论文部分内容阅读
创作实践的发展,向文学批评提出了新的需求,即不但在批评方法上,而且在批评新运用的术语及其内涵上都要求有所更新。在自然科学与社会科学高度发展的今天,还进而要求文学批评术语的内涵应有相对的清晰度与精确度,以便与创作实践所创造出来的、作为审美对象的文学作品达到一定程度的契合。近年来,我国的文学批评界,别特是诗歌评论界,对“意象”这一批评术语的重新提起与内涵界定,即应合了当前文学实践的需要。象对于“新诗潮”诗人作品的分析,若不以“意象”这一诗歌基本元素出发,而继续沿用“形象”、“意境”等习见的批评术语的话,终归有暧昧不清、隔靴搔痒之嫌。可喜的是,不少研究者为此做出了努力,并取得一定的成效。①但同时令人感到惋惜的是,他们对意象内涵的界定仍然带有一定的模糊性,仍处于未明
The development of the practice of writing raises new needs for literary criticism, that is, not only in the method of criticism, but also in the critique of newly applied terminology and its connotation. Today, when the development of natural sciences and social sciences is highly developed, the connotation of literary criticism terminology should be relatively sharp and accurate so as to achieve a certain degree of conformity with the literary works created by the practice of creation as aesthetic objects. In recent years, the literary critics in our country and Beit are the poetry critics. The definition and redefinition of the critical term of “imagery” should meet the needs of current literary practice. Like the analysis of the poet works of “New Poetry Tide”, if it does not start with the basic element of “poetry” and continues to use the term of criticism such as “image” and “artistic conception”, it will always be ambiguous and suspenseless . The good news is that many researchers have made efforts to this end and achieved some success. However, at the same time, it is regrettable that their definition of the connotation of images still carries a certain degree of ambiguity and remains unclear