Guo Moruo plays several questions about reading and evaluating

Guo Moruo

For Guo Moruo's plays, criticism has always been rarely correct, either to kill or to kill with sticks. The words "praise" and "stick" both have "feng", and the criticism made by "offering" to a certain purpose is naturally rarely correct. Criticism of Guo Moruo's plays is often either "serving" the will of some political force, or respecting some kind of non-political or de-revolutionary ideas, and ultimately cannot escape the confinement of the "cognitive device" [1]. These criticisms have their own rationality, but because most of the critics use Guo Moruo's plays to pour their own blocks, starting from the "cognitive device" and at the same time strengthening the inherent "cognitive device", and lacking a real understanding of Guo Moruo's plays, or unwilling to truly understand Guo Moruo's plays, there are some noteworthy problems in the reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays.

　　I. Bipolar reading and pseudo-reading of Guo Moruo's plays

　　As early as 2001, Wen Rumin talked about "Guo Moruo's bipolar reading phenomenon", pointing out that Guo Moruo's reading has "reading methods of literary history" and "non-professional reading methods". "Many university podiums or expert articles today praise Guo Moruo, while the average reader does not dare to compliment him." [2] With the prosperity of modern online media, "general readers" have been given the opportunity to speak, and personal reading feelings or hearsay online articles have sprung up like a wave, and "many university pulpits or expert articles" have been drowned out. University podiums and expert articles represent one pole, the average reader is the other pole, what is the relationship between the two poles? Generally speaking, university pulpits and articles by experts represent the elite. Since it is an elite, it has the responsibility to guide general readers in reading and criticism, and if it loses its guidance function or is even obscured by the voice of general readers, such a clear barrier to "bipolar reading" will inevitably cause many problems in Guo Moruo's reading and criticism at present. Some old problems with no academic value are constantly checked out by the average reader and re-spread and fermented, which is one of the most boring manifestations of many problems.

　　Wei Jian called the academic evaluation of Guo Moruo a "bipolar evaluation", believing that this is the "bipolar reading phenomenon" that Wen Rumin talked about. In fact, what Wei Jian and Wen Rumin said was not exactly the same. Wen Rumin talks about experts and general readers, while Wei Jian talks about academia. Anyone who can enter the academic community should logically be an expert. Wei Jian pointed out: "To this day, in the Chinese mainland there are still two diametrically opposed voices in the academic circles", "mainstream evaluation" holds a positive voice, and opponents are negative voices. Mainstream and non-mainstream are not easy to define, especially in the context of the internationalization of academic research, the mainstream of Chinese mainland academia was once regarded as a representative of conservative rigidity, and the deconstructive force scraped overseas once led the new trend of the times, which is what Wei Jian said: "The phenomenon of 'bipolar evaluation' of Guo Moruo in the academic circles in Chinese mainland is mainly from the late 1980s, and the views originating from overseas have successively entered the field of vision of Guo Moruo researchers on the mainland. [3] The "bipolar evaluation" that exists in academia stems from the acceptance of overseas views, or Guo Moruo himself, which is a topic that needs to be further explored. However, as far as the academic community itself is concerned, the polarization of internal evaluation naturally makes the guiding function of elite reading and evaluation greatly weakened.

　　Wen Rumin and Wei Jian were talking about Guo Moruo's overall reading and evaluation status, and it was naturally appropriate to use it for Guo Moruo's plays. How do you view Guo Moruo's bipolar reading and bipolar evaluation? In other words, why do experts and scholars pay special attention to the polarization of Guo Moruo's reading and evaluation? Literary reading allows the wise to see the wise, and the more classical the work, the more able it is to accommodate a variety of different interpretations, which is called a thousand Hamlets for a thousand readers. Bipolar reading is better than unipolar reading, and if it can develop from two poles to multipolar, this should be a fortunate thing for Guo Moruo to read and evaluate. But why do experts and scholars shake their heads at Guo Moruo's bipolar reading phenomenon? Literary reading allows a thousand readers to have a thousand Hamlets, but the number of reading experiences and evaluations that can be precipitated into literary history is extremely limited. It is in the process of precipitation that reading and evaluation distinguish between mainstream and non-mainstream, correct interpretation, misreading and misreading.

　　Correct solution, misreading and misreading are not natural standards, with the passage of time, social changes and many other factors change, sometimes the so-called correct solution will be proved to be a misreading, and the misreading is found to be just the right reading. The changes in reading and evaluation are not completed naturally, but require the guidance of expert elites and the unremitting persistence and efforts of readers who want to make a difference. If the classics are rejected by the general reader, the classics will lose the foundation of the acceptance of reality; if the academic construction of the classics cannot withstand the efforts of deconstruction, the status of the classics will be in jeopardy. Wen Rumin and Wei Jian's two xiongwen are intended to resist some of the misreadings and misreadings they see at present, so as to guide Guo Moruo's reading and evaluation to move forward in the right direction.

　　Wei Jian talked about the exogenous impact of Guo Moruo's reading and evaluation changes, and the bipolar reading and evaluation has become a problem of the west wind over the east wind, in fact, this is only the appearance of the problem, because Wei Jian said at the end of the article: The long-standing "bipolar evaluation" "can only show that Guo Moruo's research until today still stays at the academic level with low scientific content." [4] Even research stays at the "lower academic level", and the reading evaluation level of the average reader can be imagined. As far as Guo Moruo's plays are concerned, bipolar reading and evaluation do not originate from exogenous influences, and some plays are read and evaluated by bipolars at the beginning of their existence. After the historical drama "Qu Yuan" was published in the Kuomintang Central Daily, the reactions of the Kuomintang imperial literati and the left-wing cultural circles were sharply contrasted, and bipolar reading and evaluation have been formed.

　　Reading and evaluation have never occurred in a vacuum, and the reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays for decades has always been inseparable from the influence of left/right, external/endogenous factors, and some of the reading and evaluation that emphasize returning to literature itself are still just a deformation of a certain political position. There is no in-depth reversal of reading and evaluation, in the name of depoliticization, the real role is only to attract the attention of general readers, in the era of information explosion in the way of consumerism to convey some of the newly packaged old information, which also caused Wei Jian to say that "until today's Guo Moruo research still stays at the academic level with low scientific content."

　　If guo Moruo's reading and evaluation for decades have all "stayed at the academic level with low scientific content", it is certainly not in line with the facts. The real meaning of Wei Jian's expression should be that the reading and evaluation of the "academic level with low scientific content" has obliterated the reading and evaluation of the higher level of real value. Wen Rumin's talk about "reading literary history" and "non-professional reading" does not put the two kinds of reading on the same level, for example, he said: "Many of the poems in "Goddess" appear too loose, too straight, too frank, and very rough. If you rely on intuitive impressions or nominal analysis alone, you may think that this is not successful, and many commentators in the past have criticized it. [5] Reading and criticism that "just rely on intuitive impressions" is difficult to understand the world, cannot achieve sympathy for understanding, and can only be regarded as low-level reading and evaluation. The three-step reading method proposed by Wen Rumin strives to guide low-level reading to expert reading.

　　With the classicization of modern literary works, many writers' works need to face the difference between expert reading and general readers. The reason why the general reader is a general reader is that unlike expert reading, intuition and low level are typical characteristics of general reading. Expert reading and general reading should not be polarized reading, but should be different levels of reading. If expert reading and general reading constitute bipolar reading, it can only mean that experts have lost the ability to guide reading, and the relationship between general readers and experts is no longer an organic relationship of popularization and improvement, but has become a two poles of mutual contempt. This reading situation is not only manifested in Guo Moruo, but also in many classic writers, to some extent, there are similar problems. What needs to be considered on this issue is, first of all, in the current reading environment, how to construct a benign interaction relationship between expert reading and general reading, and restore the ability of expert reading to guide general reading. Second, why do experts lose the ability to guide? In addition to the influence of external factors such as the internet bubble, is it related to the expert reading itself? Some so-called expert reading, in itself, is itself a pseudo-reading?

　　As far as Guo Moruo's plays are concerned, the most important problem is not bipolar reading and evaluation, but pseudo-reading. The so-called pseudo-reading means that some readers themselves have not really read Guo Moruo's plays, but in other people's introductions, comments and other texts, through copying, pasting, quoting and other means, they have indirectly read some text fragments of Guo Moruo's plays. Such fragmented indirect reading, for Guo Moruo's plays, is actually not reading, or called second-hand reading. This phenomenon of second-hand reading not only appears in ordinary readers, some experts and scholars study, do not read Guo Moruo's plays, nor have they seen the performances of Guo Moruo's plays, but specially sort out and criticize the existing works of drama research, engaged in the study of Guo Moruo's plays, which is also a kind of second-hand reading. After all, it is only a minority, and if the network copy and paste is included, the number of this aspect is very large. The specific proportion of second-hand reading is extremely difficult to count, and few people admit that they are second-hand reading. Second-hand reading is not limited to Guo Moruo's plays, and many colleges and universities currently offer original reading courses, mainly because the reading of classic texts is not satisfactory.

　　Guo Moruo's plays are not all classics, and when discussing the reading of Guo Moruo's plays in the context of classicization, we have to consider the following questions: Why read Guo Moruo's plays? Why read those plays that are not classic Guo Moruo? If it is not for a special purpose (outside of teaching and research), which general readers are actively reading Guo Moruo's plays? In fact, even in the university Chinese department, in addition to "Qu Yuan", Guo Moruo's plays are basically invisible in reading. As a classic text, most of the "Qu Yuan" is only a fragment of reading, and most of the modern literary works prepared for college students are only selected for one or two of them, except for specialized classes, it is unlikely to read "Qu Yuan" in its entirety.

　　Compared with text reading, video viewing has become a new trend of the times, many modern literary classics that are not plays, and some university classes need to play film and television adaptations in advance. In this context, discussing the reading of Guo Moruo's plays, we have to be embarrassed to find that as Guo Moruo's classic plays, various classic pieces that must be selected, the script "Qu Yuan" has neither stage performance nor film and television adaptation at present. This is very different from "Thunderstorm", "Under the Eaves of Shanghai", "Tea House" and so on, which are also classics of modern drama. The real vitality of drama lies in stage performance, Guo Moruo's script can be read and performed, but for ordinary readers, it is basically impossible to watch stage performances on the spot, and ordinary readers who have a heart want to buy video materials for stage performances, and there is nowhere to be found. In the audiovisual era, the performable Guo Moruo plays are invisible in both the real world and the online world. Without a show/online video, there is no viewing; without watching, it is not just about staying away, but about being "disappeared".

　　During the stalemate phase of the War of Resistance Against Japan, the Kuomintang government did not want Qu Yuan to be staged, that is, it was afraid that the play would be watched and read, so as to gain general readers/audiences. As the founder of modern historical drama, in the current society where historical dramas are prevalent, the historical scripts created by Guo Moruo should be valued by readers, and the images of stage performances should also be viewed by ordinary people in various ways, but the fact is just the opposite. Huang Xiuji said in the "History of the Development of Modern Chinese Literature": "At this time, the most successful person in the creation of historical dramas was Guo Moruo." [6] However, Guo Moruo, who was "the most accomplished in the creation of historical dramas" in the 1920s, changed under the influence of overseas literary history writing. In the fifteenth chapter of Sima Changfeng's "History of New Chinese Literature" in Hong Kong, only Guo Moruo's play "Zhuo Wenjun" is pointed out in the "Record of Drama Writers in the Growth Period". The dramatists listed in the catalog are Ouyang Yuqian, Hong Shen, Tian Han, ding Xilin, and no Guo Moruo. [7] History of Modern Chinese Literature by Cheng Guangwei et al., Chapter 7 "The Conception and Progress of Modern Drama", and the second and third sections of the table of contents are "Ding Xilin and Early One-Act Drama", "Tian Han, Hong Shen and Romantic Drama". Between Tian Han and Hong Shen, there are six lines of text narration and Guo Moruo's historical drama creation. The narrative of modern dramas, Cheng Guangwei et al.'s History of Modern Chinese Literature, is very similar in narrative framework to Sima Changfeng's History of New Chinese Literature. The weakening trend of Guo Moruo's early plays in the writing of literary history dissolves the significance of Guo Moruo's early historical drama creation, and also cuts off the complete process of Guo Moruo's historical drama creation. Ordinary readers who lack an overall understanding of Guo Moruo's historical drama creation are easy to accept the guidance of depoliticized interpretation, and simplify Guo Moruo's historical drama creation during the War of Resistance into a microphone of the times. In the narrative of Guo Moruo's historical drama creation, wei Shaoxin's "History of the Development of Modern Chinese Literature" has done a better job. The book argues that "Three Rebellious Women", published in 1926, was "the official introduction of Chinese historical dramas", and that the six large-scale historical dramas created during the anti-Japanese war phase were "the main peak of the climax of Chinese historical drama creation in this period". [8] From "introduction" to "peak", it is not only a description of the creation of modern historical dramas, but also a description of Guo Moruo's own historical drama creation process, which is conducive to guiding general readers. As for the narrative like Sima Changfeng,it can only lead to a misreading of Guo Moruo's plays.

　　Second, see, read, listen: the reading method of Guo Moruo's plays

　　Mu Mutian proposed that poetry should have "poetic thinking". [9] Since poetry has the "thinking technique" of poetry, it means that poetry must have a poetic reading. Some scholars have further proposed that ancient poetry has the reading method of ancient poetry, and modern new poetry has the reading method of modern new poetry, and some misreading of modern new poetry is because of the use of ancient poetry reading new poetry. By analogy, drama should have a dramatic reading, and further speaking drama has a drama reading, and poetry drama has a poetic reading. Different styles of reading have different "cognitive devices", viewing dramas with poetry, reading poems with dramas, confusing literary categories, cross-reading, it is easy to misread and misread. Guo Moruo's plays belong to the cross-fusion type of literature, and for readers who are stubbornly clinging to a specific stylistic concept, Guo Moruo's plays are somewhat different.

　　If Guo Moruo was one of the first modern writers to start creating historical dramas, as a pioneer, he did not follow specific theatrical stylistic norms. Reading and evaluating Guo Moruo's plays from the perspective of "drama", many people see non-"drama" components. Xiang Peiliang criticized that "in him (Guo Moruo), drama is completely insignificant" and "what he writes, or something like poetry". [10] Xiang Peiliang believes that Guo Moruo's historical drama has failed on the one hand in terms of "drama", and one of the main reasons is that Guo Moruo has written drama as "poetic things". Gu Zhongyi said of the historical dramas of Guo Moruo and others: "In the production of dramas over the past few years, there has rarely been an element of 'drama'. [11] Leaving aside the correctness of the above reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays, the question that needs to be asked is: Is there a specific theatrical norm that must be followed? Is the "poetic thing" created by Guo Moruo the pioneering of modern drama, or is it a failed work created under the confusion of stylistic consciousness?

　　Guo Moruo's theatrical creations and his new poetry creations are similar, with distinct stylistic liberation colors, and the cross-integration of styles makes it difficult for some serious playwrights with clear theater ideas and concepts to identify. The stylistic concepts held by readers or evaluators always seem to have some discord with Guo Moruo's plays, so some people self-righteously judge that Guo Moruo's composition is confused. The cause of this phenomenon stems first from the openness of Guo Moruo's drama creation, and secondly, it is related to the continuous solidification of modern literary concepts.

　　In the beginning of modern Chinese literature, Guo Moruo, like other literary forerunners, continued to expand the territory of modern literature with vigorous vitality and adopted a free and liberating attitude towards literature. When Guo Moruo's first self-compiled new poetry collection" "Goddess" was published, it had a subtitle "Drama Poetry Collection". "Goddess" is divided into three series, and the first series contains three articles: "The Rebirth of the Goddess", "Xiang Lei", and "The Flower of Tang Di", all of which are "drama songs". "Drama" and "poetry" are juxtaposed, and there can be two understandings. The first is to understand it as two literary genres, simply put, drama and poetry. The second is the different manifestations of the same genre, that is, "drama" and "poetry" belong to the same category of "poetry". In classical opera, the oratorio is sung in prose and sung in drama, which originated in poetry.

　　How to understand the "drama song" problem in "Goddess" means how to view the starting point of Guo Moruo's drama creation, and the direct correlation with the starting point problem is Guo Moruo's view of drama. Regardless of the understanding, it should be attributed to the openness of Guo Moruo's stylistic concept, rather than the ambiguity of stylistic consciousness. Some readers prefer to regard it as a vague sense of style, which is nothing more than a certain concept of drama, or put it into the historical process of Guo Moruo's drama creation to examine it, believing that Guo Moruo's plays have a development process from immature to mature, while early plays are naturally regarded as immature. Mature plays correspond to mature stylistic consciousness, and immature plays correspond to immature stylistic consciousness, and this reasoning is logical but does not conform to the facts. In literary creation, open stylistic concepts and unclear stylistic consciousness are sometimes very close, but in fact they are completely different things. One is a last resort, and the other is intentional. The goal of stylistic ambiguity in the immature sense is to clarify the boundaries of the genre, and the stylistic ambiguity at the open level of the genre pursues to break the boundaries of the genre.

　　Guo Moruo's titles for early plays include poetry, drama, drama, etc. Guo Moruo said in "Ten Years of Creation": "I began to do poetry and drama because of the influence of Goethe. After translating the first part of Faust, I soon made a flower of tangdi. Only one scene was published in the double ten section supplement of that year's "Learning Lights", which was later included in "The Goddess". [12] Guo Moruo refers to "The Flower of Tang Di" as a "poetic drama", and according to the subtitle of "Goddess", "The Flower of Tang Di" is a "drama song". From the perspective of genre, "drama" is understood, and "drama" is "poetic drama", that is, drama. On the catalog page of the quarterly magazine "Creation", "The Flower of Tang Di" is marked with parentheses as "drama", and Tian Han's "One Night in the Coffee Shop", published at the same time, is also marked with parentheses as "drama". Later, when the quarterly magazine "Creation" published "Zhuo Wenjun" and "Wang Zhaojun", they were also marked as "drama" in parentheses. Poetry, opera, drama, etc., are all dramas. However, Tian Han's "One Night in the Coffee Shop" is a drama, and Guo Moruo's "The Flower of Tang Di" is a poetic drama. When reading, you can't simply examine Guo Moruo's poetry and drama in terms of drama norms.

　　Understanding Guo Moruo's early drama creation from "drama" and "poetry drama", we should fully realize that Guo Moruo's focus in this period is "music" and "poetry". Drama was introduced into the world of poetry creation by the poet Guo Moruo, as a means to open up the territory of poetry creation. Some people regard "Phoenix Nirvana" in "Goddess" as a drama poem, and "The Flower of Tang Di" as a poetic drama to highlight the stylistic differences between the two. However, comparing "Phoenix Nirvana" and Guo Moruo's translation of "Faust", it will be found that the stylistic expression of the two is closer, while the form of "The Flower of Tang Di" is quite different from "Faust". Taking Guo Moruo's translation of Faust as the standard for poetry, "Phoenix Nirvana" is a poetry drama, and "The Flower of Tang Di" is a "drama song" (a drama with a song). "Phoenix Nirvana" represents the pursuit of Guo Moruo's poetry creation, while "The Flower of Tang Di" represents the pursuit of opera creation; the former is an exploration of the creation of recitation poetry, and the latter is an exploration of the creation of singing poetry, both of which are effective explorations of modern poetry construction.

　　In the early days, Guo Moruo's plays were essentially poetry, but in the form of dramas. Wang Yiren said in "The Drama of Mo Ruo": "In Mo Ruo's drama, not only can a few verses be sung as poetry; that is, the white is full of poetry. Poetry is not poetry, but Wang Yiren quoted a few passages from Guo Moruo's play "Speaking White" and thought that "if you write these few sections together, it is a wonderful poem." [13] The difference between poetry and dialogue in the play is only whether it is written in separate lines. Guo Moruo said to himself that "The Flower of Tang Di" "all hovers only poetically, and there is no unity of the plot." [14] The poems recited and the songs sung occupy the core position of the early plays, and the contradictions and conflicts pursued by the drama are unremarkable in Guo Moruo's pen. After the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan, fierce dramatic conflict became an important factor in Guo Moruo's construction of drama.

　　The theatricality of Guo Moruo's plays was mainly expressed in the poems and songs in the plays in the early stages, and in the later plays, poems and songs were also important factors in the construction of theater. In the play "Qu Yuan", poetry recitation and song chanting account for a large proportion, becoming an important means of shaping the character image and creating a dramatic atmosphere, which is very different from pure "talk" dramas such as "Thunderstorm" and "Under the Eaves of Shanghai". Considering the above characteristics of Guo Moruo's plays, it is proposed that Guo Moruo's plays need to have Guo Moruo's "reading method". Reading Guo Moruo's plays, you cannot use the method of silent reading, and silent reading cannot truly appreciate the essence of the poems and songs in the play. Audiences of traditional Chinese drama generally say to "listen" to the play, rather than to "watch" the play. The spirit of Guo Moruo's plays, such as "Ode to Thunder and Lightning", needs to be "roared" out on the stage, and it needs to be recited loudly and imposingly; it is for listening, not for silent reading. All in all, to read Guo Moruo's plays from the perspective of theater, we must first admit that different plays have different theaters, and secondly, we must break the traditional sense of text narrative center and establish a non-text center narrative theatrical aesthetic.

　　As a comprehensive stage performance art, sound occupies a very important position in performance. Guo Moruo said: "Drama is a synthesis of art, it is no longer a simple literature. However, dramatic literature can best maintain the essence of oral transmission in the literary department, and it is mainly ear literature. Poetry and opera must be sung with a soundtrack, but there is no room for words, that is, as in modern dramas, they must also use the musicality of words to appeal to the audience's induction and convey consciousness. The impression of reading a drama script is very different from the impression obtained by listening to the broadcast of a drama, and the same line is pronounced by a cultivated actor and reborn with a casual recitation, which also breaks this fact. [15] Drama and opera are the same as dramas, and drama and opera have very different artistic treatments of "listening", and even if they are dramas, different authors have different treatments of sound. Guo Moruo, who suffers from ear diseases, has a different kind of attachment to the art of listening. He once punctuated the "West Chamber" in the form of a Western opera, and specifically talked about the art of "listening" in the play. "He can hear the colors in the sound, and you can see him tell the warbler to listen to the piano and say' 'its sound is quiet, like the melting of falling flowers and flowing water', the red of the falling flowers, the green of the flowing water, and the dynamics of the two kinds are heard, which is clearly a kind of 'color listening'." [16] "Color listening" is a specific expressive technique. Guo Moruo's recitation and recitation of drama stage performances pointed out that some performers rely on genius and pleasure, and have not reached the level of science. Without discussing the art of sound, we can only talk about the poetry of the poems interspersed in the play, and the poetry is only interpreted on the level of contemplation, and the true charm of Guo Moruo's play is invisibly obscured.

　　Guo Moruo punctuated "The Tale of the West Chamber", deleted most of the narrative factors in the original work, making it closer to a pure "song" drama, and pursuing the art of sound expression on the whole of the play. From "The Rebirth of the Goddess" to "Qu Yuan", Guo Moruo's plays are full of poems, songs, and songs, which are not contemplative, but are used for chanting and singing. "The Complete Works of Guo Moruo" includes "The Flower of Tang Di", accompanied by "The Other Mother Has Been Three Years", "Bright Moon He Jiaojiao", "Go, Brother! "Spring peach a piece of flowers like a sea", "Nong cold as spring water", "wind and fire moth", "Nong Ben branch dew", "Xiang Tired", "I put your love mouth", "In the past there was Yu Rang", "Thin peanut tree" and other 11 music scores. These scores are not inherent in Guo Moruo's plays, but they are the way Guo Moruo's plays should be presented, as Guo Moruo said in "The Second Son of Lone bamboo Jun: Preface to the Curtain": "There are several songs in the play. There should be a sheet music to be staged. [17] Silently reading the poems in Guo Moruo's plays and singing them with the score are two different artistic feelings. Guo Moruo's drama, in fact, has a strong opera color, is a play that can be "listened to", and at this point, Guo Moruo continues the aesthetic tradition of Chinese "listening" to drama.

Third, the microphone of fascination with the skeleton and the spirit of the times

　　At the beginning of Guo Moruo's play, it was criticized as "obsessed with skeletons". On November 23, 1922, Guo Moruo mentioned this matter in the "Preface to the Curtain" written for "The Second Son of the Lonely Bamboo Jun": "As soon as you talk about the skeleton, I even think of a poisonous comment. Someone said lately that you are 'obsessed with skeletons', have you heard that? I think it's because you love to do ancient dramas. [18] On December 22, 1923, the communist Deng Zhongxia said in his article "Before Contributing to the New Poets": "Guo Moruojun likes to use ancient things to make new poems and new dramas, which is right, some people ridicule him for 'obsessing with bones', then it is inevitable that 'Yan Que An knows the aspirations of the birds'. However, Guo Jun's works, such as "The Second Son of the Lonely Bamboo Jun", such as "The Goddess", and so on, are intended to be disapproved of by me; if his works are like "The Flower of Tang Di", then it would be good. So I generally approve of Guo Jun technically, but ideologically I hope that he will be more progressive. [19] Deng Zhongxia's "The Flower of Tang Di", published in the inaugural issue of the quarterly magazine "Creation", is a work with a strong anarchist ideology. "The Second Son of the Lone Bamboo King" also carries anarchist ideas. However, "The Flower of Tang Di" advocates standing up against it, "The Second Son of the Lone Bamboo Jun" has the idea of passive avoidance, and Deng Zhongxia's criticism of Guo Moruo's play has the intention of guiding left-wing ideas. Criticizing Guo Moruo's "obsession with skeletons" is to define modernity in the way of thinking of modern/traditional, historical/realistic duality, and believes that Guo Moruo's drama creation is suspected of escaping reality. Deng Zhongxia's criticism, on the basis of affirming Guo Moruo's plays, pointed out the shortcomings of his destiny, hoping that Guo Moruo's theatrical creation ideas would be more progressive.

　　As far as Guo Moruo's historical drama creation is concerned, there have been two voices of affirmation and denial since the beginning of its existence. Whether Guo Moruo's plays are obsessed with skeletons or the sounding board of the spirit of the times, the choice of two different views roughly forms two opposing reading and evaluation modes of Guo Moruo's plays. In the 1920s, two different modes of reading and evaluation stemmed primarily from differences in the imagination of modernity within progressive cultural forces. During the stalemate stage of the War of Resistance Against Japan, the six historical dramas contributed by Guo Moruo still existed in the above two reading and evaluation methods, and the two different reading and evaluation modes became the specific manifestations of the confrontation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Culture. Although there is no lack of insight in reading and evaluation that is entangled with the issue of political positions, there are more misreadings and misreadings. In the 21st century, although readers have moved away from the reading context of the political confrontation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the two modes of reading and evaluation have not fundamentally changed. Taking the historical drama "Qu Yuan" as an example, some readers at present question the authenticity of Qu Yuan's image creation and criticize qu Yuan's creation of "writing too fast", etc., and the views and materials held are essentially very similar compared with half a century ago. For example, Wu Xingyu's "On Guo Moruo's Political Evaluation of Qu Yuan" objectively evaluates Qu Yuan with many historical materials, so as to deny Guo Moruo's reshaping of Qu Yuan's image, which is a case of examining literary creation with historical authenticity and leading to misreading.

　　The reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays need to be examined from the perspective of reading history and acceptance history, and without understanding the various problems and controversies that have arisen in the creation of Chinese historical dramas in the 20th century, it is impossible to fully grasp the more profound value and significance of Guo Moruo's reading and evaluation of plays in literature and beyond literature. The formation of guo moruo's classic status such as "The Flower of Tang Di" and "Qu Yuan" is closely related to Guo Moruo's plays and the vigorous development of Left-wing Chinese culture in the 20th century. From Deng Zhongxia to Zhou Enlai, the left-wing cultural force with the Communists as the core laid the foundation for the reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays, which not only influenced the reading acceptance of other readers, but also had a guiding and restricting effect on Guo Moruo's theatrical creation. Judging from the historical process of Guo Moruo's theatrical creation, there is a process from spontaneous to consciously moving closer to revolution and politics. Correspondingly, the reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays have a tendency to negate the previous creation with later creations, whether it is Guo Moruo's own theatrical creation or reader reading, to some extent, it has moved towards a narrow path. After the end of the Cultural Revolution, some scholars described Guo Moruo's historical drama "Three Rebellious Women" and said: "There are still deficiencies in ideology and art. For example, the rebellion and struggle of Zhuo Wenjun and Wang Zhaojun is limited to the pursuit of personal freedom of marriage and independence of personality. The way of struggle is limited to individual resistance or even individual resistance of 'self-abandonment'. [20] Criticizing the limitations of personal resistance in Guo Moruo's early plays, this kind of reading, although reasonable, is a narrow reading with colored glasses. Soon after the publication of "Zhuo Wenjun", Zhejiang Fifth Middle School rehearsed the play, and the principal Shen Suwen "finally sacrificed his position as principal". [21] When the resistance struggle was divided into hierarchical categories and labeled right and wrong, Some of Guo Moruo's plays, while seen as a transmission of the zeitgeist, were seen as lacking in progress. In contrast, this kind of reading and evaluation is the expression of true Schillerization, and it is this kind of reading and evaluation that consciously or unconsciously pursues Schillerian thought, which drives Guo Moruo's theatrical creation to constantly move towards a certain "correct" path. The reading of Guo Moruo's plays first requires the reader to clear the Schiller tendency in his own thoughts.

　　Guo Moruo's theatrical creation has always been keen on historical themes, the reason is not "obsessed with skeletons", but to read out the new spirit of the times in the ancients, and found that the spirit of the ancients "is deeply in line with our modern people". [22] Guo Moruo refuted the view that eastern civilization is a quiet civilization, arguing that "the inherent spirit of China should be dynamic rather than contemplative" and that "we must restore the spirit of moving culture to seek the consummation of a positive life". Guo Moruo's theatrical creation is his effort to reorganize traditional Chinese culture. However, Guo Moruo is different from cultural conservatives. He proposed to "restore the spirit of the culture that is moving" and also stated that "Marx and Lenin are ultimately the teachers of my generation that the young people of our generation admired." [23] The excavation and inheritance of the spirit of traditional culture and the absorption of foreign spiritual resources have made Guo Moruo's literary world have a kind of boldness, and its background color is the spirit of moving resistance. It is precisely on the background of the spirit of dynamic resistance that Guo Moruo's plays are fundamentally different from the popular historical dramas at present. The vast majority of Qing Palace dramas exude the smell of putrid skeletons, and readers and audiences who like these are naturally not willing to talk about Guo Moruo, the founder of modern historical dramas, and when they have to talk about it, they label politics as much as possible, and try to use de-revolutionary evaluation to dissolve the value and significance of Guo Moruo's historical drama creation. The attitude of these people towards Guo Moruo's plays just proves that their own obsession is "skeletons", so they cannot tolerate Guo Moruo's spirit of resistance that wants to restore the kind of moving resistance that has come to him.

　　Exploring some of the deficiencies in the creation of modern literary classics from the perspective of political influence has effectively broadened the horizon of reading and evaluating modern literature, but the ensuing tendency of depoliticization and de-revolutionarization of reading and evaluation has also dissipated the spirit of resistance that the main body of modern literary writers has worked hard to construct. Guo Moruo's plays serve as a microphone for the times, from "The Flower of Tang Di" to "Qu Yuan", they are all striving to express the spirit of resistance in the 20th century. Wen Yiduo believes that Qu Yuan in "Xiang Lei" sings exactly the "unquenchable bitterness and endless mourning" in the hearts of Chinese youth,[24] so he calls it "the child at the end of the times". When Guo Moruo composed dramas such as "Xiang Lei" and "Nie Yuan", he had not yet turned to socialism, nor did he have direct ideological communication with the Communists. However, there seems to be a fatalistic fit between the Communists and Guo Moruo's creation of historical dramas. From Deng Zhongxia to Zhou Enlai, many Communists have always been admirers of Guo Moruo's historical drama creations and the main interpreters of Guo Moruo's plays. This kind of fit stems from the grasp of the spirit of resistance of the times by both sides, and is a deep spiritual resonance of like-mindedness.

　　In the de-revolutionary reading and evaluation system, Guo Moruo's plays are crudely regarded as being swayed by political forces, and they lose themselves in the pursuit of progress. Politicization and depoliticization, revolutionization and de-revolutionization, the reading and evaluation of Guo Moruo's plays are all double-edged swords. It is naturally best to be able to look at related issues objectively and dialectically. If not, it is better to think that revolutionary reading and evaluation is better than de-revolutionary reading and evaluation. Most of the de-revolutionary interpretations have a negative opinion on Guo Moruo's plays, and the negative interpretation of Guo Moruo's plays is actually the most precious spirit of resistance. Dedicated to the cynicism of Guo Moruo's plays are cynical readers.

　　In the stage of the War of Resistance Against Japan, Guo Moruo's historical dramas with a distinct sense of modern nation-state have abandoned the early anarchist ideas. The "Nie Yuan" created in the 1920s and the "Flower of Tang Di" that was modified from it in the 1940s clearly show this change in thinking. However, the transformation of Guo Moruo's ideology from anarchism to socialism did not occur during the stalemate of the War of Resistance Against Japan, but before Guo Moruo participated in the Northern Expedition in 1927. The supervision and encouragement of Zhou Enlai and others during the stalemate stage of the War of Resistance Against Japan undoubtedly had a very far-reaching impact on Guo Moruo's theatrical creation in this period, but attributing all the changes in Guo Moruo's thinking in his plays to this is undoubtedly a misreading, and the adverse effects of this misreading are to make people mistakenly think that the ideas in Guo Moruo's plays are forced into them. Guo Moruo himself has long been pregnant with the ideas in the play, but he just needs to show them at the right time.

　　The dialogue between the restaurant girl and the soldiers in "Nie Yuan":

　　The bartender said to the soldiers, "If you know that if you are in war every year, it is because of the king, if you know that koreans are so poor that they can only eat beans, rice, and soup, because of the king, then you don't have to ask me." We are born with the same people in the earth, but those who do hard work are always doing hard work, and some people who do not do hard work are deeply arched in our heads. Our blood and sweat became their money, and our lives became their toys. They kill thousands of us, and if we kill one or two of them, we're going to turn things upside down. ”

　　Soldier A shook his fist and shouted, "Friends! Let's kill these unscrupulous dog officials!" ...... If you have a conscience, please follow me, and follow me as a robber in the mountains!" The guards responded, "Well, let's go as robbers!" Let's do robbers go! ”[25]

　　In "The Flower of Tang Di", Chungu (i.e., the lady of the restaurant) has a conversation with the soldiers and soldiers:

　　Chungu said to the soldiers, "If you know why the Korean people are so poor that they can only eat some bean rice and soup, and suffer from internal and external troubles every year, then you will know why he came to kill your king and minister." Originally, you Three Families of Han, Zhao, and Wei should not have divided the Jin State. Dividing up weakened the strength to resist the Qin state. The barbaric and tyrannical Qin state invaded you year after year, and invaded the princes of Kwantung every year. You and the princes of the Kwantung Dynasty, the Zhao Kingdom, the State of Wei, the State of Qi, the State of Yan, and the State of Chu, should unite to resist the aggression of the State of Qin. ”

　　Soldier A and B shouted together: "Let's kill these unconscionable dog officers!" Then the guardians said, "They want us to unite with the nations to defend against the Qin state." Defender B, on the other hand, said, "Yes, we must unite to defend against the Qin State!" ”[26]

　　From anarchism to socialism, from supranational awareness to modern nation-state consciousness, the ideas implied by Guo Moruo's plays have undergone a tremendous transformation. How to view the transformation of Guo Moruo's thinking and the revision of the version of the play under its influence? Many scholars have a very good discussion of this. What I would like to point out is that we should be fully aware that the revision of the text of plays such as "The Flower of Tang Di" is different from the revision of poetry texts such as "Phoenix Nirvana". Plays are used for performance, and their lives can only be fully realized on stage. Stage performances are i-time, each performance can be adjusted according to the needs, and it can be repeatedly modified to be a characteristic of theatrical stage performance. Looking at the revision of the version of Guo Moruo's play from the perspective of stage performance, the revision of the version is the performance of the play's pursuit of theater.

　　Understanding the revision of Guo Moruo's version of the play from the perspective of theater, many version revisions are not a simple problem of self-improvement, but contain the pursuit of the opera's operability. Good or bad, the audience decides. However, the opportunity for ordinary readers to watch Guo Moruo's plays is becoming more and more rare now, how to say if they have not seen it? An article entitled "How was The Literary and Artistic Youth Qu Yuan "Literary and Artistic"? The article counts the performance of Qu Yuan in many poems, Peking operas, and films and televisions of the Tang and Song dynasties so far, but does not mention Guo Moruo's "Qu Yuan". Among them, the author mentions qu yuan produced by Hong Kong Phoenix Pictures in 1977, which has many references to Guo Moruo's plays, such as the fictional image of Chan Juan and the vernacular version of "Ode to Orange". Guo Moruo's "Qu Yuan" reshapes the imagination and acceptance of Qu Yuan by modern Chinese people, just as his "Phoenix Nirvana" reshapes the imagination of Chinese people for the phoenix. In this regard, there is no distance of acceptance between the Chinese people and Guo Moruo's plays. The reason why reading now becomes a problem is first of all the lack of performances, and the lack of good performances, corresponding to the lack of video materials. If we can re-push Plays such as Guo Moruo's "Qu Yuan" to the stage or screen like Bai Xianyong's youth version of "Peony Pavilion", then there will be a real "reading" in the moment, and then the current reader problem of Guo Moruo's play can be targeted.