Wang Jinyu's literary criticism should not emphasize "comment" but "theory".

There is no doubt that there should be "comments" and "arguments" about comments. If we have to give them an order or priority, I think we should "comment" first and then "discuss". In other words, for comments, comments and criticisms should be the first, the primary task of comments, and the foundation. The second kind, or the second kind, is discussion, reasoning and argumentation.

But in reality, many critics, especially some academic experts and scholars, mostly adhere to the academic tradition of textual research. They pay too much attention to the part of "theory", emphasize theory, textual research and quotation, and ignore evaluation, discrimination and analysis. They always think that "theory" is more important and serious than "evaluation", and it also shows more depth and thickness, so that the existing grand theoretical pedigree is often used to "cover" the object of comment. It is conceivable that the object of writing articles and comments is often "the donkey's lips are not right for the horse's mouth" or simply writing comments directly into academic papers, which really belong to "comments", such as opinions on practical issues such as whether the work is good or not, what is good or not, how to further improve and perfect it, etc., which occupy very little space, and more are "overview of art history", "ancients' clouds", "research findings" and "materials"

What can be made clear in three or five hundred words must be as smelly and long as the old lady's foot-binding cloth. On the surface, it seems full of academic demeanor, but in fact, it is "dropping books" and "beating around the bush", playing word games, or simply discussing history for the sake of historical theory and textual research. Over time, I lost the most valuable question consciousness in the comments. Just think, if an article does not have a clear point of view and attitude, it is difficult to praise and criticize, and it is difficult to play its due role and effect. It also destroys the due norms of the commentary text and encourages the bad atmosphere of "light comments and heavy comments". How can such an article be regarded as a qualified comment?

As we all know, the most important thing in comments is "evaluation". Only when the "evaluation" is accurate and wonderful can the "theory" have value and shine brilliantly. If the comments are not in-depth and in place, it will be difficult to be convincing, and naturally they will lose their real role and significance. We must make it clear that "evaluation" is the premise and foundation of "theory" and provide necessary value judgment for "theory". On the other hand, theory is the supplement and extension of comments, serving for comments and seeking some theoretical reference or factual basis for comments. Therefore, we must not confuse the relationship and reverse the priorities, otherwise it will be very unfavorable to the development of literary criticism and the construction of critical texts.

In addition, compared with "theory", "evaluation" is more difficult and needs more eyesight, courage and insight. It is far from vague and mysterious, and it is far from being as simple and easy as most people think. What is generally lacking at present is "comment" rather than "theory". It is precisely because there are few high-quality and readable evaluation articles and commentary articles that literary criticism is misinterpreted and criticized by the outside world. Therefore, "comment" is the weakest link in the current comments, and it is also the plate that needs the most attention and focus. It plays a direct and irreplaceable role in distinguishing right from wrong, distinguishing good from bad, enhancing the public's aesthetics and transmitting values, which cannot be underestimated or biased.

Especially in the fast-paced moment, people have gradually lost interest in reading lengthy expositions and textual research articles, and even have different degrees of resistance. On the one hand, due to the limited time at our disposal today, we hope to master more really useful knowledge and information as soon as possible in the limited time. On the other hand, due to too many so-called academic papers, serious problems such as formatting and routinization, writing lacks its due position and attitude. There are not many really quality and valuable parts in the article. After reading it, people either feel obscure or bored. In this case, it is best not to read them. On the contrary, straightforward and concise comments are just welcomed by the public, which is more in line with the new requirements and expectations of academic and literary criticism in the new era.

Indeed, valuable and excellent summary articles are not written as long as possible, nor are the more academic words and technical terms piled up, the better. The most important thing is whether you can grasp the essence, key and crux of the problem, and whether you can point out, evaluate and criticize it to the point. If you have something to say, it will be long, and if you have nothing to say, it will be short. You don't need to deliberately manage the length of the article and other irrelevant things.

In a word, "criticism" is the main body of criticism, and it is also the shortcoming and weakness of current literary criticism. We must pay more attention to it and make more efforts on "evaluation" in order to evaluate the level, knowledge and characteristics. Of course, "comment" and "theory" are closely related, interacting and influencing each other. This article is not to say that "argument" is not important. On the contrary, as a real critic, it can't be ignored in discussion and argumentation. Only by having enough theoretical and historical knowledge and mastering certain methods of discussion and demonstration can we provide more sufficient theoretical support for "evaluation" and prevent it from being biased or out of shape. As for those nonsense, evasive, scratching their heads and cursing their mothers, we should oppose and put an end to them.