摘要
柳青在《创业史》中对三位主要女性人物徐改霞、梁秀兰和赵素芳的塑造,都在不同程度上受制于日常生活经验与时代书写要求之间的矛盾,并由此显现出诸多叙事悖论。徐改霞的“美貌”在小说构设的意义世界中不被看重,却在小说叙事意图的呈现上扮演重要功能;梁秀兰的包办婚姻在小说中被塑造为一种正向的模范爱情,却与反封建及妇女解放的时代要求构成潜在冲突;赵素芳对富农姚士杰的屈从及相关文本的修改,暗含小说人物发展的自主性与时代要求的叙事规定性之间的悖离。细察这些文本内容的断裂之处,不仅能够透视作家创作意图与生活经验的矛盾,并对小说试图弥合这些矛盾的艺术处理加以把握,以探讨柳青“为何写”以及“怎样写”的问题;同时,还可以从这些叙事缝隙所呈露的形式政治中,窥见彼时彼刻的时代情感与妇女解放难题。
Liu Qing’s portrayal of the three main female characters,Xu Gaixia,Liang Xiulan,and Zhao Sufang,in Builders of a New Life,reveals varying degrees of tension between daily life experiences and the demands of contemporary writing,thereby unveiling numerous narrative paradoxes.Xu Gaixia’s“beauty”is not valued in the symbolic world constructed in the novel,yet it plays a significant role in fulfilling the narrative intentions of the novel.Liang Xiulan’s arranged marriage,while portrayed as a positive model of love in the novel,implicitly clashes with the anti-feudal and women’s liberation sentiments of the time.Zhao Sufang’s submission to the wealthy farmer Yao Shijie and related textual modifications suggest a disconnect between the autonomy of character development and the narrative prescriptions dictated by contemporary demands.A closer examination of these textual ruptures not only sheds light on the contradictions between the author’s creative intentions and lived experiences,but also allows us to grasp the artistic strategies employed by the novel to reconcile these tensions.This inquiry invites us to further explore the questions of“why”and“how”Liu Qing writes.Moreover,by scrutinizing the formal politics emerging from these narrative gaps,we can glimpse the temporal emotions and complexities surrounding women’s liberation during that period.
作者
刘晓航
LIU Xiao-hang(School of Literature,Shandong University,Jinan 250100,China)
出处
《山东女子学院学报》
2024年第1期121-129,共9页
Journal of Shandong Women＇s University
基金
中国博士后科学基金项目“20世纪80年代中国文学期刊编年史”(项目编号:2020M682152)
山东大学中华民族现代文明建设研究专项项目“当代文学期刊与文化繁荣发展研究”(项目编号:23RWZX27)。
关键词
《创业史》
柳青
女性形象
叙事悖谬
Builders of a New Life
Liu Qing
female representations
narrative paradoxes
