傅国涌:王实味悲剧的意义

    权势的影响往往是一时、一地的,而思想、人格的影响却是跨越时空的。有时候一个悲剧人物给时代留下的影响远远要超过那些有权决定他生死的人。王实味被杀害已经过了半个多世纪,王实味最后平反也有十几年了,然而,我们有关王实味的话题还刚刚开始切入正题。

王实味是20世纪40年代延安最大胆、最有争议的知识分子,一个年轻的翻译家、作家。连党的最高领袖毛泽东都曾深夜提着马灯去看《矢与的》壁报(上面最轰动的就是王实味写的短文),1945年“七大”时甚至说:“四二年,王实味在延安挂帅,他出墙报,引得南门外各地的人都去看。他是‘总司令’,我们打了败仗。”1962年,王实味死了十几年了,已经成为全国领袖的毛泽东又一次在最高层会议上提起他。

王实味只活了41岁,1947年惨遭杀害时头上戴了三顶大帽子,“反革命托派奸细分子”、“暗藏的国民党探子、特务”、“反党五人集团头头”。这些帽子那一顶都足以把他打入万劫不复的地狱。在他死后四十四年开始,三顶帽子由三个不同的部门以不同的形式陆续摘掉了,1982年中共中央组织部的决定否定了反党五人集团的存在,1986年中共中央文献编辑委员会编辑的《毛泽东著作选读》的注释486”说关于王实味是暗藏的国民党探子、特务一事,据查,不能成立1991年公安部对托派问题的结论予以纠正,宣布为王实味平反昭雪。前后经历了近十年。

王实味的悲剧,绝不是他个人的悲剧,乃是整个民族的悲剧,整个时代的悲剧。他的生死、命运,就是中国知识分子的命运,由他上溯AB团的那些学生娃子,微山湖畔王文彬的冤魂①,从他之后,胡风分子、右派分子、“文化大革命”中千千万万知识分子的命运,冥冥之中都已注定。那些当年落井下石、打“落水狗”的人们最终都未能逃脱和王实味类似的命运,作家丁玲、诗人艾青等等都在革命圣地写下了令后人难堪的人生败笔,在王实味被杀10年后他们几乎无一幸免地成了右派。他们曾极力想划清和王实味的界线,不惜用世上最肮脏、最恶毒的言辞来诅咒、批判王实味,然而这个王实味阴魂不散,10年后仍把他们的命运牢牢地绑在了一起,历史仿佛绕了个圈子,1958年的“再批判”把他们当年的文章重新放在一起发表、一起批判,还是逃脱不了“毒草”、“反党反人民”的罪名。甚至周扬这样的革命文学“班头”也没有逃过十年“文革”的厄运。他们的经历比起王实味实在好不了多少,只是活了下来而已。中国的知识分子常常不懂得生命的意义有时候不在于是否活着,有的人活着,他已经死了。

当年王实味在延安为千夫所指时,人们也许压根就没有想到自己。我们这个民族的最可悲之处就是看见别人的人权遭到践踏,甚至杀害,只要与己无关,总是选择明哲保身,结果是谁也保护不了自己。

往往只有当灾难降临到自己头上时,人们才发现自己成了所有人无情射杀的目标,昔日的同志、朋友,甚至亲人都纷纷站到对面去了。没有左拉的《我控诉》这样慷慨激昂的声音,没有“这不公正”的低吼,也鲜有追随丈夫走向风雪弥漫的西伯利亚的女性。因而,那些在“文革”浩劫中,和丈夫一起选择了自杀的女性将永远值得我们尊敬。我始终相信为了做人的最基本的尊严,选择绝路未尝不是对自身生命价值的肯定。

王实味,在中国知识分子的命运史上不是一个孤零零的特例,他是一个见证,他的死也不是康生批准的还是李克农批准的这么简单。在他的身后,共和国的天空下,遇罗克、张志新、林昭、李九莲、王申酉……仍然没有逃脱和王实味相同的结局,因为思想而被处决。这个世界上只要有一个人的生命可以被随意剥夺,只要有一个人的自由与权利没有保障,那么对所有的人而言,他们的生命、权利和自由同样将受到威胁。王实味只是一个投奔革命的普通知识分子,但他死后20年共和国的元勋功臣(如贺龙、彭德怀)也惨死在自己参与缔造的这个共和国,甚至共和国的主席、执政党的第二号人物,以国家元首之尊也未能免于一死。这些人在王实味问题上立场可怕是一致的(比如贺龙),他们支持或默认了王实味的死,也就等于为自己掘好了墓。一个王实味的死,人命如草,当时除了领袖几次发脾气赔我一个王实味之外,我们没有听到任何声音。历史留下来的只有萧军一个人在一边倒的批判声中那声怒吼——“让他说话。萧军与王实味素不相识、从无来往,在那耻辱的一页中,他的出现像是一个异类,这个独一无二的声音60年后依然令我们感动。如果没有这唯一的一声怒吼,如果没有温济泽等人为王实味冤案的平反所付出的努力,我们这个民族的知识分子将会更加无地自容,杀死一个王实味,意味着所有人的命同样都是可以被草菅的,只要你不低头,只要你还保持独立思考,那怕你怎么忠诚于这个主义也不行。

《野百合花》发表后,毛泽东的秘书胡乔木曾两次和王实味谈话,还两次给他写信,指出《野百合花》的错误。对这一明显来自最高层的批评意见,他竟置之不理,悲剧的发生因此也就在所难免了。其实,王实味当时只要低头认罪,学学丁玲、艾青他们,把自己作践、糟蹋一番,也许就能逃过这一劫难了。王实味就是王实味,他不仅不认错,还提出退党,这样他被开除党籍、逮捕,最后被秘密处死的结局也就注定了。这就是他和其他延安知识分子的区别。

1946年春,社会部部长康生、副部长李克农批准处死王实味。没有起诉、没有审判、没有上诉和裁定,也不需要这一切,在严酷的战争环境下,王实味这个被他所热爱的革命党所抛弃的人面临的只能是“秘密处死”的下场。其实,就算在和平年代,有了逮捕、起诉、审判、裁定等法律程序又能怎么样呢?党的优秀儿女张志新烈士不是死之前连可以喊“共产党万岁”的喉管也被扼断了吗?伟大领袖高瞻远瞩,总是希望留下一些反面教材(比如胡风、梁漱溟)。但人头落地,人死不能复生,他再发脾气,要赔他一个王实味也来不及了。 194891日,他在李克农就王实味问题所作的检讨报告的批示中写道:“有所声明即够,不必议处。”

王实味的观点说穿了也没有什么高深之处,他无非说出了当时延安别人没有勇气说出来的一些心里话而已。他二十岁就入党,译著等身,是个马克思主义者,但他理解的马克思主义是有人性色彩的,所以他才批评斯大林缺乏人性,才敢直言延安的阴暗面,他不是那种只会唱赞歌的喜鹊。他在严酷的战争环境还能够坚持独立思考,真正体现了北大精神的精髓。因此他就要为自己的思想和骨头付出全部生命的代价。王实味死了,他留下的有关人性的讨论并没有结束,也永远不可能结束。

这位北大出身的知识分子,在他以生命的满腔热情主动投奔的“革命圣地”呼吁民主、平等,要求政治中的人性,希望正在进行中的革命事业更加完美,这是多么正常的一件事。他从来都不是什么大人物,但因为他对人性的真挚追求,他的身上永远都闪烁着人性不灭的光芒。  

注:

①王文彬,“一二九”运动学生领袖之一、北平市学联常委,抗日战争时期在山东微山湖抗日,在“湖西肃反运动”中被定为“反革命”枪毙。

卢雪松:民间互助的重建与社会观念的变迁

据《城市晚报》6月4日报道,一周前《一双病儿女 医院哭盼爹娘归》报道中呼唤的孩子父母,以不堪重负双双投湖的方式悲剧性地出现在读者面前。经历了生死离别后的一家人再度相聚,抱头痛哭的场景让人心酸。同命相怜的另外17个家庭向白家伸出救援之手,除赠送500元外,还鼓励他们加入这17家患儿家长自发组成的募捐团队。前途虽然依旧渺茫,但对作为父亲的白月涛来说,应该已经从关注与鼓励中得到了些许的生存勇气吧。

彼此之间的同情,是现代公民的基本德行,更确证着每个人的基本人性。基于普遍同情的民间互助是一个社会得以维系的枢纽。走投无路、生不如死的绝境或许并非每个人都能体会到,但重大疾病的灾难性降临是每个人都无法完全避免的遭遇。在命运面前,我们都是脆弱的,因此,每个人在一个父亲的痛苦与绝望面前都应该有所触动。笔者在这则报道中发现了点滴的令人欣慰的信息:面对无法负担的白血病患儿的巨大医疗开支,17个家庭结成了一个既自助又互助的特殊团体。共同的遭遇让他们结成了血肉相连的命运共同体。

他们的规定是:“谁家实在拿不出钱来给孩子治病了,就从筹集款里拿出部分解这家的燃眉之急。”请注意,这是一个意义特殊的规定,它体现着这17个原先并无交往的家庭彼此间的坦诚、信任与同情。在危难之中,公民个体间的普遍交往就这样启发出人性中的善良与无私。他们一致同意把辛辛苦苦募捐到的钱转送给白家暂渡难关。随后,他们又让白家加入他们募捐的队伍,白家已一无所有,进入这个团体后必然是暂时收获多于付出。这17个家庭的决定无疑是不能仅仅用简单的爱心奉献来评价的。非常明显,这种民间互助已经具有了超越小视野和趋向大格局的内在动力。

民间互助的大格局体现为成熟、持续、开放和规模化。互助团队中的一位家长表示:这个群体的募捐活动,会在可能的情况下为更多的白血病患儿提供帮助。他们的愿望是在社会力量的帮助下,为白血病患儿设立一个救治基金会。他们关于基金会的设想是完全契合现代社会的运行机制的。虽然这些美好的愿望目前还没有变成现实,其中透露出的新的民间互助的精神元素已经为中国社会的健康发展提供了有益的力量。

17个家庭的所作所为昭示着中国社会转型的方向。在原来的僵化的观念秩序中,一向都是依赖权威、依赖管理、依赖问题的被动解决,在公民的心中没有一个活泼泼的、个体间彼此依靠交往而互相作用的现代社会。旧的基金会概念也常常成为工作上没有效率、制度上没有保证的死结构。而这些家长自发萌生的基金会想象,则充满活力,成为人生希望的创造者。这样的观念变迁与其说是转型不如说是回归,因为中国自古就曾有这样的优良传统:“出入共守、疾病相忧、患难相救、有无相贷”(《韩诗外传》)的民间社会,本就该是新的公民社会建构的文明基础。

刘路:败走沧州——会见郭起真纪事之二

沧州又叫狮城,取名于周广顺三年(公元953年)铸成的铁狮子,铁狮子又名镇海吼,它是古代沧州人民反抗暴虐、寻求自由的精神象征。有诗曰:

铁骨忠魂沧州神,守土望海镇乾坤。天旋地转志不移,雄师壮美万里闻。

风烟千年,如今的铁狮子只剩下了观赏价值,另一头活狮子却又吼出了历史的强音。他叫郭起真,现在关在沧州的大牢里。郭起真因为发表网络文章被捕,属于因言获罪。他因此成了独立中文笔会的救助对象,成了我的当事人。我为履行职责,两次进入狮城,却一败再败,至今与郭起真高墙相隔,鸿书难传!

就是要羞辱律师!

在刑事诉讼过程中,律师可以会见当事人,家属和其他人一般情况下不能会见,家属会见当事人通常在案件判决生效以后。但是,郭起真案却出现了奇怪的颠倒,持有合法手续的律师被无辜刁难,家属和朋友却能够反复会见。

郭起真的妻子赵长芹女士对我说,她分别于6月24日、6月30日、7月1日见过郭起真,而且,看守所明确透出信息,郭案已经结束禁见,家属每个礼拜六都可以会见。更奇怪的是,甚至郭起真的一个曾经因涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权案被判刑的朋友和他的夫人也可以会见,这更是破天荒的奇事了。因为根据中国的法律及监狱的规定,只要郭起真在狱中一天,他的这个朋友都是没有机会见面的。

但是,我作为律师,6月10日——14日带着助手要求会见,被在检察院和国保支队、看守所之间互相推诿(见林晓楠《行走在林冲刺配之地》),7月5日,我再次要求会见,仍然遭遇扯皮、撒谎,不得会见!

我惭愧的对眼巴巴等着我救她丈夫的赵长芹说,我没有办法见到你丈夫,我感到羞辱!

女检察官说:体谅我们吧

7月5日8点,比上班时间提前半小时,我就和助手去了检察院。结局和第一次会见一样,根本进不了大门。交涉到九点半,内勤、公诉处长、副处长的电话像是商量好了一样,统统没有人接。门卫可能看我们不见到办案人不会罢休,勉强接通了一个姓刘的女检察官的电话,女检察官生硬的说:这事你别管!连我们说话的机会都没给,就挂了电话。正无奈,门卫对我们使眼神:内勤来了。

大门口果然进来一个穿便衣的姑娘,我赶紧迎上去,说明来意,姑娘问:上次你们没有联系到办案人?我哭笑不得:你就根本没有跟我们说谁是办案人,我怎么联系?

姑娘带我们进了大门,找到四楼刚才通电话的女检察官,原来她正是办案人。她怎么可以视职务为儿戏,拒律师于门外?我虽然心里感到不快,但还是得跟她交涉,便提出看材料和会见的要求。

女检察官笑容可掬,却温和委婉的拒绝了我的要求。她说:这个案子材料很少,你们开庭以前看也完全可以辩护,不会误事。

这个理由显然很荒诞,她一个公诉人,怎么可以为我们辩护人作判断?为了减少冲撞,我没有坚持非要看那些逮捕证之类的程序性文件(在这个阶段,我们不能要求看口供),但是坚持要一份公安机关的起诉意见书,因为这份文件是检察院起诉的蓝本,将清晰表述国保支队掌握了何种事实证据、依据什么法律条文要求对郭起真起诉。最重要的是,这份文件是表示案件已经移送起诉的“证据”,有了它,看守所将没有理由再要求检察院盖章才可会见。

没想到这个要求也被拒绝了,女检察官这次表现得有些无奈,她说,文件还需要修改,而且,案子也退查了。部分卷宗已经退回国保支队了。最后,言辞恳切的要求我们理解她。她说:这个案子特殊,你们体谅我们这些办案的吧。

我见她词意不坚,知道她手里肯定有“起诉意见书”。于是慷慨激昂:

“刘检,真正应该被体谅的是我们啊。我们上次从青岛来,住了4天,连你的面都见不到,看守所百般刁难,让我们无功而返。这次我们再来会见,我们不要求您非给我们盖章,因为没有那个规定,但是,如果您不给我们一份《起诉意见书》,看守所就会说我们不能证明到了审查起诉阶段,我们还是不能会见,白跑一趟。但是这一次,我们不能这样白跑了,我们上次没有见到,郭起真的妻子和朋友却在看守所里见到了郭,这不成了笑话了么?能见的人见不到,不能见的人反而见到了,这不是明摆着羞辱我们律师么?”

女检察官对这番话没有感到意外,她说,我们这里的律师,一般案子在审查起诉阶段都是可以见到的,涉黑涉毒的案子会见就难一些,这个案子其实也有特殊性。

我反驳:案子特殊我们理解,但是不能歧视我们呀。一般案子当事人家属也是不能见的,但是郭案却让见了,我们根据规定完全符合条件会见,却千方百计刁难我们不让会见,这不是歧视么?这简直就是羞辱我们外地律师呀。

女检察官沉默了好久,给我们倒了一杯茶,最后好像下了决心,把《起诉意见书》给了我们。但是她也叮嘱我们,案子宣判以前,文件最好别泄露出去。我虽然觉得这个要求有些过分,看她为难,还是答应了她。

看守所警察说:我们不管刑诉法

我和助手立即赶往看守所,把律师证、会见函、委托书以及这份起诉意见书交给上次的那个年轻看守,他看了看《起诉意见书》,问:怎么介绍信是这个样子?

我说,检察院只能提供起诉意见书,以证明案子到了它那里,进入了审查起诉阶段,不能提供什么介绍信,因为那没有法律依据。

年轻看守没有话说,坐在后面的一个上了点年纪的警察说,这个案子没有换押,仍然属于在国保支队手里,你们要有国保支队的手续。

我反驳他:我刚刚从检察院过来,案子6月16日就移交到了检察院,有起诉意见书为证,你说没有换押,我们怎么知道?

老看守说:我不管。没有国保支队的手续,我们不让见。这个案子是什么性质你应当清楚。

我大怒:你不这样说我还不提了,案子性质特殊,怎么家属可以会见,律师反而不能会见?你们执行了什么标准?

老看守:家属会见跟律师会见是两回事,两个概念。家属根据需要,经过批准可以见。

我更火:你这是公开羞辱我们律师,根据刑事诉讼法,你看守所根本就没有任何理由拒绝我们律师会见!该见的不让见,不该见的反而能见到,这是什么逻辑?什么特殊性?明摆着欺负我们律师。

老看守:我们不管刑诉法。

我大惊:原来你们这里不执行刑诉法了?

老看守自觉食言,扭头走了,不再理睬我。

我大声喊:你们是决心不让我会见了,对不对?

另一个看守:除非你拿国保支队的手续来。

我自觉再说也是白费口舌,带着助手去找国保。

国保支队长说:我不会撒谎

国保的大门好进,我亮了一下律师证,就堂皇进入,直闯四楼支队长办公室。

敲开门,支队长召集一屋子便衣警察在开会。但他只让我等了3分钟,就散会接待我。

见我带了个男助手来,他开玩笑说:这次换助手了?我说我有好几个助手呢。

支队长笑容满面:你上次带的那个小姑娘写的文章我看了,他们下载了给我看的,把我写得还不错嘛。

我不置可否。

支队长继续说:但说我们跟踪就过分了,哪有那些事呢。

我解释:跟踪一事,有好几个方面的反馈,不是猜测。赵长芹、郭庆海等见到我们的人,事后都说遭遇跟踪了。

支队长:这次来有嘛事?

我说:我们到检察院问过了,案子退查了,现在你们手里,看守所说要有你们的手续才能会见。

支队长打电话询问,然后说,没有退查。

我感到好笑:这种事我怎么能开玩笑呢。检察院我们刚刚去过,检察官明确说退查了,部分卷宗也过来了。看守所也印证了这个消息。

支队长再打电话,把办案的大队长叫过来了。

支队长:案子退查了没有?

大队长一脸无辜:没有。

真是活见鬼!我说:我有三个渠道证明案子退查了。第一、綦彦臣6月30日会见郭起真的时候,郭说又由公安来提审了,案子退查了。綦彦臣还发文章认为检察院不愿意趟这汪浑水,案子有希望。第二、检察院说退查了。第三、看守所也说案子没有换押,还等于在你们这里。

大队长解释说:是不是在中间环节?案子退查,卷宗流转要经过内勤。

我说:不可能这么久,你们6月16日移送起诉,现在都7月5日了,快20天了。再说,检察院退查一定在6月30日之前,否则你们不会提审,郭起真也不会知道,綦彦臣也不会把信息发出来。

支队长又把话题扯开:其实我们上次谈得挺好,我们的大的方向没有分歧,都是要维护国家利益和法律尊严的嘛。

我说:对。其实我对您支队长印象也不错,我们很谈得来。我其实从来不隐瞒自己的观点,我坚持认为,郭起真走到今天,有外部的客观原因。我们的某些机关对他不公,导致他从一个上访维权者变成一个异议分子。这个基础事实我们不能无视。

我还分析了其他的原因,最后我说,我们可能只是在法律认识上有分歧,我们会做一些技术性辩护,我很希望我们律师能跟你们司法机关协调好,妥善处理好这个案子。

大队长插话:你那个小姑娘的文章不像律师写的,她在文章结尾把一些技术性操作上升到制度层面抨击,不妥吧。

我解释:她确实还不是执业律师,只是助理。其实我们都应该注意,现在国际媒体密切关注这个案子,任何技术性的失误都可能损害司法机关的形象,损害国家的形象啊。

我把话题又拉回来。说,支队长,你给我们想想办法,让我们今天会见一次,我见不到当事人,国际舆论对我国的司法形象不利啊。

支队长见无法搪塞下去,就说:真的不在我们这里,看守所那样答复是不负责任的,我不会撒谎的。

我见这位和蔼的长者一脸诚恳,内心被扯得生疼,他虽然是个秘密警察头子,但从面相上看,和蔼可亲,谦恭有理,不是那种凶神恶煞的酷吏。当着我这位晚辈的面,他说出这种话,需要多大的勇气?要忍受多少内心的折磨?我多么愿意相信他说的是真的,或者他自己相信是真的,这样,他的内心是不是会好受一点?

见我不语,他又进一步说:即使真得到了我们这里,我们也不能让你见,我要请示我的领导,由他们决定是否让你会见。我有个建议,一旦这个案子过来了,我就请示领导,及时通知你会见,我知道你的电话,你看怎么样?

还能怎么样?实实在在你的话,明明白白你的心,不让我见郭起真是你们的既定方针,我还能怎么样?

我连愤怒都无力表示了,我说:我接受你的建议,但是,我要到省厅去反映,你们歧视我们律师,你们羞辱了我的职业,你们执行了双重标准!

支队长表示理解。我们握手告别。

带着助手走出公安大楼的时候,我对苍天无声喊:

律师,你是个屈辱的职业!

律师,何辜要生在中国!

附:1、郭起真儿子给父亲的信(节选)

爸爸您好:

在我心目中,爸爸,您永远是正义的,光荣的,我为有您这样的爸爸而自豪。

爸爸,您被坏人诬陷而坐牢,我知道你的委屈。我和妈妈最担心的就是您的身体,您的那条伤腿,生怕您不爱惜自己。爸爸,您让我和妈妈放心,好么?

爸爸,您在里面一定要吃饭,不吃饭会饿坏身体,中了坏人的奸计。要吃好的,别心痛钱,缺钱了我和妈妈会给你送去,有胃口时,要多吃一点,气死那些心存诡诈的人!

爸爸,您不知道我多么想您,我是您的儿子,你为了国家和民族的未来而坐牢,为自由和民主、为正义和公平而坐牢,我虽然不太懂你的事业,但你让我感到骄傲。我也决不会让你失望,我会长大,我会继承你的事业。

爸爸,我要你坚强的活着,我和妈妈永远支持你,等着你,爱着你。

你最亲的儿子:郭亮

2006年7月1日

 

首发民主中国

Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee by Charles J. Shields

Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee by Charles J. Shields

Charles J. Shields is the first biographer of Nelle Harper Lee, author of To
Kill a Mockingbird
, the twentieth centurys most widely read novel. Shields
portrait, while approved by the elusive Lee, includes no direct interviews with
his subject. He spent years compiling information from libraries and dozens of
interviewees  many found through on-line connections.

Beginning with Lees family and her early years in Monroeville, Alabama, Shields
portrays the small-town Southern culture that molded the authors vision of the
world. He examines her early close friendship with Truman Capote as the two made their way through the world of neighbors and school and family challenges.
Harpers college years found her somewhat alone, even though she joined a
sorority and was editor of the “Rammer Jammer” at the University of Alabama.
Shields examines her writing life and the close relationships she developed as
an adult, and finally answers the two questions often asked about the enigmatic
author: Whatever happened to Harper Lee, and why did she only write one novel?

The Monroeville of Lees childhood foregrounds her early friendship with Truman
Capote through their common anguish. Capotes mother was anything but
attentive during the years of his childhood, while Lees mother was borderline
schizophrenic, requiring extra care and not able to be the warm presence one
associates with motherhood. The children were bound by their intellectual
curiosity and their outsider qualities in the small Southern town. Lees father
gave them a typewriter that they would haul around and use to make up stories.
Even in the early years, the once-abandoned Capote tested Lees loyalty, but she remained close. Shields describes their world: the neighbors, the school, their
tree house, and the characters that would later become models for Lees
masterpiece.

Descriptions of Lees college years reveal an eccentric, smart, and often lonely
woman coming into her own. Struggling with the dreams her father had for her and with her own desire to become a writer and to live in New York, she pursued a college career through three universities. Her fathers vision of Nelle taking
over the family law firm was halted by her decision to leave law school during
the final year. She was miserable. Difficult as it was – and without her
fathers blessing – Harper Lee took hold of her life, left the small town of
Monroeville, and moved to New York City, where she would write.

The New York years found her getting very close to a tight circle of friends: a
couple who gave her money so she could quit her menial jobs and spend time
writing; her agent and supporter; and finally her editor, with whom she worked
for three years on the manuscript of the novel. She also maintained contact with
Truman, and once the final draft of To Kill a Mockingbird was turned in to the
publisher, the friends traveled together to Kansas to gather information on the
Clutter murders.

This section of the book is fascinating, because it tells of Harper Lees
contribution to In Cold Blood. Shields reveals information Capote didn
include in the book, and also describes time in Kansas through Lees eyes. So
much has been said about Capote, we think we know the whole story; however, this rounded-out view gives a more complete picture of what actually went into the writing of In Cold Blood. Readers will understand how much Capote benefited from Lees involvement, and what a shame it was that she was not properly acknowledged by her childhood friend.

Nelle Harper Lee spent the years following the publication of her novel dealing
with the success of her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. It was exhausting for her.
Her editors and friends sustained her during this time, as did the kindness of
Gregory Peck and others involved in the movie. She wrote, publishing a few
pieces in magazines, but never complete the second novel she so worried and
labored over. After ten years, she was nowhere near finishing the book and vowed that she would only write it if the muse came. Rather, she would continue to be the famous and elusive author of the remarkable To Kill a Mockingbird, doing all that that entailed.

Through the years following the release of her novel, Lees sister Alice called
upon her to help with family matters. She kept an apartment in New York City but
eventually moved back to Monroeville, where she still lives with Alice. Alice
took over Lees finances, the family law firm, and acted as a sort of secretary
for her famous sister, turning down offers to speak and helping shield Lee from
the intrusive world of the press and others wanting to have access to Lees
private life.

In 2005, Lee turned 79 and her sister Alice, 92. Harper travels to New York for
several months each year and visits museums, has lunch with friends and soaks up the city she called home some fifty years earlier. Her novel has been selected
for city-wide reading campaigns, even as it is banned in some libraries. Shields
has painted a vivid portrait of a woman who has made one of the greatest
contributions, through her remarkable book, to many of us living in these times.

Review by Sarah Bagby

Good Scout

Good Scout

 

Here is a book about a woman who knew when to get off the train. A tomboy from Monroeville, Ala., editor of her college humor magazine, The Rammer Jammer, and law school dropout, she took it on the lam to New York, got a job, made friends and managed to write a novel that hit the best-seller lists and stayed there, won a Pulitzer, got made into a major movie and became a staple of high school English along with “Romeo and Juliet” and “The Great Gatsby.” Total sales are somewhere around 30 million, and it continues to sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year. As her father, A. C. Lee, said, “it’s very rare indeed when a thing like this happens to a country girl going to New York.”

 
 
 

Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

Harper Lee in the courthouse in Monroeville, Ala., May 1961.

MOCKINGBIRD

A Portrait of Harper Lee.

By Charles J. Shields.

Illustrated. 337 pp. Henry Holt & Company. $25.

Readers Opinions

Forum: Book News and Reviews

She worked for years on a second novel, and then, in the mid-1980’s, on a book of nonfiction about a serial murder in Alabama, neither of which worked out to her satisfaction and so she squashed them. She made her peace with being a one-book author. Unlike her friend Truman Capote, she didn’t enjoy the limelight. So she backed away from celebrity, declined to be interviewed or be honorifically degreed and simply lived her life, sometimes in Manhattan, riding city buses, visiting museums and bookstores in her running suit and sneakers, seeing old friends, and most of the time in Monroeville, in a ranch house with her older sister Alice, a house full of books. Built-in bookshelves, floor to ceiling.

Every summer, Monroeville draws crowds of tourists to see a staged version of “To Kill a Mockingbird” at the old county courthouse that was the model for the one in which Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch strode before the all-white jury to argue for Tom Robinson’s acquittal, as little Scout and her brother Jem and friend Dill looked on from the gallery. Everyone would surely loe it if Miss Lee would consent to walk out on stage and wave and take a bow, or even say a few words, but she will not do it. She has been known to show up at the high school and speak to English classes, but this is rare.

She is 80 years old and wears a hearing aid and eats out at the diner or the country club and to strangers who seek her out, she can be frosty. A reporter and photographer from Birmingham banged on her door 10 years ago and Miss Lee opened it and said, “What is it?” They asked her to autograph a copy of her book. She wasn’t happy about it but she fetched a pen. “I hope you’re more polite to other people,” she said. She signed it: “Best wishes, Harper Lee.” She said, “Next time try to be more thoughtful.” They thanked her. She gave them a big warm smile and said, “You’re quite welcome.”

Charles Shields is a former English teacher who taught Harper Lee’s book, and a scrupulous journalist who respects the lady’s privacy even as he opens up her life. This biography will not disappoint those who loved the novel and the feisty, independent, fiercely loyal Scout, in whom Harper Lee put so much of herself.

If you were going to draw a movie from this book, you’d start on York Avenue in Manhattan on a cold winter night in the late 1950’s. Pages of manuscript fluttering out of an apartment window and then a young woman, weeping, picking them up out of the snow. She is an airline ticket clerk and she has been working at her typewriter late at night ever since she came to the city over her parents’ objections in 1949. She is on her own. Her childhood pal, Truman, an effeminate boy befriended by the boyish girl, is nearby but out of range, flying high, a heralded young novelist (“Other Voices, Other Rooms”) with a Broadway musical in the works. In his wake, she strikes people as dumpy and distant. She perseveres. In November 1956, she walks into an agent’s office at 18 East 41st Street with five short stories in hand, and is encouraged. On Christmas Day, at her friends Michael and Joy Brown’s town house on East 50th, they present her with a gift, a note  “You have one year off from your job to write whatever you please. Merry Christmas.” She is bowled over by their generosity. A year later, she has the beginnings of a novel, “Go Set a Watchman,” which becomes “Atticus,” which, under the tutelage of a patient editor at Lippincott named Tay Hohoff (“dressed in a business suit with her steel gray hair pulled tightly behind her, . . . short and rail-thin with an aristocratic profile and a voice raspy from cigarettes”), after the cold winter night breakdown, she finishes in the summer of 1959.

One evening in mid-December, she meets Truman at Grand Central and they board the 20th Century Limited for Chicago. He has reserved a pair of roomettes. He’s on his way to Garden City, Kan., on assignment for The New Yorker, to write about the murders of four members of a prominent farm family, the Clutters, and he’s asked her to help him do the research. They spend a month in Kansas, an odd couple. A short man in a sheepskin coat and moccasins and a long scarf, a rather pushy self-centered New York queer, and a tall gracious Southern woman with a knack for saying the right thing. Their big breakthrough comes on Christmas Day. They’re invited for dinner at the home of Cliff Hope, the attorney of the murdered farmer, Herb Clutter. Also present are the detective Alvin Dewey and his wife, Marie. Dewey is coordinating the murder investigation and he had been put off by Truman at first, but he and his wife and the Hopes are literate people with a high regard for writers and there is a bottle of J&B Scotch and Harper Lee is a steady woman in whose presence Truman shines. And thus Dewey becomes their key source, the man who makes “In Cold Blood” possible.

It’s th beginning of the time of her life. Her book is done, a big relief, and she is getting intimations of the success to come. A lawyer’s daughter, she is on a big murder case. She works hard, takes 150 typewritten pages of careful notes, puts her writerly intelligence at the service of her friend (who will never acknowledge the extent of her help), gets engrossed in the story, feels the thrill of collaboration. She goes back to New York to correct her own galleys, returns to Kansas with Truman for the trial of the killers, then back to New York for the publication of the book on July 11, 1960. She is 34 and in six months she has had her hands on two American classics. Ahead of her is a deluge of success, a potful of money and some sort of vindication in the eyes of Monroeville. Truman will disintegrate and die at 59 and she will persist. The lady looks around at a room full of books, closes the door, and drives off with her sister to an early supper at Dave’s Catfish Cabin, a plate of fish and hush puppies and a glass of tea. Everybody at Dave’s knows who she is and nobody asks her made-up questions about writing or fame or how she explains the long run her novel has enjoyed. She is apparently in good humor and enjoying her food and not planning to go on Oprah or Charlie Rose. And so there, dear reader, you will just have to leave her.

Garrison Keillor is the host and writer of “A Prairie Home Companion” and the author of 16 books. He is the editor, most recently, of an anthology titled “Good Poems for Hard Times.”

 

There is no cure

LRB cover ar
</p>
	</div><!-- .entry-content -->

	
</article><!-- #post-## -->

<article id=

The Most Optimistic Country in the World

india-newdelhi-240x150‘The Most Optimistic Country in the World’

By Val MacQueen : 28 Jun 2006

In the mid-1980s, India’s middle class comprised just 10 percent of the population. Today, it’s larger than the entire population of the United States and is predicted to grow to 445 million by the end of this decade. For 70 years, Mohandas Gandhi’s myopic vision of backward-looking socialism as a template for national advancement was accepted as revealed wisdom by a string of Indian prime ministers, starting with his acolyte, Nehru. Despite a plenitude of cotton, Gandhi didn’t think India should create a cotton industry, believing instead that every family should own a spinning wheel and spin its own. He didn’t believe India should develop a manufacturing base, which not only caused the dead hand of “import substitution” to smother native initiative, but the failure to develop factories meant there was also a failure to develop infrastructure like roads and ports to take goods to market.

Now at last, riding on a new surge of confidence at home and overseas, Indians have ditched austerity, the spinning wheel and the Mahatma and are spending it up like maharajas. In a recent survey, 90 percent of them cheerfully admitted that they spend their disposable income on non-essentials.

Twenty-five years ago, they had a choice of one car and one color: the Ambassador (top speed 35 mph); it was black and you had to order it years in advance. Today, the consumer chooses from among 40 models produced by 1 companies.

When Gandhi’s thinking still prevailed, Indians expected poor quality consumer goods (Gandhi’s beloved “import substitution”) and expected a dismissive attitude to complaints. Thus the more prudent held off buying. Today, reliability and competitive after-sales service are taken for granted.

The world’s top designers have discovered that the appetite for designer products, especially handbags and shoes, is as ravenous in India as it is in the West, and they’ve flooded in. An Indian lady no longer has to go overseas to buy a pair of Jimmy Choos. Vuitton, Chanel, shopping malls … all with customers with money and credit cards. Retail therapy trumps yoga for relaxing tired nerves.

Forbes Magazine’s Rich List last year placed India eighth in terms of the number of billionaires. The number of millionaires trebles every three years. Today, street peddlers pack cellphones.

The latest rage is the Raj. Middle class Indians from the cities are buying up houses in the hill stations in Himachal Pradesh that were built by British colonial officers for their families to escape the dusty summer heat. Houses in the Himalayan stations of Simla and Dalhousie are moving fast at prices as steep as the snow-capped peaks among which they nestle. A three-bedroom bungalow summer home in need of renovation will set the new Raj back $125,000. A bigger place might go for half a million dollars.

The Times of India’s Washington-based foreign editor, Chitanand Rajghatta, in a piece on the Indian diaspora, notes that there are around 20 to 30 million Indian nationals living in some 180 countries, “give or take a million or two who are in various transit lounges”.

No-frills airlines are having the same effect on travel as they have in Europe and the US — more discretionary flying. The four economy airlines had captured 30 percent of the domestic market in February of this year, which represented a 3 percent growth over January. Among the four big no-frills carriers is Kingfisher, owned by flamboyant billionaire and MP VJ Mallya. Mallya also owns a popular Indian beer — Kingfisher. Irked because India doesn’t allow advertising of alcohol on its territory, he decided to start Kingfisher Air at a cost of 1.5 billion rupees ($23 million) so his logo could be seen overhead.

It’s not just foreign producers of designer goods who are rushing in. In 2002, the government relaxed restrictions on foreign ownership of newspapers. Today, the UK’s Financial Times has acquired a stake in the Business Standard newspaper. Dow Jones took the maximum 26 percent stake in The Wall Street Journal venture in India. Henderson Global acquired a 20 percent state in The Hindustan Times. Foreign entertainment media companies are also pumping money in.

How does one account for this massive swell of confidence?

According to India’s usiness Line, only 54 percent of Indians now think a rupee saved is a rupee earned. Part of the reason for the spendathon on mutual funds, consumer goods, property, clothes and foreign travel, thinks Business Line’s Amit Mitra, is, Indian consumers are also the most optimistic in the world in terms of their expectations for employment opportunities and the health of their personal finances. They top AC Nielsen’s Global Consumer Confidence index with a score of 127. The global average was 92. India has an estimated growth rate of 8 percent.

Surprisingly, losing out on all this trade is Britain, the former colonial administrator and major commercial partner for almost 300 years. It is that other developing giant, China, that does the lion’s share of trade with India, accounting for 6 percent of the whole. Next up, America and tiny Switzerland, with 5 percent each. Even Belgium and Germany, with 4 percent each beat out Britain’s Lilliputian 3 percent. As for imports, again, Britain has been inexplicably slow off the mark, taking just four percent of India’s exports, whereas the United States imports a whacking 18 percent. (China buys 6 percent, which is exactly what it exports.)

Commenting on this rush to the head, Sarang Panchal, AC Nielsen executive director for South Asia said, “Socially and economically, India is developing at a galloping pace when compared to the rest of the world.

“In India, the assessment of economic performance over the last 6 months has moved up smartly when compared to the previous six months. Seventy-nine percent of Indians felt that the economy had improved. The follow-through of this positive evaluation has obviously carried forward aggressively.”

He predicts: “For the coming 12 month period, Indians are clearly the most optimistic country in the world. With 88 percent of Indians bullish about the country’s economic performance going forward, we are even more positive than China. In the context of the global economy, this forms an important inflection point in our perception even amongst the international investment community.”

Val MacQueen is a TCS Daily contributing writer.

〔许万平〕罪犯入监通知书

【2006年7月9日狱委讯】

〔2006〕第482号

重庆市渝州监狱

陈贤英: 

罪犯许万平,男,45岁,因犯颠覆国家安全罪经重庆市第一中级人民 
法院以〔2005〕渝 一中刑初字第382号刑事判决判处有期徒刑12年剥 
夺政治权利4年。该犯由重庆市看守所于2006年6月5日送我狱执行刑 
罚。特此通知。 

重庆市渝州监狱(印章) 
2006年6月5日 

【注】 

1、重庆市渝州监狱地址:重庆市江北区唐家沱街道 
2、邮编:400026; 
3、行车路线:从江北区观音桥转盘搭至望江厂的817路公共汽车, 
  马鞍山村巴豆园社下车即 到。 

〔提供者:[email protected]〕 

 

颜钧平安抵台北

 

【2006年7月9日狱委讯】《大纪元》记者辛菲采访报导/据《民主论坛》引述台北中央电台最新消息,今年1月2日在金门跳船寻求政治庇护的陕西异议人士颜钧,今天(7月7日)已经从金门抵达台北,可以自由行动。 

报导称,在此之前,虽然颜钧因偷渡入台而违反《国安法》的嫌疑, 已获金门检察官不起诉处分,但颜钧仍长期由在金门海巡部队照护其 生活,不能自由的与外界连络。 

报导还说,经过海内外各界持续的关注,经过长达半年的等待,颜钧 终于现身台北,现住在陆委会安排的住处,并可以自由行动。 

《大纪元》记者闻讯致电颜钧的母亲。颜母表示,还不知道这个好消息,但是听到消息后,感到非常宽心。她不断的说,“他只要安全我们就放心了”“我们最担心的就是他的安全问题”…… 

自颜钧离家后,家人甚是担忧,年过六旬的颜母更是心如刀割,忧虑成疾。 

颜母说:“颜钧是一个待人厚道、对父母孝顺、认真负责的好孩子,就是观点不一样,看法不同嘛,他无非就是想找一份适合自己的工作嘛。” 

颜钧曾跪拜在地,对父母泣诉:“爸爸妈妈,自古忠孝不能两全。父母亲原谅我吧!”这一幕场景时常浮现在颜母眼前,令老人家椎心刺骨。 

颜母希望通过大纪元对儿子说几句话: 

  “我们只要你安安全全的、平平安安的就好,自己找一份自己喜 
  欢的、适合自己的工作,安安心心的在那儿工作,不要想着回 
  来,不要担心家里。回来有啥问题我们也帮不上忙,我们担心着 
  急也是爱莫能助。你只要安全、平安,就行了,其它没有啥。” 

颜钧,男,陕西省汉中市人,现年32岁,1994年毕业于陕西师范学院,做过教师、记者、编辑。 

1996年3月16日,因为向全国各著名高等学校散发要求惩办原北京市长陈希同的公开信,颜钧被西安市中级人民法院以“反革命宣传罪” 判刑五年,陈希同被判刑后,颜钧于1998年6月获释。 

同年夏季,美国总统克林顿访问西安时,颜钧又被拘捕,在克林顿关注后获释。 

2003年4月9日,西安市中级人民法院因颜钧在互联网上发表过七篇文章,以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”,判处颜钧2年有期徒刑,在陕西省上畛子监狱服苦役,2005年4月4日获释。 

在监狱里,他的鼻骨、颧骨等处被打伤,而且曾被迫在温度为零下几度的水里栽水稻,身心备受摧残。 

出狱后,颜钧想再次从事他喜欢且擅长的媒体工作,但被国家安全局阻挠。由于政府对待不同政见者就业的限制,颜钧一直没有工作,没有生活来源。 

章德宁:我所经历的《北京文学》

《北京文学》社长讲述“一本好看的权威文学杂志”的发展轨迹

 

自1976年至今一直在《北京文学》工作的章德宁认为:“文学是包容、开放的,也应该是最自由、活跃的。”

  用“集束手榴弹”的办法培养重点作者

  我是1976年9月份到的《北京文艺》,那时北京市文联还没有恢复,《北京文艺》当时还是北京市文化局下面的一个杂志。我刚到这里,就赶上毛主席逝世了。文化局的楼里设了一个毛主席的灵堂,有一个很大的花圈,文化局的干部轮流值班。我到这里以后,老编辑带着我到处约人写悼念毛主席的文章。那时不像现在有一个稳定的作者队伍,主要是工农兵作者。由于作者队伍不很成熟,很多都是业余作者,所以编辑参与的工作比较大。第10期的杂志全部都是怀念毛主席的散文和诗歌,第11期的时候,由于已经粉碎了“四人帮”,所以主要以声讨“四人帮”的内容为主。在1977年上半年,这样的内容占了大多数。

  从1977年下半年开始,《北京文艺》才开始刊登了一些真正意义上的小说。1978年10月,李清泉担任《北京文艺》主要负责人以后,提出编发稿件要注重“真实性、思想性、艺术性”,对有潜力的作者实行“集束手榴弹”的办法重点培养。所谓“集束手榴弹”,就是对于某些作者使大力推出,连续或多次刊发其作品。例如,汪曾祺先生的《受戒》刊发于1980年第10期后,1981年2、4、10期,又分别推出了他的作品。记得当时着力推出的作者有张洁、陈建功、陈祖芬、理由、王安忆、张宇、张辛欣等。在李清泉担任负责人的两年时间里,《北京文艺》发表了很多有影响的作品,杂志的声誉有了很大提高,杂志被文学界公认为文学期刊的甲级队。许多传颂一时的小说如汪曾祺的《受戒》、王蒙的《风筝飘带》、张洁的《爱,是不能忘记的》等等,都是这个阶段刊发的。

  约王蒙未成,改约方之

  1978年年底,中央召开了一次共青团的全国代表大会。我到会上去约稿。有人告诉我,王蒙也到这个会上来了。我很早就读过他的《组织部新来的年轻人》,对他很崇敬,所以去找他约稿。他的“右派”问题当时还没有正式改正,但已经开始公开发表作品了。他说自己手里现在没稿,向我介绍了方之,说他手里有一篇稿子,你可以去问他。

  我很快找到了方之,他对我说,我这个稿子,已经被几个地方退过,你们敢不敢发?我说那你给我讲讲。他这个小说分两部分,写的是一个商人在抗日战争时期怎样帮助共产党,又从和共产党的交往中,受到爱国主义影响和教育。下篇是上篇中的人物在二十多年后的遭遇。当年的党员领导受到冲击,累及商人被监禁审查。小说以商人为主角,在解放以后就是空前的。另外,作者把商人作为正面人物形象来写,有多名共产党员围绕在他周围,甚至有不光彩的党员形象与之相辉映,这样的人物配置,在以前的十七年,尤其是文革中的“三突出”文艺作品中几乎没有。方之给我讲了以后,也许是初生牛犊不怕虎吧,我当即表示:“我觉得发表应该没有什么问题。”但是方之说:“你说了不算。你觉得你们头儿能同意发表吗?”我说那我把稿子拿回去,请领导看看再做决定。他说你先问问领导是不是可以要这个稿子。意思是如果不行,干脆就别拿了。第二天,我马上对李清泉说了这个事情。李清泉说那你拿回来看看吧。于是,我又跑了一趟。

  我把小说拿回来以后马上看了,小说组长赵金九也看了。我们俩都认为,小说写得不错,应该发表,也没担心发出来会有多大麻烦。同时觉得这个短篇小说有两万多字,稍微有点拖沓。由于方之这两天就要离京,要求走之前得到回音,我们就把稿子交给了李清泉。他后来提了一些具体的意见,让我找方之,希望他修改。我找到了方之,说了我们的意思。方之可能还是不太同意我们的意见,但表示愿意修改。他改完又寄来以后我发现,稿子改动的地方很少。我跟李清泉说了,他说,那就这么发吧。于是,《内奸》就在1979年第三期刊出了。

  《内奸》刊出以后,在文学界引起了巨大反响,不断收到赞扬的评论,在第六期的《北京文艺》上还发表了三篇。后来我知道,方之是1957年南京的文学组织《探索者》中的成员,《内奸》三月份发表的时候,《探索者》在南京宣布平反。我还听说,当年在追查《探索者》“首恶”,准备重判的时候,方之积极地把种种“罪责”揽在自己身上。不料,1979年10月22日,方之因病去世。《北京文艺》编辑部向治丧机构发去了唁电,并向高晓声等人约写悼念文章。从刘绍棠历述方之创作踪迹的文章里,我们知道,方之的处女作《乡长买卖》,就是在五十年代初发表在《北京文艺》的前身《说说唱唱》上,1955年又在《北京文艺》上发表了小说《在泉边》,而被吸收为作协会员。没想到,《内奸》竟然成了方之的绝笔,同样发表在《北京文艺》。

  1980年,《内奸》还获得了全国优秀小说奖。由于他已经去世,方之的夫人就来北京替他领奖。李清泉和我还在鸿宾楼请他爱人吃饭。由于杂志社比较穷,吃得比较寒酸。1980年第10期,《北京文艺》改为《北京文学》。为什么会改名呢?因为《北京文艺》以前基本是一个综合的文艺刊物,而新时期以来,小说对于社会生活的反映得到了突出的表现。我们当时改名也是顺应时代的变化和要求。改刊这一期是一个小说专号。发表了汪曾祺的小说《受戒》,同期的作者还有李国文、母国政、从维熙、张洁、张弦、陈祖芬、郑万隆等。

  刊发洪峰作品受到批评

  80年代初,我在自发来稿里发现了洪峰的一篇小说,觉得这个作者很有潜力,就与他有了联系来往。当时洪峰还在大学里上学。1986年第二期,他投来的小说《勃尔支金荒原牧歌》被刊发在当期小说头条位置上,这篇小说是比较典型的“寻根文学”,用诗化的语言写得很抒情。小说写一位“没忘了铁木真的魂”的巴特里后裔,尽管已经不会说蒙语,也听不懂布里亚特语,只身跑到呼伦贝尔大草原,循着成吉思汗四轮战车碾过的大漠,寻找布里亚特古都部落遥远的后裔,收集蒙古族的传说和故事,整理它的历史。在这个过程中,男主人公和老牧人的孙女发生了情感纠葛,小说中有这样几句描写:“火光把她弄得很辉煌。每一处肌肤都和火一块浮动。很圆,极结实的乳房使他细长的眼睛张得很开。他的男性不可抑制,变得铁那样坚硬。他还看见她斜斜的小腹,和绒绒的影子,和两条很粗很长的腿。”当时我觉得,只要对人物的刻画和情节的发展来说是必要的,而且它是一种文学性的描写,那么它应该是被允许的。但是,作品发表以后,引起了很大的风波。后来在1986年的第5期,编辑部按要求,发表了署名宁然的批评文章《谈<勃尔支金荒原牧歌>的失误》,批评这篇小说“不但思想内容贫乏,而且它的格调也是低下的,它的情趣至少说是不高的。”现在回头来看,这种描写真的是不算什么。通过这个事情,也可以看出我们时代的进步。

  引发“伪现代派”的论争

  林斤澜和李陀主持《北京文学》(1986年3月-1989年10月)的时候,《北京文学》经历了它的又一次发展高峰。林斤澜很开明,而李陀是一个非常敏锐的人,很多新的观念,新的思潮,他接受特别快,而且他和青年作者关系特别好。他们二人任正副主编,给杂志带来了很多新的气象。

  《北京文学》1988年第2期,发表了黄子平的文学评论《关于“伪现代派”及其批评》。文中提及“伪现代派”的概念最早是在文学界的一些私下交谈和座谈会上开始使用的,使用者多是以某种现代派作为参照系,来指责中国的现代派并不是真正的现代派。对此,黄子平从“伪现代派”的基本内涵及由来,“伪现代派”这一术语的歧义用法及文化心理等方面,来揭示“伪现代派”背后蕴涵着的某种根深蒂固的僵化观念,以及“命名”本身的“施暴”色彩,“一方面或多或少地歪曲了作品,另一方面则显示自身执著的价值标准。”

  黄子平作品发表后,李陀在《北京文学》第四期进行回应,他发表的文章题为《也谈“伪现代派”及其批评》,既有对黄子平文章的支持,也有不同观点。李陀提出了“现代小说”的概念,认为中国的现代小说应该汲取两方面的文学营养,一个是中国民族的文学传统,一个则是世界当代文学。吸收现代派小说的经验并不是跟在西方现代派文学的屁股后面跑,而是为了“洋为中用”。很快,这场论争吸引了更多评论家的注意,1988年第六期《北京文学》发表了张首映的《“伪现代派”与“西体中用”驳议》,第八期发表了贺绍俊、潘凯雄的《关于“剥离”的“剥离”》等文章,对于“伪现代派”进行了更加深入的探讨和研究。可以说,这场“伪现代派”论争中的观点到今天看来仍有价值。同是在1988年,《北京文学》刊发了余华的中篇小说《现实一种》、《古典爱情》,刘恒的《伏羲伏羲》等,短篇小说有马原的《黑道》,李锐的《厚土》等,在文学界赢得了相当好评。

  口述:章德宁

  采写:张弘

  摄影:郭延冰

  ■人物名片

  章德宁

  1952年9月出生,毕业于北京大学中文系文学专业,1976年至今在《北京文学》工作,历任编辑部副主任、副主编,1996年2月任社长兼执行副主编,现为《北京文学》社长。

  ■《北京文学》历任主编一览:

  老舍,1950年9月-1966年;谭谊,1966年、1971-1975年;张志民,1975年-1976年;李清泉,1978年-1980年;杨沫,1981年12月-1986年3月;林斤澜,1986-1989年;浩然,1989-1999年;赵金九,1999-2004年;刘恒,2004年5月至今。其间,担任过实际负责人的还有苏辛群、周雁如、陈世崇、傅用霖。

  ■杂志档案

  1950年1月20日,通俗文艺月刊《说说唱唱》创刊,主编人李伯钊、赵树理。同年9月10日,北京市文联主办的《北京文艺》月刊创刊,老舍任主编。当年11月20日,《北京文艺》停止出版,编辑人员与《说说唱唱》合并。1955年,《北京文艺》重新创刊,主编老舍,文革中再次停刊。1971年12月,《北京文艺》复刊并改名为《北京新文艺》,共试刊五期,1973年3月又改回《北京文艺》,成为全国复刊最早的文学刊物。1980年10月,《北京文艺》改名为《北京文学》。