论文部分内容阅读
一我们也许可以把文学理论的终极旨归视为对文学性的界说。中国古代文论中的“言志”、“缘情”、“别趣”、“神韵”、“载道”等等,是从生产美学的角度对文学性的界说;欧洲传统文论中的“摹仿”、“反映”、“想像力的自由游戏”、“理念的感性显现”等等,同样是对文学性的定义。尽管文学活动十分复杂,但没有哪一种文学理论不致力将文学纳于一种普适性或永恒性的文学性定义的“看管”之下。问题的麻烦在于,当文学理论殚精竭虑地在文学现象中搜捕文学生命体的复制机制即一种文学基因时,文学活动自身却常常改变这种基因的表达方式,甚至以一种与文学理
One may perhaps regard the ultimate purpose of literary theory as a literary definition. In the ancient Chinese literary theory, “dialect”, “fate”, “alienation”, “charm”, “load” and so on, are from the perspective of production aesthetics of literature The definition of sex; the “imitation”, “reflection”, “imaginative free game”, and “the perceptual appearance of ideas” in European traditional literary theory are also definitions of literary nature . Despite the complexity of literary activity, no literary theory has endeavored not to embrace literature under a “custody” of a universal or eternal literary definition. The trouble with the problem is that literary theory itself often changes the way in which this gene is expressed, even as literary theory painstakingly ransacks the literary genesis of the literary body’s replication mechanism,