I heard that the junior and sophomore members still want to keep *Xincai* going, and I’m overcome with mixed feelings. As a veteran of *Xincai*, I always feel I ought to say something, but when the words come to my lips, I don’t know where to begin. So let me just offer a few random reflections.
I dug out from my computer the six issues of *Xincai* that I laid out: November 11, 2004; December 1, 2004; December 31, 2004; March 21, 2005; April 30, 2005; May 30, 2005. Doing *Xincai* may have been the most meaningful thing I did in my first year of college, because through *Xincai* I met the most important circle of friends I had at university (excluding my roommates), and the later so-and-so clique also formed on the basis of *Xincai*. Although I now stand outside that clique, friends are friends—having laid out *Xincai* for half a year, and gaining friends for a lifetime, was surely worth it. So I sincerely hope the junior and sophomore members will not do a newspaper just for the sake of doing a newspaper; if that is the case, at most they’ll pile up a few sheets of wastepaper, which would be far too wasteful.
Why was the name “Xincai” chosen? I dug up “A Story from the Editorial Room,” written by Qihuang in the first issue, which says: “*Xincai* has two meanings: first, it takes the sense of ‘to devise something original,’ expressing the hope that this paper may be distinctive and stand alone in a class by itself; second, it indicates our resolve, as newspaper people, to edit the paper with care.”
What is called “to devise something original,” to be distinctive, and to stand alone in a class by itself was already embodied in *Xincai*’s self-positioning at the time: Qihuang wrote, “…After repeated consideration and discussion, carried out seriously, solemnly, enthusiastically, and prudently by our comrades, we unanimously believed that: this paper should be guided by the purpose of serving the people; it must distinguish itself from those serious academic publications, and it must also differ from those so-called ‘student publications’ with extremely little information content. It should be positioned on the scale of entertainment and leisure, providing our classmates with a space to express their genuine feelings and enjoy the pleasures of life.”
Starting with the seventh issue, after I had stepped away, *Xincai* received its official serial number as a group publication, which should have been a cause for joy. But at the same time, *Xincai*’s positioning also changed; it seemed to have forgotten the original aim of “standing alone in a class by itself” and the standard of “entertainment and leisure,” and began to learn from *Moumou Shixun*. I felt rather dissatisfied, but after all I was no longer doing it while others were still laboring away, so I was embarrassed to make sour remarks. Thus this dissatisfaction only finally came out recently. To be honest, when I saw that *Xincai* thereafter produced only two more issues and then fell into stagnation, I actually felt quite pleased—if *Xincai* no longer entertained, no longer relaxed, and instead became rigid, monotonous, and formulaic, turning into a burden for the editors, and if that burden were ultimately passed down from generation to generation as a routine task for the department’s Youth League committee, then we old hands who founded *Xincai* would probably become sinners for all ages. Would there, in years to come, be a few students in every cohort complaining because they were assigned the drudgery of editing *Xincai*: “Which heartless senior boys and girls came up with the idea of making such a newspaper to torment us?” — every time I think of such a possible future, I really shudder… So when I later heard that *Xincai* had stopped, I instead seemed to breathe a sigh of relief.
It is of course good that the junior and sophomore members want to revive *Xincai*. *Xincai* should be free: whoever serves as editor should make decisions for themselves, without continuing the traditions of their predecessors, and certainly without consulting what other departments do. But what I want to stress, in the smug manner of an old-timer, is this: the one thing that must be upheld is *Xincai*’s purpose—“to devise something original, to cut and tailor with care”—otherwise it has no right to continue using the name “Xincai” at all (if someone insists on creating something like “Aizhi Shixun,” I have no objection)! *Xincai* should be unconventional; the editors should give full play to their own ideas, especially my successors—the layout people. I truly want to say to you: if someone mocks you for pasting a little cartoon lion beneath an article about “lion’s head,” pay them no mind! Isn’t making people laugh precisely what it means to be distinctive? Back then, I, your senior, backed down in the face of other people’s opinions, and more radical ideas never even had time to be put into practice. You successors, hold your ground, and go wild!
As for the development of the writing editors and layout staff, I want to say: never keep trying to look for “technical talent”! People with truly superb technical skill have plenty of places to apply it; what’s a tiny department paper, really? No matter how well you do it, how much can you possibly accomplish? Why waste your youth here? Unless they are people who genuinely have the enthusiasm to do it. But how many technical talents can appear in a year? And among them, how do you still find people with enthusiasm? If that is your way of thinking, then the sustainable development of *Xincai* is rather worrying. Although editing, especially layout, does require a certain amount of “technical” skill, isn’t it better to use a department paper as a testing ground for learning and honing those skills? Editing while exploring—doesn’t that make for something fun, and something with a strong sense of achievement? After completing a stage of work, you not only hand it over to a bunch of good-for-nothings and friends; first and foremost, you yourself have learned and mastered the techniques of editing or layout—surely that is a win-win-win situation, isn’t it? I think that when recruiting newcomers, if someone is already highly skilled technically, then unless they have a strong desire to do it, it is better than forcibly conscripting such a person to give the opportunity for tempering themselves to those who have no technical skills at all or whose skills are rusty, but who are willing to try and to sharpen themselves.
I’ve complained enough; shall I say a few words of blessing? Wish *Xincai* greater and greater success? Hmm… perhaps better not to make it too successful. If it gets too good, it will put too much pressure on those who come after and burden them too heavily; it’s enough if it is just about good. In any case, *Xincai* must definitely remain distinctive: either devise something original, or else devise *Xincai*.
April 15, 2007, 19:22
Latest comments
- Mingzi
2007-04-15 20:35:09 Anonymous 124.17.16.101
Perhaps it is rigid and monotonous, but it has never lapsed into mere formality; as for the words “burden” or “drudgery,” I would not dare to use them, even in a period of sudden personnel changes and a shortage of successors. Issue 9 of *Xincai*—I would not dare say that every issue was devised with originality, but to cut and tailor with care is the true value. Of course, perhaps this is only my own wishful thinking.
- Gu Chu
2007-04-15 21:59:31
What I mean is “if…”; it could be said that issues 7 and 8 still adhered to cutting and tailoring with care (I never saw issue 9), but certain tendencies were obvious. Why did *Xincai* stop for more than a year when it passed to the next cohort? For the editors of the next cohort, wasn’t what we handed down to them a burden? If it wasn’t a burden, why did it stop?
To put it plainly, *Xincai* must not be turned into *Shixun*. No matter how well a news report is written, who wants to read it? The people who want to read such things can see them on the BBS or in the student forum anyway; the first page is nothing more than a way to give the department an explanation, dress up the facade, and get through it. The key point is “it should be positioned on the scale of entertainment and leisure, providing our classmates with a space to express their genuine feelings and enjoy the pleasures of life.” If it departs from the positioning of entertainment and leisure, and no longer boldly claims to devise something original, then what is so-called “cutting and tailoring with care” if not just another way of saying burden? - Gu Chu
2007-04-16 01:15:46
This article is obviously of the grumbling sort, and it is grumbling of long standing at that; it may as well not be published. But in any case, I hope that in the new issue of *Xincai* (if there is one), someone will restate *Xincai*’s purpose. The purpose of *Xincai* must absolutely be declared, and under no circumstances must *Xincai* be handed down to the younger generation as “the so-called ‘student publication’”!
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply