Options
論古遠清《海峽兩岸文學關係史》重寫台灣文學史的策略和意義
Author(s)
Date Issued
2016
Journal
ISSN
1997-6860
Citation
雲漢學刊, 2016, 第32期 (增補本), 頁43-57.
Description
Online access
Type
Peer Reviewed Journal Article
Abstract
自八十年代起,台灣和中國大陸的研究者分別撰寫台灣文學史,藉此宣示甚或爭奪文學史的話語權.他們大多受強烈的政治理念驅動,以特定政治觀點闡釋台灣文學創作,致使他們的文學史書寫呈現兩種特定的論述模式:(一)中國大陸學者配合政權以政治統一為撰作文學史的最高原則,主要從文學的外緣因素如政治歷史地緣關係等論證台灣文學附屬於中國文學,進而以中國大陸文學為中心,論述台灣文學的邊緣特性;(二)台灣學者特別是本土派研究者則主張政治獨立,並以本土或後殖民的觀點篩選文學史料,進而批評部份秉持統一信念的台灣文學作家,有意無意地忽略兩地文學交流的實況.過往評論者已指出上述兩種文學史論述各有盲點.2010年,中國大陸學者古遠清出版海峽兩岸文學關係史,提出文學關係史的研究框架,試圖運用散漫重視細節放棄樹立經典企圖的另類歷史敍事來填補當代文學研究的空白.雖然該文學史依然堅持甚或高舉政治統一的撰作原則,其另類歷史敍事也未必如作者所期許,但該書引進文學關係史的思考,從比較文學視野提出兩岸文學創作的共通原則和特徵,也列舉兩岸作家的文學活動證明兩地文學持續交流的情況,某程度上突破了過往台灣文學史的兩種主要論述模式.有見及此,本文將分別從中國大陸和台灣學者撰作台灣文學史的脈絡檢視海峽兩岸文學關係史的創新和局限之處,然後從體例的角度探討該著作在重寫台灣文學史上的意義.
Since the 1980s, literary researchers from both the Mainland and Taiwan have participated in the writing of Taiwanese literary history in their own ways, to demonstrate or even compete for the power over the concerned discourse. Highly motivated by their political beliefs, they interpret the Taiwanese literary works from certain political perspectives, leading to the 2 specific models of discussion. The Mainland researchers follow the Mainland government's political agenda. They hence take reunification as the highest principle when writing the Taiwanese literary history. They focus on the extrinsic factors such as political history and geopolitical relations, to demonstrate the subordination of Taiwanese literature under the general rubric of Chinese literature. They then take the Mainland Chinese literature as the center to illustrate the peripheral status of Taiwanese literature. On the other hand, the Taiwanese researchers, especially the 'localist', embrace political independence and adopt a 'localist' or 'postcolonial' perspective when selecting materials. They further criticize some Taiwanese writers upholding reunification and ignore the interactions between the Mainland and Taiwan, either deliberately or inadvertently. Critics have already pointed out the blind spots of these two models. In 2010, Gu Yuangqing, a Mainland researcher, published the critical work in the title of the paper, suggesting the use of 'the history of literary relations' as a research framework. Under this framework, he attempts to fill the void in contemporary literary research through an alternative form of narrative history that is scattered, attentive to details and of no intention for eliciting canons. While this work insists on taking reunification as the guiding principle when constructing Taiwanese literary history, he fails to achieve his aims as stated above. However, this book introduces literary relation as a critical method and tool. By highlighting the similarity in creative principles and characteristics from a comparative perspective, it also illustrates the continued interactions in literary field across the Strait, which stands out from the above 2 models of discussion. This paper intends to appraise the creativity and limitations of this critical work with reference to the frameworks of Taiwanese literary history adopted by both the Mainland researchers and the Taiwanese researchers; it then looks into the significance of this work in rewriting Taiwanese literary history from a stylistic perspective.
Since the 1980s, literary researchers from both the Mainland and Taiwan have participated in the writing of Taiwanese literary history in their own ways, to demonstrate or even compete for the power over the concerned discourse. Highly motivated by their political beliefs, they interpret the Taiwanese literary works from certain political perspectives, leading to the 2 specific models of discussion. The Mainland researchers follow the Mainland government's political agenda. They hence take reunification as the highest principle when writing the Taiwanese literary history. They focus on the extrinsic factors such as political history and geopolitical relations, to demonstrate the subordination of Taiwanese literature under the general rubric of Chinese literature. They then take the Mainland Chinese literature as the center to illustrate the peripheral status of Taiwanese literature. On the other hand, the Taiwanese researchers, especially the 'localist', embrace political independence and adopt a 'localist' or 'postcolonial' perspective when selecting materials. They further criticize some Taiwanese writers upholding reunification and ignore the interactions between the Mainland and Taiwan, either deliberately or inadvertently. Critics have already pointed out the blind spots of these two models. In 2010, Gu Yuangqing, a Mainland researcher, published the critical work in the title of the paper, suggesting the use of 'the history of literary relations' as a research framework. Under this framework, he attempts to fill the void in contemporary literary research through an alternative form of narrative history that is scattered, attentive to details and of no intention for eliciting canons. While this work insists on taking reunification as the guiding principle when constructing Taiwanese literary history, he fails to achieve his aims as stated above. However, this book introduces literary relation as a critical method and tool. By highlighting the similarity in creative principles and characteristics from a comparative perspective, it also illustrates the continued interactions in literary field across the Strait, which stands out from the above 2 models of discussion. This paper intends to appraise the creativity and limitations of this critical work with reference to the frameworks of Taiwanese literary history adopted by both the Mainland researchers and the Taiwanese researchers; it then looks into the significance of this work in rewriting Taiwanese literary history from a stylistic perspective.
Loading...
Availability at HKSYU Library
