2005-12-2911:31:41Source: Netease Original.

Han Shishan's book Less Reading Lu Xun and Old Reading Hu Shi was published in June 65438+this year 10, and it has been two months since then. It should be said that the most suitable time for writing book reviews has passed. However, I still want to write a later book review, which is worthy of my own reading and more worthy of Teacher Han's new work. Many people say they criticized Lu, but I don't think so. Han Shishan was deeply influenced by Lu Xun since he was a child, and he had no reason to bear a grudge against Lu Xun. Even if the research object in the future is the crescent moon and the respected figures are Hu Shi and Li Jianwu, Lu Xun should not be completely liquidated.

The source of the matter has to start with Han Shishan's lecture in China Modern Literature Museum on April 1 2006. The theme of the lecture is "Character and Learning", which mainly talks about the deeds of some literati in the history of modern literature in China. Han Shishan praised them and put forward the view that "reading Hu Shi's long knowledge and Lu Xun's long temper", which was not the conclusion that Yan Lu or Ai Lu liked. From then on, those who criticized Lu in the dark stepped onto the stage of criticizing Lu in China literary world. Lu Xun is not much better than Li Jianwu. As soon as this view came out, it immediately attracted the attention of the academic circles, or was responsible for what he threw out, or for the needs of the organizers. Since then, Han Shishan has made two speeches entitled "My View on Lu Xun" and "Read less Lu Xun and read more Hu Shi" at Shaanxi University and China Ocean University respectively. After synthesis, it was included in the book Han Shishan Academic Lectures (Shu Hai Press, April 2004), which demonstrated its previous views from four aspects. Its clear language and detailed arguments make the pen feel that this is an article aimed at reasoning rather than impulsiveness. Unfortunately, many critics later ignored this article.

What really caused great controversy and caused Han Shishan to write this book should be a speech entitled "If Lu Xun were alive today-Lu Xun's cultural heritage and contemporary China" delivered by Chen Shuyu, then vice president of China Lu Xun Research Association, at the China Museum of Modern Literature on February 28th, 2003. Chen Shuyu's article is very long, and the main significance of the full text can be known by quoting one sentence: "If Lu Xun is still alive, he will be delighted to see the brilliant achievements Socialism with Chinese characteristics has made in today's construction", which is an article praising the excellent situation in China today. Perhaps it was because he felt that he was an expert on Lu Xun's studies, or perhaps it was because the address of the lecture was in China Museum of Modern Literature. Chen Shuyu linked all this with Lu Xun, which caused Han Shishan's different opinions. Since then, Han Shishan's criticism has shifted from Lu Xun to Yan Lu. Although criticizing Lu Xun can correct some mistakes in the old literary world, criticizing Yan Lu can sweep away some unhealthy tendencies in today's academic research. Compared with the former, the latter is what Han Shishan wants. The climax of the biggest debate in China's contemporary literary world has come.

In 2004, there was an article "There are no experts in Yan Lu" in the second issue of Literature Freedom Talk. Chen Shuyu's speech was made at the end of 2003, and no matter how efficient it is, it is impossible to publish it in 1. This is the prelude to this climax, which defines the scope of criticism and introduces the background of criticism. A large number of quotations and clear explanations are in line with Han Shishan's style. Chen Shuyu can't miss it. When she sees it, she should write something. Then he answered in the third issue of Literature Freedom Talk. His harsh words are not like those of an old man in his sixties. At first, he viciously changed a concept, extending the scope delineated by Han Shishan in his article to all Lu Xun researchers. It can be said that this is malicious slander, unless Chen Shuyu only read the title of the article, but obviously he read the full text. Reading through the full text, Chen Shuyu has obvious subjective assumptions, such as taking Cao Juren's modest words as refuting arguments and misinterpreting the relationship between Han Shishan's reference to Zhang Mengyang's case and arguments. Chen Shuyu also talked about her admiration for Mr. Zhang Mengyang in her article. How about Zhang Mengyang 1995' s speech at Lu Xun Society in China? Chen Shuyu talks about literary freedom with indignation, which is difficult for readers to understand, because Shao Bozhou's article in the second issue of Talking about Literary Freedom is much more objective than Chen Shuyu's. Why are people who are also "Yan Lu Street" so different? If we consider the second battlefield that has been opened before, it is not difficult to understand. On April 1 day, an article by Han Shishan was published in the edition of Literary Newspaper 1, entitled "Will Lu Xun be resurrected in this way?" If the last article was aimed at "Yan Lu", then this article was more targeted. This is a short essay, and the key point is the last paragraph: "No, there are still a few words to say." Of course, according to Mr. Chen's hypothesis. According to Mr. Chen, if Lu Xun were still alive, he would' see Socialism with Chinese characteristics's brilliant achievements in today's construction' and there would be another problem. To live, he has to live from birth to 2003. So, 1957 should still be alive. Will he be "happy" to see so many intellectuals being beaten to the right? He should have lived from 1966 to 1976 during the Cultural Revolution. Will he be "elated" when he sees a catastrophe? Teacher Chen should also talk about these. You can't say that Lu Xun is a character who can die and be resurrected at any time. He died in 1957, and then he came back to life. He died again after ten years of catastrophe, and came back to life after the reform and opening up. You mean that Lu Xun is a god, and I don't believe he has this ability. "This is Han Shishan can say. Many people classify Han Shishan, who wrote in his early years, as a "potato writer", which can only be said to represent a part of Han Shishan's novels. In fact, Han Shishan has another very important creative theme, that is, his reflection on the anti-rightist struggle and the Cultural Revolution, which has a far-reaching influence on him and may also lead him to choose the theme of the New Moon in the future. Chen Shuyu just crossed these two important periods, and forgetting the past means betrayal, which is not allowed by everyone affected by these two movements.

The argument between the two men was thus established. Han Shishan published in Literary Newspaper, Chen Shuyu responded in Literary Newspaper, Han Shishan published in Xi Evening News, and Chen Shuyu responded in Xi Evening News. For Han Shishan, this is an acceptable pen battle. If Chen Shuyu's writing style is better, the process of argumentation will be more rational, and it may even be forwarded by Han Shishan on Jin Literature. But probably because Chen Shuyu felt that her counterattack didn't hit the nail on the head and didn't get the expected recognition. On April 12 that year, Chen Shuyu sent a letter to me. It was not a letter, but eight pieces of white paper from Lu Xun Museum in Beijing, which read: "Editor-in-Chief Han: I sent you two stupid articles, hoping to publish them in your magazine. Just ask you to arrange it. " . Maybe Chen Shuyu really thought there would be eight blank articles in Shanxi literature, but unfortunately Han Shishan didn't get it, so he quit. As a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, he reported the xi Evening News to the Propaganda Department of Shaanxi Provincial Party Committee and Xi Municipal Party Committee, saying that Han Shishan "openly used the' Theory of Three Represents' theory as a satirical seasoning in the party newspaper, which obviously violated the Constitution and party constitution and should be investigated." Now I quote Han Shishan to see if it is as Chen Shuyu said. "The reason is very simple. We are talking about "if Lu Xun is still alive", then Lu Xun is definitely not alive. 188 1 year-old people will be 122 years old in 2003. A China person can't live this big, at least I haven't heard of it. This is beyond the scope of discussion. After reading this, I dare not say anything more except that Mr. Chen is good at Theory of Three Represents Theory. " This is the penultimate paragraph of the full text, because Han Shishan focused on the last paragraph, and there is still a long and detailed discussion ahead. My single choice is unfair to Han Shishan, but the original text is too long, so I can only do it now. This is an evaluative statement, and everyone can have a different understanding. It is said that others may be happy, but Chen Shuyu is unhappy. This is his understanding, but it is really a fallacy to convict people based on his understanding. Now that Chen Shuyu has complained, there must be some forms; Since the fact is obvious, the result must be affirmative. After Han Shishan published an article "Don't let this happen again" in "Talking about Literary Freedom" in 2004, the truth came out. In the next issue of Talking about Literary Freedom, the famous poet and essayist Shao Yanxiang's Random Thoughts on Petition and Investigation of Han Shishan appeared, and Shao Yanxiang compared it to "Xu Shaodi petitioned the Kuomintang Party Department in Zhejiang to' wanted' the fallen scholar Lu Xun".

Many people discussed the whole incident, including Chen Fukang, Wang Binbin, Ge Dongyu, Jeff, Min and Qu Chaoyun. , all expressed their opinions, but only Mr. Chen Shuyu responded by way of complaint. This reminds me of the "Maqiao Incident" triggered by Zhang Yiwu and Wang Gan. At that time, he was on Zhang's side, but the reason why he joined was largely because Han Shaogong took the pen and ink lawsuit to court, and the position of complaining to Chen Shuyu was set several years ago. Moreover, Chen Shuyu wants to introduce pure pen and ink lawsuits into politics this time. Chen Shuyu really doesn't deserve to be a scholar. The debate about Lu Xun is really a long-term topic. The related articles published by Wen Hui Reading Weekly at the end of the year were the aftermath of the incident, but the protagonist stepped down because of Han Shishan's retreat.

I just want to write a book review, because things are really complicated, so there are several prefixes, but if it can help explain the formation and views of this book, readers' time will not be wasted. Now I want to talk about the main idea of this book again. The contents of this book have been partially described in Han Shishan's articles before, but this book has new contents. First of all, this book continues Han Shishan's consistent writing principle of literary history, that is, the textual research is extremely thorough, which can be said to reveal the secrets of the two camps headed by Hu Shi and Lu Xun in the history of new culture and show the comprehensive contest between the two cultural leaders; The division between Anglo-American School and French-Japanese School is an academic study. Many people will think that Han Shishan must be arbitrary just because Liu Bannong stayed in France, but if you have a simple list of China writers who stayed in France in the new literature period (such as Gong Zhong, a professor at Nanchang University, in his paper "Breakthrough between the Great Wall of Wan Li and maginot line-A New Situation of European Chinese Literature"), then you will be surprised by Han Shishan's research results. Secondly, it is more important to re-judge the almost recognized history in China's literary history, and carry out the process of first argumentation, then negation, then argumentation and then conclusion. To do this, we need more doubts and greater efforts, that is, Mr. Hu Shi advocated "bold assumptions and careful verification." Compared with the two, the author thinks the latter point is more important. Textual research certainly requires great personal efforts, but providing an argument idea or principle can be beneficial to the study of China's new literary history. Chen Shuyu is just a person. Even if she finally wins the debate with him, she is not happy enough. Criticizing Yan Lu is more direct. This Lu Yanjie can be said to be yes or no. In short, it doesn't mean academic, which is Han Shishan's favorite tone.

There is an old saying in China that "catch the thief first, then the king". Only by mastering the authority of the ideological circle first can the thought be freer and the literary research be healthier. It took me a long time to say this sentence, which is tantamount to putting Lu Xun, an admirable writer, on the target, but compared with some people who think they are authoritative today, Mr. Wang will feel gratified.

Although calmly retreating, this is not Han Shishan's style; Progress requires not only courage but also strength.