美国中国艺术学会档案。

Richard Edwards
{"title":"美国中国艺术学会档案。","authors":"Richard Edwards","doi":"10.2307/2941934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"air of impartiality. Thus in his conclusion he permits himself the unwarranted conjecture that official reiteration of the orthodoxy of socialist realism in 1953 \"may be evidence that the Communists feel that the reins must be loosened a bit\" (p. 101). (Socialist realism was embraced by Chinese communist and leftist writers as early as 1933, following the adoption of this catch-phrase by the Union of Soviet Writers in the same year; Mr. Chao's book, which enumerates new cases of persecution in 1954 and 1955, easily explodes Mr. Borowitz's conjecture.) Mr. Borowitz is also often vague or inaccurate when he strays from his period to comment on literary matters in the preceding years. Thus his remark on page 15 that \"it is interesting to note that Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were not Communists before 1949\" is compounded of many errors. Both Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were prominent communist writers long before 1949. If Kuo Mo-jo was not a member of the Communist Party before 1949, then neither is he a member today. Now Vice-Premier of the State Council and the most highly honored man of letters in Communist China, he is only technically a member of a minor political party. Mr. Chao's book, which, in contrast to that of Mr. Borowitz, uses a wealth of first-hand communist material, is easily the better guide to literary activities in Communist China. It suffers, however, from a too militant anti-Communism which is impatient with ideas; the author's running commentary on the impressive data of regimentation and terror is often unnecessary and detracts from the effectiveness of his presentation. Mr. Chao also uses an arbitrary system for the romanization of Chinese names which is often at variance with the Wade-Giles system. For a man of his familiarity with Chinese communist literature, it is also very odd that he seems to know very little about contemporary Russian letters. On p. 120, he mentions a delegation of Soviet writers to China \"headed by Allenburg\"; surely he must mean the well-known Ilya Ehrenburg?","PeriodicalId":369319,"journal":{"name":"The Far Eastern Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1956-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America.\",\"authors\":\"Richard Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/2941934\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"air of impartiality. Thus in his conclusion he permits himself the unwarranted conjecture that official reiteration of the orthodoxy of socialist realism in 1953 \\\"may be evidence that the Communists feel that the reins must be loosened a bit\\\" (p. 101). (Socialist realism was embraced by Chinese communist and leftist writers as early as 1933, following the adoption of this catch-phrase by the Union of Soviet Writers in the same year; Mr. Chao's book, which enumerates new cases of persecution in 1954 and 1955, easily explodes Mr. Borowitz's conjecture.) Mr. Borowitz is also often vague or inaccurate when he strays from his period to comment on literary matters in the preceding years. Thus his remark on page 15 that \\\"it is interesting to note that Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were not Communists before 1949\\\" is compounded of many errors. Both Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were prominent communist writers long before 1949. If Kuo Mo-jo was not a member of the Communist Party before 1949, then neither is he a member today. Now Vice-Premier of the State Council and the most highly honored man of letters in Communist China, he is only technically a member of a minor political party. Mr. Chao's book, which, in contrast to that of Mr. Borowitz, uses a wealth of first-hand communist material, is easily the better guide to literary activities in Communist China. It suffers, however, from a too militant anti-Communism which is impatient with ideas; the author's running commentary on the impressive data of regimentation and terror is often unnecessary and detracts from the effectiveness of his presentation. Mr. Chao also uses an arbitrary system for the romanization of Chinese names which is often at variance with the Wade-Giles system. For a man of his familiarity with Chinese communist literature, it is also very odd that he seems to know very little about contemporary Russian letters. On p. 120, he mentions a delegation of Soviet writers to China \\\"headed by Allenburg\\\"; surely he must mean the well-known Ilya Ehrenburg?\",\"PeriodicalId\":369319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Far Eastern Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1956-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Far Eastern Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/2941934\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Far Eastern Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2941934","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

公正的态度。因此,在他的结论中,他允许自己做出毫无根据的猜测,即1953年官方对社会主义现实主义正统的重申“可能证明共产党人认为缰绳必须放松一点”(第101页)。(社会主义现实主义早在1933年就被中国共产党和左翼作家所接受,同年苏联作家联盟采用了这一口号;赵小兰的书列举了1954年和1955年的新迫害案例,轻而易举地推翻了博罗维茨的猜想。)当博罗维茨偏离他的时代去评论前几年的文学问题时,他也经常含糊不清或不准确。因此,他在第15页所说的“有趣的是,毛屯和郭沫若在1949年以前不是共产党人”是错误的。早在1949年以前,毛屯和郭沫若都是著名的共产主义作家。如果郭沫若在1949年以前不是共产党员,那么他现在也不是共产党员。他现在是国务院副总理,是共产主义中国最受尊敬的文学家,但严格来说,他只是一个小政党的成员。与鲍罗维茨的书不同,赵小兰的书使用了大量第一手的共产主义材料,很容易成为了解共产主义中国文学活动的更好指南。然而,它遭受了一种过于激进的反共情绪,这种情绪对思想缺乏耐心;作者对令人印象深刻的管制和恐怖数据的连续评论往往是不必要的,并且降低了他的陈述的有效性。赵国伟还使用了一种随意的中文名字罗马化系统,这种系统经常与韦氏拼音系统不同。对于一个熟悉中国共产主义文学的人来说,他似乎对当代俄罗斯文学知之甚少,这也很奇怪。在第120页,他提到一个“以艾伦堡为首”的苏联作家代表团访问中国;他一定是指大名鼎鼎的伊利亚·爱伦堡吧?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America.
air of impartiality. Thus in his conclusion he permits himself the unwarranted conjecture that official reiteration of the orthodoxy of socialist realism in 1953 "may be evidence that the Communists feel that the reins must be loosened a bit" (p. 101). (Socialist realism was embraced by Chinese communist and leftist writers as early as 1933, following the adoption of this catch-phrase by the Union of Soviet Writers in the same year; Mr. Chao's book, which enumerates new cases of persecution in 1954 and 1955, easily explodes Mr. Borowitz's conjecture.) Mr. Borowitz is also often vague or inaccurate when he strays from his period to comment on literary matters in the preceding years. Thus his remark on page 15 that "it is interesting to note that Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were not Communists before 1949" is compounded of many errors. Both Mao Tun and Kuo Mo-jo were prominent communist writers long before 1949. If Kuo Mo-jo was not a member of the Communist Party before 1949, then neither is he a member today. Now Vice-Premier of the State Council and the most highly honored man of letters in Communist China, he is only technically a member of a minor political party. Mr. Chao's book, which, in contrast to that of Mr. Borowitz, uses a wealth of first-hand communist material, is easily the better guide to literary activities in Communist China. It suffers, however, from a too militant anti-Communism which is impatient with ideas; the author's running commentary on the impressive data of regimentation and terror is often unnecessary and detracts from the effectiveness of his presentation. Mr. Chao also uses an arbitrary system for the romanization of Chinese names which is often at variance with the Wade-Giles system. For a man of his familiarity with Chinese communist literature, it is also very odd that he seems to know very little about contemporary Russian letters. On p. 120, he mentions a delegation of Soviet writers to China "headed by Allenburg"; surely he must mean the well-known Ilya Ehrenburg?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信