论文部分内容阅读
在二十世纪八十年代文学中,“先锋文学”是作为获取“文学自主性”的崭新形象被文学史认定的。但是,在这一权威性结论的周边,实际分布着许多不为当时研究者所知的“文学史细节”。当我们“重返”先锋文学的生成空间并试图重新解读它的历史复杂性的时候,必然会触及这些问题:先锋文学是否是作为五六十年代文学的对立面进入历史的?它难道仅仅是“翻译文学”浪潮所催生的结果?今天应该怎样看待先锋文学“纯形式”、“纯技巧”的叙事话语实验?怎样去理解“先锋文学”在九十年代的转型?作为先锋文学的代表作家,马原先生当然是与这些问题对话的最佳人选。但作家思考问题的角度和方式显然与文学研究者存在一定差别,甚至截然不同,但它形成的不失丰富的话语张力,恰恰是我们重新讨论问题所希望达到的目的之一。因为,文学史不仅仅是作家、批评家和文学史家共同制定的,它同样也是几者之间不断激辩与协商的结果。
In the literature of the 1980s, “avant-garde literature” was recognized by literary history as a brand-new image of “literary autonomy.” However, in the periphery of this authoritative conclusion, there are actually many “literary history details” that are not known to researchers at that time. When we “re-enter” the avant-garde space of creation and attempt to re-interpret its historical complexity, it is bound to touch upon these questions: is it that avant-garde literature entered history as the opposite of the 1950s and 1960s literature? Is the result of the tide of “Translated Literature”? How should we treat the narrative discourse experiment of Pioneer Literature “Pure Form ” and “Pure Skill ” today? How to understand “Pioneer Literature ” in the nineties Transformation? As a leading writer of avant-garde literature, Mr. Ma Yuan is certainly the best person to talk to these issues. However, the writer’s perspective and approach to thinking are obviously different from those of literary researchers, but they are even totally different. However, it is one of the goals that we hope to achieve by revisiting the issue. Because, literary history is not only a writer, critic and literary historian jointly developed, it is also the result of constant debate and negotiation between the few.