本土化與在地化的實踐──《高雄市文學史》的限制與突破

Localization and Localization Practice—Restrictions and Breakthroughs in“History of Kaohsiung Literature”

自1995年，施懿琳、許俊雅、楊翠合作完成的《臺中縣文學發展史》出版以來，臺灣各地區域文學史已陸續問世，至今約有十三部，然而區域文學史應該怎麼寫比較好？文學史家始終沒有一致性的答案，因為任何寫法都仍有缺漏無法完備。《高雄市文學史》於2008年6月出版，分成「古典篇」與「現代篇」兩部分，總計約47萬字，如此龐大的篇幅與內容由彭瑞金一人獨立撰述完成，著實不容易，在此之前彭瑞金已有撰寫文學史的經驗（《臺灣新文學運動40年》），因此寫來駕輕就熟，游刃有餘。參與高雄區域文學史的撰寫，可以說是本土化與在地化的實踐。綜觀《高雄市文學史》，可以發現作者的史觀非常清楚，那就是明確的「本土化史觀」，他是以臺灣文學史的角度來撰寫這部區域文學史，這是與眾不同的書寫方式，這樣的書寫角度可以說是一種突破，當然也相對有了限制，因此本論文試圖討論這部區域文學史的特色與框架，希望對未來的區域文學史撰寫者有所裨益。 Since the publication of “The History of Taichung County Literature Development” completed by Shi Yulin, Xu Junya and Yang Cui in 1995, the history of regional literature of Taiwan has been published one after another. So far there are about 13 books. However, how should regional history of literature be better written? Literary historians have never had a consistent answer, because there are still gaps in any writing that cannot be completed. “History of Kaohsiung Literature” was published in June 2008. It is divided into two parts, “Classic” and “Modern”, totaling about 470,000 words. It is not easy to write such a large space and content independently by Peng Ruijin. Peng Ruijin had the experience of writing a literary history (“Taiwan New Literature Movement 40 Years”) , so it was easy to write and master. Participation in the writing of Kaohsiung’s regional literary history can be said to be the practice of localization and localization. Looking at the ''History of Kaohsiung Literature'', we can find that the author's view of history is very clear, that is, a clear “localized view of history”. He wrote this regional literary history from the perspective of Taiwanese literary history. This is different. The writing style, such a writing angle can be said to be a breakthrough, of course, there are relatively restrictions, so this paper attempts to discuss the characteristics and framework of this regional literary history, hoping to benefit the future regional literary history writers.