典範承繼．多重渡引．烏托邦──李渝的抒情美學與保釣反思

The Exemplary Succession, Multiple Transitions, and Utopia: Li Yu’s Lyrical Aesthetics and Reflections on the Baodiao Movement

本文聚焦於李渝如何以抒情作為方法，反思七○年代的歷史經驗。「抒情」、「反抒情」乃至「返抒情」的辯證，可謂貫串李渝創作美學的核心，其抒情話語衍生的豐富維度，可從典範承繼、敘事觀點、「重寫」和「烏托邦」幾組層面考察。
魯迅和沈從文的典範形象，分別聯繫「革命」與「後革命—抒情」的階段性實踐。李渝對沈從文的凝視，總帶有向魯迅折射的視角。後期的李渝疾聲區辨「政治」與「文學」不可共存，正是由此一思路的反面出發—沈從文必須與魯迅共存。
而保釣期間投身左翼文藝運動，與第一線抗爭錯身的歷程，投射到李渝的保釣小說，構成頗為特殊的觀看位置。從七○年代對運動現場「迴身」，發展到八○年代的旁觀者視角，至新世紀以多重渡引美學憶述保釣，皆顯現對抒情的自覺性距離。
「重寫」行動和「烏托邦」敘事，則透露李渝以情為媒介，從歷史廢墟中贖救自我的兩種途徑，殊途同歸地證成抒情美學的悖論：前者消滅過溢的情感，又以寫作的唯物性對歷史進行抒情的重構，後者藉感性創造力重織歷史，唯其烏托
邦現實主義同樣緊扣反抒情的規約。

This essay focuses on how Li Yu’s use of lyricism as a method to reflect on the historical experience of the 1970s. The dialectic of“lyricism,”“anti-lyricism,”and“returning lyricism”is at the core of the writer’s creative aesthetics. The rich dimensions derived from her lyrical discourse can be examined from the perspectives of exemplary succession, narrative perspective,“re-writing”and“utopia”.
The exemplary images of Lu Xun and Shen Congwen relate to the staged practices of“revolution”and“post-revolution/lyricism,”respectively. Li Yu’s gaze towards Shen Congwen always contains a perspective that refracts toward Lu Xun. Li Yu’s call for the incompatibility of“politics”and“literature”stems from the notion that Shen Congwen must coexist with Lu Xun.
Li Yu devoted herself to the left-wing literary and artistic movement of the Baodiao period and missed out on the front-line resistance activities, which was projected into her Baodiao novels, thus forming a rather unique narrative perspective. From the position of“turning away”from the sports scene in the 1970s, to the onlooker’s perspective in the 1980s, perspective in the 1980s, and to the recollection of the Baodiao Movement through the aesthetics of multiple transitions in the new century, all of these texts show a conscious detachment from lyricism.
The action of“re-writing”and the“utopian”style of narrative reveal Li Yu’s way of redeeming herself from the ruins of history by using emotion as a medium. Both of these actions reveal the paradox of her lyrical aesthetics. The former eliminates excess emotion but at the same time uses the materiality of writing to lyrically reconstruct history. The latter reweaves history through perceptual creativity, but her utopian realism also closely adheres to the norms of“anti-lyricism”.
This essay identifies Li Yu’s roundabout interpretation of“revolution”through lyrical discourse so as to deepen our understanding of the movement landscape and emotional politics of Taiwanese literature using her case as a lens.