"So young, the two of you, and so… lazy?" I pronounced a word of infinite gravity.

"Lazy, that's exactly what we are." Kuiyuan very happily joined in, "I'm lazy around the house too, I've never cut firewood, never carried water, I still don't know how rice is washed and boiled, never done it."

The young man cracking sunflower seeds said: "Same with me: ask me where the sickle or the drill rod are in my house, ask how much our pigs eat at one meal, I won't have a clue."

"When I go out to play cards, I can be gone a couple weeks."

"I don't play cards, I go and mess around at my uncle's house in the county, ride on his motorbike, watch the TV."

I was rather nonplussed by this. I could tell from their complacent tone, from their rather exaggerated accounts of themselves, that the meaning of this word had transmogrified, that a process of linguistic renovation had begun of which I was entirely unaware. The word lazy- which was abhorrent to me-represented to them a medal for which they strove, competed, and struggled to have decorating their own chests. The indolence I had just been criticizing had to them become a synonym for ease, comfort, face, skill, to be pursued and coveted, which made their eyes shine. What else could I say to them?

Of course, the original meaning of lazy hadn't been entirely expunged: when discussing other people's wives, for example, they'd discuss whose wife was lazy and whose wasn't, and lazy women came in for repeated condemnation. What this sounded like to me was nothing less than a new, men's dictionary, compiled by them and inapplicable to women, and one in which the word "lazy" came trailing clouds of glory. If what had happened to lazy was anything to go by, then we could infer that deceiving, exploitative, violent, fiendish, treacherous, rascally, corrupt, thieving, opportunist, vulgar, rotten, low-down, obsequious, etc., could, or had already become words that connoted praise and respect in this most recent men's dictionary-at least for a sizable proportion of men. If, as they saw it, there were still men who didn't acknowledge this dictionary, this was not proof the dictionary didn't exist, it was proof only that these men were linguistic aliens, pathetic nobodies, all washed up by the tide of innovation, lagging behind the shadow of History.

Human dialogue often takes place within two, or even multiple, dictionaries. The difficulties of translating what words mean, and in particular the endless pitfalls of translating what words mean on a deep emotional level aren't easily overcome. In 1986 I visited an "artists' colony" in Virginia, U.S.A.-in other words, a creative center for artists. I couldn't rid myself of the awkward feeling the word "colony" gave me. It was only afterwards that I found out for a lot of westerners living in western sovereign states that have owned many colonies, the word colony doesn't bring with it the images of murder, burning, raping, pillaging, opium-smuggling, and the like that it does in the memories of colonial peoples; quite the contrary, it means something perfectly innocuous, it's just another name for a settlement abroad, a dwelling place; it even exudes a faintly romantic, poetic resonance of development that is tied up with all the pronouncements and professions of benevolent expansion, of maritime exploration, of the spread of civilization which are part of imperial memory. A colony is a staging house for the noble, an encampment of heroes. Westerners would never sense there was anything inappropriate in using this word to refer to the location of artistic labors.

Also in America, I met someone called Hansen, a man who understood Chinese, who'd married a Chinese woman, and who was a journalist on the Asia desk of a big news bureau. When he heard me talk about the sufferings of Chinese people, he expressed deep sympathy and anger toward the instigators of this suffering. But I suddenly noted a strange reaction behind the sympathy, behind the anger: his smiling eyes sparkled in the lenses of his glasses, his index finger drew endless lines back and forth somewhere across the dinner table, as if he was writing some word in the air, or conducting some stirring tune in his mind. Unable to control the excitement inside him, he ended up phoning some friends, inviting them to come and meet me, telling them in English how I had some stunning, amazing stories! These were, he swore, the most fantastic stories he'd ever heard! This word "fantastic" jarred on me. When my father committed suicide, when he sank to the bottom of that river, did he feel "fantastic"? When the younger brother of a friend of mine was shot following a miscarriage of justice, when, close to execution, he howled and wept, unable to find the faces of his parents in the crowd come to see him off, did he feel "fantastic"? When, after the son of a friend of mine was mistakenly killed by a gang of hooligans and the father brought his son's effects back from his university, not ever having dreamed that he would write the inscription for his son's gravestone, did he feel this was "fantastic" in any way?… I don't wish to cast doubts on Hansen's compassion: no, he'd always exposed injustices in his newspaper, always helped Chinese people as much as he could, which included helping me obtain the perks and financial assistance due to a visiting scholar. But his "fantastic" came from a dictionary incomprehensible to me. It was obvious that in this dictionary, suffering wasn't just suffering, it also provided material for writing or performance, it was the precondition necessary to incite revolt and revolution, and so the greater the suffering, the better, the more fantastic its radiant glow. This dictionary concealed a principle within it: in order to obliterate the instigators of suffering, more and more suffering was required as proof to convince more and more people of the urgent, lofty necessity of this struggle. In other words, in order to obliterate suffering, first there had to be suffering. The suffering of others gives rise not only to the pity, but also to the pleasure and happiness of saviors; it's an endless source of bonuses for the score-cards of their heroism.

I didn't feel like talking any more, and suddenly changed my plans: to his bemusement, I refused to let my dinner companion pay for my pizza.

I've often realized, not without a sense of disquiet, that talking isn't easy, that my words often propagate all kinds of misunderstandings once they've flown out of my mouth. I've also discovered that even a powerful propaganda machine lacks absolute controlling power over understanding and, similarly, sinks repeatedly into the mire of ambiguity. Here, I must make mention of the young man who came to my house with Kuiyuan. I later found out his surname was Zhang, that he'd been an employee of the County Film Company but had been relieved of his duties due to his exceeding the birth quota. It wasn't that he'd failed to comprehend the consequences of exceeding the birth quota: the vast truckloads of tedious state propaganda about the punishments and rewards that came with family planning regulations had bored a hole in his eardrum. Neither did he have any great love of children: the two sons he already had hardly ever caught a glimpse of him, extracted a smile from him with the greatest of difficulty, and represented to him the permanent, burdensome obstacles to divorce. He had no reason whatsoever to produce another child. After I'd spoken with him, after I'd turned it over endlessly and uncomprehendingly in my mind, there was only one conclusion I could draw: he operated on another vocabulary system, one in which a great many words transgressed ordinary people's imaginings. For example, "violating law and order" wasn't necessarily a bad or an ugly thing to do-quite the contrary, violating law and order was a proof of strength, a privilege of the strong, a crucial source of happiness and glory. If, under the category of "violating law and order," you included corruption, smuggling, official profiteering, prostitution, rushing through red lights, random spitting, eating out on public funds, and so on, then this young man would have embraced every single one of these acts with open arms. The only reason why he hadn't done these things was because at present he lacked the capability to do so.