有人認(rèn)為，這個時代的文學(xué)似乎不再那么迫切地需要文學(xué)批評，至少多數(shù)的寫作者，不再仰仗批評對他的告誡和提醒，他們更愿意用自己的寫作來證明自己。我不否認(rèn)，今日批評固有的一些功能已經(jīng)分解到了其他地方，譬如媒體的議論、網(wǎng)絡(luò)的點評、會議的發(fā)言，也是一種小型的文學(xué)批評，它越來越深刻地影響著當(dāng)下的文學(xué)生態(tài)。這令我想起圣伯夫的一句話，“巴黎真正的批評常常是一種口頭批評。”在一次談話、一次會議或者一次網(wǎng)絡(luò)討論中，關(guān)于某部作品的批評就可能完成了——這種對批評的輕淺化、庸?；?，使批評的光芒日益黯淡，即便不卷入這些世俗活動的批評家，也免不了受這種批評風(fēng)潮的感染。批評似乎不再是莊重的文體，而成了平庸者的話語游戲。

但批評的意義仍然強大。它不僅是一種告誡的藝術(shù)，能夠有效地通過對話來影響作家，影響文學(xué)的當(dāng)下進(jìn)程；它還能提出一種肯定，進(jìn)而昭示出一種何為值得我們熱愛的文學(xué)，何為值得我們獻(xiàn)身的精神。

無從告誡，并不一定是批評勇氣的喪失，也可能是批評家缺乏智慧和見識，看不清問題，不能把話說到真正的痛處。贊美的話，作家聽起來像是在贊美別人，批評的話聽起來也像是在批評另一個人，隔靴搔癢不說，有些還明顯張冠李戴，這就難免一些作家對批評充滿怨氣和鄙薄。沒有睿見，那些勇敢的批評，增長的無非是文壇的戾氣，這對于矯治一些作家的寫作陋習(xí)并無助益。因此，夏普蘭把批評名之為“告誡的藝術(shù)”，很多人只重“告誡”二字，但忽視了“藝術(shù)”——滿臉怒氣的告誡，激起的一定是對方的怒氣，在怒氣之中討論，真問題往往就被掩蓋了。

批評應(yīng)是一種理性的分析、智慧的體證，甚至是一種覺悟之道，此為學(xué)術(shù)之本義。所謂“學(xué)”，本義當(dāng)為覺悟，而“術(shù)”是道路、是方法；學(xué)術(shù)，其實是一種覺悟的方式，學(xué)者則是正在覺悟的人。在批評和學(xué)問之中，如果不出示覺悟之道，不呈現(xiàn)一顆自由的心靈，那終歸是一種技能、工具，是一種“為人”之學(xué)，而少了“為己”之學(xué)的自在。所以，現(xiàn)在的學(xué)術(shù)文章無數(shù)，能讓人心為之所動的時刻，卻是太少了，以己昏昏，使人昭昭，久而久之，也就成了一種習(xí)慣，不再對學(xué)術(shù)的快速生產(chǎn)抱太大的希望。事實上，幾年前我讀王元化和林毓生的通信，當(dāng)他們談到關(guān)于文化的衰敗和人的精神素質(zhì)下降，我就認(rèn)同了他們的感嘆，“世界不再令人著迷”。只是，我心里還有不甘，總覺得世間萬事原非定局，它是可以變的；人力雖然渺小，但也是可以增長和積蓄的。這也是我至今還在做著文學(xué)批評的原因之一。

除了告誡，批評還應(yīng)是一種肯定。中國每一次文學(xué)革命，重變化，重形式的創(chuàng)新，但缺少一種大肯定來統(tǒng)攝作家的心志。我現(xiàn)在能明白，何以古人推崇“先讀經(jīng)，后讀史”——“經(jīng)”是常道，是不變的價值；“史”是變道，代表生活的變數(shù)。不建立起常道意義上的生命意識、價值精神，一個人的立身、寫作就無肯定可言。所謂肯定，就是承認(rèn)這個世界還有常道，還有不變的精神，吾道一以貫之，天地可變，道不變?！拔逅摹币院?，中國人在思想上反傳統(tǒng)，在文學(xué)上寫自然實事，背后的哲學(xué)，其實就是只相信變化，不相信這個世界還有一個常道需要守護。所以，小說，詩歌，散文，都著力于描寫歷史和生活的變化，在生命上，沒有人覺得還需要有所守，需要以不變應(yīng)萬變。把常道打掉的代價，就是生命進(jìn)入了一個大迷茫時期，文學(xué)也沒有了價值定力，隨波逐流，表面熱鬧，背后其實是一片空無。所以，作家們都在寫實事，但不立心；都在寫黑暗，但少有溫暖；都表達(dá)絕望，但看不見希望；都在屈從，拒絕警覺和抗?fàn)?；都在否定，缺乏肯定。批評也是如此。面對這片狼藉的文學(xué)世界，批評中最活躍的精神，也不過是一種“憤”，以否定為能事。由“憤”，而流于尖酸刻薄、耍小聰明者，也不在少數(shù)。古人寫文章，重典雅，講體統(tǒng)，現(xiàn)在這些似乎都可以不要了。牟宗三說，“君子存心忠厚，講是非不可不嚴(yán)，但不可尖酸刻薄。假使罵人弄久了，以為天下的正氣都在我這里，那就是自己先已受病。”現(xiàn)在做批評，若心胸坦蕩，存肯定之心，張揚一種生命理想，就不傷自己，也不傷文學(xué)。

以此看批評，當(dāng)能正確認(rèn)識批評的價值。批評面對的往往是具體的、還未有定論的作品和問題，但這些是文學(xué)進(jìn)程中的基本肌理，也是一切理論探討的落腳點。文學(xué)理論與文學(xué)史研究，如果不以文學(xué)批評為基礎(chǔ)，多半會成為空論，而不是有血肉和肌理的實學(xué)。

文學(xué)批評提供的是一種不同于知識生產(chǎn)和材料考據(jù)的閱讀感受，它告訴我們最新的文學(xué)狀況，且直率地說出自己對當(dāng)下文學(xué)和現(xiàn)實的個人看法。從這個角度說，文學(xué)批評在學(xué)術(shù)秩序里的自卑感是虛假的、不必要的。但文學(xué)批評依然面臨著一個如何發(fā)聲、如何立心的難題。一些批評家，試圖通過批評的學(xué)術(shù)化來確證它的價值，但這條路未必走得通，因為批評一旦喪失了藝術(shù)直覺和價值決斷這一基石，只有“術(shù)語水準(zhǔn)一類的零碎”（ 李健吾語），批評就可能成為死的知識，既無冒險的勇氣，也無有趣的分析，必將老得更快。因此，批評如果沒有學(xué)理，沒有對材料的掌握和分析，那是一種無知；但如果批評只限于知識和材料，不能分享文學(xué)精神的內(nèi)在性，也會造成一種審美癱瘓。尼采說，歷史感和擺脫歷史束縛的能力同樣重要，說的就是這個意思。近年關(guān)于批評學(xué)術(shù)化和歷史化的訴求，盡管越來越強烈，但關(guān)于批評的質(zhì)疑卻從未斷絕，原因何在？

必須警惕一種批評的依附性，“依附性”將導(dǎo)致批評精神的淪喪。今天，商業(yè)主義的誘惑會使批評喪失原則，而知識和術(shù)語對批評的劫持，則會斷送批評這一文體的魅力。文學(xué)批評曾經(jīng)是傳播新思潮、推動文學(xué)進(jìn)入民眾日常生活的重要武器，尤其是新時期初，它對一種黑暗現(xiàn)實的抗議聲，并不亞于任何一種文學(xué)體裁，但隨著近些年來社會的保守化和精神的犬儒化，文學(xué)批評也不斷縮減為一種自言自語，它甚至將自己的批判精神拱手讓出，它不再獨立地發(fā)聲，也就談不上參與塑造公眾的精神世界。文學(xué)批評的邊緣化比文學(xué)本身更甚，原因正在于此。而對文學(xué)批評獨立性的召喚，最重要的是要重新認(rèn)識批評的品質(zhì)——批評也是一種寫作，一種精神共享的方式。伏爾泰說，公眾是由不提筆寫作的批評家組成，而批評則是不創(chuàng)造任何東西的藝術(shù)家。批評也是藝術(shù)，也有對精神性、想象力和文體意識的獨立要求，它不依附于任何寫作，因為它本身就是一種獨立的寫作。

批評要成為真正獨立的寫作，就必須為批評立心。無心，就無立場，無精神維度，無靈魂，也就是沒有批評之道。

那何為批評之心？我以為它至少包含義理、實證和文體這三方面。其中，又以義理為最高。批評的義理，不僅是指思想或哲學(xué)，它也是指文學(xué)的道義與藝術(shù)的原理。不合義理的批評，即便姿態(tài)勇猛、辭章華麗，終歸偏離了文學(xué)的大道，而難以服人。而講究義理的批評，又要有實證精神和文體意識，才能使它所堅持的義理得以落實。實證，就是考據(jù)，文本的考據(jù)，關(guān)乎藝術(shù)細(xì)節(jié)的欣賞，人物性格的邏輯分析，情感沖突的發(fā)現(xiàn)和探討——所謂的細(xì)讀，其實就是實證，是一種藝術(shù)形象的還原。文體，是說話的方式，也是語言的風(fēng)采，是修辭之美，也是文章之道。古人說，“有德必有言”，這個“言”就是修辭，也是文體。有怎樣的義理，也就會有怎樣的文體。情感如何節(jié)制，說話如何把握分寸，個性與激情如何平衡，理性與感性如何互動，修辭立其誠，這都是文體的藝術(shù)。

義理、實證和文體，這三者是一個整體，不可偏廢。三者合一，則文學(xué)批評也成一特殊的學(xué)問——義理闡明文學(xué)的德性，實證運用鑒賞的能力，文體經(jīng)營批評的辭章，這幾方面皆備，才堪稱有學(xué)問的批評，立心的批評。為批評立心，其實是為批評找魂，找到了這個魂魄，批評才不會茍且：價值上不茍且，是義理的基礎(chǔ)；字句上不茍且，是文體的開端。好的批評，是文學(xué)之道與文章之道的完美統(tǒng)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 “學(xué)術(shù)”(xue shu), “學(xué)”(xue) represents the enlightenment, and “術(shù)”(shu) represents the path to knowledge, “術(shù)”(shu) is the path through which the person acquires knowledge and gets enlightened and “學(xué)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.