“革命文学”论争中的茅盾 ― 1928年至“左联”成立前夕茅盾的“自述”和“辩解”
A Study on Mao Dun’s Critic Work in Revolutionary Literature Debate Era
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to review Mao Dun’s position and attitude in Revolutionary Literary Debate Era. During the years 1928-1930 Mao Dun not only published his first work trilogy Disillusion but also participated in the debate. In this simultaneous position(debating+writing)Mao Dun’s critic work had two distinguish marks: 1) self-defense toward revolutionary writer’s criticism, 2) self-description about his own work. In the process of the debate, Mao Dun cleverly managed defensive and descriptive work. And the direct relation between literature and politics, which is included two contrast attitudes: 1) As a writer, Mao Dun’s work had always proceeded along realistic lines as advocated by the writers of the May Fourth Era. So he refused to be hurried in labelling literature with names and stressed that there is no need to jump past the times and try to reach beyond the present into future. 2) As a early member of the Communist Party, Mao Dun took a favorable view of revolutionary writers. He recognized that revolutionary literature would come to have its sway in the field of Modern Chinese literature, thus he suggested that the foremost requirement is a large circle of readers. Mao Dun’s view point is not on “class” (阶级)but on “reader”(读者). But apparently revolutionary writers complained about the middle-class consciousness of Mao Dun and had nothing to say against his suggestion. This appears to be an unsound basis for literary criticism. I think the use of diversified angles (simultaneous position, contrast attitude) is very useful method. Beyond that, We must do further the study of Mao Dun’s critic work for the new development of Modern Chinese literary criticism.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review Mao Dun’s position and attitude in Revolutionary Literary Debate Era. During the years 1928-1930 Mao Dun not only published his first work trilogy Disillusion but also participated in the debate. In this simultaneous position(debating+writing)Mao Dun’s critic work had two distinguish marks: 1) self-defense toward revolutionary writer’s criticism, 2) self-description about his own work. In the process of the debate, Mao Dun cleverly managed defensive and descriptive work. And the direct relation between literature and politics, which is included two contrast attitudes: 1) As a writer, Mao Dun’s work had always proceeded along realistic lines as advocated by the writers of the May Fourth Era. So he refused to be hurried in labelling literature with names and stressed that there is no need to jump past the times and try to reach beyond the present into future. 2) As a early member of the Communist Party, Mao Dun took a favorable view of revolutionary writers. He recognized that revolutionary literature would come to have its sway in the field of Modern Chinese literature, thus he suggested that the foremost requirement is a large circle of readers. Mao Dun’s view point is not on “class” (阶级)but on “reader”(读者). But apparently revolutionary writers complained about the middle-class consciousness of Mao Dun and had nothing to say against his suggestion. This appears to be an unsound basis for literary criticism. I think the use of diversified angles (simultaneous position, contrast attitude) is very useful method. Beyond that, We must do further the study of Mao Dun’s critic work for the new development of Modern Chinese literary criticism.
참고문헌 (42)
- "小说月报", ~
- "文学周报", ~
- "创造月刊", ~
- "文化批判", ~
- "太阳月刊", ~
- "时代文艺", ~
- "拓荒者", ~
- "海风周报", ~
- "现代(影印本)(第三卷)", ~
- "茅盾全集" (1990), 人民文学出版社
- "鲁迅全集" (2005), 人民文学出版社
- "朱自清全集" (1996), 江苏教育出版社
- "李何林全集(第三卷)" (2003), 河北教育出版社
- "阳翰笙选集——革命回忆录(第5卷)" (1989), 四川文艺出版社
- 茅盾, "我走过的道路" (1997), 人民文学出版社
- 丁尔纲, "茅盾序跋集" (1994), 三联书店
- 唐金海, "茅盾年谱" (1996), 山西高校联合出版社
- 庄仲庆, "茅盾纪实" (1986), 四川文艺出版社
- 商金林, "叶圣陶年谱长编" (2004), 人民教育出版社
- 叶至善, "父亲长长的一生" (2004), 江苏教育出版社
- 中国社会科学院文学研究所≪左联回忆录≫编辑组, "左联回忆录" (1980), 中国社会科学出版社
- 冯乃超口述, "革命文学论争⋅鲁迅⋅左翼作家联盟", 新文学史料 (1986)
- 朱自清, "序跋书评集" (1983), 三联书店
- 夏衍, "懒寻旧梦录(增补本)" (2000), 三联书店
- 郑超麟, "怀旧集" (1995), 东方出版社
- 阿英编选, "中国新文学大系⋅史料索引⋅人名索引(影印本)" (2003), 上海文艺出版社
- 伏志英, "茅盾评传" (1931), 现代书局
- 全国茅盾研究学会, "茅盾研究论文选集" (1983), 湖南人民出版社
- 李岫, "茅盾研究在国外" (1984), 湖南人民出版社
- 马德俊, "蒋光慈传" (2001), 安徽人民出版社
- 林伟民, "中国左翼文艺思潮" (2005), 华东师范大学出版社
- 黄修己, "中国现代文学研究史" (2008), 广东人民出版社
- 温儒敏, "中国现代文学批评史" (2005), 北京大学出版社
- 温儒敏, "中国现当代文学学科概要" (2005), 北京大学出版社
- 保罗, "解释学与人文科学" (1987), 河北人民出版社
- 托哈维, "主体性和自身性——对第一人称视角的探究" (2008), 上海译文出版社
- 柳泳夏, "“革命文学”论争(1929至1930年)研究", 박사, pp.1995
- 赵璕, "文学与阶级意识:“革命文学”论争中阶级问题的研究", 박사, pp.2005
- 赵璕, "<从牯岭到东京>的发表及钱杏邨态度的变化", 中国现代文学研究丛刊, 6 (2005)
- 程凯, "“革命文学”历史谱系的构造与争夺", 中国现代文学研究丛刊, 1 (2005)
- 王中忱, "鲁迅与茅盾的第一次会面及其它", 宁波大学学报(教育科学版), 2 (1983)
- 王嘉良, "文学批评作为“运动着的美学”——对茅盾文学批评理论的一种检视", 福建论坛⋅人文社会科学版, 10 (2007)
