论民初主流小说家的百年命运

发布时间：2018-01-30 20:22

本文关键词： 民初主流小说家百年遭遇鸳鸯蝴蝶派遮蔽误读　出处：《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：百年来,主倡"兴味"的民初主流小说家曾遭遇过双重历史遮蔽和一次错位误读。"五四"前后,新文学家将其斥为"旧派"、"鸳鸯蝴蝶派"、"礼拜六派"、"黑幕派"。在"新文学"正典化后,后来又一次对其发动攻讦,并将其与张恨水为代表的所谓"新礼拜六派"混为一谈。新中国成立后的头三十年,各高校文学史均视其为"小说逆流",形成另一重彻底的抹杀性遮蔽。新时期以来,学界基本上将其纳入"近现代通俗文学史"视域进行考察,称其为"通俗小说家",名实不符地将其与前后的文学流派视为一体,形成一次错位误读。梳理并反思以上遮蔽与误读,不仅有助于早日还原民初主流小说家的历史本相,亦可为当下形成健康的文学批评之风提供借镜。
[Abstract]:Over the past hundred years, the mainstream novelists who advocated "Xingwei" in the early Republic of China had encountered a double historical masking and a misinterpretation. Around the May 4th Movement, Neo-writers denounced it as the "Old School" and "the Mandarin Duck and Butterfly School". "Saturday", "Black". After the "New Literature" canonical, it was later criticized again. It is confused with the so-called "New Saturday School" represented by Zhang Henshui. In the first 30 years after the founding of New China, the literary history of colleges and universities all regarded it as "novel countercurrent". Since the new period, scholars have basically brought it into the field of "the history of modern popular literature" and called it "popular novelist". The name and reality do not agree with the literary schools before and after as a whole, forming a misreading. Combing and reflecting on the above masking and misreading, not only helps to restore the historical reality of mainstream novelists in the early Republic of China at an early date. It also provides a model for the formation of healthy literary criticism.
【作者单位】：上海政法学院文学与传媒学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“主倡‘兴味’的民初上海小说界研究”(项目批准号:15BZW122) 中国博士后科学基金资助项目“民初小说‘兴味’观念生成与文体转变研究”(项目批准号:2015M581559) 上海市教委科研创新项目“报刊繁荣与民初小说‘兴味化’热潮研究”(项目批准号:14YS159)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：I207.41
【正文快照】： 民初主流小说家们主倡“兴味”,脉承传统,一度在新的时代境遇中凭着东方性、娱乐性、趣味性、市民性、自由性、趋新性、知识性、市场性、通俗性与民俗性等优势引领时尚,在中国小说现代转型过程中扮演了重要角色。然而,随后各领风骚的文艺界非但没有延承他们的合理甚至先进的内

【相似文献】