文学虚构中的互文现象——兼论对木心“非原创”和“抄袭”的指责

Intertextuality in the Context of Literary Fictionalization: A Note on Allegations of Mu Xin’s “Lack of Originality” and “Plagiarism”

2022年初,一篇论文对木心作品“非原创”和“抄袭”的指责,不仅关乎对木心的评价,也关乎当下中西方学界在文学史、文学创作观念上的某些差异,需置于更大的格局中方能厘清是非曲直。依据当代西方文论和西方文学史的一些事例,文章主要论述文学虚构中的互文现象,为思考木心的文学互文提供参照。文章指出,文学创作与学术论文因目标和特征的不同,互文的规则和评价标准也不同。文章从文学的虚构特征,论及互文的借用和化用,以及文学互文在教学和出版中遵循的惯例;并以艾略特和博尔赫斯为例,说明“净本”和评注本处理互文现象的规律。在此基础上,文章以《伪所罗门书》的形式和内容为例,兼论木心的艺术风格,反驳对木心“非原创”和“抄袭”的指责。

Mu Xin is widely recognized as a writer whose literary innovativeness is embedded in a cosmopolitan and trans-civilizational sense of aesthetics, but to some he is still an “anomaly”. A Chinese scholar’s article in early 2022 alleges that Mu Xin’s intertextual practice seems “lacking in originality” and is guilty of “plagiarism”. A critical response to these allegations necessitates a larger perspective that takes into consideration significant differences between present-day China and the West in perceptions and practices of intertextuality and in views of literary history. A proper evaluation of Mu Xin’s intertextuality requires that some meaningful reference points be provided. This article first surveys the development of intertextuality theory in connection to other contemporary theories. Further, the article explores how and why intertextual practices in fictionalized literary writing differ from intertextual practices in academic writing. Citing Wordsworth, Shakespeare, T. S. Eliot and Borges as cases in point, the article discusses how and why these authors “steal” from—i.e., transform—their sources, rather than “plagiarize”. “Clean” editions(without references or notes) and critical editions are compared to illustrate conventions followed by literary authors and the publishing world in the West. The article ends with a note on how Mu Xin’s intertextual practice, especially in the form and content of his bildungsroman poetry Book of Solomon, the Fake Version, is consistent with the norms discussed above.