A recent book review on Douban sparked a reporting incident, and the development of this matter is quite intriguing. Let me briefly introduce the background of the incident. A netizen named Gao Han gave a negative review to a translated work called "Truce," and the translator came out to argue. Later, a supporter of the translator, Anito Anage, wrote a "reporting letter" to the school of the netizen who gave the negative review. As a result, the school intervened and Gao Han apologized.
In fact, at the beginning, the discussion of translated works on Douban was relatively peaceful, but the intervention of the school changed the nature of this incident. A literary discussion ultimately turned into an event involving the intervention of public power. After netizen Gao Han publicly apologized, public opinion on the internet turned against her. Douban users collectively protested by giving "Truce" one-star ratings to vent their anger, which led to the closure of comments on the book.
The details and specific information about the incident can be found in this article: The "One-Star Movement" on Douban Triggered by a Reporting Letter
It can be said that there are no winners, only losers in this incident. The book received a large number of negative reviews due to this incident, which will inevitably affect its sales, causing losses to the publishing house and the translator. Netizen Gao Han, because of a negative review, faced criticism and education, consuming a lot of energy, and it may also affect her studies and future prospects. The reporter became a victim of online violence, and the school also faced criticism for hasty handling. The most innocent victim is the original author of the book.
When we look back on this matter, the person who wrote the "reporting letter," netizen Anito Anage, is the most chilling. It made me deeply feel the terrifying consequences of the abuse of the act of "reporting." Being punished for words is no longer just a plot in movies and TV shows, but something that actually happens around us.
If we can't even criticize a book, then what topics can we express our critical opinions on? Without criticism, without different opinions, only praise remains. In such a harmonious era, who is there to see it? As the saying goes, if criticism is not free, then praise is meaningless.
If sharp criticism disappears completely, mild criticism will become harsh. If mild criticism is not allowed either, silence will be considered suspicious. If silence is no longer allowed, not praising enough will be considered a crime. If only one voice is allowed to exist, then that voice is a lie.
This quote is widely attributed to Plato, but I am skeptical because there is no way to verify it, and this passage does not match that era. So let's just consider it as the work of an anonymous author.
I agree with this statement. Literary creation should be free, and literary criticism should encourage rational discussion rather than burdening speakers with constraints.
"The continuous attacks by Gao on the translator have caused certain negative effects in the online community and translation field. In consideration of maintaining the academic image of your department, as well as preventing the situation from escalating, your department should take the initiative to investigate and make the parties involved realize the basic fact that their words and actions were inappropriate. Your department should assist and urge Gao to publicly apologize to the translator and the publishing house on her Douban homepage, and state the mistakes she has made, taking real responsibility for the negative impact caused."
- Anito Anage, excerpt from the reporting letter
Netizen Anito Anage, under the guise of maintaining the school's image, took advantage of his position and used public power to escalate the argument. Bringing up the idea of saving a "troubled student" and upholding the "original intention of education" to manipulate the school's actions is truly unacceptable.
Even if there are inappropriate aspects in Gao Han's comments, they can be discussed with each other. After all, differences in opinions are common in the world, and arguments are essential, especially in the literary world, where different perspectives are commonplace. There is no need to use power and fists just because someone's views differ from one's own.
If everything is like this, with everyone waiting for an opportunity to strike, and speakers carefully choosing their words, then what is the difference between this and the "literary inquisition"?