论文部分内容阅读
一九五四年十月二十八日的“人民日报”对“文艺报”在“红楼梦”研究问题的讨论中所采取的错误态度,进行了严厉的批评。中国文学艺术界联合会主席团和中国作家协会主席团从十月三十一日起联合召开了几次扩大会议,检查了“文艺报”的工作。在会议上,文艺界的许多同志进一步揭发了“文艺报”在思想上和作风上的许多错误。这些错误主要是:对于文艺上的资产阶级错误思想的容忍和投降;对于马克思主义新生力量的轻视和压制,在文艺批评上的粗暴、武断和压制自由讨论的恶劣作风。这些错误的性质是严重的,是违背了马克思主义的立场和党的文艺方针的。俞平伯所著的“红楼梦研究”和他近年来所发表的一些关于“红楼梦”的文章,是宣传胡适派资产阶级唯心论观点的错误著作。这些著作对我国古典文学作了严重的歪曲,在群众中间散布了毒素。对于这些著作,“文艺报”不仅没有加以批评,反而在该刊一九五三年第九期上发表了推荐“红楼梦研究”的文章;而在这前后,“文艺报”编辑部对于白盾、李希凡、蓝翎等用马克思主义观点批评俞平伯错误论点的文章,则拒绝刊登或不加理睬。直到李希凡、蓝翎的文章在“文史哲”杂志上发表后,由于读者的建议,才在该刊转载。转载时,编者又加上了贬抑这个批评的重大意义的错误按语。这些事实,说明了“文艺报”在“红楼梦”问题上所犯的错误决不是偶然的。“文艺报”编者们忘记了“文艺报”是一个宣传马克思主义文艺思想的刊物,它有责任去同一切反马克思主义的错误的文艺思想进行斗争,相反地,却甘心拜倒在资产阶级思想前面,甘心去颂扬和袒护反马克思主义的文艺思想。这是不可容忍的。“文艺报”编者既然成了资产阶级思想的俘虏,就必然会和马克思主义的新生力量疏远起来,以至于对他们采取资产阶级贵族老爷式的轻视和压制态度。“文艺报”对待青年作家和批评家的态度是傲慢的,缺乏热情的。“文艺报”编辑部在这次检查工作中,发现过去退回的稿件有不少是不该退回的。这些稿子被退
The People’s Daily on October 28, 1954, severely criticized the wrong attitude adopted by the “Literature and Art Daily” in the discussion of the study of “Dream of Red Mansions”. The Bureau of the Association of Chinese Literary and Art Circles and the Bureau of the Chinese Writers’ Association jointly held several enlargement meetings starting October 31 and inspected the work of the “Literary Arts Newspaper.” During the meeting, many comrades in the literary and art circles further uncovered many mistakes in the ideology and style of the literary newspaper. These mistakes are mainly the tolerance and surrender of the bourgeois misconceptions in the literature and art industry; the contempt and repression of the new forces of Marxism; the abusive and arbitrary suppression of repression and freedom of discussion in literary criticism. The nature of these mistakes is serious and runs counter to the Marxist standpoint and the party’s art and literature guideline. Yu Pingbo’s A Dream of Red Mansions Study and his recent articles on A Dream of Red Mansions are the wrong books to promote the view of Hu Shih’s bourgeois idealism. These works have seriously distorted the classical literature in our country and spread the toxin among the masses. For these books, the “literary newspaper” not only failed to criticize it, but published an article recommending “A Dream of Red Mansions” on the ninth issue of the journal in 1953. Before and after that, the editorial department of “Wen Yi Bao” , Li Xifan, Lan Ling and other criticism of Yu Pingbo Marxist point of view of the article, refused to publish or ignored. Until Li Xifan, Lan Ling’s article published in the “literature, history and philosophy” magazine, due to the reader’s suggestion, was reproduced in the magazine. When reprinted, the editor adds the wrong language to demean the great significance of this criticism. These facts show that it is no accident that the “Literary Newspaper” made mistakes in the “Dream of the Red Chamber”. The editors of the “Wen Yi Bao” have forgotten that “Literary Newspaper” is a publication that propagates Marxist literature and art. It has the responsibility to fight the wrong anti-Marxist ideology of literature and literature. On the contrary, it is willing to bow before the bourgeois ideology , Willing to praise and defend anti-Marxist literature and art. This is intolerable. Since the editors of the literary newspaper have become prisoners of bourgeois ideas, they are bound to be alienated from the nascent forces of Marxism so much as to despise and repress them with the bourgeois aristocracy. The attitude of the Literary Newspaper towards young writers and critics is arrogant and lacking in enthusiasm. In the inspection work, the editorial department of “Wen Yi Bao” found that many of the manuscripts returned in the past should not be returned. These manuscripts are withdrawn