文学史视野下萧红的经典化问题考论

发布时间：2019-01-04 21:08

【摘要】：从20世纪50年代初截至目前,在诸多文学史家编著的现代文学史中,有关女作家萧红及其经典作品的叙述呈现出了显著的差异。这些差异的背后,既离不开社会政治意识形态的制约,也和文学史家所秉持的文学史观念息息相关。因此,本论文就以建国以来编写的诸多版本的文学史作为论述依据,将萧红置于文学史这一宏大的视野中,对萧红的经典化问题进行了深层次的研究,探讨了萧红经典化的原因及生成机制。全文主体部分共三章,另附引言、结语。第一章主要整理了20世纪50年代和“重写文学史”时期以来这两个阶段的文学史对萧红进行的叙述。其中,20世纪50年代以王瑶、丁易和刘绶松编著的文学史为例,论述了这些文学史中的萧红及其作品的具体情况,并归纳了它们的异同之处。最后,指出了这些文学史叙述的萧红的局限性。“重写文学史”时期以来的文学史著作,以杨义和钱理群的版本为例,这些文学史与王瑶等人的相比而言,摆脱了政治意识形态的束缚,因此在叙述过程中更能体现萧红创作独特的艺术魅力,尤其是钱理群等人著述的《中国现代文学三十年》这部文学史。第二章的内容主要分析了萧红经典化的外在生成机制。萧红的经典化并不是一蹴而就的,它是在多重因素的综合作用下形成的,是多种规范和标准形成共识之后才达到的一种结果。政治意识形态的制约、文学史观念的多元变迁以及传媒的参与和推动等因素都是十分重要的,萧红的经典化过程正是在这多重因素的结合下才逐渐形成的。第三章重点阐述了萧红经典化的内在依据。在萧红经典化的过程中,除了外在生成机制的影响和推动,萧红作品本身所具有的丰富的文化内涵、精神意蕴和独特的艺术特色才是最为重要的因素。众所周知,内因是事物发展的根本原因。因此,这一部分主要从萧红对东北乡村的独特呈现、生与死的文化探求和别具一格的艺术追求这三个方面,分析了萧红经典化的内在依据。
[Abstract]:From the beginning of 1950s to the present, the narration of Xiao Hong, a female writer, and his classic works have shown remarkable differences in the modern literary history compiled by many literary historians. Behind these differences, there is not only the restriction of social political ideology, but also the concept of literary history held by literary historians. Therefore, on the basis of many versions of literary history written since the founding of the people's Republic of China, this paper puts Xiao Hong in the grand field of view of literary history, and makes a deep research on the question of the classicalization of Xiao Hong. This paper discusses the causes and formation mechanism of Xiao Hong's classicalization. The main part of the paper consists of three chapters, with an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter mainly arranges the narration of Xiao Hong in the literary history of these two periods since the 1950s and the period of rewriting the history of literature. In the 1950s, taking the literary history edited by Wang Yao, Ding Yi and Liu Shousong as an example, this paper discusses the specific situation of the literary history and its works, and sums up their similarities and differences. Finally, the author points out the limitations of Xiao Hong in the narration of literary history. The literary history works since the period of "rewriting the history of literature" take the versions of Yang Yi and Qian Liqun as examples. These literary histories, in contrast to those of Wang Yao and others, have freed themselves from the shackles of political ideology. Therefore, Xiao Hong's unique artistic charm can be reflected in the process of narration, especially in the literary history of "30 years of Modern Chinese Literature" written by Qian Liqun and others. The second chapter mainly analyzes the external generation mechanism of Xiao Hong's classicalization. Xiao Hong's classicalization is not accomplished overnight, it is formed by the comprehensive action of multiple factors, and it is a result of the consensus formation of various norms and standards. The restriction of political ideology, the pluralistic changes of the concept of literary history and the participation and promotion of the media are all very important factors, and Xiao Hong's classical process is formed gradually under the combination of these multiple factors. The third chapter focuses on the inner basis of Xiao Hong's classicalization. In the process of Xiao Hong's classicalization, in addition to the influence and promotion of the external generating mechanism, the cultural connotation, spiritual implication and unique artistic characteristics of Xiao Hong's works are the most important factors. As we all know, the internal cause is the fundamental reason for the development of things. Therefore, this part mainly from Xiao Hong's unique presentation of the northeast countryside, life and death of the cultural exploration and unique artistic pursuit of these three aspects, analysis of the internal basis for the Classization of Xiao Hong.
【学位授予单位】：河北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：I206.6

【参考文献】