【作者】 张辰；

【导师】 葛飞；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 李劼人于1936—1937年发表的《死水微澜》《暴风雨前》《大波》(简称《大波》三部曲)奠定了他在现代文学史上的地位,但极少有研究者提到,他在清末民初曾是一名“新小说”家,以“老懒”为笔名创作着时兴的谴责小说。“五四”后,他虽然积极顺应时代动向,赴法勤工俭学,成为法国文学的译介者,但相当多的证据表明,他传统的文学观念未曾改变,他真正认同的依旧是晚清文学以至传统文学。三十年代,重拾笔墨的他极想凭借《大波》三部曲东山再起,获得文坛与市场的认可。那时的他将怎样掩饰自己稍嫌保守的文学观念,化解写实主义的新文学叙述规范与继承自传统白话小说的写作手法之间的张力,并为自己的作品贴上“现代性”的风格标记?本文认为,李劼人的创作方式在“五四”前后经历了一次转型,并将结合内部研究与外部研究的方法,探讨他如何完成这一转型,以及这一转型的限度所在。第一章分析了“老懒”的“自我改写”,即李劼人通过重组传统文学资源所完成的内部更新迭代。“五四”以降,旧小说的写作经验遭到摒弃,但李劼人以一种更为隐蔽的方式使它们的文学手法得以暗渡陈仓。第一节从李劼人对评书这一口头艺术的痴迷切入,过渡到他早期小说中以“说书人”这一形式出现的叙述者及其专属的程式套语。《大波》三部曲中,“说话”的标志性程式套语消失了,但它们所体现的思维方式保留了下来;第二节讨论了李劼人如何运用世情小说的对话形式转化了古代历史演义中的历史叙述以及晚清政治小说中的演说辩论,并使其体现日常性、世俗性,而此前大多研究者只以为它们来自四川当地的风俗习惯“摆龙门阵”。第二章分析了李劼人将自己打造成“中国左拉”的文本策略,即他对法国文学的化用与借鉴。上世纪三十年代,外国文学已成文坛“正格”,作为翻译家的李劼人势必借用法国文学的新颖技巧来凸显其小说的“现代性”。第一节从李劼人创作自述与文本状态的割裂入手,阐述他对书写辛亥革命历史的执着,由此勾连起他同“新小说”家之间的精神联结,但他超越其晚清前辈的地方在于,他从福楼拜、巴尔扎克等作家处受到启发,由外在的事件史转向了内在的心灵史,以典型人物侧写时代;第二节着重开展文本细读,从肖像描写、环境描写和心理描写三个角度比较李劼人“五四”前后的风格转变,并以此为基础论证:他在学习法国作家的描写技术时,依然受到传统文学审美定势的牵掣。第三章分析了李劼人转型的限度。这种限度源自他在更新写作技术的同时未更新文学观念,这不但造成了他对法国文学的误读,而且导致了他作品底蕴上的保守。第一节从当时普遍热衷谈论小说结构的理论话语入手,解答李劼人为何再三向外界强调自己借鉴自巴尔扎克、左拉的小说结构。但经过切实的文本研究和对比阅读,可以发现,李劼人是以中国传统小说结构的成见误解了巴尔扎克、左拉富含人文精神的小说体系;第二节着重剖析李劼人笔下个性鲜明的女性形象。以往研究者多认为李劼人以福楼拜、左拉的小说为摹本创作了这些形象,本文则通过李劼人作品的历史梳理阐明了这些女性形象为何在当时的文学语境中产生,并进而论证了她们与话本小说女性形象的系谱关系。李劼人对女性形象的塑造渗透着传统世情文学的市民精神,这种根深蒂固的创作观念不但在精神向度上拉开了他与同时代作家的距离,还导致了他对《包法利夫人》的误译。更多还原

【Abstract】 Li Jieren’s trilogy published in 1936-1937 of Ripples Across Stagnant Water,Before the Storm and The Great Wave established his place in the history of modern Chinese literature,but few researchers have noticed that in the Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republican Period,he was a “New Novel” writer under the pseudonym “Lao Lan”.After the May Fourth Movement,although he tried to keep up with the times as he went to study in France and finally became a translator of French literature,there is considerable evidence showing that his conservative literary concepts remained unchanged,and what he actually appreciated was still the novels of the Late Qing Dynasty and even classic Chinese novels.In the 1930 s,when he returned to writing,he was eager to make a comeback with his trilogy and gain recognition from the literary world as well as the market.How would he resolve the conflicts between the temporal narrative norms of realism and his literary techniques inherited from traditional novels,and conceal those conservative literary concepts with the quality of“modernity” in his works? We claim that Li Jieren’s literary style underwent an obvious transformation after the May Fourth Movement.This paper will combine the methods from internal studies and external studies to explore how he accomplished this transformation,and what the limitations of this transformation are.The first chapter analyzes the “self-rewriting” that Li Jieren went through.By reorganizing narrative resources from classic Chinese novels,Li accomplished several renewals within traditional literature.Since the May Fourth Movement,writing experiences from traditional novels have been resisted.However,in a more covert way,those literary techniques reappeared in Li Jieren’s novels.The first section begins with Li Jieren’s obsession with “Ping Shu”,an ancient Chinese verbal art form.Then,we move on to “Shuo Shu Ren”,a traditional Chinese narrative form and its proper vocabulary in Li’s early novels.In his trilogy,those typical vocabulary of “Shuo Shu Ren” have disappeared,but the modes of thinking they reflected have remained.The second section discusses how Li Jieren used the ironic dialogical form of traditional secular novels to transform the historical narratives from classic Chinese historical novels,and also the speeches and debates from the political novels of the Late Qing Dynasty.Previously,most researchers assumed that they were derived from “Long Men Zhen”,a local custom in Sichuan Province.The second chapter analyzes Li Jieren’s literary strategies of disguising himself as a “Chinese Zola”.In the 1930 s,styles and techniques from foreign literature have established dominance in the literary world.As a translator of French literature,Li was bound to draw on French literary skills to highlight the quality of “modernity” in his novels.The first section begins with the contradiction between Li Jieren’s personal statements and his texts,through which we illustrate his dedication to the history around the Xinhai Revolution,thus stressing his spiritual connection with the writers of “New Novel”.But what set him apart from his predecessors was that,inspired by French writers such as Flaubert and Balzac,he shifted from an external history of events to an internal history of the mind,and recorded history with typical characters.The second section is mainly about a close reading of Li Jieren’s novels,comparing his literary style before and after the May Fourth Movement from three perspectives:portrait description,environmental description and psychological description.The third chapter analyzes the limitations of Li Jieren’s transformation.These limitations stemmed from the fact that he failed to renew his literary concepts while updating his writing techniques,which resulted in his misreading of French literature as well as the conservatism of his works’ spiritual core.The first section starts with the theoretical discourses at that time,which was generally keen on investigating the structure or plot of novels,and answers why Li Jieren continuously emphasized that his structure was in imitation of Balzac and Zola.However,after textual analysis and comparative reading,it is found that Li has misunderstood Balzac and Zola’s writing intentions with stereotypes of traditional Chinese novel structures.The second section focuses on those impressive female roles created by Li Jieren.While most researchers believe that Li took Flaubert and Zola’s novels as his blueprint to create these images,we are going to clarify why these female figures were created at that time by sorting through all his works,and prove their genealogical relationship with the female images from traditional vernacular novels(“Hua Ben Xiao Shuo”).These female roles are infiltrated with the spirit of Chinese secular literature,which not only distanced him from his contemporaries in terms of spiritual dimension,but also led to his mistranslation of Madame Bovary.更多还原