Theory And Position: Three Abroad Critics In Modern Chinese Literature Studies

Since the works of Chih-tsing Hsia, Leo Ou-fan Lee and David Der-wei Wang were published in Mainland, this three critics influence modern Chinese literature studies very much, including the range, object, approach, method, and even the writing style of studies. Meanwhile they can be seen as a school for their diagrams alike. If we follow they without reflect their diagrams, it will lead to misunderstanding. This serious question can be called double senses of unfamiliar with history context, one is unfamiliar with the history context of their studies, another is unfamiliar with the history context of ours. At present time, discourse is considered as power. We will lose our own voice if we just follow them without reflection.The abroad studies on modern Chinese literature are quite plentiful. I choose Chih-tsing Hsia, Leo Ou-fan Lee and David Der-wei Wang as representatives. My dissertation focuses on them, trying to analysis their theoretical origins, the standards they use to valuate literature, their impact on Mainland and the dialogue between the circle of Mainland modern Chinese literature studies and them.Chapter one discusses Chih-tsing Hsia's well-know book A History of Modern Chinese Fiction. My discussion concentrates on three topics: the theoretical resources of Chih-tsing Hsia, his standards to critic literature, and the relationship between this book to the atmosphere of"rewriting literature history"in 1980's. Section 1 reveals the political stand and thought backgrounds of this book, pointing out Hsia's"pure literature"idea, the war complex, and cord war prejudice. This three interweave in the book. Section 2 talks about the relationship between Hsia and the western critical theory. We can see his view of literature history and his taste were influenced by the humanism tradition especially the moral criticism represented by Matthew Arnold and F. R. Leavis. His capacity of analysis works also gained form Close Reading of the New Criticism. Section 3 tells how his viewpoint of literature history embodied in the book A History of Modern Chinese Fiction. The last two sections inquiry the impact of that book.Chapter two deals with Leo Ou-fan Lee's, how he quests for modernity and constructs of urban culture. The key word for Lee is"modernity". Section 1 reveals the material grounds for modernity in Lee's eyes, which are the mass media and the sphere for critic. This two played an important role in the development of modern Chinese literature. Section 2 analysis Lee's book The Romantic Generation of Modern Chinese Writers. Lee defined two kinds romantic style, one is decadent, another is full of vigor. He concerned with seven writers, four of them were non-left and three left. While he concerned the non-left writers he emphasized their personality, then concerning the left writers with their political attitude and their lives in the history after 1949. He pointed out that the feelings of romantic left writers were politicalized which got them a lot of suffering after 1949. I think it is not proper to distinction the two kinds romantic writers according to the political stand. Section 3 analyses Lee's studies on Lu Xun. He found the"dark"and"decadent"sides of Lu Xun's thoughts, and pointed out that the contradiction of Lu Xun. This idea deconstructed the"sacred"Lu Xun. Section 4 points out that Lee's description of the urban culture of Shanghai had ignore the left-wing side of Shanghai, so that his view is one-sidedness. This one-sidedness of old Shanghai influences the nostalgic fashion at present that forms as new ideology about Shanghai.Chapter three discusses the relationship between the"repressed modernities"named by David Der-wei Wang and the origin of May Forth literature. I am interested with his idea about the interaction between literature and historical imagination. Section 1 probes into his subject on the"repressed modernities"of late Qing fiction. Wang found another kind of modernity in late Qing which was been repressed by May Forth literature. I show that his view mixed literature history phenomenon with the written literature history. Section 2 discusses Wang's discourse on two kinds of fiction, monster and ghost literature. Wang promoted this two kinds literature to against the realism and enlightenment literature of May Forth tradition. Section 3 discusses Wang's political imply in his literature studies. Although Wang critic the writers in May Forth tradition intended use literature as a mean to save the country, which literature could not qualified, he himself used literature as a mean to vision modern China history. In this way, Wang is much like the writers he critic.Chapter four discusses the critical writings on Zhang Ai-ling by these three critics. Section 1 discusses Hsia's critic on Zhang. He stressed on the moral meaning of Zhang's writings. Section 2 talks Lee's critic on Zhang. Lee was found of how the modernity of Shanghai impacted Zhang's works and in return how Zhang's works rich Shanghai's modern culture. Section 3 discusses Wang's critic on Zhang. Wang viewed the style of Zhang as a school of literature, so he investigated the whole style of Zhang and her followers.In the concluding chapter, I argue that these three critics could be treated as a school for they shared similar diagrams and the same posture that is they all attacked the left wing of modern Chinese thoughts and modern Chinese literature. I also point out that because of less reflection on the abroad modern Chinese literature studies we are sick in our own studies. This sick could be named"sick of Sinology", which means follow abroad studies and meanwhile abandon our tradition, neglect our history and reality. In my opinion, the right way to treat abroad studies is firstly to understand their theory and its background. Secondly rethink their studies. And lastly dialogue with them, not follow them.