论20世纪30年代"京""海"之争

“京”“海”之争并非严格的派别论争,只是一场由沈从发难、此后也主要是他一人代表“京派”,与在上海的非“海派”作家之间围绕何谓“海派”、“京派”的讨论,表明双方在如何看待时代与艺术、政治与学关系方面潜隐着分歧,且在论争的两次余波中更趋明朗。李初梨的“宏论”发自肺腑,公允全面,是对“京”“海”之争、“反差不多”论争甚至30年代左翼学与自由主义学论争最好的总结。

On the Debate between the "Peking School" and the "Shanghai School" in the 1930s

The debate between the "Peking School" and the "Shanghai School" is not a cliquish one in the strict sense, rather, it is only a discussion centered around what the two denominations refer to between Shen Congwen, the starter of the debate and virtually the sole representative of the "Peking School," and writers who work in Shanghai but do not belong to the "Shanghai School." It clearly shows that difference of opinions lurks between the two sides as how to treat the relationship between the times and art, politics and literature, and such difference tends to become increasingly obvious in the two repercussions of the debate. Li Chuli's "intelligent view," fair and complete, comes from the depths of his heart, and is the best summary of not only the "Peking-Shanghai-School Debate," the "Not-much-difference Debate," but even the debate between the Left-wing Literature and the Liberalist Literature in the 1930s.