Chan Ka Lok Vs QianLong

[Trien Chieu]

Well, they are brothers.
Chan Ka Lok is supposedly the main hero whereas QianLong is the main villian of "Book and Sword". The only version I have seen is Book and Sword 2002 with Vincent Zhao as Chan Ka Lok. He is not very likable but definitely not hated. If I remember correctly, he did not convince Princess Fragrance to be with QianLong. He did not give her up to make a deal with QianLong.

I know series can be very inaccurate comparing to novel. Did Chan Ka Lok give her up in order to make a deal with QianLong? How accurate is Book and Sword 1976 compare to the novel? I hope TaiSeng will eventually release that series in Viet. There are so much great song that I really like in that series.

Who is more hated? QianLong or Chan Ka Lok?

From the Poll, it should be"Hate them both" instead of "Hat them both"

------------------

I think somehow Jin Yong hates/dislikes QianLong while biases in favor KangXi so that he made QianLong as a villian in Book and Sword while made Kang Xi as a hero in Duke of Mountain Deer. Honestly, between the two, I like QianLong much better. QianLong's life is much better than KangXi's in almost all aspects.

[jiang bao]

Neither dudes are likeable. I personally was rooting against CJL more than I was rooting for QL, but I was hoping for CJL's death all the way.

Two major sins for which he deserved to die. There were other reasons why he should not live but the complete list would be quite long so I'll just go with 2.

1) People were relatively well off during that period, but he and his Red Flower guys wanted to rebel anyway just to have Hans, who by the end of the Ming reign were terrible rulers, in charge. They yapped a lot about honor and loyalty and all that stuff, but when it came down to basics, the well-being of the people weren't high atop their list of priorities.

2) CJL personally manipulated the girl who loved (albeit stupidly) him and used her as a sacrificial lamb to achieve his goal. He talked her into marrying the man who destroyed her family and tribe just so he (CJL) could reach his goal. But of course, he did so while portraying himself as the great man who gave up love for his country.

[Ren Ying Ying]

on the first point, you are taking too much historical reality into the story. as far as the story goes, the people were never described as being well-off, the government never described as kind, and qian long was not quite the brightest emperor.

[jiang bao]

Neither were the Han people described as suffering or oppressed, not that I can recall anyway. So absent description of the status of the people in the story, you have to go with the historical version.

In any event, to analyze a story fairly, you have to view the story from a neutral perspective, independent from the author's tone and bias toward the protagonists. And neutrally speaking, the people as a whole were doing relatively well at that period in time. People were as well off as you could reasonably expect in ancient China. There was no justification for rebellion if the livelihood of the people was the primary concern.

[Ren Ying Ying]

Neither were the Han people described as suffering or oppressed, not that I can recall anyway. So absent description of the status of the people in the story, you have to go with the historical version.

In any event, to analyze a story fairly, you have to view the story from a neutral perspective, independent from the author's tone and bias toward the protagonists. And neutrally speaking, the people as a whole were doing relatively well at that period in time. People were as well off as you could reasonably expect in ancient China. There was no justification for rebellion if the livelihood of the people was the primary concern.

from the perspective of the characters, the "Man" rulers were oppressing the "Han" civilians. you can say the characters' views are skewed since most of them came from the poor & oppressed backgrounds, but I was just trying to put the objectives of the characters into perspective. The story is written from the perspectives of the characters, therefore as the story goes, the characters' views hold true. If the author meant for the characters' views to be complete BS, he would have specified so.

Thus, you can't simply dismiss the characters are uncaring for the general public and only care about the "Han rule" since from the characters' view, they are doing something for the good of the common people, regardless of how far-fetched it is from historical reality. You have the judge the story fairly according to the setting of the story, not necessarily the historical account.

[jiang bao]

To give an extreme analogy, Hitler thought he was doing what was best for his Arian race. Terrorists think what they are doing is saving their people. You could defend their actions "from their perspective." Doesn't make what they did/are doing any better. Lots of people still died and are dying. That's the same thing that would have happened if the Red Flower people toppled the Manchu Dynasty, which at that point was firmly established, historically or fictionally in the book. Even the someone from the Red Flower society acknowledged that the Qing was strong, it wasn't time. I can't remember who said it. Would have to check out the novel again.

[Ren Ying Ying]

To give an extreme analogy, Hitler thought he was doing what was best for his Arian race. Terrorists think what they are doing is saving their people. You could defend their actions "from their perspective." Doesn't make what they did/are doing any better. Lots of people still died and are dying. That's the same thing that would have happened if the Red Flower people toppled the Manchu Dynasty, which at that point was firmly established, historically or fictionally in the book. Even the someone from the Red Flower society acknowledged that the Qing was strong, it wasn't time. I can't remember who said it. Would have to check out the novel again.

then wouldn't that be applied to all war-time settings? for LOCH & ROCH, let's not resist the mongolian forces because dragging out the war is just going to kill more ppl anyways (han & mongolian). same for HSDS. Why rebel against the government? It's just going to cause more deaths.

how strong the government is should not interfere with whether or not one wants to overthrow it. just because an "oppressive" government is powerful, does that mean you should yield and submit to it?

as regards to hitler and terrorists, the Red Flower society did not try to perform massive killings of innocent civilians to terrorize people nor did they try to perform genocides. In fact, they were generally well perceived by the population. If you are the type to hate any type of killing, then perhaps there are too many characters in these stories to hate.

anyways, i was just suggesting that one should also try to take the fictional story in the setting of the story rather than historical reality.

[Trien Chieu]

Neither dudes are likeable. I personally was rooting against CJL more than I was rooting for QL, but I was hoping for CJL's death all the way.

Two major sins for which he deserved to die. There were other reasons why he should not live but the complete list would be quite long so I'll just go with 2.

1) People were relatively well off during that period, but he and his Red Flower guys wanted to rebel anyway just to have Hans, who by the end of the Ming reign were terrible rulers, in charge. They yapped a lot about honor and loyalty and all that stuff, but when it came down to basics, the well-being of the people weren't high atop their list of priorities.

Yes, china was the most powerful and prosperious during this time. People enjoying low tax and relatively low corruption. The best ancient chinese society can get. It's very different than during the Yuan era where the whole society suffer to the maximum. The civilians support the rebels during the yuan dynasty but not during QianLong reign.

2) CJL personally manipulated the girl who loved (albeit stupidly) him and used her as a sacrificial lamb to achieve his goal. He talked her into marrying the man who destroyed her family and tribe just so he (CJL) could reach his goal. But of course, he did so while portraying himself as the great man who gave up love for his country.

Yes, this is one of the reason I hate Chan Ka Lok and wouldn't mind if Qianlong killed him.

[Trien Chieu]

on the first point, you are taking too much historical reality into the story. as far as the story goes, the people were never described as being well-off, the government never described as kind, and qian long was not quite the brightest emperor.

From the series, it stated that the country is very powerful and prosperous at this period of time. Most civilians are happy as taxes and corruption are low. According to the civilians, Qianlong is a great king. During the first 40 years of Qianlong reign, China is very powerful and prosperous. It's the best ancient china ever get. It's even better than during Kangxi and Yong Zheng's reigns. This is one of the reason I think Qianlong is better than his father and grandpa and perhap the best king of the Qing Dynasty, or even China history.

[Guo Xiang]

This is one of the reason I think Qianlong is better than his father and grandpa and perhap the best king of the Qing Dynasty, or even China history.

You got it wrong then. Let's just remember that he inherited a very rich and powerful empire from his grandfather and father who solidified the empire's foundation.

Qianlong did expanded the territories and maintained the empire well. However, let's also remember that it was also him who really started the decline of the Qing Dynasty.

His grandfather and father propelled the dynasty's power, while he allowed it to rot (and also played a key role in the rot), especially in his latter stages of life. His father, Yongzheng, worked his @ss off to curb corruption and fill up the national coffers. But towards the end of Qianlong's reign, the coffers were emptied out and corruption was rife once again. His son Jiaqing Emperor had to clean up his mess after his death.

How can you still say he's better than Kangxi and Yongzheng?

As the Chinese saying goes, 'fu bu guo san dai' (wealth can't exceed/unable to pass beyond the third generation). How true it is, when pertaining to Qianlong!

[resident:alien]

I'd hat them both. Chen Jia Luo would look good w/a cowboy hat and Qianlong with a gangsta beanie FTMW!

[jiang bao]

then wouldn't that be applied to all war-time settings? for LOCH & ROCH, let's not resist the mongolian forces because dragging out the war is just going to kill more ppl anyways (han & mongolian). same for HSDS. Why rebel against the government? It's just going to cause more deaths.

how strong the government is should not interfere with whether or not one wants to overthrow it. just because an "oppressive" government is powerful, does that mean you should yield and submit to it?

as regards to hitler and terrorists, the Red Flower society did not try to perform massive killings of innocent civilians to terrorize people nor did they try to perform genocides. In fact, they were generally well perceived by the population. If you are the type to hate any type of killing, then perhaps there are too many characters in these stories to hate.

anyways, i was just suggesting that one should also try to take the fictional story in the setting of the story rather than historical reality.

But you have not shown that even in the fictional setting of Book and the Sword the people were being oppressed. THere was no reason to rebel other than to restore Han rule even within that fictional universe. If you could quote a passage from the novel that say that people's lives sucked during that time, I'll be happy to check it out.

I never suggested that the RFS slaughtered civilians (although many would have died as a result of a rebellion). The analogy was to make the point that if we were to take your stance -- namely that we should take the protagonists or certain characters' point of view, instead of an objective viewpoint, to justify their actions -- then we could justify the actions of even the worst monsters in history.

When I said the Qing was "strong," I was referring to the fact that the government and the county were well off. I did not say "powerful" (to quote you) as in difficult to rebel against.

[Ren Ying Ying]

But you have not shown that even in the fictional setting of Book and the Sword the people were being oppressed. THere was no reason to rebel other than to restore Han rule even within that fictional universe. If you could quote a passage from the novel that say that people's lives sucked during that time, I'll be happy to check it out.

Chapter 6:
灾民都露宿在山野高处，有些被困在屋顶树巅，遍地汪洋，野无炊烟，到处都是哀鸣求救之声，时见成群浮尸，夹 着箱笼木料，随浪飘浮。群雄绕道从高地上东行，当晚在山地上露宿了一宵，次日兜了个大圈子才到杜良寨，真是 哀鸿遍野，惨不忍睹。
...
沿路灾民络绎不绝，拖儿带女，哭哭啼啼。群雄正行之间，忽然迎面一骑马急奔而来。山路狭窄，那骑马却横冲直 撞，一下子将一个怀抱小孩的灾民妇人撞下路旁水中，马上乘者竟是毫不理会，自管策马疾驰而来。群雄俱各大怒 。
...
陈家洛见公文上署名的是运粮总兵官孙克通，禀告兆惠，大军粮响已运到兰封，因黄河泛滥，恐要稽延数日，方能 到达云云。
...
孙克通究是武官，颇有胆量，叫士兵将梯子架在墙头，爬上梯去，高声叫道：“是安份良民，快快退出城去，莫信 谣言。再不退去，可要放箭了。”这时两名游击已带领弓箭手布在墙头。灾民纷纷鼓噪，孙克通叫道：“放箭。” 一排箭射了出去，登时有十多名灾民中箭倒地。众灾民大骇，转身就逃，互相践踏，呼娘唤儿，乱成 一片。
...
孙克通在墙头哈哈大笑，笑声未毕，灾民中有人捡起两块石子，投了上来。孙克通侧身避开了一块，另一块却从腮 边擦过，只感到一阵痛楚，伸手一摸，满手是血，不由得大怒大叫：“放箭，放箭！”弓箭手一排箭射出去，又有 十多名灾民中箭。

The flooding of the Yellow River is causing many to be homeless and starved. Food is instead being sent to the army. The government official has no problems killing the civilians and even seems to enjoy it. Of course, you can say this is just an isolated event and would happen during any reign (which is probably true historically speaking). But for that, you can blame the author for being biased for writing only "bad things" that happened. It's not necessarily the characters' faults for seeing only "bad things" and being angry.

Chapter 7:
皇帝道：“我要浙江赶运粮米十万石，供应军需，你为甚么胆敢违旨？”尹章垓道：“臣万死不敢，实因今年浙江 歉收，百姓很苦，一时之间征调不及。” 皇帝道：“百姓很苦，哼，你倒是个爱民的好官。”

The people of Zhejiang doesn't seem too well off these days. And guess what happened to Yin Zhang? He got fired and the emperor just sent other officials to collect the food.

I never suggested that the RFS slaughtered civilians (although many would have died as a result of a rebellion). The analogy was to make the point that if we were to take your stance -- namely that we should take the protagonists or certain characters' point of view, instead of an objective viewpoint, to justify their actions -- then we could justify the actions of even the worst monsters in history.

My point was to take things into perspective of the story rather than using historial data to judge these fictional characters. In when we analyze historical characters, we judge them in the frame of history (ie. George Washington isn't always flamed for being racist even though he owned slaves). Thus, when we're looking at fictional characters, I believe it is fair to judge them in their fictional setting rather than the actual historical one. However, fictionous settings is most often established through the character's eyes since we follow the characters throughout the story. It is through what the characters see and hear that allows us to see the world they live in.

For example, let's pretend instead of Emperor Qian Long's reign during the Qing Dynasty, the story actually takes place in a fictionous Ling Dynasty with Emperor Pian Tong reigning. Then, judging from only the setting described in the story, is the country and government still well off?

Just as an offnote: I am not necessarily justifying the character's actions or plans or whatnot, but rather I am simply suggesting that we should judge the characters based on their fictionous settings rather than the historical one.

[jiang bao]

Fair enough. THose are examples of suffering due to natural disasters and can be provided as an example of a corrupt local government not caring about the people. As you said though, this could have happened in any dynasty. I just took a glance through that chapter. The central government did appeared to have sent food for relief, but it was the local government that hoarded it.

　王道见不是路，回马就走，绕到南门，迎面又是一群灾民涌来。王道心想只有到孙总兵那里去躲避。正行之间， 只见在城中巡逻的兵丁纷纷逃窜，一个道人手执长剑，一个胖子挥动铁鞭，一个驼子舞起狼牙棒，一名大汉挺着铁 桨，随后赶杀过来。王道混在兵丁群中，催马逃向石佛寺。寺门早已紧闭，守门士兵认得是知县大人，开门放他进 去。那时寺外灾民重重叠叠，已围了数层。灾民中有人叫：“朝廷发下救济钱粮，都给狗官吞没了。发钱粮哪，发 钱粮哪！”众灾民齐声高呼，声震屋瓦。王道不住发抖，连说：“造反了，造反了！”

On the point of the official being fired. The Qing had an army fighting in the West that needed the food. The official then tried to advise QL about not waging war on the Muslims. It wasn't as if QL fired him for giving food to the people. He fired him for not following his Imperial Decree and then opposing him on the war.

I think historically or ficitionally in Book and the Sword, QL was a mediocre emperor, but the RFS' plan was to keep him as emperor, only as a Han. If their primary goal was to install a new government that was good to the people and not restoring Han rule, why then is the current emperor acceptable as a Han? Perhaps you could say that maybe the RFS was just stringing QL along, and would dispose of him after a successful coup, but in the text of the story, it appears the RFS was proceed on good faith with intention of being loyal to QL afterwards.

[Trien Chieu]

You got it wrong then. Let's just remember that he inherited a very rich and powerful empire from his grandfather and father who solidified the empire's foundation.

Qianlong did expanded the territories and maintained the empire well. However, let's also remember that it was also him who really started the decline of the Qing Dynasty.

His grandfather and father propelled the dynasty's power, while he allowed it to rot (and also played a key role in the rot), especially in his latter stages of life. His father, Yongzheng, worked his @ss off to curb corruption and fill up the national coffers. But towards the end of Qianlong's reign, the coffers were emptied out and corruption was rife once again. His son Jiaqing Emperor had to clean up his mess after his death.

How can you still say he's better than Kangxi and Yongzheng?

Qianlong had much better life than Kangxi and Yongzheng. He traveled to JiangNan like 6 times and enjoyed much more luxurious life. Qianlong captured more land. Without QianLong, Tibet and Xinjiang woudn't part of china these days. We also have to remember than Qianlong lives like 20 years longer than Kangxi. His Kingdom start to decline when he was at his late 60s. There were speculation that he was partly senile at that age and Heshen took full advantage of it. While he is partly responsible for the beginning decline of the Qing Dynasty, but the future kings are more responsible for the collapse of the dynasty. It took more than 100 years after the death of Qianlong for the dynasty to collapse. If Jiaqing or DaoGuang or Xianfeng, or even Cixi were willing to modernize china, the dynasty could be save. The dynasty was still powerful when Qianlong handed to Jiaqing. Even though the treasure was empty, but we have to remember after Jiaqing confiscated all the wealth from Heshen, the treasury would be full again.

As the Chinese saying goes, 'fu bu guo san dai' (wealth can't exceed/unable to pass beyond the third generation). How true it is, when pertaining to Qianlong!

QianLong was the 4th king of the Qing dynasty in China and 5th king of Qing Dynasty. So weath did passed beyond the third generation.

[kidd]

QianLong was the 4th king of the Qing dynasty in China and 5th king of Qing Dynasty. So weath did passed beyond the third generation.

The wealth (fu) started during Kangxi's time. So, the proverb is correct.
Before that, the Manchu just captured China, still a lot of mess to handle and rebuild. So, not much 'fu' there. It's Kangxi and Yongzheng who built up a stable and wealthy empire for Qiang Long.

[Guo Xiang]

Btw, TC, please do stop addressing Qianlong and co. as 'kings'. They are 'emperors', not 'kings'.

[charbydis]

Oh man! Kang Xi and Yong Zheng had the hard job of building up the Qing Empire to be strong and prosperous, and all Qian Long had to do was maintain it, but he stuffed that up as well.

Yes, He Shen was a reason why Qing declined but not the only reason. Qian Long's travels to Jiang Nan pretty much emptied out half of the treasury. He has such a luxurious lifestyle that he wasted heaps on money on himself and repairing his bedroom and collecting famous paintings (then defacing them ).

Qian Long did not have much problems to face during his reign and everything seemed peaceful because everyone else before him has settled everything. Kang Xi fought the anti-Manchu attacks, Yong Zheng fought corruption. What did Qian Long have to fight? IMO, he's a good emperor, but not the best one. He never put his country ahead of his own interests, unlike Yong Zheng.

[Trien Chieu]

Oh man! Kang Xi and Yong Zheng had the hard job of building up the Qing Empire to be strong and prosperous, and all Qian Long had to do was maintain it, but he stuffed that up as well.

Yes, He Shen was a reason why Qing declined but not the only reason. Qian Long's travels to Jiang Nan pretty much emptied out half of the treasury. He has such a luxurious lifestyle that he wasted heaps on money on himself and repairing his bedroom and collecting famous paintings (then defacing them ).

Qian Long did not have much problems to face during his reign and everything seemed peaceful because everyone else before him has settled everything. Kang Xi fought the anti-Manchu attacks, Yong Zheng fought corruption. What did Qian Long have to fight? IMO, he's a good emperor, but not the best one. He never put his country ahead of his own interests, unlike Yong Zheng.

Qianlong conquered millions of square km of land during his reign. Without him, Tibet, Xinjiang, and many other areas wouldn't be part of china. He did lot of great things when he was young as well. The country was the best under him until he met Heshen. I wonder why the cost of traveling to Jiang Nan was so expensive. I would blame the collapse of the dynasty mostly on the future emperors from DaoGuang and so on. If any these emperor was willing to modernize china, the dynasty wouldn't collapsed as the way it was. The country was in trouble when Qianlong passed away, but was still powerful and fixable. It took more than 100 years for the country to collapse after the death of Qianlong. The manchus were so racist toward the han chinese, no wonder why they didn't get much support from the han majority.

[jiang bao]

Qianlong conquered millions of square km of land during his reign. Without him, Tibet, Xinjiang, and many other areas wouldn't be part of china. He did lot of great things when he was young as well. The country was the best under him until he met Heshen. I wonder why the cost of traveling to Jiang Nan was so expensive. I would blame the collapse of the dynasty mostly on the future emperors from DaoGuang and so on. If any these emperor was willing to modernize china, the dynasty wouldn't collapsed as the way it was. The country was in trouble when Qianlong passed away, but was still powerful and fixable. It took more than 100 years for the country to collapse after the death of Qianlong. The manchus were so racist toward the han chinese, no wonder why they didn't get much support from the han majority.

It would have cost lots and lots of money no matter where he traveled because he was the Emperor, and he lived a lavish life style.

Conquering lots of land doesn't necessarily make someone a good emperor.