还原一讨:面对面的学术论争——范伯群致汕头大学学报编辑部的一封信

根据袁良骏先生的《“两个翅膀论”一个似是而非的错误——再致范伯群先生》一文的观点,范伯群先生以书信的形式作了回应。认为袁先生对“两个翅膀论”质疑的观点已经多次发表,对立双方也在中国现代文学馆多功能厅作了公开论辩,无需再辩。需要再次强调的是他在中国文学馆论辩的“对话录”中的观点,摘录如下一、文学只有“多元共生”,才能满足全民中各种群体的需要。二、要分清通俗文学与庸俗文学的界线,庸俗文学总会打着通俗文学的招牌出现,应在分清的前提下予以批评或批判。三、由于普通老百姓对于通俗文学的爱好,我们就应该“因势利导”。四、想用一种文学例如“雅文学”将“俗文学”扫地出门是一种“无效劳动”。五、知识精英文学与通俗文学的成功经验与不足教训都应总结。六、既然群众对文学有“多元共生”的需求,那么各种受读者欢迎的文学中的优秀作品都有进入文学史的资格。

Face to Face Debate on Art

In response to Yuan Liangjun's “On the Theory of Two Wings: A Seemingly Correct yet Wrong Theory-A Second Response to Mr. Fan Boqun," Mr. Fan Boqun writes a letter as a way of defense. Since Mr. Yuan has published several articles on his query on the theory of “The Two Wings," and both the parties concerned have debated publicly in the conference room of China's Modern Literature Institute, Mr. Fan argues that it is unnecessary to start another debate. He simply wants to put forward the key points in his debate with Mr. Yuan. His basic points are as follows: (1) only the symbiosis of literary theories can meet the needs of diverse groups; (2) it is important to differentiate between popular literature and vulgar literature, and vulgar literature is always disguised as popular literature; (3) since the majority have a special fondness for popular literature, it is important to conduct their interests; (4) it is invalid to attempt to drive out the popular literature by means of one certain literature, such as “refined literature"; (5) it is necessary to summarize the successes and the failures of both the intellectual and refined literature and the popular literature; (6) since the masses have the requirement for the symbiosis of literatures, the literary works of all types enjoyed by the readership are entitled to the category of literary history.