On the Literary Form Ontology of the Theoretical Critical Vision in the New Era
黄擎
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942x.2003.02.012
2003-01-01
Abstract:Literary form ontology directly stems from the debate of literary form ontological criticism, claiming that text, language and form constitute the socalled literary ontology. The literary form ontology found its way into the theoretical criticism of the new era with a vigorous drive, once becoming a decisive valuedimension dominating literary creation and criticism. Briefly speaking, literary form ontology undertakes three phases: work ontology criticism, work form ontology and text form ontology.In the early new era, people began to question the onceprevalent socialideological oriented criticism which simply reduced literature to nothing but the slave and instrument of politics, proposing a fundamental opposition between the literary (poetic) use of language and the practical use of language. Some proponents and elaborators of literary form ontology, represented by Liu Zaifu, Sun Ke and Chen Xiaoming, viewed literary text as an existence independence of social and ideological values. Among literary form ontological developments are two prominent models. One is the work form ontology, which investigates the formal features inherent in a specific work, thinking that the work form ontology is built upon its concrete form essentials. But it remains controversial to clearly define which form can constitute the literary ontology. The other one is the form ontology, which endows forms with a superorganic value, viewing the abstract form as the ontology of the literature. The form ontology is represented by three prominent ideas: one is represented by Li Jie, Tang Yue, Tan Xuechun and so on, who conceive language to be selffocused; the second represented by Chen Guofeng who stresses the meaning and value of literary work in itself, but insists on subject matter being contained in form and literary ontology in form; the third represented by Yu Zhaoping who spurns the subject matter and views pure form as the literary ontology.It cannot be denied that the literary form ontology, owing to its concern with the liteariness of literature, with the foregrounding of new ideas and new visions and with the aesthetic features of literary forms in the literary criticism, is conducive to the reexamination of the formandsubject relation and the reestablishment of a justifiable formsubject view. However, the literary form ontology fails to recognize the dialectic relationship between form and subject, splits the organic tie between the inner and the outer and onesidedly stresses the superiority of form over the subject. As a result, the advocacy and practice of literary form ontology will inevitably have some negative effect upon theoretical research and creative practice.