當孽子遇上逆女：白先勇與杜修蘭同性戀書寫及其詮釋析探

When the Crystal Boys Meet the Rebellious Daughter: Investigating Pai Hsien-yung's and Du Xiu-Lan's Homographeses and Their Interpretations

《孽子》（1983）係以男同性戀者為主角的台灣經典現代主義小說；《逆女》（1996）乃以女同性戀者為主角的台灣當代知名小說。本研究根據該兩部小說之文本內涵，輔以相關詮釋與評論之文獻，著眼探討「主流文本與同志文本」之論述拉鋸，考察其詮釋之競衡，試圖爬梳其詮釋趨勢之流變，與台灣同志論述發展之關聯。本文既對照兩部小說雷同之主題關懷，析究故事所處社會背景、時空環境之異同，更分析比較兩部小說文本之同性戀書寫與再現策略。本文主張：《孽子》巧妙融合意識流於寫實再現，《逆女》則訴諸一貫寫實策略；《孽子》行文融合傳統書寫與白話方言，《逆女》則擅長以鄉土閩南方言，刻劃角色生動之形象。此外，本研究更以具體文本脈絡，論證兩部小說之間，存在微妙對位書寫之現象。總之，本於小說故事所銘刻之文本再現，本論文拷掘《孽子》與《逆女》之詮釋論述文獻，析探意識型態之無形共謀，將兩部小說之相關詮釋與論述並列，互為參照，曝現異性愛霸權家庭主義對同性戀情境隱藏之污名，呈現白先勇與杜修蘭如何透過小說書寫，建構同性戀主體性及其政治意識。

Based on the textual analyses, intertextual dialogisms, literary interpretations, and cultural criticisms of Crystal Boys (1983), a canonical Chinese modernist novel that features gay relationships, and The Rebellious Daughter (1996), a renowned contemporary Chinese novel that concerns lesbian relationships, the present paper seeks to probe into the discursive tug of war between a non-homosexual reading and a homosexual interpretation of the two controversial novels published in Taiwan across a chronological gap of thirteen years. It attempts to achieve a bird's eye view of the connections between the evolutionary changes of literary interpretative tendency and the development of homosexual discourse in Taiwan. Apart from contrasting the themes and major concerns of the two novels and analyzing similarities and differences in their social and historical backgrounds, the research also strives to compare their arts in the light of homographesis so as to lay bare their respective skills of homosexual representation. The paper argues that: Crystal Boys features a nuanced convergence of stream of consciousness and realistic representation whereas The Rebellious Daughter resorts to an outright realistic representational strategy; the former combines both traditional literary style and colloquial vernacular whereas the latter excels at characterization by means of overt appropriation of Minnan dialect. The comparative study goes so far as to point out the subtle contrapuntal writing between the two novels. Altogether, drawing on important accessible literature regarding the academic interpretations and critical comments of the two novels, the study aims to uncover latent ideological conspiracies looming in the established interpretations of the two novels so as to expose the camouflaged stigmatization imposed upon gay and lesbian scenarios by heterosexual hegemony, if not by patriarchal familism. Such scenarios have been wrought to forge literary construction of homosexual subjectivity and gay/lesbian political consciousness, one that has been inscribed in Pai Hsien-yung's and Du Xiu-Lan's respective novelistic writings.