/lit/ - Literature

>>22911697
>russian lit bad
>therefore others must also be
Stupid rusmonkey. And that's assuming your judgement on your own tradition is worth a damn in the first place, which it clearly isn't.
>>22911718
>as if dozens and dozens, indeed thousands and thousands of Westerners hadn't read, translated and studied Chinese books already, indeed for hundreds of years.
bait n switch. We were talking about your pseud approach. It is true that this intellectual promiscuity is also rife in scholarship, but that's a different matter.
I also never said anything about Westerners not trying to understand China's literature. Just addressed your approach. You clearly can't even follow a thread of discussion and justify your view.