2012届毕业论文工作表

湖州师范学院————————————————

文学院毕业论文附属过程管理材料

（2012届）

专业汉语言文学

学号08041143

学生姓名陈超

湖州师范学院教务处印制

1. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文选题审批表

2. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文任务书

3. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文开题报告

4. 文献综述（前言、主题、总结、参考文献）

5. 外文原稿(复印件)与译文

6. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文指导教师审阅表

7. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文评阅人评阅表

8. 湖州师范学院本科毕业论文答辩记录表

9. 湖州师范学院本科毕业设计论文评分表

10. 本科生毕业论文诚信承诺书

湖州师范学院本科毕业论文选题审批表

湖州师范学院毕业论文任务书

指导教师签名鲍远航学生签名陈超

学院院长签名

湖州师范学院毕业论文开题报告

湖州师范学院毕业论文文献综述

英文文献资料（要求达到2000字）

The Ghost of Liaozhai:

Pu Songling’s Ghostlore and Its History of Reception

Luo Hui

Department of East Asian Studies

University of Toronto

2009

Abstract

This dissertation looks beyond the prevailing view of Pu Songling’s (1640-1715) Liaozhai zhiyi as an undisputed classic of Chinese literature, positing that much of the work’s cultural relevance and popular appeal derives from its status as “minor discourse” rooted in the tradition of the ghost tale. The first half of the dissertation examines the ghosts depicted within Liaozhai, reconnecting their tamed and feminized images with their dark and anarchic origins. The second half studies the reception of Liaozhai, chronicling the book’s cultural ascension from xiaoshuo, in the original sense of a minor form of discourse fraught with generic and ideological tensions, to a major work of fiction (xiaoshuo in its modern sense). However, the book’s cano nical status remains unsettled, haunted by its heterogeneous literary and cultural roots.

The Introduction reviews current scholarship on Liaozhai, justifying the need to further investigate the relationship between popular perceptions of Liaozhai and the Chinese notion of ghosts. Chapter One delineates Pu Songling’s position in late imperial ghost discourse and examines how the ghost tale reflects his ambivalence toward being a Confucian literatus. Chapter Two reads Pu Songling’s “The Painted Skin” in conjunctionwith its literary antecedents, demonstrating that Pu’s uses of both zhiguai and chuanqi modes are essential for the exploration of the ghost’s critical and creative potential. Chapter Three takes up the issues of genre, canon and ideology in the “remaking” of the book by Qing dynasty critics, publishers and commentators, a process in which Liaozhai gains prestige but Liaozhai ghosts become aestheticized into objects of connoisseurship. Chapter Four looks at the ruptures in modern ghost discourse that paradoxically create new vantage points from which Liaozhai regains its “minor” status, most notably in Hong Kong ghost films. The Conclusion revisits “The Painted Skin,”

a Liaozhai story that exemplifies the complex cultural ramifications of the ghost. The dissertation combines a study of Liaozhai’s textual formation and its subsequent history of reception with a dialogic inquiry into the ghost, which occupies a highly contested field of cultural discourse, functioning variously as a psychological projection, a token of belief, a literary motif and an aesthetic construction. Introduction

The King of Qi had a retainer who was good at painting. The King asked him: “What is the most difficult to paint?” “Dogs and horses are the most difficult,” was the reply. “What is the easiest to paint?” “Ghosts are the easiest.” Dogs and horses are commonly known, and they appear in front of our eyes day in and day out. One cannot simply approximate them. Therefore they are difficult to

paint. Ghosts are fo rmless. They are not visible to us. That’s why they are easy to paint

A ghost, by popular definition, is a disembodied soul, and therefore is formless and invisible. But a ghost also manifests itself in the most varied guises through human imagination. As the painter in the Hanfeizi parable suggests, ghosts might be the easiest subject to paint. But the portrait of a ghost—being a mere guess, or at best, an approximation—might be the most challenging to the viewer. The thing that inspired the paintin g is always beyond the viewer’s grasp. Thus the ghost becomes an apt metaphor for the elusiveness of literary representation. This dissertation is an attempt to view, and to make sense of, one of the greatest literary portraits of ghosts—Pu Songling’s (1640-1715) Liaozhai zhiyi

The mention of the name “Liaozhai” immediately conjures up alluring and yet vaguely ominous images of ghosts, and the book has, to many, become synonymous with the genre of the ghost story. Conversely, when the word “ghost” enter s into a conversation, as it is not infrequent among the Chinese, the word nearly always brings to mind Liaozhai, or at the very least certain impressions of the ghost coloured by memories of reading a Liaozhai story or watching a Liaozhai film. So intimately bound are the Chinese notion of ghosts and the popular perception of the book that they have become two cultural phenomena whose interrelations are often tacitly acknowledged, but have yet to be thoroughly articulated. It is the aim of the present study to describe and crystallize this interwoven relationship, an aim motivated by two of my personal interests that mutually reinforce one another: ghosts—a curiosity incubated by childhood experience with ancestral worship, and Liaozhai—a single body of work, or perhaps a single name, that evokes and embodies the Chinese ghost sensibility.

Liaozhai is arguably the most read, studied, staged, and filmed Chinese ghost story collection. Pu Songling’s work was already sought-after during the author’s lifetim e among members of the literati, who avidly copied and circulated various versions of the work in manuscript form.2 After its publication in 1766, half a century after Pu Songling’s death, a succession of editors, publishers and commentators defended and promoted the book from personal, ideological, commercial, and literary standpoints.3 Almost immediately after the book’s publication, a long history of popular reception began: first, there were eighteenth-century southern dramas inspired by Liaozhai; then the rest of the dynastic period witnessed the sweeping success of Liaozhai adaptations in regional theatrical and storyteller’s repertoires.4 After a period of hiatus during the twentieth century, Liaozhai once again thrived in both scholarly and popular circles. New and repackaged editions of Liaozhai, with commentaries, illustrations, and modern translations, are quickly put on the book market to compete with new releases of other literary classics. Liaozhai scholarship is not only flourishing, but has courted new heights of popularity by scholars like Ma Ruifang , who appears frequently in “The Master’s Forum” o n China Central Television. Film and television adaptations of Liaozhai tales continue to thrive.

Yet Liaozhai’s current status as a literary classic and a popular cultural phenomenon belies the fact that the ghost is still a sensitive subject in contemporary Chinese media. In the summer of 2003, a new television adaptation of the famous Liaozhai story, Nie Xiaoqian, jointly produced by Taiwan and the Mainland, caused much controversy in Chinese newspapers, apparently due to its “ghost and demon” subjec t. One report warned that the TV series might have trouble passing Mainland censorship and its official release in China was not guaranteed.6 Another newspaper soon followed with the headline: “To avoid a ban, Xiaoqian turns from ghost to immortal in the new television series.” According to this report, the producers, not wishing to lose the lucrative Mainland market, had hired the acclaimed screenwriter Chen Shisan to “de-ghost” the original Liaozhai story.7 About a week later, it

was confirmed that the television series had finally passed state censorship and would be aired on Mainland television in August.

No doubt some of the perceived threat of censorship is a ploy for media hype. However, such belaboured and contradictory responses to screen adaptations of Liaozhai are reminiscent of, and are indeed a continuation of, that time-honoured debate on the legitimacy of ghosts and the dubious literary enterprise of recording the strange. Such responses testify to the relevance of the ghost to popular and critical receptions of Liaozhai, to the ghost’s ambiguity as a source of both fascination and unease, and to its capacity for generating discourse.

To call Liaozhai the quintessential Chinese ghost story collection is to call to attention some of the chasms between the general acclaim for the work now and its earlier struggles throughout its textual transmission and reception. To modern readers and literary historians, Liaozhai is an undisputed literary classic, best known for a gallery of beautiful and sensual ghost women whose images are permanently enshrined in a series of elegant tales with intricate plotlines, vivid characterization, and unfettered imagination. However, the term “ghost story,” now almost synonymous with “Liaozhai,” obscures the fact that Liaozhai is more than just an assembly of ghost narratives; the enchanting images of Liaozhai ghosts in the public mind also overshadow many other Liaozhai images that are grotesque, horrid, and dangerous.

Pu Songling’s Liaozhai is a heterogeneous collection encompassing a broad array

of genres and modes of writing, from records of the strange to tales of the marvellous His sources range from the oral (folktales, stories, hearsay), the written (old books, records, tales), to the experiential (personal experiences, dreams, memories). His theme and subject matter range from ghosts, foxes, and all sorts of strange flora and fauna, to insightful, incisive depictions of human characters and social realities. Liaozhai’s textual hybridity, a seemingly l iterary problem, proves to have broader cultural implications. The promiscuous nature of Pu Songling’s text reactivated centuries of critical and ideological debate on the legitimacy of zhiguai writing, and on

the very definition of the genre. Dismissed by the literary establishment as generically impure and inconsistent, and faring poorly in a genre that was itself under attack, Liaozhai was excluded from the philosophers section of the Siku quanshu (the Qianlong Imperial library) catalogue. Thus the b ook’s now-unshakable literary status threatens to erase the tortuous route of Liaozhai’s literary (and cultural) ascension.

It would be more accurate to describe Liaozhai as a major work in a minor genre (or a mixture of genres) written by an undistinguished member of the literati, but this assertion inevitably evokes many of the irregularities, contradictions, and controversies that have surrounded Pu Songling’s work. It is a collection of tales that has been, and is perhaps meant to be, always partially read; a literary classic whose renown is founded on, and is in fact dependent on, a small selection of the entire collection.

英文文献中文翻译（要求达到2000字）

学号：08041143 学生姓名：陈超

蒲松龄的聊斋文化内涵解读及接受史

洛惠

（多伦多大学东亚研究系）

摘要：本论文看起来有超出了蒲松龄的聊斋志异（1640年至1715年）作为无可争议的中国文学经典的普遍看法。关于文化工作的针对性和号召力，从它的地位植根于传统的“小话语”派生鬼的故事。上半年的论文探讨内聊斋中所描述的鬼，与他们的黑暗和无政府主义的起源重新连接其驯服和女性化的图像。下半年研究聊斋传统，在原来意义上的一个轻微的话语充满了通用和思想紧张形式，记载从书的文化提升小说，一个虚构的主要工作（在其现代意义上的的小说）。然而，这本书的规范地位仍然悬而未决，其异构的文学和文化的根源困扰。

简介评论目前聊斋的研究现状，理由是需要进一步调查流行的聊斋的看法和传统鬼文化的中国概念之间的关系。第一章界定了在帝国晚期鬼话语蒲松龄的立场，并探讨如何产生鬼的故事，反映了他作为儒家士大夫的矛盾。第二章读蒲松龄的“画皮”其构架及文学来路，表明浦志怪和川奇模式的用途是鬼的批判性和创造性潜力的勘探至关重要。第三章在“改造”一书，由清王朝的批评家，出版商和评论家，到讲究的对象转到聊斋收益的声望，但聊斋鬼形象地形成有一个过程，其中的流派，观能和意识形态的问题。第四章着眼于现代鬼的话语，矛盾是创造新的有利位置，从聊斋恢复其“未成年人”的状态，最引人注目的是香港鬼电影，破裂。结论重温“画皮”聊斋故事，充分体现了复杂的文化后果的幽灵。毕业论文的结合与一个进入的幽灵，它占据一个文化话语的高度争议的领域对话询问一个聊斋的文本形成的研究和其接收随后的历史，运作作为一个心理投影显示其信仰，一个文学的主题和一个不同的美学建构。

浅谈对聊斋志异中鬼文化内涵的解读

齐王有一个擅长绘画的宫廷画师。国王问他：“画什么最难？”，得到“狗和马是最困难”的答复。“什么是最简单的画？”，“鬼，是最简单的。”狗和马的俗称，和他们在我们的眼睛一天前出现在一天。我们不能简单的近似他们。因此，他们很难画。鬼，是无形的。他们给我们的是不可见的。这就是为什么他们是容易画的原因。

鬼，流行的定义，是一种无形的灵魂，因此是无形的和无形的。但鬼还表现在通过人类的想象力最丰富的伪装。画家在韩非子的寓言表明，鬼可能是最简单的主题画。但鬼是一个单纯的猜测肖像，或充其量，逼近可能是最具挑战性的观众。灵感画的东西总是超出了观众的把握。因此，鬼变成一个贴切的比喻文学代表性的难以捉摸。本论文试图查看并感受与领悟，可以说，蒲松龄的聊斋志异（1640年至1715年）最伟大的文学肖像之一。

提到的名字，“聊斋”立即浮现鬼诱人，但隐约不祥的图像，这本书，许多人，成为鬼故事体裁的代名词。相反，“鬼”字时进入交谈，因为它是不罕见跻身中国，这个词几乎总是使我想起聊斋，或至少某些印象的鬼彩色阅读聊斋故事的回忆，或观看聊斋电影。如此密切结合，是中国鬼的概念，这本书的流行的看法，他们已成为两个文化现象，其相互关系往往心照不宣地承认，但尚未彻底阐明。这是本研究的目的来描述和结晶这种相互交织的关系，我的个人利益，相互强化彼此动机，目的是：鬼，一个童年经验与祭祖的培养好奇心，和聊斋的一个单一机构工作，或

者一个单独的名称，唤起和体现了中国的鬼感性。

聊斋无疑是阅读，研究，演出，并拍摄的中国鬼故事集。蒲松龄的作品是已经寻求到社会在作家心理扭曲的反映，后在作者的的文人，谁如饥似渴地复制和传阅于1766年出版后各种版本手稿工作。蒲松龄去世后的半个世纪，其继承成员之间的一生编辑，出版商和评论家的捍卫和促进个人思想以及商业利益和文学价值几乎就是这本书的出版原因。一个流行的接待悠久的历史开始了：第一，有十八世纪的南部电视剧聊斋启发;然后其余王朝时期目睹了区域文艺席卷聊斋适应化修改成功和讲故事的。在二十世纪后的间隙期间，聊斋再次在学术和流行界的蓬勃发展。新的和重新包装版本的聊斋评论，插图和现代译本，赶紧把图书市场上的竞争与其他文学名著的新版本。聊斋志异的传统文化更是蓬勃发展，像马瑞芳，他经常出现在中国中央电视台的“主论坛”的学者，普及新的高度追捧。聊斋故事的电影和电视适应不断发展壮大。

然而聊斋作为文学经典与流行文化现象的当前状态，掩盖事实的幽灵仍然是一个敏感的话题在当代中国媒体。在2003年夏天，一个新的电视改编著名的聊斋故事，由台湾和大陆的聂小倩，引起很大的争议在中国的报纸，显然是由于其“鬼妖”的主题。一份报告警告说，电视连续剧有可能通过内地审查，并在中国正式发布的麻烦是不很快标题另一份报章：“为了避免禁令，小倩从鬼变成不朽的，在新的电视连续剧。“根据这份报告，生产者，不希望失去利润丰厚的内地市场，聘请了著名编剧陈十三爷”鬼“原来的聊斋”。大约一个星期后，它被证实的电视连续剧终于通过国家审查，并在八月将在内地电视台播出。

毫无疑问，一些送检的威胁是媒体炒作的伎俩。然而，让人想起聊斋屏幕的适应化修改和原文化内涵的矛盾化反应，确实是一个延续，历史悠久的辩论鬼的和可疑的记录奇怪的文学企业的合法性。证明这种反应相关的流行和重要接待的聊斋的鬼，鬼的迷恋和不安的来源含糊不清的，其产生话语的能力。

调用聊斋典型的中国鬼故事收集呼吁关注一些现在的工作和整个文本的传输和接收的早期

斗争的总体好评之间的裂痕。现代读者和文学史家，聊斋是一个无可争议的文学经典，最美丽和感性的鬼的妇女，其永久供奉在一系列优雅的故事情节错综复杂，生动的刻画，和无拘无束的想象力的图像画廊。然而，长期的“鬼故事”，现在几乎等同于“聊斋”掩盖事实，聊斋鬼叙事不仅仅是一个大会是在公众心目中的迷人聊斋鬼图像也掩盖了许多其他聊斋图像怪诞，可怕的，危险的。

蒲松龄的聊斋是一种异质性的集合，包括一个广泛的阵列：

奇怪的奇妙的，他的各种来源的传说（民间传说，故事，传闻）从口头，书面（旧书籍，记录，故事），体验（亲身经历，梦想的记录类型和写作模式，，回忆）。他的主题和题材的范围从鬼，狐，和各种奇特的动植物，见地，人类角色和社会现实的精辟描述。聊斋的文本杂糅，一个看似文学的问题，证明有更广泛的文化内涵。蒲松龄的文字混杂的性质重新志怪写作的合法性上百年的批判和意识形态方面的争论，并流派的定义。驳回通用不纯和不一致的文学成立，并在自己受到攻击的一个流派航天不佳，聊斋被排除阁四库全书哲学家的部分（乾隆库）目录。因此，现在这本书的不可动摇的文学地位，威胁要擦除的曲折聊斋的文学和文化的提升路线。

这将是更准确地描述作为一个平凡的文人成员写在一个小流派（或流派的混合物）的主要工作的聊斋，但这一说法不可避免地唤起许多违规行为，矛盾和争议包围浦松龄的工作。这是一个收集故事已，或许意味着，总是部分读文学经典的名声是建立在，其实依赖的一小部分，整个集合。

湖州师范学院本科毕业论文指导教师审阅表

湖州师范学院本科毕业论文评阅人评阅表

湖州师范学院本科毕业论文答辩记录表