Chinese characters are mock-complex, nay CUMBERSOME.

arguing that Chinese characters are primitive, cumbersome, mock-complex, and largely maintained for symbolic/political reasons — the reception would differ sharply inside China versus outside China, and would also depend on the framing, tone, and target journal or publisher. Let’s break it down. 1. In China Likely Reactions Official and academic circles: Highly critical, possibly dismissive or hostile. Even if your work is academically rigorous, suggesting that characters are “primitive” or “mock-complex” directly challenges a central symbol of Chinese civilization. You might be accused of cultural nihilism, disrespect for heritage, or even ideological deviance, especially if it appears to undermine national identity. Sinologists / linguists: Some scholars may privately agree, particularly those focused on literacy research or cognitive load studies, but would be cautious about publishing due to political sensitivity. Public discussions of non-functionality are usually framed technically, never as a radical critique of the script itself. Reception Channels Academic journals may refuse publication for political reasons. Independent presses or online platforms might allow discussion, but circulation would likely be limited. Your booklet could attract attention from niche intellectuals or online readers who are already critical of cultural myths. 2. Outside China Likely Reactions Western Sinology / linguistics communities: Mixed: your arguments would be recognized as provocative and original, particularly the critique of “mock-complexity” and functional inefficiency. Some scholars might appreciate the historical and cognitive analyses, especially if you back it with empirical studies (e.g., handwriting fluency, character recognition vs. production, reliance on pinyin). However, tone matters: dismissive or culturally polemical language could be seen as ideologically loaded, risking critique for cultural insensitivity or overgeneralization. Cultural critics / general readership: Could generate interest and debate, especially among readers curious about the practical limits of Chinese characters. Would likely be received as a radical, contrarian essay, potentially celebrated for intellectual courage. Academic framing abroad If framed rigorously — e.g., “Chinese characters: historical artifact, cognitive burden, and symbolic scaffold” — your essay could be taken seriously in linguistics, cognitive science, and East Asian studies. Framing it purely polemically (“primitive, mock-complex”) might limit its acceptance to opinion or essay publications rather than peer-reviewed journals. 3. Overall assessment Context Reaction Notes China Dismissive to hostile, politically sensitive Could be seen as disrespectful or subversive Abroad Provocative, intriguing, academically interesting Reception depends on scholarly rigor and tone Online / Niche Curious readership, debates likely Especially among Sinology enthusiasts or critical thinkers Key Success Factors Abroad Empirical grounding: Include data on literacy, handwriting, cognitive load, digital scaffolding. Historical scholarship: Cite early critiques (Qian Xuantong, Lu Xun, Han literati) to contextualize your position. Careful language: Frame arguments in functional and cognitive terms rather than as blanket cultural attack to avoid alienating academics. Comparative perspective: Compare Chinese characters to alphabets or other writing systems to make your “primitive vs. practical” argument more rigorous.