E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jonathan Nackstrand / AFP - Getty Images
The 2012 Nobel Literature Prize laureate, Mo Yan of China, poses for photographers during a press conference of the 2012 Nobel Literature Prize laureate in Stockholm.
BEIJING — When the Swedish Academy selected Chinese writer, Mo Yan, as this year’s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the move was hailed by the state media, only two years after blasting the same committee for awarding the peace prize to fellow countryman and outspoken dissident Liu Xiaobo.
However, outside of the country, some critics pointedly questioning Mo’s Communist Party membership, his unwillingness to speak up for freedom of speech on the mainland and his apparent reluctance to speak out for his fellow laureate. "Giving the award to a writer like this is an insult to humanity and to literature," declared noted Chinese artist and activist, Ai Weiwei, at the time.
Perhaps sensing the backlash, Mo spoke out the evening his Nobel victory was announced, telling journalists he hoped Liu — who is currently serving an 11-year sentence for his work on a direct call for political liberalization known as Charter 08 — could “achieve his freedom as soon as possible.”
The supportive words seemed to help give Mo the benefit of the doubt among critics and the foreign press, but comments he gave on Thursday regarding Chinese censorship and Liu’s plight have reinvigorated criticism of the acclaimed writer.
'The highest principle'
During an interview in Stockholm, Mo surprisingly defended China’s suppression of free speech, saying that censorship should not prevent the truth, but that rumors and defamation "should be censored."
"But I also hope that censorship, per se, should have the highest principle," Mo added.
Mo Yan's Nobel win celebrated -- and panned -- in China
Mo went on to liken censorship to the airport security he passed through flying to Stockholm.
"When I was taking my flight, going through the customs ... they also wanted to check me even taking off my belt and shoes," he said. "But I think these checks are necessary."
Special coverage of China: Behind the Wall on NBCNews.com
Mo caused further ripples when he told reporters he did not plan to sign an appeal being passed around by his peers calling for the immediate release of Liu and his wife, Liu Xia.
It has been signed by134 fellow Nobel laureates, including South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Always an 'independent'
Mo explained his unwillingness to sign as a desire to maintain his independence.
"I have always been independent. I like it that way. When someone forces me to do something, I don't do it," he said.
For Chinese winner's wife, Nobel is no prize
Mo’s comments and reticence in voicing support for his compatriot, Liu, was seen as particularly appalling as it came the same day as the publishing of a distressing interview with Liu’s wife, Liu Xia.
The interview, made possibly only after AP reporters slipped by Chinese security away at lunch, was the first she had given in 26 months and graphically showed the emotional stress of being under home detention since her husband’s imprisonment.
China’s reception of Liu Xiabo and Mo Yan’s Nobel victories couldn’t have been any more different.
While Mo Yan’s award this year has been hailed in state media – despite many of his books being censored in China – Liu’s victory was roundly rejected by Beijing.
In a statement issued by the foreign ministry soon after the 2010 announcement, the government wrote that Liu’s victory "runs completely counter to the principle of the prize and is also a blasphemy to the peace prize.”
Leave a Comment:
I love how in the same article Mo Yan is quoted as espousing the benefits of censorship and declaring himself an independent spirit.
This is your Nobel prize winner for literature.
He is , however in good company with the other hypocrits holding the same useless award(?), Al Gore, Steven Chu, Barack Obama, ET AL!
Hey Ted, learn how to read. This guy got the Literature Prize, not a Peace Prize like Obama and Gore. And Chu got the Physics Prize in 1997 for the "development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light", definitely not a "useless" discovery. Enjoy living in your uneducated Red State taking money from us hardworking Blue States!
The Nobel prizes in everything except the hard sciences have become more and more of a political joke ever since they gave the peace prize to Obama days after he started his first term. Obama had yet to do anything to warrant the prize, and as far as I am concerned still has not done anything to justify his receiving it. The committees that are awarding these prizes need to stop using these prizes to make political statements and return to the original purpose which was to reward real achievement and actions. The longer they continue to make these awards political in nature, the more the stature and relevance of the prizes will continue to be diminished.
I guess you could loosely say a hand over the mouth is like a hand up the ass.
The peace prizes are not awarded like others. They are based on efforts being made and not outcomes. Probably because there never will be peace.
Arafat recieved the Nobel peace prize. It was believed he really wanted peace.
As some will recall, a peace deal was reached with Israel partially due to his involment. The deal included no more building Israei communities on Palestinian land. After the principles agreed on the deal, it was discovered that new building was going on during the negotiaions and continuing after. So, no peace deal.
Obama was expected to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and lead us into an era of peace. So he got the Nobel prize. So far not much has been done. While we claim an end in Iraq, we still have about 100,000 mercenaries there, guarding the oil and about 50,000 thosand soldiers, guarding the green zone and the guy we put up for president. This is pretty much what America does. In Afghanistan, we hve the same thing going. We have a date for leaving but we are not actually leaving. As is our never ending policy, we will be leaving a considerable force there and the leader we put in place that is involved up to his neck in the drug trade will remain.
These awards have done little to promote peace even as that is the intention.
When O bama became president, as has been done with every newly ellected president, he gets the word from the real people in charge and it may even be that some form of intimidation is used. There is an old story that in itself is probbly not serious but it tells us something.
As the old story goes: A new president meets with the real rulers and has a drink to commerate is election. Then they show him a little bottle of some fluid. They hand it to him and tell him he will need one of those every day to counter act the poison he just drank. They hope he does nothing to make them forget to show up with the antedote.
Of course I don't believe that story but I believe every president since after Eisenhower has been a puppet.
@ted - you would rather give the peace prize to bush cheney or nixon? I would take obama gore and chu anyday over bush cheney nixon.
PJ-
I don't think Ted mentioned who he would give them to but your input is ALWAYS loved.
p.s I expect to see Bush and Cheney but the Nixon call was GENIUS! Out of nowhere! awesome.
Somebody needs to run a commercial airplane (unmanned) in to this guy's house. He has a REAL problem with priorities and perception.
Wait, didn't bunch of guys in England got in trouble for posting stuff on Facebook? Freedom speech by definition is tempered with responsiblity, and has legal limits in every country.
Yeah right, any independent thinkers who do not think as we do, or take our money and not hop on the hate-China wagon get put thru the ringers by objective media.
If the slaves don't plow the field fo' ol'masas, they be right gettin 'sum whippin!
"Bobby" Wong, how long have you been a member of the China communist Party?
Bobby, here's a quick but highly accurate test for whether a regime is totalitarian: Does it believe that ideas are dangerous?
The one in Peking clearly does harbor such a belief. To them, some ideas--like government by the people or an independent judiciary--are more dangerous than plastic explosive and must be rigorously excluded.
Yes, one can win Nobel and still be an intellectual 0.
You mean intellectual 0-bama right?
Nobel prizes for hard sciences can be respected but everything else is about politics in one way or another, That was pretty obvious once Obama received his award.
He says he's an independent thinker and acts as a herald of censorship.
How can an independent be a conformist?
Yeah, this argument falls short. For one thing, the definition of rumors or defamation is, as with anything else, subjective; who gets to decide what is and what isn't?
Second, you can't punish someone for saying something false if they honestly didn't know it was wrong. In many cases, there is no way to definitively tell, but the general principles of freedom suggest you cannot punish someone for lying if you can't tell for sure that they knew.
Third, truth itself is subjective, as its definition depends highly on the perspective of each person evaluating any situation at hand. Once again, who gets to decide?
There's a reason why, politically, in the United States, no single permanent policy is ever decided by a single opinion, the entire legislative process is carefully designed to capture public consensus, and ultimately that performance is judged by the public itself in regular public elections. While it's true that we many not always agree on politics, and we often don't, I don't think I've ever felt that the result of an election did not adequately represent public consensus, even when I wasn't happy about that consensus.
What I find semi funny is all the people that want to censure him for not complaining about censoring. So what I gather is it's alright to censure as long as it's the one you agree with.
How disappointing to hear such a statement by Mo! I am not surprised, though. Mo wrote some great stuff, but he has always been a tool for Chinese Communist Party (CCP). With so many fellow Chinese writers and artists banned and persecuted by CCP, Mo has stood emotionessly as if laughing at those who suffered by censorship. Mo said nothing about Ai Weiwei, either. I can understand silence caused by fear, but when he squared CCP's persecution and censorship with airport security measures, I no longer see a man trying his best under adverse circumstance. I see only his schadenfreude, so stark-naked that I am speechless.
I have a problem with this. In most soft fields of endeavor there is no "truth", there are only opinion and interpretation, which can many times be classified as rumor or defamation.
Is that really true that there is no truth in soft fields, like politics? The are facts and there are lies. The internet is full of both facts and lies, but the lies have it.
I actually sympathize with "rumors and [undue] defamation" are bad things as are public lies. The problem is that there is no one who can be trusted to decide which is which for all of us
I do agree that some censorship is good. The US is a country where anyone can say pretty much anything and get away with it. Sure, there are some exceptions, but not a ton. And people are constantly badmouthing others, the 'news' stations are spreading lies and rumors, and everyone feels they're entitled to say anything they want.
While I disagree with China's censorship against those that disagree with the government, I do think people should be held responsible for saying things that are knowingly false or unnecessarily defamatory.
Do feature articles usually take this long to get to the point of the headline?
I think hes wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. However, people should be held accountable, and they are. If you are defamed, you can sue the defamer. People are accountable for what they say if its an allegation that is untrue. Insults, well i think people need thick skins. You dont have a right to not be offended. Its the cost of freedom.
I wont fly as long as they want to feel me up, nor will any of my family. Driving isnt that bad. Trains are even better. Ill take a boat.
Pretty much tells you everything you need to know to form an opinion about TSA. If a devout communist statist thinks airport security is good thing then it is probably all the more reason to eliminate TSA.
In western countries, persons spreading lies should fined heavily but not censored, and in the USA, airport security should be turned over to God to save money. God can do stuff with a single word, plus it wouldn't cost SheHeIt a dime. "In God We Trust" LOL.
#t=52s