"Contemporary" I am also a "witness"
……
Ji Yaya: The book "History of Contemporary Chinese Literature" (Peking University Press, 1999), which we studied after entering Peking University, is your work alone. It is known as the first "history of contemporary literature" in the true sense, and it is also a far-reaching work that has established the status of contemporary literary discipline. Why did you start writing this literary history? Tell us about the writing process.
Hong Zicheng: The statement of "real meaning" and "establishing the status of the discipline" is the encouragement of some gentlemen, but it is indeed exaggerated. Of course, this literary history is the result of a long period of accumulation. I began teaching contemporary literature in 1978 and retired in 2002, and over the past 20 years, I have taught more than a dozen basic courses in contemporary literature to undergraduates. Each lesson will be rewritten, the content and method will be adjusted, and new content will be added. He also served as the main teacher of this course at the Central Radio and Television University. In the process of preparing for the course, I read a lot of materials, collections, research works, important periodicals such as "Literature and Art Daily" and "People's Literature", and I read them two or three times. In the early 90s, when they were teaching at the University of Tokyo in Japan, they had a bound copy of People's Daily from 1949 in their reference room, and they also moved to the research room to look through it. The newspaper was covered with dust, and after reading it, the nostrils were blocked with dust: this is "the work of dust blocking the nose". When lecturing and writing this literary history, I also carefully read many theoretical books and other contemporary literary histories. Because of the preparation of materials, because "contemporary" I can also be regarded as a "first-hand experience", and because I consciously try to solve problems that other literary history has not solved or left, so it still has some characteristics.
After the book came out, some critics emphasized the significance of "the literary history of a man". In fact, before 1950, most literary history was "personal". I discussed with Professor Xie Mian, who said that "Overview" has been used for many years and has fallen behind, and it is necessary to recompile a teaching material to deal with some new problems and materials. We had a meeting to discuss and ask everyone to come up with their own outline. However, several syllabuses are very different, some are structured with "creative methods", some are biased towards the perspective of cultural studies, while my syllabus is more traditional and conservative (at that time, some teachers said that there was not much novelty). In short, it was impossible to pinch them together, and the discussion twice did not lead to results. Once I met teacher Qian Liqun and told him about the dilemma of "cornered". He thought about it and said, why don't you write a copy yourself? That's where I got this idea. When I started writing my own, I didn't dare to tell the teachers in the department for a while. What I want to say is that "independent writing" was not a pre-design, and at that time I still felt that it was not very honorable, I was worried, and I felt that I had done something wrong.
Ji Yaya: Listening to you say this, your literary history is very much like a cumulative writing, each lecture with a new written speech, constantly refreshing the original judgment or narrative. It seems that "History of Contemporary Chinese Literature", written in 1999, may have been rewritten many times from 1977 to 1999, and it was such a process of integration.
△ History of Contemporary Chinese Literature, 2010
Peking University Press
Hong Zicheng: Yes, it is a process of continuous accumulation, and some problems need to be solved. For example, the turning point at the turn of the forties and fifties, the clean-up of concepts, the characteristics of the period, etc. There is also the institutional problem—in general, the contemporary literary studies of the fifties and sixties and even the eighties did not pay much attention to the question of the literary system, and I did the same. In the process of research, I gradually realized the importance of this issue, and in the late 80s I also read some works on literary sociology, and gradually introduced this issue into literary history. In the late 80s, I began to talk about the system and system, and I was in the early 90s when I took classes at the University of Tokyo in Japan. The transcripts of his lectures at the University were later compiled into the book "Introduction to Contemporary Chinese Literature".
Ji Yaya: I remember that teacher He Guimei once told us that compared with the textbook "History of Contemporary Chinese Literature", the book "Introduction to Contemporary Literature" may reflect your personal temperament and views more.
△ Introduction to Contemporary Chinese Literature, 2010
Peking University Press
Hong Zicheng: I think because it is relatively concise, only 1340,000 words, and does not write it as a textbook, does not pursue comprehensiveness, basically wants to tell some basic views on contemporary literature, so there is more "personal temperament" integration. Not long ago, Beijing Publishing House included this book in the "Little Books for Everyone" series, and the title of the book was changed to "Chinese Literature (1949-1989)" and republished.
Ji Yaya: You should have noticed the influence of the literary system and literary production on literary works and the literary landscape of the times relatively early? This angle of entry was very different from the narrative of mainstream literary history at that time. When you lectured, did you consciously distance yourself from the mainstream narrative framework of the time, such as the writer-work style of speaking?
Hong Zicheng: My contemporary literature class is indeed consciously in dialogue with other discourses. The dialogue was not entirely opposed, but rather whether there were alternative points of observation and possibilities for commentary. I remember the debate in the early 80s about the periodization of contemporary literary history, when there were so-called "trichotomy" and "quarters" - different periodization methods, reflecting different understandings of contemporary literary processes, and each with its own basis. What I am proposing is the division between the first thirty years and after the Cultural Revolution. In 1987, Mr. Zhu Zhai's "History of Contemporary Chinese Literary Thought" was published, and I also participated in the seminar, and I learned a lot from this book, but I also saw its internal contradictions and cracks. There is both the strong consciousness of the Enlightenment of the 80s and the structure of the revolutionary narrative of "seventeen years": the two sides "coexist" incongruously in one room. At that time, I gradually engaged in dialogue with these two different views of history and narrative in lectures. I have a lot of criticism and questioning about the narrative of revolution and class determinism, but I am not completely abandoned, denial. I accept a lot of Enlightenment things, but since the late 80s, I have also questioned and reflected on the subjectivity of Enlightenment. The two dialogues are also embodied in the History of Contemporary Chinese Literature. However, I have not overcome the contradictions and divisions in Mr. Zhu Zhai's "history of ideological trends." For people like me, achieving the inner unity of thoughts, feelings, and worldviews, smooth and without cracks, may be a luxury.
Ji Yaya: Listening to your story, your research and the classroom have always been inseparable. You position yourself as a "teacher", and I would like to ask you again about the classroom, how do you understand the teacher-student relationship in teaching? Many teachers recall that you were very tolerant in class, respectful of everyone's speech, and sometimes you listened patiently even at very different levels. Some people are auditors, but you also give them the opportunity to speak. Sometimes in class even they can argue? I remember that you also compiled a book about reading poetry in the Peking University classroom, and I want to ask about the situation of the class at that time, such as Zang Di, Hu Xuandong, these Peking University poets...
△ "Reading Poems in Peking University Classroom (Revised Edition)", 2014
Peking University Press
Hong Zicheng: My lectures are usually my lectures, and the lectures are full, and you may be talking about the poetry discussion class of the 90s when I was about to retire. The recording of the discussion was later compiled into a book, "Reading Poems in the Classroom of Peking University." Qian Wenliang and Hu Xindong spent a lot of effort in this class, and many people participated, including Wu Xiaodong and Zang Di, who were already teachers of the Chinese department, as well as some graduate students of modern and contemporary literature, Leng Shuang, Jiang Tao, Zhou Zhan, Liu Fusheng, and Cheng Kai, in the contemporary literature teaching and research department of the Fifth Academy. Most often there are thirty or forty people. We identified a dozen accomplished and representative poets of the 90s, discussing one or two poems by a poet in each class. First a classmate gives a presentation, and then everyone discusses. Disagreements are often debated, because many of the participants are experts in poetry and are very confident, and arguments are inevitable. The fierce quarrel you mentioned was discussing Zhai Yongming's "The Sorrow of the Submarine", scolding him with a pat on the table. Of course I stopped it.
Another course before I retired was "Problems of Contemporary Literary History," which I also taught myself. It was originally planned that a dozen or twenty graduate students of contemporary literature would attend classes and prepare to discuss, but as a result, the classroom of one hundred people was crowded, and many chairs were moved from other classrooms every time, and there was no way to discuss at all. In the first class, He Guimei put a tape recorder on the podium, which I didn't know at all beforehand, saying that maybe it could be compiled into a book and published. Later, she really sorted it out very quickly, that is, the book "Problems and Methods", planned by Zheng Yong of Sanlian, is the first book in the "Sanlian Academic Forum" series. Although I attach great importance to the lessons, the main thing is that the preparation is serious, and I think the content is relatively fulfilling. As for the methodology, the communication with students is very poor. There are many students who do not recognize the class after a semester. Eloquence is also not good, the Teochew accent can't be changed, I think the classroom effect is definitely not very good...
PART2
Not so indifferent, not completely spectatory
……
Tiaya: Let's talk about your retirement situation. Do you continue to do research after retirement?
Hong Zicheng: Research, I also won a special prize for academic research achievements in retirement from Peking University (laughs). This shows that I am very good.
Jiaya: Yes, it's awesome (laughs). What are the topics that matter most to you? What changes have taken place emotionally and methodologically compared to before retirement?
Hong Zicheng: It's more relaxed. The topic selection, mood, and writing are all like this. But the articles I wrote are basically related to contemporary literary history. Specifically, in two aspects: a topic is not necessarily a fashionable topic that everyone pays great attention to, nor is it necessarily a major issue; The other is that the style is more relaxed, using some casual pen and ink to write, not so rigorous.
Ji Yaya: Therefore, the norms of a paper cannot be used to define the academic value of an article. Your style after retirement, one is the writing style of "My Reading History", which combines personal life experience, subtle feelings of art, and academic judgment, and writes so well. I remember that there was a "entertainment" phrase in the afterword.
△ My History of Reading (Second Edition), 2017
Peking University Press
Hong Zicheng: When writing literary history, I am wary of the random addition of personal emotions and experiences, and because "reading history" is writing "mine", of course, we must open ourselves to myself. However, writing Chekhov's "The Wisdom and Stylistic of "Doubt"", there was still a little more personal stuff, and I myself was reluctant to reread it later. "Entertaining" is the saying of Professor Yuwen Suoan, who said in the book "The Stone of His Mountain" that reading and learning should also be happy, just like inviting friends to come and talk, there will be happy discoveries unintentionally. It's a realm. Twenty or thirty years of "academic" training and academic norms have shaped my way of reading and writing without much pleasure, and I tried to change, but change wasn't easy.
Ji Yaya: The other is the way of the book "Materials and Notes", which uses materials and annotations to complete its own literary history narrative and criticism. When I read it at the time, I felt that after you retired, you were not only conducting academic research, but also made many attempts and breakthroughs in stylistic awareness and various ways of writing academic papers. I would like to follow up on this topic to ask the young students of the Chinese department, how should we use materials in literary history writing, and how can our personal life experience be combined with historical writing?
△ Materials and Notes, 2016
Peking University Press
Hong Zicheng: I have talked about the treatment of human life and experience in some articles and interviews. Materials and Notes doesn't mean that I'm going to create a new way of writing, I don't mean it, I just have to deal with some special material at first. It is the review material of some leaders in the literary and art circles who were shocked during the anti-rightist and "Cultural Revolution" period. The authenticity of these materials and how they are used needs to be discussed and analyzed. Because these people were branded as "anti-party elements" and "gangsters," the review materials were forced to write under pressure. The factual clues provided in it, as well as the authenticity of the parties' thoughts and emotions, are complex. I try to use this method, that is, try to reproduce and describe the specific circumstances of the incident, and compare the relevant materials, in this way, to find their value. This can also be said to be a multi-voice narrative: the voice of the writer of the material, the voice of the writer at another time and place, the voice of the person involved in the event, and the voice of the researcher.
The relationship between personal life experience and academic research and literary history writing is something that everyone encounters, and how to deal with it has always been controversial. The opposite is sometimes said of my book. Some people say that my advantage is that I can better mobilize personal life experience, but some gentlemen, on the contrary, say that I can avoid the intervention of personal emotions and experience, and have a more objective and neutral attitude. There cannot and should not be a standard answer to this question, and writers must establish appropriate methods through their own exploration. "Suitable" refers to the writer's temperament and thoughts, as well as the subject matter and form of writing.
I myself am indeed more wary of excessive involvement in personal experience, because I understand the limitations of my own thinking and life experience. Over the years, everyone has been talking about the "bottom", the bottom writing, and the bottom narrative. I have absolutely no "bottom" life experience. That's the big limitation. This is why I value materials, the richness of the materials themselves, and the tension of different materials. So, in the study of literary history, if I use an inappropriate term, I position myself as a "less indifferent bystander." Not so cold, not completely bystander, but also my judgment, emotions. Sometimes love and hate are no weaker than others; And it's hard to reverse. But I am still basically a "bystander" in historical writing. When it is difficult to make judgments (there are many such times), they are more willing to collect different statements and different voices in front of people for them to think, so that the voices that are criticized and denied for a while will not be prematurely annihilated and forgotten; Because "history" proves that they are not all false words.
This way of handling has also been criticized by some friends. I remember Teacher Yao Dan said at a symposium to discuss my article, you have spoken many different views, what about your own opinion? Why not say it clearly? In fact, I still have my own opinions and tendencies, but in most cases they are more obscure.