Originally published at: 拿起唯物辩证法的武器——批判资产阶级文艺思想立体人物论 – 曙光
Marxism is the theoretical foundation guiding revolutionary literary criticism and artistic creation
Literature and art are a kind of ideology reflecting social life. “The shaping and portrayal of characters are the central links in literary creation”[1]. People are the center of social life, and characters are the core content of literary and artistic works. At the same time, in class society, like all other ideologies, literature and art always reflect and express the thoughts, feelings, and political views of certain classes, strata, or social groups. Therefore, certain character images and the author’s attitude or evaluation of them directly reflect the author’s thoughts, feelings, political views, and the theme of the work.
In literary and artistic creation, especially in character shaping, there exists a tendency towards conceptualization and formulaic approaches. This makes characters lack individuality, fall into clichés, and fail to vividly and specifically showcase the essential traits of their class, nor can they carry certain political ideas in a good artistic form. Marxist literary theory has always advocated “the unity of politics and art, the unity of content and form, the unity of revolutionary political content and as perfect as possible artistic form”[2], opposing conceptualized and formulaic creation methods. However, bourgeois writers, artists, and critics, under the slogan against “conceptualization” and “formalization,” have been selling humanism and eclecticism, attacking socialist literature and art that combines revolutionary romanticism and realism, and beautifying exploiting class figures. The “three-dimensional character theory” (or “round character theory”) is just another fallacy fabricated by the modern capitalist art world.
The theory of three-dimensional characters is proposed based on opposition to the creation of “flat characters” in literary works. “Flat,” meaning “simple personality,” “unchanging,” or “predictable,” the so-called “great, luminous, and upright” protagonists and “villains who are bad to the end” in traditional bourgeois “superhero” literature are typical “flat characters.” According to the theory of three-dimensional characters, the reason for opposing these two types of characters is because “human nature” is selfish; selfless and sacrificial people are impossible to exist (although bourgeois literary works often do not truly advocate selflessness or sacrifice, but beautify bourgeois interests by portraying them as universal human interests); at the same time, “human nature” is “complex,” just like there are no “purely good” or “purely evil” people—people’s hearts always contain some “common” elements—so since “flat characters” do not conform to “human nature,” they naturally do not conform to reality either.
Although proponents of the three-dimensional character theory also “criticize” some bourgeois literary works and creation methods, they particularly oppose the socialist literary and artistic portrayal of “high and complete” characters, i.e., proletarian heroes who embody the excellent qualities of the broad masses of workers and possess a high level of communist consciousness. In fact, the three-dimensional character theory confuses and distorts the distinction between “heroic” bourgeois characters and proletarian heroes based on life, claiming both are “not in line with human nature” and “not in line with reality.” Conversely, it advocates creating “complex” characters with “personality complexity.” What is “personality complexity”? Simply put, it means contradictions within oneself, dual or multiple personalities, or “both good and bad,” “half good and half bad.” In contemporary bourgeois literature and art, such “three-dimensional characters” are countless—selfish “anti-heroes” who can always save the people from water and fire[3], villains who are “ruthless but righteous” gangsters… In short, positive images always have some sneaky, rogue traits, and villains also have some chivalrous and loyal qualities. According to the theory of three-dimensional characters, this makes characters “real” and “full,” avoiding “flatness” and “monotony.” At first glance, this theory seems to advocate that literary works should “faithfully reflect life” and also “shape characters that are complex due to different life experiences,” which appears very “realist.” But this is just a superficial statement, and because of its deceptive nature, it is especially favored by modern revisionists and bourgeoisie.
However, does creating according to the three-dimensional character theory truly reflect reality? Can it truly faithfully reflect life? A certain literary line serves a certain political line and is guided by a consistent philosophical thought. Just as Chairman Mao raised the struggle against “left” and right opportunism to the philosophical level through his brilliant works On Contradictions and On Practice, and thus removed their theoretical basis, to reveal the essence of the three-dimensional character theory and how it ultimately serves bourgeois politics, we must also pick up the weapon of dialectical materialism to criticize its philosophical roots.
Human nature theory is a social-historical viewpoint and philosophical thought of the exploiting classes. It advocates that people possess certain “innate nature” that is not affected by specific historical periods, productive relations, or class positions. Throughout history, human nature theory has served as the theoretical basis for the economic, political, and literary ideas of exploiting classes. Today, it also remains an important basis for bourgeoisie to fabricate the theory of three-dimensional characters.
The three-dimensional character theory uses so-called “universal human nature” to smuggle bourgeois class characteristics. According to this theory, when creating positive characters, besides depicting their brilliance and grandeur, some flaws, stains, or dark sides must also be added. These flaws, stains, or dark sides are often nothing else but the bourgeoisie’s own traits—pleasure-seeking, selfishness, hypocrisy, cunning, debauchery, and toxicity. However, they falsely claim that such class traits are “universal human nature” and “the only human nature,” and then impose them on the proletariat and broad masses of workers. We know that in a class-divided society, because people are in different class positions and engage in different practical activities, their worldviews cannot be identical but will bear the marks of their respective classes. The images in bourgeois literary works are essentially portraits and microcosms of themselves: capitalists compete fiercely and deceive each other in the intense competition, so their characters are hypocritical and cunning; bourgeoisie exploits and plunders workers in various ways, so their images are greedy and cruel… One of the sinister intentions of the three-dimensional character theory is to promote selfish human nature, thus creating a false and unchangeable foundation for private property system.
And proletarian revolutionary literature advocates using exaggeration and typification techniques to shape heroic images, using characters’ high class consciousness and communist spirit to move people, promote socialist ideas, and play a “unite the people, educate the people, strike the enemies, and eliminate the enemies”[4] role, serving the proletarian political line. The proponents of the three-dimensional character theory, starting from their narrow class prejudices, do not believe that people can possess qualities like selflessness and sacrifice, and declare all human natures that do not conform to their class traits as false, claiming “even the sun has spots”[5], and regard exaggeration and typification as fiction and beautification, questioning the authenticity of proletarian literary works, thus opposing the proletarian revolutionary literary line. This attack by proponents of the three-dimensional character theory is untenable. Of course, in real life, advanced figures may have flaws or shortcomings, which is not surprising. But these flaws or shortcomings do not primarily reflect the extreme selfish class traits of the bourgeoisie, nor do they represent the mainstream and development trend of things. On the contrary, they are signs of decline, while proletarian consciousness and communist spirit are the true realities embedded in these characters. The latter, reflecting the mainstream, essence, and future of things, should be the focus of literary and artistic portrayal. Proletarian literature and art are a high synthesis of revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism, in short, “derived from life, higher than life”: derived from life means shaping characters based on their class (or stratum, social group) nature in real life; higher than life means concentrating the class traits of the whole class into one person and making them vivid. For example, proletarian literature uses heroic figures to demonstrate the discipline formed through production and class struggles, as well as the selflessness and thorough revolutionary nature that arise from severe exploitation and oppression and are not tainted by private property. Therefore, proletarian literature and art not only faithfully reflect the images of various classes in real life but also reflect their essential and deeper aspects.
There is also a view that, citing “the development and complexity of inner contradictions of characters,” criticizes proletarian literature for portraying heroic figures “with the same appearance throughout the story, having a complete image from the beginning, thus becoming frozen and dead, lacking change and development,” and advocates writing “the process of character development” to ensure the “fluidity” and “authenticity” of characters. In fact, this view is just a rehash of the “writing flaws” and “dark sides” perspective of the three-dimensional character theory. In other words, it advocates not only faithfully portraying loyalty and honesty but also depicting hypocrisy; not only selflessness but also greed; not only steadfastness but also compromise and wavering. Its purpose is not elsewhere but to lower proletarian heroes to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois characters. In fact, proletarian literature does not generally oppose writing flaws but opposes “writing flaws for the sake of flaws.” Sometimes, proletarian literature does depict flaws to vividly show the development process of characters’ class consciousness from low to high, embodying the nobility of high communist consciousness. For example, Wu Qionghua in the film The Red Detachment of Women was portrayed with such development. When Wu Qionghua first joined the Red Army, she shot South Bawang Tian without permission during a mission, violating reconnaissance discipline. However, after profound criticism and self-criticism, and long-term revolutionary practice education, she linked personal suffering with class hatred, realizing that class interests come before personal revenge, that organizational discipline outweighs personal feelings, and finally became a brave, fearless, and firm revolutionary fighter with a broad mind.
GDR reflects the struggle of the German working class and has produced great revolutionary leaders—‘The Talmann Biography’
Proponents of the three-dimensional character theory also distort the relationship between personality and commonality, criticizing proletarian heroic figures as “stereotyped” and “lacking personality.” In fact, what they call “personality” is still bourgeois class traits. Their promotion of “expressing personality” as the primary goal of literary creation is just to oppose the concentrated portrayal of proletarian class traits. The materialist dialectical principle tells us: personality contains commonality, so everyone’s personality reflects the class they belong to, which is the particular expression of that class’s commonality; at the same time, commonality resides within personality. Without personality, there is no commonality, and without commonality, personality cannot be expressed. Therefore, proletarian literature, while emphasizing the expression of class commonality, does not neglect the depiction of personality but strives to create vivid characters with distinct personalities. Otherwise, the work would be dull, lacking artistic power, and difficult to move people’s hearts, and it would not truly and profoundly reflect class spirit. The Biography of Talmann is a shining example of shaping characters according to the dialectical relationship between personality and commonality, many of whom are proletarian revolutionaries with high communist consciousness and self-sacrifice, willing to dedicate everything to the new life and new world of the German working people. They also have their prominent character traits. Talmann is calm and steady, a great leader uniting and leading the German working class in strong struggle. He does not lose heart in the face of setbacks. After the Hamburg uprising failed due to lack of nationwide support, he resolutely decided to organize an orderly retreat to preserve revolutionary strength; he is undaunted by setbacks, imprisoned by fascist bandits for eleven years, and during imprisonment, he persistently fights, never forgetting the anti-fascist struggle outside. Annya is clever and brave; after unexpectedly stopping a Wehrmacht vehicle, she quickly calms her emotions, disguises herself, and successfully deceives Wehrmacht officers, bringing back the crucial news of the Dresden uprising’s betrayal. Fiche is humble and honest; he is Talmann’s faithful student, always criticizes and self-criticizes, and humbly accepts Talmann’s teachings. Dajek is brave and upright, a loyal fighter of the proletariat; he fights bravely, unafraid of sacrifice, often leading the charge against class enemies…
The theory of three-dimensional characters fabricates a supra-class, “shared by all humanity” nature or emotion to beautify bourgeoisie. Its proponents also start from “universal human nature,” advocating qualities like justice, loyalty, kindness, compassion, and emotions such as family, friendship, and love that are detached from specific class relations, declaring them as “innate human nature.” It is worth noting that although proponents of this theory emphasize that these qualities or emotions belong to “all humanity,” in practice, they are quite pragmatic: in their works, virtues always belong only to the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, while proletariat and workers are portrayed as vulgar citizens, ignorant fools, and ferocious mobs. Contemporary bourgeois gangster literature is a typical example of this technique. The gangsters are the lumpenproletariat, a social group originating from the most corrupt and degenerate elements of all classes and strata, often bought by the bourgeoisie to suppress the people. They act as a supplement to capitalist violence machinery, but in gangster literature, they are portrayed as strong and loyal to their brothers, living off social scraps; they are lawless, driven solely by money, engaging in murder, theft, and rape, yet in gangster stories, they are beautified as heroes who fight against the weak and the old, and sometimes repent after a “conscience awakening.” After such beautification, the bourgeois watchdog dogs and all-purpose hooligans are transformed into heroes who uphold justice and sacrifice their lives.
Eclecticism is a philosophical thought that equates the two sides of contradictions, denies the absolute struggle between them, and seeks to reconcile various fundamental opposites, viewpoints, positions, and theories. Due to its principle-free nature, eclecticism can be used to defend any absurd viewpoint, especially in the case of the three-dimensional character theory.
The theory of character types replaces the dichotomy theory. The dichotomy theory, or “dividing into two,” advocates that the unity of a thing is composed of two opposing contradictory aspects. The dichotomy theory also contains the emphasis theory, which holds that in the two sides of contradiction, one always occupies a primary, dominant position, playing a decisive role in the nature of the thing. In contrast, the dualism rejects the emphasis theory, placing the two sides of contradiction on equal footing, without hierarchy, thereby blurring the nature of the thing, denying the essential differences between things, and erasing the principled boundaries between them. Bourgeois literature and art are precisely skilled at playing with eclecticism and dualism, often shaping “three-dimensional characters” (so-called “flawed righteous characters,” “charming villains,” etc.), not classifying characters as good or evil, mainstream or non-mainstream, superficially avoiding definitive judgments on the overall image of the characters, and not clearly expressing whether the author’s attitude is criticism or praise; in fact, they cover up their true evil deeds with false “good deeds” (taking the negative characters as examples), attempting to blur the boundaries between revolution and counter-revolution, slander revolutionary figures, and defend reactionary characters, making right and wrong, love and hate unclear, unwittingly becoming puppets of bourgeois ideological systems.