“Diary of a Madman”,like the title stated, is written in the form of a diary. This means that it is written in the eyes of the narrator or the protagonist. Right off the bat, we get an introduction of who the diary is written by, a person who is suffering from a mental illness. So these couple of journal entries are going to be written in the eyes of someone who is suffering from a mental illness.
The first thing the readers should notice motif on cannibalism. Cannibalism is everywhere throughout the diary and this isn’t the first time we have seen cannibalism being used in literature. We have read “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift who talks about cannibalism as a positive. Jonathan Swift describes cannibalism as an answer for the issue in his current society, albeit sarcastically. In the eyes of the madman, cannibalism is purely negative. The madman describes all of the cannibals like monsters. He say the people around him were “their teeth are bared and waiting – white and razor sharp. Those people are cannibals!” (246).
But Lu Xun clearly stated in the beginning that this diary is written by someone who has a mental illness, maybe paranoia or schizophrenia, so the reader shouldn’t believe his words, right? After all, “crazy” people are someone who is not reliable But if we look at this way, the madman is actually the rebel of the story. The one who knows that there is something wrong in society. In past China, famine was a major issue and the citizens resorted to cannibalism to live on. Therefore, cannibalism was “normal”, something that was not out of the ordinary. In the diary, the elder brother of the madman even said that “it was all right to exchange children and eat them” (248). Lu Xun uses a madman, someone who should be “stupid” or “not fit to think”, as the rebel of the story. Only the madman himself realizes that cannibalism is something that is not correct, something that should be changed from “normal” traditions. The madman ends his diary with “Maybe there are some children around who still haven’t eaten human flesh. Save the children…” (253). Lu Xun made the madman the “thinker”, the “sane” person to represent this story despite his mental illness that makes him “crazy”.
Lu Xun wrote another story titled “Medicine”. “Medicine” talks about a young boy named “Little-Bolt” and is sick with tuberculosis. His parents are trying to find ways to cure him. The parents found a “way” to cure their child by feeding him a mantou with blood on it, more specifically, the blood of a rebel which was stated in the end. One of the quote in this story that caught my attention was, “A guaranteed cure, guaranteed!” which was said by Big Uncle Kang (257). Big Uncle Kang was introduced in the story as someone who is insensitive and almost “evil” and he is the one who says that making someone eat a mantou with human blood on it is a “guaranteed cure” because it “worked” in the past. But in the end, “LIttle-Bolt” still died from his disease and the “medicine” did not work at all and this cost the lives of two individuals.
Lu Xun uses “human blood” and “evils” towards humans as a metaphor to show that “norms” from before will not work. He wants change in his society and he shows that the sacrifice of humans is not “normal” and atrocities in the past should stay in the past.
One question I would like to raise the question for these readings is what if Lu Xun decided to make the main character of “Diary of a Madman” completely stable? What if he did not have any mental illnesses or paranoia? Will this have changed anything at all or will there be a different impact?
Also a question for “Medicine” is what if Lu Xun decided to make the blood on the mantou to be someone else, like say a random person that has no significance to the story? Do you think it would have changed the impact in anyway? I personally thought that it was more impactful when it said the blood came from a rebel who was executed for trying to change society.
To your 2nd question of whether substituting the rebel’s blood on the mantou with that of someone else will change the impact, my answer is ‘yes’. If the blood on the mantou had been someone else’s, then this case would be simply a case of cannibalism and superstition (ah yes, cannibalism, so the madman in the other story was correct all along), but by making the blood on the mantou to be that of a rebel, another significant meaning emerged: a separation between the public and the revolutionaries. In most cases, the public should be supporting the revolutionaries for a better society, but in this case, the public (paupers) believed those revolutionaries to be ‘criminals’ and even go so far as to consume their blood.
This separation between the impoverished public and the estranged revolutionaries was not only implied by the fact that Lu Xun made the blood on the mantou to be that of a rebel’s, but through many other details. Firstly, the rebel’s family sold him to the corrupted government, then his words of enlightenment fell on the cruel prison guard’s deaf ears, finally his mom, mother Xia was so ashamed of him that she dared not face Little-Bolt’s mom, Mother Hua, in the graveyard. It was clear that although the revolutionaries were there with the hope of making the Chinese society back then a better place, they themselves became so estranged from the public whom they were supposed to enlighten and unite.
Lu Xun realized all of this and tried not only to imply but also to offer an explanation for this separation, from an allegorical perspective. In section 4 of the story, Lu Xun described a graveyard of criminals and paupers separated by a path, not just any intentionally built path, but ‘a narrow path made by the countless steps of people taking shortcuts, a path that has now become a natural boundary’ (258). This path clearly wasn’t intentionally built, but was paved by many people’s walking habit of taking shortcut. Could Lu Xu be implying that the separation between those revolutionaries (or criminals) and the public (or paupers) is paved by people’s deeply entrenched thinking habit ‘that has now become a natural boundary’ (258)? Both the practice of eating mantou soaked with blood and social stratification came from people’s thinking habit that manifest itself into a ‘natural boundary’ that split the society apart, only for the authority and the rich to benefit from.
However, Lu Xun didn’t just lament about the social tragedy, but he indicated in the story that these thinking habits could be broken when Mother Hua ‘stood up, crossed the path’ (258). At first, both mothers were so afraid that they just stood where their sons’ graves belonged (areas separated by the path) but then Mother Hua ‘crossed the path’ towards Mother Xia, at the same time eradicated the boundary separating people in the society. In the end, the two mothers walked together, symbolizing a united Chinese society standing up to combat injustice.
Lu Xun also showed sympathy and support for the revolutionaries through the image of the flowers on the aforementioned rebel’s grave. Even though the majority of people turned their backs on him and pushed him to his death, someone had been enlightened and would pick up his revolutionaries ideals to liberate and enlighten the whole Chinese country.
On looking back at both stories, it is clear that both cannibalism and superstition have proven detrimental, but they all come from deeply entrenched thinking habits, so either people within the corrupted and deluded society find a ‘medicine’ to cure their thinking habit or self-destruct. In fact, Lu Xun hoped for a ‘medicine’ that could help enlighten and save people from self-destruction, not the blood-soaked mantou believed to be the ‘medicine’ for tuberculosis.
Back to your question, yes, I believe that it is important, if not essential, for the blood on the mantou to be that of the rebel.
I think that you have made very good observations and I liked the way you linked the two readings. Answering your first question I think that reading it like he is a normal person without any mental illnesses most likely he would be eaten. I don’t think that he would manage to make a change because from the way he was describing everyone’s behavior we can tell that they were pretty into this and the tradition was still very strong. Maybe if more years passed and he managed to bring more people with his side there would be a chance of things to change, but if things were exactly like we read them and he was completely stable most probably he would be just eaten faster. Also, for your second question I think it plays a big role that the blood was from a rebel since this could mean that it is a “better” or “stronger” blood and as rebels go against things they want to change the same way Little-Bolt would go against his illness and “kill” it.
First of all, love your title! I’m glad you made the connection with johnathan swift’s Modest Proposal because that’s exactly what I did. You raised a great point about the famine in China, which I had no idea about (to think Swift’s proposal was sarcastic, wow). To answer your question about if it would’ve mattered if the madman wasn’t crazy, I believe that would’ve made a great difference. It wouldn’t have had as great of an impact as it does because for some reason I believe that he madman’s paranoia is actually very relatable, and his madness goes very in-synch with the theme of the whole story.