中国作家协会主管

有人认为，这个时代的文学似乎不再那么迫切地需要文学批评，至少多数的写作者，不再仰仗批评对他的告诫和提醒，他们更愿意用自己的写作来证明自己。我不否认，今日批评固有的一些功能已经分解到了其他地方，譬如媒体的议论、网络的点评、会议的发言，也是一种小型的文学批评，它越来越深刻地影响着当下的文学生态。这令我想起圣伯夫的一句话，“巴黎真正的批评常常是一种口头批评。”在一次谈话、一次会议或者一次网络讨论中，关于某部作品的批评就可能完成了——这种对批评的轻浅化、庸常化，使批评的光芒日益黯淡，即便不卷入这些世俗活动的批评家，也免不了受这种批评风潮的感染。批评似乎不再是庄重的文体，而成了平庸者的话语游戏。

但批评的意义仍然强大。它不仅是一种告诫的艺术，能够有效地通过对话来影响作家，影响文学的当下进程；它还能提出一种肯定，进而昭示出一种何为值得我们热爱的文学，何为值得我们献身的精神。

无从告诫，并不一定是批评勇气的丧失，也可能是批评家缺乏智慧和见识，看不清问题，不能把话说到真正的痛处。赞美的话，作家听起来像是在赞美别人，批评的话听起来也像是在批评另一个人，隔靴搔痒不说，有些还明显张冠李戴，这就难免一些作家对批评充满怨气和鄙薄。没有睿见，那些勇敢的批评，增长的无非是文坛的戾气，这对于矫治一些作家的写作陋习并无助益。因此，夏普兰把批评名之为“告诫的艺术”，很多人只重“告诫”二字，但忽视了“艺术”——满脸怒气的告诫，激起的一定是对方的怒气，在怒气之中讨论，真问题往往就被掩盖了。

批评应是一种理性的分析、智慧的体证，甚至是一种觉悟之道，此为学术之本义。所谓“学”，本义当为觉悟，而“术”是道路、是方法；学术，其实是一种觉悟的方式，学者则是正在觉悟的人。在批评和学问之中，如果不出示觉悟之道，不呈现一颗自由的心灵，那终归是一种技能、工具，是一种“为人”之学，而少了“为己”之学的自在。所以，现在的学术文章无数，能让人心为之所动的时刻，却是太少了，以己昏昏，使人昭昭，久而久之，也就成了一种习惯，不再对学术的快速生产抱太大的希望。事实上，几年前我读王元化和林毓生的通信，当他们谈到关于文化的衰败和人的精神素质下降，我就认同了他们的感叹，“世界不再令人着迷”。只是，我心里还有不甘，总觉得世间万事原非定局，它是可以变的；人力虽然渺小，但也是可以增长和积蓄的。这也是我至今还在做着文学批评的原因之一。

除了告诫，批评还应是一种肯定。中国每一次文学革命，重变化，重形式的创新，但缺少一种大肯定来统摄作家的心志。我现在能明白，何以古人推崇“先读经，后读史”——“经”是常道，是不变的价值；“史”是变道，代表生活的变数。不建立起常道意义上的生命意识、价值精神，一个人的立身、写作就无肯定可言。所谓肯定，就是承认这个世界还有常道，还有不变的精神，吾道一以贯之，天地可变，道不变。“五四”以后，中国人在思想上反传统，在文学上写自然实事，背后的哲学，其实就是只相信变化，不相信这个世界还有一个常道需要守护。所以，小说，诗歌，散文，都着力于描写历史和生活的变化，在生命上，没有人觉得还需要有所守，需要以不变应万变。把常道打掉的代价，就是生命进入了一个大迷茫时期，文学也没有了价值定力，随波逐流，表面热闹，背后其实是一片空无。所以，作家们都在写实事，但不立心；都在写黑暗，但少有温暖；都表达绝望，但看不见希望；都在屈从，拒绝警觉和抗争；都在否定，缺乏肯定。批评也是如此。面对这片狼藉的文学世界，批评中最活跃的精神，也不过是一种“愤”，以否定为能事。由“愤”，而流于尖酸刻薄、耍小聪明者，也不在少数。古人写文章，重典雅，讲体统，现在这些似乎都可以不要了。牟宗三说，“君子存心忠厚，讲是非不可不严，但不可尖酸刻薄。假使骂人弄久了，以为天下的正气都在我这里，那就是自己先已受病。”现在做批评，若心胸坦荡，存肯定之心，张扬一种生命理想，就不伤自己，也不伤文学。

以此看批评，当能正确认识批评的价值。批评面对的往往是具体的、还未有定论的作品和问题，但这些是文学进程中的基本肌理，也是一切理论探讨的落脚点。文学理论与文学史研究，如果不以文学批评为基础，多半会成为空论，而不是有血肉和肌理的实学。

文学批评提供的是一种不同于知识生产和材料考据的阅读感受，它告诉我们最新的文学状况，且直率地说出自己对当下文学和现实的个人看法。从这个角度说，文学批评在学术秩序里的自卑感是虚假的、不必要的。但文学批评依然面临着一个如何发声、如何立心的难题。一些批评家，试图通过批评的学术化来确证它的价值，但这条路未必走得通，因为批评一旦丧失了艺术直觉和价值决断这一基石，只有“术语水准一类的零碎”（ 李健吾语），批评就可能成为死的知识，既无冒险的勇气，也无有趣的分析，必将老得更快。因此，批评如果没有学理，没有对材料的掌握和分析，那是一种无知；但如果批评只限于知识和材料，不能分享文学精神的内在性，也会造成一种审美瘫痪。尼采说，历史感和摆脱历史束缚的能力同样重要，说的就是这个意思。近年关于批评学术化和历史化的诉求，尽管越来越强烈，但关于批评的质疑却从未断绝，原因何在？

必须警惕一种批评的依附性，“依附性”将导致批评精神的沦丧。今天，商业主义的诱惑会使批评丧失原则，而知识和术语对批评的劫持，则会断送批评这一文体的魅力。文学批评曾经是传播新思潮、推动文学进入民众日常生活的重要武器，尤其是新时期初，它对一种黑暗现实的抗议声，并不亚于任何一种文学体裁，但随着近些年来社会的保守化和精神的犬儒化，文学批评也不断缩减为一种自言自语，它甚至将自己的批判精神拱手让出，它不再独立地发声，也就谈不上参与塑造公众的精神世界。文学批评的边缘化比文学本身更甚，原因正在于此。而对文学批评独立性的召唤，最重要的是要重新认识批评的品质——批评也是一种写作，一种精神共享的方式。伏尔泰说，公众是由不提笔写作的批评家组成，而批评则是不创造任何东西的艺术家。批评也是艺术，也有对精神性、想象力和文体意识的独立要求，它不依附于任何写作，因为它本身就是一种独立的写作。

批评要成为真正独立的写作，就必须为批评立心。无心，就无立场，无精神维度，无灵魂，也就是没有批评之道。

那何为批评之心？我以为它至少包含义理、实证和文体这三方面。其中，又以义理为最高。批评的义理，不仅是指思想或哲学，它也是指文学的道义与艺术的原理。不合义理的批评，即便姿态勇猛、辞章华丽，终归偏离了文学的大道，而难以服人。而讲究义理的批评，又要有实证精神和文体意识，才能使它所坚持的义理得以落实。实证，就是考据，文本的考据，关乎艺术细节的欣赏，人物性格的逻辑分析，情感冲突的发现和探讨——所谓的细读，其实就是实证，是一种艺术形象的还原。文体，是说话的方式，也是语言的风采，是修辞之美，也是文章之道。古人说，“有德必有言”，这个“言”就是修辞，也是文体。有怎样的义理，也就会有怎样的文体。情感如何节制，说话如何把握分寸，个性与激情如何平衡，理性与感性如何互动，修辞立其诚，这都是文体的艺术。

义理、实证和文体，这三者是一个整体，不可偏废。三者合一，则文学批评也成一特殊的学问——义理阐明文学的德性，实证运用鉴赏的能力，文体经营批评的辞章，这几方面皆备，才堪称有学问的批评，立心的批评。为批评立心，其实是为批评找魂，找到了这个魂魄，批评才不会苟且：价值上不苟且，是义理的基础；字句上不苟且，是文体的开端。好的批评，是文学之道与文章之道的完美统一。

Criticism Cannot Lack Soul

Xie Youshun

There is an opinion that the literature of our times doesn’t need literary criticism as keenly as before and at least the majority of writers no longer count on admonishment and reminders from literary criticism because they can demonstrate their talents through composition. I admit some functions of literary criticism are now performed in other texts such as in the media, comments on the internet and conference speeches, which are all to some degree short bits of literary criticism and wield increasingly critical impact on the literature eco-system. It reminds me of a remark made by Sainte-Beuve, “In Paris the criticisms are often oral ones”. Criticizing a certain work can be through a talk, a meeting or a discussion on the internet. This makes literary criticism become superficial, vulgar and lack brilliance. Even literary critics who don’t participate in such activities can’t avoid the influence of this trend. Literary criticism now seems to become a shallow game of playing with words instead of a solemn activity.    

Nevertheless the value of criticism is still significant. It is not just an art of admonishment, which through dialogue influences the writers and the literary world; it is also about confirmation, which explicates what is worth treasuring.

If the critic fails to admonish the writer, it is probably not because of his/her lack of courage to criticize, but a shortage of wisdom and knowledge, which prevents the critic from making penetrating remarks. Thus no matter whether expressing appreciation or disagreement, the words are so vague that others simply don’t know which piece of work is being discussed. It’s like beating around the bush and sometimes the criticism misattributes one thing to another. This explains why some writers hold a negative impression of critics and think they are shallow. Without penetrating and brilliant remarks, such bold criticism only aggravates the hostility within the literature eco-system and does no good for correcting the bad writing habits of some writers. Shapplin called criticism as “the art of admonishment”. A lot of people only focus on “admonishment” but overlook criticism as an actual “art”. They toss angry admonishment, which only infuriates writers and causes a heated argument between the two parties. As a result, the core issue becomes no one’s concern.

Criticism is a way of conducting academic studies and is supposed to be a mixture of rational analysis, wise remarks and enlightenment. Conducting academic studies sheds lights on knowledge and wisdom. In Chinese, “academic research” is “学术”(xue shu), “学”(xue) represents the enlightenment, and “术”(shu) represents the path to knowledge, “术”(shu) is the path through which the person acquires knowledge and gets enlightened and “学者”（the researcher）is a person who is right on the path and well-prepared to get the sudden enlightenment. If a piece of criticism fails to enlighten, it is reduced to a technique, a tool that only pleases a few. Thus although we are now inundated with so much criticism, only a few papers and other works succeed in doing so. Many writers are used to bragging about superficial things and no longer have an academic pursuit. Several years ago when I read the letters between Wang Yuanhua and Lin Yusheng, I found myself agreeing with them when they lamented the rotten culture and degeneration of morality. They felt sorry for “a world that was no more attractive”. Even so I believe everything can change and a person is trivial but can gain knowledge and grow. That is one of the reasons why I still write literary criticism.

Apart from admonishment, criticism includes conformation, or responding with positive messages. In China, cultural reforms always focus on changes and superficial innovation, but give little attention to “confirmation” to guide writers in the right direction. It dawned on me why ancient scholars advocated that people read the “Classics” before they read “History”. “Classics” tell people “the Way”, the eternal unchanged value, while “History” looks at the changes, the uncertainty of life. If a writer doesn’t build his/her value system and attitude toward life based on the eternal unchanged value, his/her works will not have vitality. Confirmation is to admit the world has eternal principles and values. Times change but these principles and values cannot be altered. After the May Fourth Movement, the Chinese people began to resist traditional values, and writers merely played the role of recording the facts. That is because people believe in changes and doubt whether there exists eternal values that requires everyone to adhere to. Fiction, poetry and essays all pay much attention to the changes of the past. Few people think it necessary to stick to principles in a world that keeps changing. The cost is that many people feel confused about the value of life, writers cannot produce immortal works and their works are only flashes in the pan. On the face of it, the literature world is flourishing but behind it is emptiness. The writers are just recording rather than showing values; many of them focus on darkness and only a few on the light; their articles are brimming with desperation without the light of hope; people are bending their knees instead of fighting. There are too much negative messages with few positive ones. Criticism has the same problem. Faced with the dim world of literature, the most highlighted word in criticism is “fury”, and the critics are good at offering negative remarks. Many of them become very disagreeable and mean while ironically fancying themselves smart. Chinese tradition instructs people to write elegant and well-organized paragraphs, but now it matters little for many. Mou Zongsan observes, “A integrate person is generous and kind who sticks to the principle but is not harsh. Someone who is always aggressive takes for granted that he is always right. This actually harms himself.” If we can criticize literature with an open mind and prepare to confirm what is correct, we release life’s energy. By doing so, we do no harm ourselves or literature.

Only in this way can we explore the true value of criticism. Criticism usually deals with specific works and topics to which the public holds vacillating opinions and which are the exact propellant to the evolution of literature and literary theories. Without literary criticism as the foundation, literary theories and literary history will become empty and impractical rather than a study with solid evidence.

The aim of literary criticism isn’t knowledge production or material research, but showing readers the present situation of literature and the critic’s personal opinion about it. From this perspective, it’s unnecessary for critics to feel dwarfed by other writers. The challenge confronting them is how to make their voices heard and how to make valuable criticism. Some critics try to prove the value of criticism by exploring its academic value. This probably doesn’t work. Without a critic’s intuition to the art and basic value judgment, criticism with only “fragments like terms and standards left behind” (quoted from Li Jianwu) may become rigid. Without courage to criticize and intriguing analysis criticism will lose its vitality. A critic is ignorant if he doesn’t utilize a proper methodology to analyze literature deeply. He’s unable to appreciate the inner spirit of works of literature if he only sees knowledge and facts. Nietzsche said “taking the history into consideration and getting rid of the constraint of the history are equally important”. Nietzsche’s remarks provide us with some inspiration. Nowadays there is an increasingly louder voice advocating exploring the academic value of criticism and emphasizing the historical background of literature creation, while doubting whether this is the right forward. What is the reason?

We should guard against criticism that is “dependent”, which will result in the degeneration of the spirit of criticism. Today commercialism is luring criticism to give up its principles, and the emphasis on knowledge and terms is robbing criticism of its charms. Literary criticism used to be an important tool to spread advanced thoughts and introduce literature to ordinary people. Especially in the 1920s it represented a power protesting against darkness and held equal strength with other literary forms. In recent years as conservatism and cynicism prevails, literary criticism is losing its territory. It’s like murmuring to itself, it forsakes the critical spirit and doesn’t have a voice, not to mention failing to make contributions to building the public’s spiritual world. That is why the literary critic is more marginalized than other literary writers. The solution lies in reconsidering the essence of criticism — literary criticism is a branch of literature and is a way of sharing food for thought. Voltaire remarked that the public consists of writers who don’t write and critics are artists who don’t create new things. Criticism is an art which requires adherence to values, imagination and attention to patterns and is independent from other literary forms.

What most literary criticisms lack is soul, the key ingredient in keeping criticism independent from other voices. Without soul, criticism loses its own position, can’t offer spiritual benefits to people, and therefore is not on the right “Way”.

What is the Soul of criticism? I think it is the combination of principle, evidence and pattern. Among them the Principle shall be given top priority. It is not only about thoughts and philosophy but also about enlightenment by literature and art. Criticism with remarks that stray away from the Principle is unconvincing and improper regardless of how bold and rhetoric-rich its language. Criticism that sticks to the Principle shall also pay attention to Evidence and Pattern so that the Principle can be explicated. To demonstrate the evidence the critic shall give importance to details such as the aesthetic approach adopted by the writer, the characteristics of the roles, and conflictions between characters. Through this way the Evidence is uncovered and becomes a way to complete art. The Pattern is the way of expressing, and it is also about the beauty of language. An ancient saying goes that “the words carry the value” where the “words” are the method of delivering messages, the Pattern. The value decides the pattern. How to use the exact language to express the emotion, how to demonstrate the characters’ personality and sensation, and how to strike a balance between rationality and sensibility, these are what the Pattern is dealing with.

Principle, Evidence and Pattern are integral. “Principle” shows the core value of literature, “Evidence” shall be explored by an appreciation for the details, and “Pattern” decides the language style. Only with the three aspects taken into consideration can criticism have Soul. When criticism has Soul it has vigor, when it is written in delicately designed language it become acceptable. Good criticism is carefully designed paragraphs written in well-chosen language and expresses valuable thoughts.