Ping Mei, but no one in his right mind would call Hong Lou Meng a Jin Ping Mei wannabe.  Outlaws' influences from 3K are too far and in between.  It's like saying Neo from Matrix was a copy of Chow Yun Fat gangster / assassin look (it probably is,) but that's only goes so far as his appearance (the sun glasses and the trench coat,) but his character is worlds apart from Chow's gangster's / assassin's character.

    Another possibility is that 3K and Outlaws were both influenced by something else.  In any case, there's an potential interesting thesis here: supposing that 3K influenced Outlaws; some suggested that Outlaws influenced Jin Ping Mei, that some said influenced Hong Lou Meng, that some said influenced Bai Xian Yung's novels, then perhaps 3K indirectly influenced Bai Xian Yung's novel.  Noteworthy is also Outlaws' influences on detective novels (like Judge Bao novels) and martial art novels (like Jin Yung's novels.)  Jin Yung's first novel, Shu Jian Yin Shao Lu, is remarkably similar to Outlaws.  But seriously, the elements that Outlaws probably copied from 3K were so few and so superficial that it is unfair to call it a 3K wannabe.

Peace,

Michael

10-26-2004

I never said that.  Nor has that been proven.  For all we know 3K and Outlaws legends as they come down to us evolved at the same time under within the same collective consciousness.

Give me an example of a Friends' wannabe.  My point is that Outlaws and 3K are worlds apart to say that one is the wannabe of the other.  In fact, since you're making this argument, why don't you give me some proofs?  Start with a list of things that Outlaws imitated 3K, and we can go from there.

Well, there has probably been no original work for centuries.  3K is itself influenced by something else.  The problem, though, of saying that Outlaws is a wannabe of 3K is as though the author wanted to write a book that imitates 3K, but that is hardly the case.  for every one thing that Outlaws might have copied 3K, there are hundreds or thousands of things that Outlaws did not copy from 3K.  Again, why don't you give some concrete examples.

Like I said, in the poem where was such a reference.  As far as I know the novel doesn't talk about it.

Peace,

Michael

10-26-2004

Hey Gubukjanggoon,

    If you have some older Korean relatives or friends just came from Korea, they might actually know what we're talking about.  However, I don't know the Korean translations of the names of the two novels, so I don't know how you can ask them.  I remember some friends in junior high just came from Korea, and they knew about these novels (Romance of Three Kingdoms was the more popular one among them, not surprisingly.)

Peace,

Michael

10-27-2004

Hey Hansioux,

    So please give me a list of things that Outlaws might have copied from 3K.  For every one such example I can come up with a bunch of examples that Outlaws did not copy from 3K.  (Again, note the comparison to Jin Ping Mei and Hong Lou Meng: would you say that Hong Lou Meng is a Jin Ping Mei wannabe?  I wouldn't.)

Peace,

Michael

10-27-2004

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

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,

    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,

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