论文部分内容阅读
在《语文教学与研究》一九八一年第四期上,梅孜同志提出了《狂人日记》不大适宜于作语文教材的意见,他的理由有三:一曰表现形式独特、思想内容深刻,青年学生难以理解;二曰许多研究者看法分歧,给教学带来困难;三曰鲁迅先生自己“曾反对过将自己的小说采入教科书”,“最不愿意的是有人给小孩读《狂人日记》”。如果以梅孜同志的这三条为标准决定教材之取舍的话,那么现在选入初中、高中语文课本的鲁迅的许多作品都不大适宜于做教材。思想深刻就不能作教材这一点,一眼就可以看出是站不住脚的,姑且不论。就拿表现形式独特这一点来说,《阿Q正传》独不独特?《孔乙己》独不独特?《药》、《祝福》独不独
In the fourth issue of “Language Teaching and Research” in 1981, Comrade Mei Rong put forward the idea that “The Madman’s Diary” is not suitable for Chinese language teaching materials. There are three reasons for this: One is unique in expression form and one has profound thoughts. Young students are difficult to understand; second, many researchers disagree, and bring difficulties to teaching; Mr. San Lu Xun himself “had objected to the use of his own novels in textbooks.” “The most unwilling is that some people read ”Madman.“ diary”“. If Comrade Mei Yong’s three criteria are used to determine the choice of textbooks, then many of Lu Xun’s works that are currently selected for junior high school and high school language textbooks are not suitable for teaching materials. If we can’t use textbooks with profound thoughts, we can see that it is untenable at a glance. Take the unique form of expression, the ”Ah Q:“ is not unique, ”Kong Yiji“ is not unique, ”medicine“, ”blessing" alone