The Rise of the Writers of the Republic of China

The drama performance of "Titanic" gradually spread from Broadway to other cities in the United States. The line "You_jump, I_jump!" seems to have become a standard sentence for people to express their loyal love.

Lead actor Andrew Polk, and lead actress Linda Moorman, rose to fame for being the first to star in the play, and they became overnight Broadway stars.

The Dutch theater also made a lot of money, unaffected by the circumstances of the Great Depression. It's a pity that this situation can't last long, because more and more theaters have begun to rehearse "Titanic", and various copycat plays and copycat actors emerge in endlessly.

Eugene O'Neill can't sue anymore, and this kind of copyright wrangling lawsuit is very troublesome. Moreover, many theaters did not use his adapted scripts at all, and directly hired people to re-adapt the novels, and there were differences in many details.

Not to mention, there are still some theaters that launched the musical version of "Titanic". Rose and Jack sang and danced on the stage. Such a form of performance was unexpectedly popular.

Whether it is a drama or a stage play, the act of adapting a novel without authorization is definitely an infringement. As the owner of the copyright, Mike Lauer Books has successively sued more than ten theaters. But it has had little effect, because American theaters, led by Broadway, have always had a tradition of infringing on the copyright of original works.

Broadway started by stealing British stage plays!

Lai Pi's lawsuit can only be fought slowly, and the lawyer's fee is a lot of money. Moreover, based on the existing copyright laws in the United States, there are actually loopholes in the adaptation of novels to plays, and the final result is mostly a compromise between the two parties.

Faced with the full-fledged performance of "Titanic" in the United States, the "Los Angeles Times" couldn't help expressing emotion: "The American theater world in the early 1930s has been occupied by the Chinese. One is Mei Lanfang and the other is Zhou Hexuan."

At this time, a controversy broke out at Columbia University.

At the end of March every year, hundreds of judges from all over the United States will gather in various colleges of Columbia University to review works of various genres including journalism, literature, history, music, and drama. And at the beginning of April, 3 nominated works in each category were screened out, and a report was submitted to the final evaluation committee (Pulitzer Prize Committee).

Columbia University College of Arts and Sciences, the judges of the Pulitzer Prize Committee's historical works group, have already quarreled at this moment.

Antoine Jones, a historian from Harvard University, patted the table and said: "The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is not strictly speaking a historical work at all. Even if it is a historical work, it is not a specialized work. A study of American history, it is not eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in History!"

“I agree that the jury members of the primary selection are malpractice, and they have selected a work that does not qualify for the final evaluation stage,” said another historian, “if the committee insists on doing “Guns, Germs, and Steel” If you vote, then I decide to withdraw from the final judging committee."

Taylor Dennett, president of the College of William and Mary, said: "The Pulitzer Prize in History only stipulates that works that study American history are eligible to be shortlisted." Although "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is not a monograph on American history, it is It really opened up a discussion of the history of the Americas, and the ideas in it are a major breakthrough for the study of American history. I support the selection results of the preliminary judging committee!"

Antoine Jones sarcastically said: "Professor Dannett, you have lived in the Far East for many years, and I know you have a good impression of the Chinese. But please don't undermine the authority of the Pulitzer Prize in History because of personal emotions. This work is not eligible to be shortlisted!"

Taylor Dennett said: "In any case, we must respect the selection results of the preliminary review committee, let's vote next."

"Very good, I have decided to withdraw from the final judging committee!" Antoine Jones got up and left the conference room.

"I quit too!"

"I quit too!"

Two more historian judges left, and the remaining four judges stared blankly, not knowing what to do.

Taylor Dennett Swears: "Damn Racist!"

Three of the seven final judges left, and the final voting session could not proceed at all. They could only report the situation to the Pulitzer Organizing Committee.

The Pulitzer Organizing Committee was overwhelmed with headaches and invited the seven judges to negotiate again. One of them agreed, but the other two strongly disagreed. They believed that "Guns, Germs and Steel" was not eligible for the Pulitzer Prize at all.

Both sides seemed to have their reasons, and the negotiation turned into a quarrel.

Seeing that the problem could not be resolved, the Pulitzer Organizing Committee had no choice but to announce that this year's Pulitzer Prize for History would be invalidated.

This decision is not new, and such situations have occurred before. For example, for the Pulitzer Prizes in previous years, the Final Judging Committee resolutely rejected the selection results of the Preliminary Jury Committee. Without coordination, they could only announce that the Pulitzer Prize for that year was vacant.

However, this is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize for History has been revoked, and Zhou Hexuan has set a precedent.

At the end of April, when the theatrical version of "Titanic" was in high demand, the president of Columbia University announced more than 20 Pulitzer Prize-winning works this year. The historical works were vacant for some reason, which immediately attracted widespread attention from the academic circle.

You know, the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism is also selected at this time. The top journalists in the country are all focusing on Columbia University, and they understand the reason in minutes.

The "Washington Daily" reported the matter in detail on the second day after the Pulitzer Prize announced the winners: "This is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize for History has been vacant. It is understood that two members of the final evaluation committee firmly opposed the "Guns" , Bacteria and Steel” won the award, which eventually led to this result. Mr. Dannett, the president of the College of William and Mary and a famous historian, said that it is incomprehensible that “Guns” was questioned, because it is a great historical work. Groundbreaking for the study of American history, it should be the greatest work eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in History."

Woodrow, a loyal supporter of Zhou Hexuan and a professor of history at Columbia University, wrote an article denouncing Antoine. He said: "My paper this year, "A Longitudinal Essay on American Civilization", has been widely praised by my peers. But what I want to say is that, This thesis of mine is nothing more than an extension and elaboration of the "Longitudinal Continental Theory" in "Guns, Bacteria and Steel". Mr. Zhou Hexuan is a great historian. He created a new research direction of American history. My academic research tutor. The book "Guns" is of great significance to the study of American history. It is one of the most groundbreaking historical works in the past century. Such a work is actually questioned as not eligible for Puli I would like to ask Mr. Antoine, are you really a historian? Where is your moral bottom line?"

Antoine quickly refuted it in the newspaper. He firmly refused to admit racial discrimination, and only debated from the selection rules of the Pulitzer Prize in History.

American historians quickly sparked a big discussion. Most scholars supported Zhou Hexuan, but a group of people still criticized Zhou Hexuan, thinking that the book "Guns and Cannons" was purely grandstanding, and it was not a real historical work at all.

Among these opponents, not all are out of racial discrimination, but because of the contradiction between old and new historiographical viewpoints. They do not agree with Zhou Hexuan's new historical viewpoints.

Not only in the United States, but also in the European historian circle at this time. The Annals School was besieged and suppressed by traditional historians, and it was a joy to fight every day.

A historiographical revolution is also a revolution, and a revolution will bleed.

Respected traditional historians will not give up their status easily. If they cannot win academically, they will use their fame and influence to suppress and attack the challenger.

What's more, the traditional old historiography has not come to an end, and the new historiography has not created a complete system. This historiographical revolution will not be successful simply.

Even in China, some historians questioned Zhou Hexuan, which was purely academic contradiction.

In recent years, more and more scholars in China have begun to study Zhou Hexuan's series of historical works. These people are called "Zhou's School". Those influenced by Liang Qichao and others belonged to the "Kong Tai School", and many of them were famous and respected. There are also overseas students who have returned to China in recent years, and they believe in the "Rank School".

The Kongtai School has gradually declined in China, while the Zhou School and Ranke School have risen rapidly, and the two schools have gradually merged, laying the foundation for modern Chinese historiography.