一种故事 两种说法
|
摘要
革命历史小说和新历史小说是中国当代文学史上的两个重要的小说潮流,虽然它们都涉及到了中国共产党建党之后的革命斗争生活,然而,相隔数十年的生活经历却使不同时代的作家在面对同样的历史题材时作出了截然不同的历史判断。革命历史小说注重表现历史的必然性,从历史发展的基本矛盾运动中揭示历史本质,力图用马克思主义的社会历史观来看待历史人物和历史事件,如阶级分析的观点、社会发展的观点等,重视对英雄人物的塑造,形成了庄严、崇高、严肃的艺术风格。相较而言,新历史小说比较充分地反映了自然人性的要求,体现出了消解神圣,解构既有历史观念的立场。革命历史小说中二元对立的深度模式在这里被消解,偶然性、非因果性、非逻辑性、非政治性因素成为小说描写的重点,道德伦理色彩、政治意识被淡化,相对于革命历史小说来说小说的主题变得越来越隐蔽、潜在。
Revolutionary historic fiction (hereafter referred as RHF) and Neo-historic fiction (hereafter referred as NHF) are two models of literature works that are predominant in the literature trend in two different times. The revolutionary historic fiction came into being between 1950’s and 60’s when people were engaging in the hard undertakings for the found of the new country. Dandelion, Safeguard Yan An, immense forest and snowfield, rudimentary writing for an unstable situation, cruel fighting in the ancient city are among the typical literature works representing the “Red Classical Fiction”. Neo-historical fiction came into being between 1980’s and 1990’s when the country was undergoing tremendous social and economic development after the reform and opening-up. Full Breast and Fat Buttock, Bai Lu highland,the yellow flowers in hometown, living, are the typical literature works representative of this time. Although both RHF and NHF touched upon the revolutionary struggles and lives after the founding of the Communist Party of China, however, due to time differences, different authors depicts the same history stories differently and hence form their own distinctive judgments of history.
The birth of revolutionary historic fiction meets the needs of the time. As a social entity, the author cannot go against the tendency of the times. During that time individuality is at the sacrifice of masses, the authors regard the “The Talks on Literature and Arts in Yan an”as their leading principle, and take their own life experiences as the background of the story. Based on that they try to meet the society’s need for literature by portraying a perfect, righteous, and lofty figure. From today’s perspective, such writing exposes a dilemma, while it reasonably follows the trend of the times on the one hand, it deviates the description of the human nature on the other. Such works cannot reflect the real desire of human beings for the life. Comparatively speaking, neo-historic fiction fully describes the human nature, which provides the reader with new historical perspective, and new art representing styles. Such works undermines the dualist controversy, and regards accidentality, non cause-and-effect, and non-logic and non-political as its core elements. The ethics and politics are fading out, and the theme of the literature works becomes more hidden comparing with the revolution historic works.
Revolution historic fiction manifests the certainty of history, and reveals the nature of history from the basic contradictions of history development. The authors of the revolution historic fiction are those who have experienced the revolution by their own, thus, their understanding and perception of history are closely related to their beliefs about the particular historical period. History in their words is mixture of their firm beliefs of historical development. They employ the Marxist social historical perspective to treat the historical figures and events such as the class analysis, social development view. They focus on the molding heroic figures, and form a solemn, lofty and serious style. Neo-historic fiction is a not a concept of time, but is formed in the particular historical background by those who have similar interests and ideas about the modern revolution history, the history of the Communist Party of China in particular. Comparing with the revolution historic fiction, neo-historic fiction is a piece of copy work of history, which has not life experiences and is based purely theoretical analysis of history. That literature works and history is inseparable is quite universal in the development of different cultures. Literature works is a sensitive reflection of history by human beings. In a particular historical time, the time spirit, which represents the public thinking, is always be taken as a key element of literature works. If literature works has recorded some fragments of history, then history provides the raw elements for literature works on the other hand. Literarily and content speaking, both revolution historic fiction and neo-literature fiction take history as the key elements, the revolution history of the Chinese Communist Party to be specific. However, due to time difference, the same history is portrayed differently by two generation of writers. Meanwhile, they both show their objective and just attitude of the literary creation, and try to show the audience the real history reflected by their works. During the time of revolution historic fiction, people value loyalty, sacrifice, and their ideal is to build a happy homeland. The literature works of that time shoulder the responsibility of “literature should serve the politics”and is deployed as instruments and service. However during the time of neo-historic fiction, the thinking trend of the society becomes more complicated and pluralized, which emphasized humanistic spirit, individuality, humanity, and pursuit of self-independence and sets the keynotes of a open, free creation environment in which expression of one’s experiences and literature works’artistic and amusing nature are shown. Their historical perspective is
influenced by the western Post Modernism, which dispels the sacredness, constructs history, confirms the accidental elements in history, and understands the life style of human beings during the war from an anthropological perspective. For the writers themselves the revolution historic fiction is the history of their personal experiences. As the witnesses of any great historic transformation, such writers have the strong desire to express their feelings. They are eager to evoke their admiration for the historic transformation by representing the history truly. Objectively they intuitively link their personal lives closely with the country’s fate, want to record the historical transformation with their pens, and hope to express their ideas for the future development of the Chinese revolution. By the same time they want to contribute to their political belief through literature works. The mission of the revolution historic fiction writers they bestowed to themselves is to represent the history. Contrary with the revolution historic fiction, the neo-historic fiction displays history that is surpass the personal experiences, and reflective. Differing from the writers of revolution historic fiction, most of the writers of neo-historic fiction were born after the found of the new China. They never experienced the revolution life of blood and fire, nor did they have the spiritual pressure from the humiliation and invasion from outside. Furthermore, they had no tension, fear, angry, and depression when facing the death. However, the traditional Chinese culture that everyone should shoulder the responsibility of protect and build their county has a deep root in their thinking. Although their literature works review the historical circumstances from an outsider’s perspective, yet the core themes of their works deal with main issues of the county and its people. In the history when neo-historic fictions writers come into being, they have relatively free and open environment with the social and economic development. Under such background the literature works have made progress in its development, and become more artistic, diversified, commercialized and entertained. Such creation environment drives the writers to reflect other possibilities of the history that was neglected in the past. The new concepts in the modern times provide those neo-historic fiction writers with fresh ideas for literature creation. When constructivism becomes the trend of thoughts, their personal experiences of the big historical transformations make them to doubt about their long political beliefs, and living concepts, and creation principles. As a result to review the history with doubts becomes inevitable. The desire to seek truth, and revert the true history
drives those writers to cast their views to the revolution history. Accompanying this trend the red classics becomes their objects for analysis and research. The neo-historic fictions always take the revolution historic fictions as its references. The key element in the neo-historic fictions is to the subversion of the revolution historic fictions. As a result, when addressing the details of the inevitable history, neo-historic fictions try to dissolve the sacredness and construct the historical perspective. The literature works based on historical themes are not the history per se, they are only the writers’subjective feelings of the history, and can never replace the history. However the literature works exert great influences on the effect of education and propaganda. Writers should pay attention to the deviation between literature works and history, especially should pay attention to respect the history, understand the history, and should not impose the non-history on the true history. The understanding of history from literature works cannot be separated from the history, it is a historical phenomenon. Contemporary people understand the history with their own perspective, because of this, revolution historic fiction and neo-historic fiction are both literature works that represent the contemporary ideas. Novels are the live fossils of social life. By studying the two kinds of novels, readers can understand the politics, economics, ideology, culture and military affairs and social lives that are described in the novel in a particular time. As representative works of their particular times, both kinds of fictions have made impacts on the social development, and had much research value, and will remain as the artistic treasure. In spite of the times, we cannot comment the history without the particular historical background. Literature development can only become mature and prosperous when the past and the history are impartially treated.
Revolutionary historic fiction (hereafter referred as RHF) and Neo-historic fiction (hereafter referred as NHF) are two models of literature works that are predominant in the literature trend in two different times. The revolutionary historic fiction came into being between 1950’s and 60’s when people were engaging in the hard undertakings for the found of the new country. Dandelion, Safeguard Yan An, immense forest and snowfield, rudimentary writing for an unstable situation, cruel fighting in the ancient city are among the typical literature works representing the “Red Classical Fiction”. Neo-historical fiction came into being between 1980’s and 1990’s when the country was undergoing tremendous social and economic development after the reform and opening-up. Full Breast and Fat Buttock, Bai Lu highland,the yellow flowers in hometown, living, are the typical literature works representative of this time. Although both RHF and NHF touched upon the revolutionary struggles and lives after the founding of the Communist Party of China, however, due to time differences, different authors depicts the same history stories differently and hence form their own distinctive judgments of history.
The birth of revolutionary historic fiction meets the needs of the time. As a social entity, the author cannot go against the tendency of the times. During that time individuality is at the sacrifice of masses, the authors regard the “The Talks on Literature and Arts in Yan an”as their leading principle, and take their own life experiences as the background of the story. Based on that they try to meet the society’s need for literature by portraying a perfect, righteous, and lofty figure. From today’s perspective, such writing exposes a dilemma, while it reasonably follows the trend of the times on the one hand, it deviates the description of the human nature on the other. Such works cannot reflect the real desire of human beings for the life. Comparatively speaking, neo-historic fiction fully describes the human nature, which provides the reader with new historical perspective, and new art representing styles. Such works undermines the dualist controversy, and regards accidentality, non cause-and-effect, and non-logic and non-political as its core elements. The ethics and politics are fading out, and the theme of the literature works becomes more hidden comparing with the revolution historic works.
Revolution historic fiction manifests the certainty of history, and reveals the nature of history from the basic contradictions of history development. The authors of the revolution historic fiction are those who have experienced the revolution by their own, thus, their understanding and perception of history are closely related to their beliefs about the particular historical period. History in their words is mixture of their firm beliefs of historical development. They employ the Marxist social historical perspective to treat the historical figures and events such as the class analysis, social development view. They focus on the molding heroic figures, and form a solemn, lofty and serious style. Neo-historic fiction is a not a concept of time, but is formed in the particular historical background by those who have similar interests and ideas about the modern revolution history, the history of the Communist Party of China in particular. Comparing with the revolution historic fiction, neo-historic fiction is a piece of copy work of history, which has not life experiences and is based purely theoretical analysis of history. That literature works and history is inseparable is quite universal in the development of different cultures. Literature works is a sensitive reflection of history by human beings. In a particular historical time, the time spirit, which represents the public thinking, is always be taken as a key element of literature works. If literature works has recorded some fragments of history, then history provides the raw elements for literature works on the other hand. Literarily and content speaking, both revolution historic fiction and neo-literature fiction take history as the key elements, the revolution history of the Chinese Communist Party to be specific. However, due to time difference, the same history is portrayed differently by two generation of writers. Meanwhile, they both show their objective and just attitude of the literary creation, and try to show the audience the real history reflected by their works. During the time of revolution historic fiction, people value loyalty, sacrifice, and their ideal is to build a happy homeland. The literature works of that time shoulder the responsibility of “literature should serve the politics”and is deployed as instruments and service. However during the time of neo-historic fiction, the thinking trend of the society becomes more complicated and pluralized, which emphasized humanistic spirit, individuality, humanity, and pursuit of self-independence and sets the keynotes of a open, free creation environment in which expression of one’s experiences and literature works’artistic and amusing nature are shown. Their historical perspective is
influenced by the western Post Modernism, which dispels the sacredness, constructs history, confirms the accidental elements in history, and understands the life style of human beings during the war from an anthropological perspective. For the writers themselves the revolution historic fiction is the history of their personal experiences. As the witnesses of any great historic transformation, such writers have the strong desire to express their feelings. They are eager to evoke their admiration for the historic transformation by representing the history truly. Objectively they intuitively link their personal lives closely with the country’s fate, want to record the historical transformation with their pens, and hope to express their ideas for the future development of the Chinese revolution. By the same time they want to contribute to their political belief through literature works. The mission of the revolution historic fiction writers they bestowed to themselves is to represent the history. Contrary with the revolution historic fiction, the neo-historic fiction displays history that is surpass the personal experiences, and reflective. Differing from the writers of revolution historic fiction, most of the writers of neo-historic fiction were born after the found of the new China. They never experienced the revolution life of blood and fire, nor did they have the spiritual pressure from the humiliation and invasion from outside. Furthermore, they had no tension, fear, angry, and depression when facing the death. However, the traditional Chinese culture that everyone should shoulder the responsibility of protect and build their county has a deep root in their thinking. Although their literature works review the historical circumstances from an outsider’s perspective, yet the core themes of their works deal with main issues of the county and its people. In the history when neo-historic fictions writers come into being, they have relatively free and open environment with the social and economic development. Under such background the literature works have made progress in its development, and become more artistic, diversified, commercialized and entertained. Such creation environment drives the writers to reflect other possibilities of the history that was neglected in the past. The new concepts in the modern times provide those neo-historic fiction writers with fresh ideas for literature creation. When constructivism becomes the trend of thoughts, their personal experiences of the big historical transformations make them to doubt about their long political beliefs, and living concepts, and creation principles. As a result to review the history with doubts becomes inevitable. The desire to seek truth, and revert the true history
drives those writers to cast their views to the revolution history. Accompanying this trend the red classics becomes their objects for analysis and research. The neo-historic fictions always take the revolution historic fictions as its references. The key element in the neo-historic fictions is to the subversion of the revolution historic fictions. As a result, when addressing the details of the inevitable history, neo-historic fictions try to dissolve the sacredness and construct the historical perspective. The literature works based on historical themes are not the history per se, they are only the writers’subjective feelings of the history, and can never replace the history. However the literature works exert great influences on the effect of education and propaganda. Writers should pay attention to the deviation between literature works and history, especially should pay attention to respect the history, understand the history, and should not impose the non-history on the true history. The understanding of history from literature works cannot be separated from the history, it is a historical phenomenon. Contemporary people understand the history with their own perspective, because of this, revolution historic fiction and neo-historic fiction are both literature works that represent the contemporary ideas. Novels are the live fossils of social life. By studying the two kinds of novels, readers can understand the politics, economics, ideology, culture and military affairs and social lives that are described in the novel in a particular time. As representative works of their particular times, both kinds of fictions have made impacts on the social development, and had much research value, and will remain as the artistic treasure. In spite of the times, we cannot comment the history without the particular historical background. Literature development can only become mature and prosperous when the past and the history are impartially treated.
引文
1. 王爱松:《新历史小说与现代史的另一面》,《首都师范大学学报》,2001,(6):59-67。
2. 张进:《新历史主义文艺思潮的悖论性处境》,《兰州大学学报》,2001,(4):71-78。
3. 盛兴军:《艺术真实的困境与出路》,《文艺评论》,1997,(5):11-17。
4. 金衡山:《影响和汇合——〈丰乳肥臀〉的解构主义解读》,《国外文学》,1997,(1):89-94。
5. 邓玉环:《新历史小说:历史时空中的反叛与寻求》,《湛江师范学院学报》,1996,(4)34-38。
6. 胡良桂:《新历史小说的创造性变异》,《求索》,1997,(3):95-99。
7. 王又平:《反“史诗性”:文学转型中的历史叙述》,《荆州师范学院学报》,2001,(3):5-11。
8. 陈顺馨:《灰阑中的解读——读黄子平〈革命历史小说〉》,《当代作家评论》,2001,(2):110-113。
9. 颜敏梅琼林:《晦暗的人性与不定的命运——论新历史主义小说》,《山东社会科学》,1999,(1):79-83。
10. 田美丽:《新历史小说:解构传统历史理解的写作》,《中南民族学院学报》,2002,(1):119-122。
11. 袁仕萍:《评新历史小说的三种形态》,《襄樊学院学报》,1999,(6):34-38。
12. 李东雷:《论新历史小说的叙事角度》,《内蒙古社会科学》,1999,(6):72-75。
13. 吴秀明:《文化转型语境中的历史叙事与本体演变》,《浙江大学学报》,2002,(1):62-68。
14. 莫言王尧:《从〈红高粱〉到〈檀香刑〉》,《当代作家评论》,2002,(1):10-22。
15. 毕新伟:《论新历史小说的哲学精神》,《中州学刊》,1999,(5):74-78。
16. 郭术兵:《评新历史小说的先锋特质》,《文艺评论》,1998,(3):33-35。
17. 王光明:《释放文学内部的能量——黄子平的文学批评》,《当代作家评论》,2001,(2):101-109。
18. 刘忠:《无望的救赎与皈依——“新历史小说”再评价》,《文艺评论》,2001,(4):26-34。
19. 丁帆:《“现代性”与“后现代性”同步渗透中的文学》,《文学评论》,2001,(3):18-27。20. 王世城:《“新历史小说”的当代嬗变》,《晋阳学刊》,1997,(3):82-85。21. 石恢:《“新历史小说”与“新历史主义小说”》,《文学研究》,2000,(2):47-50。22. 姜振昌:《〈故事新编〉与中国新历史小说》,《中国社会科学》,2001,(3):164-165。23. 程光炜:《牺牲的意义——关于50-70 年代战争题材小说英雄形象的重新思考》,《海南师范学院学报》,2001,(1):60-68。24. 周国栋:《从“新历史小说”看今年来整个社会历史观念的变动》,《山东大学学报》,1999,(1):59-63。25. 陈晓明:《破裂与见证:新情感的变迁或危机》,《作家》,1993,(3):70-78。26. 陶琬:《歪曲历史丑化现实——评小说〈丰乳肥臀〉》,《中流》,1996,(7):24-32。27. 雍文华:《“新历史小说”的历史观念》,《文艺报》,1993,2,20,(3)。28. 张军,莫言:《反讽艺术家——读〈丰乳肥臀〉》,《文艺争鸣》,1996,(3):75-80。29. 陈晓明:《反抗危机:论“新写实”》,《文学评论》,1993,(2):88-100。30. 白烨:《“后新时期小说”走向刍议》,《文艺争鸣》,1992,(6):4-8。31. 张清华:《近年“匪行小说”抽样漫评》,《文学世界》,1993,(5):31-33。32. 刘蓓蓓李以洪:《母神崇拜与“肥臀情结”——读莫言的“〈丰乳肥臀〉解”》,《文艺评论》,1996,(6):48-53。33. 张均:《沉沦与救赎:无根的一代——重读莫言、刘震云》,《小说评论》,1997,(1):55-62。34. 林为进:《新写实小说,平民艺术的追求》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(2):84-89。35. 雷达:《废墟上的精魂——〈白鹿原〉》论,《文学评论》,1993,(6):105-118。36. 张业松:《新写实:回到文学自身》,《上海文学》,1993,(7):72-80。37. 刘纳:《无奈的现实和无奈的小说——也谈“新写实”》,《文学评论》,1993,(4):105-113。38. 周政保:《无可奈何的感叹及传达——新写实小说的别一种判断》,《文艺研究》,1993,(2):78-84。39. 汪政晓华:《新写实小说的民族化》,《文艺研究》,1993,(2):66-77。40. 魏胜利:《玩世不恭与文学》,《北京文学》,1993,(3):79-80。41. 屈文峰:《新写实小说人物形象塑造得失谈》,《文汇报》,1993,6,19(2)。42. 南帆:《再叙事:先锋小说的境地》,《文学评论》,1993,(3):21-32。43. 孙自筠:《论新文学主题意识的演变》,《云南教育学院学报》,1993,(2):64-68。44. 金惠敏:《“后新潮”小说研究述要》,《艺术广角》,1992,(6):47-53。
45. 洪治纲:《生命末日的体验——论后新潮小说死亡描写的文学特征及其意义》,《文艺评论》,1993,(4):30-37。46. 王海燕:《新近文学中的调侃及其审美》,《江淮论坛》,1992,(5):77-82。47. 白烨:《史志意蕴史诗风格——评陈忠实的长篇小说〈白鹿原〉》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(4):4-9。48. 陈忠实:《〈白鹿原〉创作漫谈》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(4):20-24。49. 张闳:《权力、市场与“文学终结论”》,《文论报》,1993,6,19(3)。50. 童庆炳陶东风:《人文关怀与历史理性的缺失——“新现实主义小说”再评价》,《文学评论》,1998,(4):43-53 51. 何火:《商品大潮中的文学展望》,《文论报》,1993,2,13(1)。52. 李洁非:《十年烟云过眼——小说潮亲历录》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(1):26-33。53. 方伟:《当代文学的窘迫与抉择》,《文学评论》,1996,(6):91-98。54. 蒋守谦:《谛听“伟大心灵的回声”——论90 年代部分中短篇小说的崇高题旨和美学形态》,《文学评论》,1998,(1):103-110。55. 刘克宽:《由对话方式看新时期小说的艺术转型》,《文史哲》,1996,(6):44-50。56. 陈辽:《当代文学史研究的几个问题》,《学海》,1996,(6):96-99。57. 张颐武:《“社群意识”与新的“公共性”的创生》,《上海文学》,1997,(2):66-73。58. 李洁非:《实验和先锋小说(1985-1988)》,《当代作家评论》,1996,(5):108-123。59. 张景超孙民乐:《新时期小说的三种文化视角——一次回顾性阅读》,《文艺评论》,1993,(2):10-24。60. 张炯:《九十年代我国文学走向》,《百科知识》,1993,(6):3-5。61. 孙先科:《作者的在场与退场——新时期小说非全知叙事思潮的文化背景及其意识形态》,《文艺理论研究》,1996,(6):41-50。62. 肖鹰:,《九十年代中国文学:全球化与自我认同》,《文学评论》,2000,(2):103-111。63. 碧云:《晴空新雪酸果——“十七年文学”的一个视角》,《泰安师专学报》,1992,(4):16-21。64. 王建中:《“二为”方向与新时期小说审美视角的拓展》,《辽宁大学学报》,1993,(5):19-24。65. 吴义勤:《“历史”的误读——对于1989 年以来一种文学现象的阐释》,《文艺评论》,1993,(4):38-43。66. 张韧:《中国当代文学与20 世纪世界》,《学习与探索》,1997,(1):106-117。
67. 朱寨:《长篇小说与现代主义》,《文学评论》,1998,(2):5-21。
68. 陈晓明:《“历史终结”之后:九十年代文学虚构的危机》,《文学评论》,1999,(5):36-47。
69. 陈思和:《试论当代文学史(1949-1976)的潜在写作》,《文学评论》,1999,(6):104-113。
70. 陈建新:《历史题材小说的道德抉择》,《浙江大学学报》,2000,(4):26-34。
71. 陆炜:《虚构的限度》,《新华文摘》,2000,(4):103-107。
72. 王进:《当代文学宏观走向论》,《松辽学刊》,1993,(2):57-64。
73. 郑春:《试论当代历史小说的创新努力》,《文史哲》,2000,(1):13-19。
74. 陈晓明:《常规与变异——当前小说的形势与流向》,《文艺研究》,1992,(6):35-45。
75. 陈辽:《主流、隐忧、前景——谈我国九十年代的文学》,《唯实》,1992,(6):67-69。
76. 邵建潘新宁:《再现、表现、显现——新时期小说叙述的三种形态》,《艺术广角》,1993,(1):42-49。
77. 朱向前:《新军旅作家“三剑客”——莫言、周涛、朱苏进平行比较论稿》,《解放军文艺》,1993,(9):64-87。
78. 贺绍俊潘凯雄:《面对一个现象的思考——论新时期小说中的性意识》,《当代文艺探索》,1986,4,42-46。
1. 《马克思恩格斯全集》(二),人民出版社,1963 年版。
2. 《马克思和恩格斯论文学与艺术》,人民文学出版社,1982 年版。
3. 《马克思恩格斯论历史科学》,人民出版社,1988 年第1 版,第63 页。
4. 《列宁选集》(四),人民出版社,1972 年版。
5. 《毛泽东选集》(一、二、三),人民出版社,1991 年版。
6. 《瞿秋白文集》(一),人民文学出版社,1959 年版。
7. 冯德英:《苦菜花》,北岳文艺出版社,2001 年第1 版。
8. 杜鹏程:《保卫延安》,人民文学出版社,1956 年第2 版。
9. 孙犁:《风云初记》,人民文学出版社,1955 年第2 版。
10. 曲波:《林海雪原》,人民文学出版社,1964 年第3 版。
11. 李英儒:《野火春风斗古城》,人民文学出版社,1962 年第2 版。
12. 丁玲:《太阳照在桑干河上》,人民文学出版社,1955 年第2 版。
13. 莫言:《丰乳肥臀》,作家出版社,1996 年第1 版。
14. 陈忠实:《白鹿原》,人民文学出版社,1997 年第2 版。
15. 余华:《活着》,南海出版公司,1998 年第1 版。
16. 刘震云:《故乡天下黄花》,中国青年出版社,1991 年第1 版。
17. 《中国现代作家历史小说选》,上海社会科学院出版社,1984 年第1 版。
18. 北京师范大学中文系文艺理论教研室编:《文学理论学习参考资料》(上、下),春风文艺出版社,1981 年12 月第1 版。
19. 王晓明:《二十世纪中国文学研究》,东方出版中心,1998 年版。
20. 许子东:《当代小说阅读笔记》,华东师范大学出版社,1997 年版。
21. 李扬:《抗争宿命之路》,时代文艺出版社,1993 年版。
22. 孟繁华:《梦幻与宿命》,广东人民出版社,1999 年版。
23. 钟敬之,金紫光主编,《延安文艺丛书之文艺史料卷》,湖南文艺出版社,1987年版。
24. 陈顺馨:《社会主义现实主义理论在中国的接受与转化》,安徽教育出版社,2000年版。
25. 吴开晋编:《李英儒研究专集》,解放军文艺出版社,1984 年版。
26. 张英:《文学的力量》,民族出版社,2001 年版。
27. 鲍昌主编:《中国当代文学作品选评》(上、下),浙江大学出版社,1988 年版。
28. 《中国当代文学研究资料——孙犁专集》,山东师范大学中文系现代文学教研室编,1979 年9 月版。
29. 《中国当代文学研究资料——杜鹏程专集》,福建师范大学中文系编,1979 年10 月版。
30. 陈美兰:《中国当代小说创作论》,上海文艺出版社,1991 年版。
31. 中国人民革命军事博物馆编:《彭德怀元帅丰碑永存》,上海人民出版社,1985年12 月第1 版。
32. 鲁迅:《故事新编》,人民文学出版社,1998 年版。
33. 鲁迅:《中国小说史略》,上海古籍出版社,2000 年版。
34. 王瑶:《王瑶文集》(一、二、三、四、五、六、七),北岳文艺出版社,1995年版。
35. 郑敏:《诗歌与哲学是近邻》,北京大学出版社,1999 年版。
36. 郑敏:《结构——解构视角:语言-文化-评论》,清华大学出版社,1998 年11 月第1 版。
37. 李泽厚:《中国思想史论》(现代、近代、古代),安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
38. 李泽厚:《李泽厚哲学文存》(上、下),安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
39. 《世界文化史》,华东师范大学出版社,2002 年版。
40. 冯友兰:《中国现代哲学史》,广东人民出版社,1999 年版。
41. 胡适:《中国哲学史大纲》,上海古籍出版社,1999 年版。
42. 宗白华:《学术文化随笔》,中国青年出版社,1996 年版。
43. 童庆炳:《文学审美特征论》,华中师大出版社,2000 年版。
44. 洪子诚:《当代文学概论》,广西教育出版社,2000 年版。
45. 南帆:《隐蔽的成规》,福建教育出版社,1999 年版。
46. 王元化:《文存沉思录》,上海文艺出版社,1997 年版。
47. 陈平原:《中国小说叙述模式的转变》,北京大学出版社,2003 年版。
48. 陈安湖:《中国现代文学社团流派史》,华中师大出版社,1997 年版。
49. 李泽厚:《己卯五说》,中国电影出版社,1999 年版。
50. 孟繁华:《九十年代文存》(上、下),中国社会科学出版社,2001 年版。
51. 钱理群:《现代文学三十年》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
52. 白烨:《2000 文论》,漓江出版社,2001 年版。
53. 王岳川:《中国镜像》,中央编译出版社,2001 年版。
54. 钱理群:《心灵的探寻》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
55. 姚鹤鸣:《理性的追踪》,江苏教育出版社,1998 年版。
56. 金重远:《20 世纪的世界》(上、下),复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
57. 蒋承勇:《世界文学史纲》,复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
58. 朱立元:《文艺理论(当代西方)》,华东师范大学,1999 年版。
59. 葛红兵:《障碍与认同》,学林出版社,2000 年版。
60. 季羡林:《比较文学与民间文学》,北京大学出版社,2001 年版。
61. 袁行霈:《中国文学史》(一、二、三、四),高等教育出版社,2001 年版。
62. 陈思和:《中国当代文学史》,复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
63. 陈也珍:《从神的起源》,东方出版社,2001 年版。
64. 宗白华:《美学散步》,世纪出版社,2000 年版。
65. 阴法鲁:《中国古代文化史》(一),北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
66. 陈少峰:《中国伦理学史》(上、下),北京大学出版社,1996 年版。
67. 李泽厚:《浮生论学》,华夏出版社,2002 年版。
68. 陈思和:《谈虎谈兔》,广西师大出版社,2001 年版。
69. 陈炎:《中国审美文化史》(唐宋),山东画报出版社,2001 年版。
70. 李泽厚:《美学三书》,安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
71. 胡适:《白话文学史:》,百花文艺出版社,2002 年版。
72. 龙泉明:《中国新诗流变化》人民文学出版社,1999 年版。
73. 龙泉明:《现代诗学》,湖南人民出版社,2000 年版。
74. 郭志刚:《中国现代文学史》(上、下),高等教育出版社,2002 年版。
75. 李泽厚:《论语今读》,安徽文艺出版社,1998 年版。
76. 钱钟书:《写在人生边上》,生活读书新知出版社,2002 年版。
77. 柏杨:《丑陋的中国人》,贵州人民出版社,2001 年版。
78. 何兆武:《西方哲学精神》,清华大学出版社,2003 年11 月第1 版,105 页。
79. 高清海:《人就是“人”》,辽宁人民出版社,2001 年版。
80. 孙正聿:《哲学通论》,辽宁人民出版社,1998 年版。
81. 姚大志:《现代之后》,东方出版社,2000 年版。
82. 陆杰荣:《哲学境界》,吉林教育出版社,1998 年版。
83. 刘中树:《〈呐喊〉〈彷徨〉艺术论》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
84. 张福贵(等):《20 世纪中国文学的文化批判》,时代文艺出版社,1999 年版。
85. 刘纳:《嬗变》,中国社会科学出版社,1998 年版。
86. 王学谦:《自然文化与20 世纪中国文学》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
87. 孙中田(等):《镣铐下的缪斯》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
88. 刘世剑:《小说叙事艺术》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
89. 丹纳:《艺术哲学》,安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
90. 弗洛伊德:《精神分析引论》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
91. 米克·巴尔:《叙述学》,中国社会科学出版社,2003 年版。
92. 佛杰马:《文学研究与文化参与》,北京大学出版社,1996 年版。
93. 希利斯·米勒:《重申解构主义》,中国社会科学出版社,1998 年版。
94. 雷内·韦勒克:《批评的概念》,中央美术学院出版社,1999 年版。
95. 斯塔夫里阿诺斯:《全球通史》(上、下),上海社会科学出版社,2002 年版。
96. 费正清:《中国:传统与变迁》,世界知识出版社,2002 年版。
97. 詹姆斯·哈威·鲁滨逊:[美]《新史学》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
98. 柯林武德:《历史的观念》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
99. 明恩博:《中国人的本质》,学林出版社,2001 年版。
100. 拉·梅特里:《人是机器》,商务印书馆,2002 年版。
101.杰姆逊:《后现代主义与文化理论》,北京大学出版社,1997 年版。
2. 张进:《新历史主义文艺思潮的悖论性处境》,《兰州大学学报》,2001,(4):71-78。
3. 盛兴军:《艺术真实的困境与出路》,《文艺评论》,1997,(5):11-17。
4. 金衡山:《影响和汇合——〈丰乳肥臀〉的解构主义解读》,《国外文学》,1997,(1):89-94。
5. 邓玉环:《新历史小说:历史时空中的反叛与寻求》,《湛江师范学院学报》,1996,(4)34-38。
6. 胡良桂:《新历史小说的创造性变异》,《求索》,1997,(3):95-99。
7. 王又平:《反“史诗性”:文学转型中的历史叙述》,《荆州师范学院学报》,2001,(3):5-11。
8. 陈顺馨:《灰阑中的解读——读黄子平〈革命历史小说〉》,《当代作家评论》,2001,(2):110-113。
9. 颜敏梅琼林:《晦暗的人性与不定的命运——论新历史主义小说》,《山东社会科学》,1999,(1):79-83。
10. 田美丽:《新历史小说:解构传统历史理解的写作》,《中南民族学院学报》,2002,(1):119-122。
11. 袁仕萍:《评新历史小说的三种形态》,《襄樊学院学报》,1999,(6):34-38。
12. 李东雷:《论新历史小说的叙事角度》,《内蒙古社会科学》,1999,(6):72-75。
13. 吴秀明:《文化转型语境中的历史叙事与本体演变》,《浙江大学学报》,2002,(1):62-68。
14. 莫言王尧:《从〈红高粱〉到〈檀香刑〉》,《当代作家评论》,2002,(1):10-22。
15. 毕新伟:《论新历史小说的哲学精神》,《中州学刊》,1999,(5):74-78。
16. 郭术兵:《评新历史小说的先锋特质》,《文艺评论》,1998,(3):33-35。
17. 王光明:《释放文学内部的能量——黄子平的文学批评》,《当代作家评论》,2001,(2):101-109。
18. 刘忠:《无望的救赎与皈依——“新历史小说”再评价》,《文艺评论》,2001,(4):26-34。
19. 丁帆:《“现代性”与“后现代性”同步渗透中的文学》,《文学评论》,2001,(3):18-27。20. 王世城:《“新历史小说”的当代嬗变》,《晋阳学刊》,1997,(3):82-85。21. 石恢:《“新历史小说”与“新历史主义小说”》,《文学研究》,2000,(2):47-50。22. 姜振昌:《〈故事新编〉与中国新历史小说》,《中国社会科学》,2001,(3):164-165。23. 程光炜:《牺牲的意义——关于50-70 年代战争题材小说英雄形象的重新思考》,《海南师范学院学报》,2001,(1):60-68。24. 周国栋:《从“新历史小说”看今年来整个社会历史观念的变动》,《山东大学学报》,1999,(1):59-63。25. 陈晓明:《破裂与见证:新情感的变迁或危机》,《作家》,1993,(3):70-78。26. 陶琬:《歪曲历史丑化现实——评小说〈丰乳肥臀〉》,《中流》,1996,(7):24-32。27. 雍文华:《“新历史小说”的历史观念》,《文艺报》,1993,2,20,(3)。28. 张军,莫言:《反讽艺术家——读〈丰乳肥臀〉》,《文艺争鸣》,1996,(3):75-80。29. 陈晓明:《反抗危机:论“新写实”》,《文学评论》,1993,(2):88-100。30. 白烨:《“后新时期小说”走向刍议》,《文艺争鸣》,1992,(6):4-8。31. 张清华:《近年“匪行小说”抽样漫评》,《文学世界》,1993,(5):31-33。32. 刘蓓蓓李以洪:《母神崇拜与“肥臀情结”——读莫言的“〈丰乳肥臀〉解”》,《文艺评论》,1996,(6):48-53。33. 张均:《沉沦与救赎:无根的一代——重读莫言、刘震云》,《小说评论》,1997,(1):55-62。34. 林为进:《新写实小说,平民艺术的追求》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(2):84-89。35. 雷达:《废墟上的精魂——〈白鹿原〉》论,《文学评论》,1993,(6):105-118。36. 张业松:《新写实:回到文学自身》,《上海文学》,1993,(7):72-80。37. 刘纳:《无奈的现实和无奈的小说——也谈“新写实”》,《文学评论》,1993,(4):105-113。38. 周政保:《无可奈何的感叹及传达——新写实小说的别一种判断》,《文艺研究》,1993,(2):78-84。39. 汪政晓华:《新写实小说的民族化》,《文艺研究》,1993,(2):66-77。40. 魏胜利:《玩世不恭与文学》,《北京文学》,1993,(3):79-80。41. 屈文峰:《新写实小说人物形象塑造得失谈》,《文汇报》,1993,6,19(2)。42. 南帆:《再叙事:先锋小说的境地》,《文学评论》,1993,(3):21-32。43. 孙自筠:《论新文学主题意识的演变》,《云南教育学院学报》,1993,(2):64-68。44. 金惠敏:《“后新潮”小说研究述要》,《艺术广角》,1992,(6):47-53。
45. 洪治纲:《生命末日的体验——论后新潮小说死亡描写的文学特征及其意义》,《文艺评论》,1993,(4):30-37。46. 王海燕:《新近文学中的调侃及其审美》,《江淮论坛》,1992,(5):77-82。47. 白烨:《史志意蕴史诗风格——评陈忠实的长篇小说〈白鹿原〉》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(4):4-9。48. 陈忠实:《〈白鹿原〉创作漫谈》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(4):20-24。49. 张闳:《权力、市场与“文学终结论”》,《文论报》,1993,6,19(3)。50. 童庆炳陶东风:《人文关怀与历史理性的缺失——“新现实主义小说”再评价》,《文学评论》,1998,(4):43-53 51. 何火:《商品大潮中的文学展望》,《文论报》,1993,2,13(1)。52. 李洁非:《十年烟云过眼——小说潮亲历录》,《当代作家评论》,1993,(1):26-33。53. 方伟:《当代文学的窘迫与抉择》,《文学评论》,1996,(6):91-98。54. 蒋守谦:《谛听“伟大心灵的回声”——论90 年代部分中短篇小说的崇高题旨和美学形态》,《文学评论》,1998,(1):103-110。55. 刘克宽:《由对话方式看新时期小说的艺术转型》,《文史哲》,1996,(6):44-50。56. 陈辽:《当代文学史研究的几个问题》,《学海》,1996,(6):96-99。57. 张颐武:《“社群意识”与新的“公共性”的创生》,《上海文学》,1997,(2):66-73。58. 李洁非:《实验和先锋小说(1985-1988)》,《当代作家评论》,1996,(5):108-123。59. 张景超孙民乐:《新时期小说的三种文化视角——一次回顾性阅读》,《文艺评论》,1993,(2):10-24。60. 张炯:《九十年代我国文学走向》,《百科知识》,1993,(6):3-5。61. 孙先科:《作者的在场与退场——新时期小说非全知叙事思潮的文化背景及其意识形态》,《文艺理论研究》,1996,(6):41-50。62. 肖鹰:,《九十年代中国文学:全球化与自我认同》,《文学评论》,2000,(2):103-111。63. 碧云:《晴空新雪酸果——“十七年文学”的一个视角》,《泰安师专学报》,1992,(4):16-21。64. 王建中:《“二为”方向与新时期小说审美视角的拓展》,《辽宁大学学报》,1993,(5):19-24。65. 吴义勤:《“历史”的误读——对于1989 年以来一种文学现象的阐释》,《文艺评论》,1993,(4):38-43。66. 张韧:《中国当代文学与20 世纪世界》,《学习与探索》,1997,(1):106-117。
67. 朱寨:《长篇小说与现代主义》,《文学评论》,1998,(2):5-21。
68. 陈晓明:《“历史终结”之后:九十年代文学虚构的危机》,《文学评论》,1999,(5):36-47。
69. 陈思和:《试论当代文学史(1949-1976)的潜在写作》,《文学评论》,1999,(6):104-113。
70. 陈建新:《历史题材小说的道德抉择》,《浙江大学学报》,2000,(4):26-34。
71. 陆炜:《虚构的限度》,《新华文摘》,2000,(4):103-107。
72. 王进:《当代文学宏观走向论》,《松辽学刊》,1993,(2):57-64。
73. 郑春:《试论当代历史小说的创新努力》,《文史哲》,2000,(1):13-19。
74. 陈晓明:《常规与变异——当前小说的形势与流向》,《文艺研究》,1992,(6):35-45。
75. 陈辽:《主流、隐忧、前景——谈我国九十年代的文学》,《唯实》,1992,(6):67-69。
76. 邵建潘新宁:《再现、表现、显现——新时期小说叙述的三种形态》,《艺术广角》,1993,(1):42-49。
77. 朱向前:《新军旅作家“三剑客”——莫言、周涛、朱苏进平行比较论稿》,《解放军文艺》,1993,(9):64-87。
78. 贺绍俊潘凯雄:《面对一个现象的思考——论新时期小说中的性意识》,《当代文艺探索》,1986,4,42-46。
1. 《马克思恩格斯全集》(二),人民出版社,1963 年版。
2. 《马克思和恩格斯论文学与艺术》,人民文学出版社,1982 年版。
3. 《马克思恩格斯论历史科学》,人民出版社,1988 年第1 版,第63 页。
4. 《列宁选集》(四),人民出版社,1972 年版。
5. 《毛泽东选集》(一、二、三),人民出版社,1991 年版。
6. 《瞿秋白文集》(一),人民文学出版社,1959 年版。
7. 冯德英:《苦菜花》,北岳文艺出版社,2001 年第1 版。
8. 杜鹏程:《保卫延安》,人民文学出版社,1956 年第2 版。
9. 孙犁:《风云初记》,人民文学出版社,1955 年第2 版。
10. 曲波:《林海雪原》,人民文学出版社,1964 年第3 版。
11. 李英儒:《野火春风斗古城》,人民文学出版社,1962 年第2 版。
12. 丁玲:《太阳照在桑干河上》,人民文学出版社,1955 年第2 版。
13. 莫言:《丰乳肥臀》,作家出版社,1996 年第1 版。
14. 陈忠实:《白鹿原》,人民文学出版社,1997 年第2 版。
15. 余华:《活着》,南海出版公司,1998 年第1 版。
16. 刘震云:《故乡天下黄花》,中国青年出版社,1991 年第1 版。
17. 《中国现代作家历史小说选》,上海社会科学院出版社,1984 年第1 版。
18. 北京师范大学中文系文艺理论教研室编:《文学理论学习参考资料》(上、下),春风文艺出版社,1981 年12 月第1 版。
19. 王晓明:《二十世纪中国文学研究》,东方出版中心,1998 年版。
20. 许子东:《当代小说阅读笔记》,华东师范大学出版社,1997 年版。
21. 李扬:《抗争宿命之路》,时代文艺出版社,1993 年版。
22. 孟繁华:《梦幻与宿命》,广东人民出版社,1999 年版。
23. 钟敬之,金紫光主编,《延安文艺丛书之文艺史料卷》,湖南文艺出版社,1987年版。
24. 陈顺馨:《社会主义现实主义理论在中国的接受与转化》,安徽教育出版社,2000年版。
25. 吴开晋编:《李英儒研究专集》,解放军文艺出版社,1984 年版。
26. 张英:《文学的力量》,民族出版社,2001 年版。
27. 鲍昌主编:《中国当代文学作品选评》(上、下),浙江大学出版社,1988 年版。
28. 《中国当代文学研究资料——孙犁专集》,山东师范大学中文系现代文学教研室编,1979 年9 月版。
29. 《中国当代文学研究资料——杜鹏程专集》,福建师范大学中文系编,1979 年10 月版。
30. 陈美兰:《中国当代小说创作论》,上海文艺出版社,1991 年版。
31. 中国人民革命军事博物馆编:《彭德怀元帅丰碑永存》,上海人民出版社,1985年12 月第1 版。
32. 鲁迅:《故事新编》,人民文学出版社,1998 年版。
33. 鲁迅:《中国小说史略》,上海古籍出版社,2000 年版。
34. 王瑶:《王瑶文集》(一、二、三、四、五、六、七),北岳文艺出版社,1995年版。
35. 郑敏:《诗歌与哲学是近邻》,北京大学出版社,1999 年版。
36. 郑敏:《结构——解构视角:语言-文化-评论》,清华大学出版社,1998 年11 月第1 版。
37. 李泽厚:《中国思想史论》(现代、近代、古代),安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
38. 李泽厚:《李泽厚哲学文存》(上、下),安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
39. 《世界文化史》,华东师范大学出版社,2002 年版。
40. 冯友兰:《中国现代哲学史》,广东人民出版社,1999 年版。
41. 胡适:《中国哲学史大纲》,上海古籍出版社,1999 年版。
42. 宗白华:《学术文化随笔》,中国青年出版社,1996 年版。
43. 童庆炳:《文学审美特征论》,华中师大出版社,2000 年版。
44. 洪子诚:《当代文学概论》,广西教育出版社,2000 年版。
45. 南帆:《隐蔽的成规》,福建教育出版社,1999 年版。
46. 王元化:《文存沉思录》,上海文艺出版社,1997 年版。
47. 陈平原:《中国小说叙述模式的转变》,北京大学出版社,2003 年版。
48. 陈安湖:《中国现代文学社团流派史》,华中师大出版社,1997 年版。
49. 李泽厚:《己卯五说》,中国电影出版社,1999 年版。
50. 孟繁华:《九十年代文存》(上、下),中国社会科学出版社,2001 年版。
51. 钱理群:《现代文学三十年》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
52. 白烨:《2000 文论》,漓江出版社,2001 年版。
53. 王岳川:《中国镜像》,中央编译出版社,2001 年版。
54. 钱理群:《心灵的探寻》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
55. 姚鹤鸣:《理性的追踪》,江苏教育出版社,1998 年版。
56. 金重远:《20 世纪的世界》(上、下),复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
57. 蒋承勇:《世界文学史纲》,复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
58. 朱立元:《文艺理论(当代西方)》,华东师范大学,1999 年版。
59. 葛红兵:《障碍与认同》,学林出版社,2000 年版。
60. 季羡林:《比较文学与民间文学》,北京大学出版社,2001 年版。
61. 袁行霈:《中国文学史》(一、二、三、四),高等教育出版社,2001 年版。
62. 陈思和:《中国当代文学史》,复旦大学出版社,2000 年版。
63. 陈也珍:《从神的起源》,东方出版社,2001 年版。
64. 宗白华:《美学散步》,世纪出版社,2000 年版。
65. 阴法鲁:《中国古代文化史》(一),北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
66. 陈少峰:《中国伦理学史》(上、下),北京大学出版社,1996 年版。
67. 李泽厚:《浮生论学》,华夏出版社,2002 年版。
68. 陈思和:《谈虎谈兔》,广西师大出版社,2001 年版。
69. 陈炎:《中国审美文化史》(唐宋),山东画报出版社,2001 年版。
70. 李泽厚:《美学三书》,安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
71. 胡适:《白话文学史:》,百花文艺出版社,2002 年版。
72. 龙泉明:《中国新诗流变化》人民文学出版社,1999 年版。
73. 龙泉明:《现代诗学》,湖南人民出版社,2000 年版。
74. 郭志刚:《中国现代文学史》(上、下),高等教育出版社,2002 年版。
75. 李泽厚:《论语今读》,安徽文艺出版社,1998 年版。
76. 钱钟书:《写在人生边上》,生活读书新知出版社,2002 年版。
77. 柏杨:《丑陋的中国人》,贵州人民出版社,2001 年版。
78. 何兆武:《西方哲学精神》,清华大学出版社,2003 年11 月第1 版,105 页。
79. 高清海:《人就是“人”》,辽宁人民出版社,2001 年版。
80. 孙正聿:《哲学通论》,辽宁人民出版社,1998 年版。
81. 姚大志:《现代之后》,东方出版社,2000 年版。
82. 陆杰荣:《哲学境界》,吉林教育出版社,1998 年版。
83. 刘中树:《〈呐喊〉〈彷徨〉艺术论》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
84. 张福贵(等):《20 世纪中国文学的文化批判》,时代文艺出版社,1999 年版。
85. 刘纳:《嬗变》,中国社会科学出版社,1998 年版。
86. 王学谦:《自然文化与20 世纪中国文学》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
87. 孙中田(等):《镣铐下的缪斯》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
88. 刘世剑:《小说叙事艺术》,吉林大学出版社,1999 年版。
89. 丹纳:《艺术哲学》,安徽文艺出版社,1999 年版。
90. 弗洛伊德:《精神分析引论》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
91. 米克·巴尔:《叙述学》,中国社会科学出版社,2003 年版。
92. 佛杰马:《文学研究与文化参与》,北京大学出版社,1996 年版。
93. 希利斯·米勒:《重申解构主义》,中国社会科学出版社,1998 年版。
94. 雷内·韦勒克:《批评的概念》,中央美术学院出版社,1999 年版。
95. 斯塔夫里阿诺斯:《全球通史》(上、下),上海社会科学出版社,2002 年版。
96. 费正清:《中国:传统与变迁》,世界知识出版社,2002 年版。
97. 詹姆斯·哈威·鲁滨逊:[美]《新史学》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
98. 柯林武德:《历史的观念》,商务印书馆,1997 年版。
99. 明恩博:《中国人的本质》,学林出版社,2001 年版。
100. 拉·梅特里:《人是机器》,商务印书馆,2002 年版。
101.杰姆逊:《后现代主义与文化理论》,北京大学出版社,1997 年版。