What does writerly literature mean? Thank you!

Over the past two decades, "pure literature" has been an extremely important core concept, which has not only created a new literary concept, but also greatly influenced and rewritten contemporary Chinese literature. This concept has effectively controlled specific literary practices, and at the same time, it has also effectively penetrated into literary criticism and even literary education, to which no one can be indifferent. In a sense, it is not an exaggeration to say that the concept of "pure literature" has left traces of the influence of modernity in contemporary China in terms of its creation, rise, and control over the entire history of literature. Therefore, today, the re-dialectic of the concept of "pure literature" actually implies a rethinking of modernity and a re-conceptualization of China's social development. The dialectic of a concept is naturally transformed into a concrete historical narrative, a tracing and depiction of the origin of thought.

1, a moving reference

In the past twenty years, in my memory and reading impression, I have not yet seen anyone give a complete and clear definition of the extension and connotation of the concept of "pure literature", which seems to be a usual phenomenon in contemporary literary history: the more ambiguous the concept, the more widely spread it can be. The more ambiguous a concept is, the more widely it is disseminated. Therefore, when we enter the history of literature, we often find that certain concepts are sometimes not important in themselves, but rather as a term, a "moving reference", or "a narrative category", on which contemporary literature relies to define "pure literature". What kind of "stories" contemporary literature relies on the concept of "pure literature" to tell. Therefore, it is necessary to historicize and stage the concept of "pure literature". Only in this way can we, as Jameson said, "make an archaeological excavation of the future".2

The specific time of the emergence of the concept of "pure literature" has not yet been specially examined, but it can be roughly determined to be in the early eighties. The special historical background of this concept is, as Li Tao said, "The emergence and survival of the expression 'pure literature' in China is due to a special historical circumstance at the turn of the seventies and eighties, which is: the 'Cultural Revolution' has just ended, and the very rigid and rigid culture of the country is still in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. The 'Cultural Revolution' had just ended, and very rigid literary dogmas were still seriously binding literature-such as 'literature and art are subordinate to politics,' literature must be written about 'typical characters in typical environments,' and literature must be written about 'typical characters in typical environments,' and literature must be written about 'typical characters in typical environments' from the Model Plates. ', and the 'high and mighty' summarized in the model operas, etc. These 'principles of art' became dogmas that could not be violated, and became serious obstacles to the 'emancipation' of literature. These 'artistic principles' have all become dogmas that cannot be violated, and have become serious obstacles to literary 'liberation'. Under those circumstances, writers could only break through, resist, and criticize these literary dogmas before their writing could be liberated and a new kind of writing could be developed. After the 'Cultural Revolution', it was 'scar literature' that was initially recognized and liked by society as a whole, and it was then generally regarded by the critical community as a new literary development (the so-called 'new-period literature') It was widely regarded by critics at the time as a new literary development (the so-called 'New Period Literature'), and seen as a concrete practice of the 'Reform and Reorganization' in the field of literature, with a very innovative significance. However, I have always had a low opinion of this kind of writing, thinking that it is basically the continuation and development of the same kind of literature of the workers, peasants, and soldiers, and that, as a kind of literary trend, it does not put forward new literary principles, norms, and frameworks, and therefore scar literature is basically a kind of 'old' literature (these views of mine were discussed in more detail in my later article "1985"). (these views of mine were later discussed in more detail in the article "1985"). Since the mainstream critics at that time rated scar literature very highly (and there are still people who rate it very highly), and I was not the only one who was skeptical and opposed to it, there was a fierce conflict around 'scar literature', which intensified around 1985 and had a decisive influence on the 'New Wave Criticism' of the 1980s. The 'New Wave Criticism' that had a decisive impact on the 1980s was born as a result." 3 Han Shaogong agrees: "The definition of 'pure literature' has never been ambiguous. As far as I can remember, the idea of 'pure literature' emerged in the 1980s in response to a certain kind of 'problem literature' that emphasized propaganda and sociality, but later on, those who advocated the supremacy of the self, the supremacy of form, the supremacy of modernism, and even the promotion of seriousness and elegance were all in favor of pure literature, thus distancing themselves from the popular reading material. Later, those who advocated the supremacy of self, those who advocated the supremacy of form, those who advocated the supremacy of modernism, and even those who advocated seriousness and elegance, and thus distanced themselves from the ground-level reading material, were successively categorized as 'pure literature'-although with a lot of differences between them. As participants in the "pure literature" movement of that year, Li Tao and Han Shaogong's claims are generally plausible.

The meaning of a concept often arises from the opposition of things, and it is precisely because of the existence of the so-called old literature that "pure literature" has been able to gain its legitimacy in literary history. Therefore, the existence of the so-called old literature is the prerequisite for the establishment of the concept of "pure literature" at that time. The so-called "old literature" actually refers to the kind of rigid literary concepts that sanctified the traditional realist coding style, which was still influential in the 1970s and 1980s, and directly gave rise to the "literature of wounds", the "reform novel", the "novel of reform", the "novel of the reform", and so on, "reform novels" and other "problematic literature". It is in this special historical environment that the concept of "pure literature" has a strong revolutionary significance. This significance lies in the fact that it destroys, disintegrates and even subverts the traditional realist coding method, and under the cover of the slogan "form is content", the writer's individuality is brought into full play, thus obtaining an inner creative freedom in the true sense of the word. The rise of modernism in China has not only given the concept of "pure literature" strong support in literary practice, but also further promoted the development of this practice. It is in this modernist movement that "pure literature" has been able to penetrate into the depths of the human mind with the help of modern philosophy, aesthetics and psychology. It was during this modernist movement that "pure literature," with the help of modern philosophy, aesthetics, and psychology, was able to penetrate into the inner world of man and turn to an inner narrative, or what was then called "turning inward," which greatly enriched the narrative means of contemporary Chinese literature. More importantly, with the help of this narrative category of the concept of "pure literature", a "story" of modernity was successfully told at that time, and some important concepts, such as the self, the individual, human nature, sexuality, the unconscious, freedom, universality, love, and so on, were all realized through the concept of "pure literature", Some important concepts, such as self, individual, humanity, sexuality, unconscious, freedom, universality, love, and so on, were organized into various kinds of stories through this narrative category of the concept of "pure literature". Therefore, in a sense, the concept of "pure literature" was a product of the "New Enlightenment" movement at that time, which, while narrating the dilemma of individual existence in the world, also provided people with the possibility of choosing modern values. It should be admitted that in the 1980s, various kinds of narrative behaviors were organized through the narrative category of the concept of "pure literature", such as "modernism", "root literature", "vanguard literature", and so on, "Pioneer Literature", etc. Their resistance and subversion have greatly shaken the status of the orthodox concept of literature. And they have opened up a broad artistic space for the subsequent literary practice. However, we still can't put the concept of "pure literature" only in the field of literature for examination and dialectic, in that case, we will underestimate the revolutionary significance of this concept at that time. If we introduce Foucault's theory of "discourse" into the analysis of the concept of "pure literature", we will find that behind the conflict of discourse, there is also a hidden power struggle. As a product of the "New Enlightenment" or "ideological liberation" movement, the concept of "pure literature" represents the intellectuals' demand for rights from the very beginning. （The concept of "pure literature" was introduced from the very beginning to represent the demands of the intellectuals, which included: the independent status of literature (meaning spirituality), free thought and speech, diversity of personal existence and choice, rejection of and resistance to the extreme leftist politics or homogeneity, and the demand for the expansion and opening up of the field of public ****, and so on. Therefore, at that time, the concept of "pure literature" actually had a very strong concern for reality and ideological coloring, and was even a kind of cultural politics, not a non-ideological refusal to enter the public **** field of literary advocacy, as was mistakenly believed by the later, which was one of the reasons why literature could become the forerunner of thought at that time. one of the reasons why literature was able to become an ideological forerunner at that time. Thus, in the 1980s, "pure literature" was a very useful concept, as Nan Fan puts it: "If the traditional realist code has been sanctified, if the historical performance that once existed is becoming a huge cage, then a deafening exaggeration is necessary. If society and history in literature have become a bunch of abstract concepts and figures, then the experience of the individual, the heart, the life of certain marginalized characters is another way of restoring society and history to their proper meaning. If martial arts novels, cartoons, pop songs and soap operas are being described by many as the whole of art, what is wrong in mentioning 'pure literature' as another kind of existence? ...... It is within the historical and cultural networks of the 1980s and 1990s that the notion of 'pure literature' produced its critical and defiant function. The concept cut into history from another direction",5 and at the same time helped the intellectuals to establish their own critical stance.

However, as Nanfan puts it, when "pure literature" cut into history, the dialectic of history was also activated at the same time, and "the concept soon lost its sharpness and became conservative," "'Pure literature' was a concept that was not only a new concept, but also a new one," he says. 'Pure literature' began to be imbued with a certain metaphysical character. Some theorists and writers sought to enshrine the literary form or 'private writing' as the new literary dogma in the name of 'pure literature'. They are convinced that this is what characterizes literature as literature. At this point in time, 'pure literature' moved away from its historical context and began to carefully defend some so-called literary 'essence'. Electronic media, modern transportation and economic globalization are connecting the world. New systems of power have been born. History is posing a series of major questions to all. Yet at this time 'pure literature' refuses to enter the realm of public ****. Literature has given up sharp criticism and resistance and voluntarily withdrawn from the historical and cultural network. Advocates of 'pure literature' were unafraid to admit that literature was a linguistic artifact in a bookshop, a linguistically constructed paradise. The ideological deconstruction contained in the radical language of pioneering literature has been replaced by careless language play. This is in line with other fields among the arts - all collages or readymade pranks have a reason to call themselves pioneering art - with no depth, little meaning, no need to be profoundly connected to those varied histories and cultures. ......" and so on.6

A concept must depend on its specific historical context in order to exist and gain legitimacy for its existence. Once the time has passed, if the concept fails to adjust its scope and connotation in time, it will most likely become a new theoretical dogma, and only the essentialists will stubbornly believe that there is some kind of eternal and unchanging essence in the world. Similarly, when China entered the nineties, the whole historical conditions and social relations have changed drastically, and some specific historical contexts on which the concept of "pure literature" was based have also changed dramatically (e.g., the sanctification of the traditional realist coding method), and at this time if we continue to be confined to the concept of "pure literature," we will have a great risk of becoming a new theoretical dogma. At this time, if we continue to be confined to the concept of "pure literature" and reject the new "call" of history, we will most likely become a new literary dogmatist and conservative. However, this is only one aspect of the problem. Another aspect of the problem is that the concept of "pure literature" has already presupposed a theoretical conservative possibility.

As active advocates and participants of the "ideological liberation" or "new enlightenment" movement, intellectuals undoubtedly played a decisive role in the historical changes of Chinese society. At the same time, however, they also cultivated an elitist mentality among intellectuals, and in the course of their development, society gradually nurtured a relative class of intellectual elites, which complemented each other and constituted an emerging interest group in China in the 1990s.7 In the early 1980s, however, the intellectuals were still a disadvantaged group in the society, and not only did they arouse the sympathy of the whole society for their difficult experiences, but also, and more importantly, in this period, the intellectuals were still the most vulnerable group in the society. More importantly, during this period, the intellectuals' demands for rights, such as their longing for modernization, their desire for a humanized life, their pursuit of freedom and democracy, and their resistance to and rejection of the extreme leftist politics, all coincided to a certain extent with the interests of the whole society, and thus formed an alliance of interests with the majority of society, which was precisely the broad popular support for the "ideological emancipation" movement. This is precisely the broad mass base of the "ideological liberation" movement. Therefore, the so-called "pure literature" at that time conveyed the spirit of the times in a very subtle and tortuous way. Even the more radical "Pioneer Literature" still possessed a certain revolutionary significance due to its fierce destructive and deconstructive effect on ideology, which was one of the reasons why "Pure Literature" was able to gain social support. Only in the 1990s, when new power relations began to be formed, the society was re-stratified, and the demands for interests and power began to be decentralized, the social alliance of the 1980s in fact no longer existed, and at this time it was difficult for intellectuals to represent the interests of the disadvantaged groups as a group or as a class. Therefore, when "pure literature" continued to refuse to enter the field of public ****, more often than not, it evolved into a kind of "narcissistic" word game, and similarly, the famous saying of "how to write is more important than what to write" in the 1980s, which is also known as "how to write is more important than what to write". Similarly, "how to write is more important than what to write", a famous slogan of the 1980s, has developed a new writing possibility due to its destruction of the traditional realist coding method. Although hyperbole is still a valid literary proposition, once it loses its premise of revolt, it naturally transforms itself into a form-first or technological supremacist, and its conservatism is more and more clearly exposed.

For the intellectuals of the 1980s, their ideas were more strongly supported by modernity, which, in the narrative category of "pure literature," was not only expressed as a specific Western imagination (including an excessive fascination with Western modern theories), but was also transformed into a kind of essentialized thinking, such as the habit of abstracting concepts. For example, it is customary to abstract and universalize concepts, instead of examining and dialecticizing them in specific historical contexts. This way of thinking has seriously weakened the ability of Chinese intellectuals to observe and think, especially as they have become increasingly elitist, and has prevented them from continuing to identify and pose questions. Although modernism provided "pure literature" with a textual practice of resistance to modernization (some traces of this can be found in "root literature"), modernism, by its very nature, existed in opposition to modernization and identified with its bright future, and therefore its resistance could only be in the form of resistance to modernization. But modernism, by its very nature, exists with modernization and has identified it with a better future, and therefore its revolt can only be incomplete. This "collective" imagination, formed at the beck and call of modernity, encounters today many of the problems that modernity can encounter: the individual, the self, subjectivity, freedom, the state, politics, ideology, and so on. And it is these discourses that constitute the derivation of the concept of "pure literature" - "back to literature itself".

2, What is Literature Itself

In the 1980s, there was a famous analogy circulating, which means that the carriage of literature has been carrying too many things, and it is now time to unload those things that do not belong to literature from the carriage, which are naturally the state, the society, the politics, and the ideology, etc. This is in fact an analysis of what is "pure literature", and it is a reflection of what is "pure literature". This is actually an extremely graphic summary of what "literature itself" is. At that time, this statement was widely spread, not only in writing, but also in university classroom education or impromptu speeches, so that it is still fresh in the minds of many young people today.8

And among the things that were unloaded from the carriage of literature, ideology is obviously an extremely important concept. If we take ideology as a simple historicization, we will find that it refers to a very complex content. In Tracy's time (he is said to have coined the term), ideology was used to name a new discipline, conceptualism. Half a century later, in his book The German Ideology, Marx used the term to portray a narrow, egoistic view of the world (i.e., the bourgeoisie's point of view), that is to say, ideology is a distortion of real social relations by a particular social class in order to maximize its own class interests, and is a kind of "false consciousness" or "false consciousness". It is a "false consciousness" or "misconception" which is destined to be replaced by science (reflecting the view of the working class), which is the classic Marxist understanding of ideology. Mannheim draws a further distinction between these two ideologies, the ideological prejudices of the declining classes - "ideology" - and the ideology of the emerging classes - the "utopia" and argued that utopia was the creation of intellectuals belonging to no class. After the Second World War, Daniel Bell expressed his disillusionment with ideology and utopia, and thus proclaimed the end of ideology, and in doing so, he had in mind primarily Marxism, which he believed was giving way to a moderate, non-ideological liberalism based on an awareness of the limits of politics.9 But ideology has not, as Daniel Bell imagined has come to an end, but rather has shown itself to be a new and vibrant place under contemporary theoretical reinterpretations. Among the new interpretations of ideology, Althusser defines ideology as "the reproduction of an imaginative relation between the individual and his real being," meaning that the ideological sense of wholeness is an imaginative function and is linked to the ideal self. There are clear traces of psychoanalytic doctrine in this statement (e.g., Geiger's view of ideology as primitive emotions, aesthetic sensibilities, and value judgments masked in the form of "theories"),10 especially Lacanian theory. In his introduction to Althusser's theory of ideology, Jameson, while insisting on the notion of "class", that "without the notion of class there can be no notion of ideology", and that "ideology is an intermediary notion, a concept of Ideology is an intermediary concept, a mediator between what dialectics calls the individual and the general. All ideologies include both individual and collective levels, either group consciousness or class consciousness." 11 Still, the individual element of ideology has attracted the attention of many, with Ziesel, under the influence of Lacan, arguing that "ideology is not an illusion that conceals the true state of things, but rather an (unconscious) phantasmagoria that constructs our social reality." And ideology itself is not a "social consciousness" but a "social being". In this way, ideology is not only an idea and a concept, a belief, but also a behavior and a "practice. "12 Thus, not only has ideology not ended, but on the contrary, it has infiltrated our daily lives, and we are virtually surrounded by a variety of ideologies. As Jameson says in his introduction to Adorno, "Adorno made the remark that the commodity has become its own ideology. The implication of this statement is to point out the change in ideology. ...... We no longer have old-fashioned ideologies, only commodities, and commodity consumption is at the same time its own ideology. Instead of a set of beliefs, there is now a set of behaviors, practices, and perhaps the old-fashioned ideologies are beliefs".13 And the role or function of ideology remains, because ideology, after all, provides a mode of experiencing the world, without which human beings would be deprived of the possibility of knowing and experiencing the world. It is this "omnipresence" of ideology that makes it impossible to de-ideologize literature; on the contrary, if there is a "literature itself," then this so-called "literature itself" is precisely ideology. On the contrary, if there is a "literature itself", then this so-called "literature itself" is also an "occasion" for ideology or ideological conflict.

But in the 1980s, we would not have had such a complex understanding of ideology. At that time, we understood ideology only as a mainstream ideology, or more specifically, the ideology of far-left politics. This ideology not only controlled all the contents of our lives, but also controlled literary writing, making literature only a simple "propaganda machine" for certain political ideas, and the so-called "reproduction" was only a reproduction of the false image of this ideology. The so-called "reproduction" is only a reproduction of the false image of this ideology. Therefore, in this particular historical environment, the "de-ideologization" emphasized by "pure literature" at that time obviously had quite a positive significance. By doing so, it rejected the political-ideological control of literature by the extreme left, thus allowing literature to independently express the voice of the time.14 However, it can also be argued that this rejection was itself an ideology, specifically, a redefinition of an imaginary relationship between the individual and modernization, namely, the "modernization of the human being". The "modernization of the human being" (liberation of the individual, freedom, rights, etc.). To achieve this "modernization of the human being", it is necessary to dissolve the control of the "false consciousness" of ideology over the human being. In this way, a real "rupture" is created between history and reality, and the past is easily dealt with as an "absurdity" or, simply, as a "joke". ". Behind the "end of ideology" is the final establishment of modernity in China in the 1980s, and all imaginations of the future point to modernity, to "progress" and "development", the two key elements of modernity, as well as to "progress" and "development", which are the key elements of modernity. All imaginings of the future finally point to modernity, to "progress" and "development", the two core concepts of modernity. And all of our life (including literature) is nothing but or can only be a copy of the "mother" of modernity. These seem to have formed a kind of "destiny" in contemporary Chinese literature, which, by abandoning the exploration of multiple possibilities for the future, has on the one hand fiercely deconstructed reality, and on the other hand automatically given up the imagination and even the impulse for a new historical utopia. Pioneer literature is clearly characterized by both of these features.15 This one-sided and simplistic understanding of ideology, in fact, gradually deprived us of the ability to "deconstruct" and "utopia". For a long time to come, when we face new social phenomena such as the market, capital, commodities, etc., we can only hold a kind of moralistic and critical stance, but we are incapable of recognizing that the consumption of commodities is at the same time its own ideology, a response to modernity, and a new kind of establishment of imaginative relations. The lack of the ability to "demystify" is also due to the loss of our ability to "utopianize". When we take modernization (Westernization) as our only blueprint for the future, it means that our utopian resources are exhausted. And when we are unable to determine our imaginative relation to the real conditions of existence, we are also unable to build our own ideology. Therefore, while various ideologies use their "persuasion-training" function to "legitimize" what they represent, "pure literature" is also, or rather, has become, a "utopia" in its own right. "What is or can be done about it?

At the same time that "pure literature" emphasizes de-ideologization, another corresponding term has arisen, which is the so-called "original life". What is the original ecological life, this phrase in today's view semantically seems very ambiguous, but at that time it did provide a new imaginative space for writing. This is because when an ideology appears as a form of "false conception," it disguises, obscures, and tampers with people's daily experience, and literature can only provide a false image of life. Therefore, the so-called "original life" is actually a theoretical support for writers to open the door of their personal memories, and to confront and dissolve the ideology of "false concepts" with their own daily experiences. However, this statement itself hides another possibility, that is, it tacitly assumes that there is indeed some kind of "real" life in the world that can exist independently of ideology, and that life therefore needs to be searched for. One of the direct consequences of this statement is that "pure literature" has increasingly ignored the reality of daily life in which we are directly involved, and bet more on the imagination of the heart, which not only accelerates to some extent the alienation between "pure literature" and social existence, but also makes "pure literature" and social existence more and more distant. This not only accelerates to some extent the alienation of "pure literature" from social existence, but also makes "pure literature" gradually lose the ability to pay attention to reality and grasp reality. On the other hand, the question to be asked is how the daily experience of individuals surfaces on the surface of our consciousness, and how the door of memory is opened. In fact, even the "original life" is supported by another ideology, a way of responding to "modernity". If we read the works of the 1980s, we will find that most of the narratives surrounding the "original life" are about everyday experiences and demands of life, such as the "liberation of individuality". An example of this is that in 1999, when I was in charge of the daily work of Shanghai Literature, I started a column called "City Map" in the publication, and many of the writers who contributed to this column were around 45 years old. Perhaps influenced by their personal experience, family background and social background, most of the objects depicted by these writers were centered in the northern part of the city, providing a historical, grassroots Shanghai. About a year later, a group of younger writers began to appear, and it was at this time that the so-called "noble areas" of Huaihai Road, Nanjing Road, Xujiahui, etc. appeared frequently in these writers' writings, and the scenes, characters, and plots they provided were sometimes similar. These writers may not always live in these areas, and their personal memories may not always be summarized by these lives. Obviously, it is ideology that is behind the choice of life. What these writers have embraced is a model of life, or an ideological illusion, created and offered by the media of the day. We actually live in ideology all the time, and there is no absolute "original life". The question is only what we use to bring our daily experiences to the surface of our consciousness and open the door to our personal memories.

Of course, we cannot attribute the "withdrawal" of "pure literature" to the "end of history" or the "end of ideology". Of course, we cannot attribute the "withdrawal" of "pure literature" from society to the influence of "the end of history" or "the end of ideology", which would be too arbitrary. In fact, there were other factors, such as a kind of political repression,17 and the brutality of the ideological struggle in the 1980s was also present. And it was this cruelty that forced writers to avoid reality and to emphasize the importance of aesthetics. But the traces of the influence of modernity are also evident. It is the over-emphasis on the "self" that has made literature increasingly contemptuous of and alienated from the concepts of the state, society, and the community.

The establishment and development of "self" in contemporary literature has been discussed by many writers and critics, including Han Shaogong, who has argued that "'self' seems to be one of the many concepts of 'pure literature'. Self' seems to be one of the many important concepts of 'pure literature'. I used to agree with the idea that literary scholars should cherish their selves, recognize their selves, express their selves, and oppose the kind of all-knowing arrogance in writing and the arbitrariness and usurpation of attempting to regulate society. I still think that this statement still has a positive significance in general".18 And because of "self", literature has also discovered another corresponding concept, "subjectivity", around which "self" is centered. The various narrative activities surrounding the notion of "subjectivity" were, in the literature of the 1980s, mainly "struggles between individual subjects to win recognition".19 Since most of the "selves" of that time were not "selves", the "selves" of the 1980s were not "selves", but "selves". Since this "self" at that time mostly contained a disadvantaged background, it appeared in literature as an "individual subject" but with a relative group character (e.g., the outstanding text of early women's literature, The Same Horizon). However, "the self is not born, but can only emerge from a specific social environment and cultural process, and only emerge from the community". Therefore, after the withdrawal of "pure literature" from the society, "self" gradually evolved into a closed concept, "the 'self' does induce narcissism and self-absorption in some writers. The word 'self' has indeed induced narcissism and autism in some writers, and writers seem to look at themselves in the mirror every day, but the self in the mirror is not getting richer and richer, on the contrary, it is getting more and more homogeneous, for example, it has made some standardized formulas such as a coffee bar with a bed and a little bit of sadness". In recent years, I have also found in my reading of fiction manuscripts that the closer the standard of "personalized" writing is, the more homogeneous the works become. This is only one aspect of the problem. Another aspect of the problem is that the process of "egocentricity" is also a process of continuous expansion, a process of colonization of the "other", which inevitably results in an elitist mentality. "The 'self' has even become a false title of pseudo-aristocracy for certain elites who disregard others, despise the public, and hate the society. The prejudice and even the prodigal behavior of the self are often legitimized under this claim. In an era of capital liberalization in which the old and the new power elite have more and more resources for self-expansion than the common people, it is not difficult to imagine what kind of human and literary character this tendency will produce".20

So what is left on the wagon of literature, after the state, politics, society, community, ideology and so on have all been removed from it? Is it self and subjectivity, or aesthetic and poetic? At this time, two people attracted people's attention, namely Heidegger and Borges. We find the cultural ornamentation of the "poetic habitat" in the "forest path", while Borges' bibliographical writing provides us with the best intellectual excuse. But who knows to what extent we have tampered with and emasculated these two writers and philosophers.

But the problem does not end here,, behind the withdrawal of literature from society's rejection of reality, there may also lie a desire to construct the world that comes from the nature of human nature as a static, eternal and unchanging thing. Thus, in literature, the combination of concepts such as desire, individuality, subjectivity, rights, sexuality, unconsciousness, freedom, etc. builds a new world accordingly, and the identity of the self is accomplished in such an illusory scenario that has been constructed. (Now, this illusory nature is being transferred to the popular culture, with the "humanized space", "humanistic space", and "humanist space", as well as the "humanistic space". Nowadays, this illusion is being transferred to mass culture, where words like "humanized space" and "humanistic care" fill all kinds of advertisements, and many of the practitioners in the culture industry are the same literary youths of those years). The self-identity accomplished in this scenario is rather dubious, and it also creates a vast distance between values and facts in reality. When literature becomes obsessed with this world and recognizes it as real existence itself, it actually suppresses "the role of thought about history," and thus loses the ability to grasp the eternally changing history and reality.

A dream has been shattered, the world has not been able to accomplish the unity of freedom, democracy, equality and justice in the context of modernity as we thought, the dialectic of history still exists, and "to imagine that human nature will be drastically changed, and that the social relations of the present system will be changed along with it, is nothing but a nonsense

Respondent: bbqmow - Apprentice Wizard III 12-30 12:15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concept, a given fact for a The concept of a concept is a generalization and summary of an established fact. In the field of literary creation, there are always some obvious creative tendencies, creative ideas, writing techniques, values, etc., due to reach a certain scale, caused a certain impact, and thus recognized by the majority of people to give it a more precise definition, become a "literary concept".

Literary concepts, in the past, were gradually recognized by critics and readers through the creative practices of many writers and summarized by the latter, i.e., there are works first and concepts later. Nowadays, with the packaging and hype of the work getting deeper and deeper, the order of literary concepts and literary works has undergone a fundamental change - before the work has entered the reader's field of vision, there has been a complete planning program, first playing the book embodies (with) the banner of a certain literary concept, and then use it to attract readers, buy and then read.

From the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976 to the present, time has passed nearly thirty years, literary creation through the sparse grass finally grew into today's lush jungle, the literary concepts experienced, the Ganges River, just from another side of the trajectory of China's literary development.

In a nutshell, this is a kind of from the trend of thought to