| 摘要: | 在美國文學中，史提芬·葛倫一直被公認為最偉大的作家之一，隨著美芝：阻街女郎一書的出版，葛倫就被視為美國的第一位自然主義作家。而英勇紅徽章這部小說，出版於一八九五年，更是一文學巨著。特別是自從一九五0年之後，批評家對這部小說的評論紛紛出籠，並展開一場為學論戰。然而，一般批評家所爭論的焦點就在於亨利.佛萊明這位年輕的戰士是否真的完成了人格上的成長？而對於亨利在戰場上的表現，葛倫這位作家本身所持的態度究竟為何？大多數批評家所亟於回答的問題也就在於葛倫是一位自然主義者，寫實主義者，象徵主義者，抑是為諷刺家？
對於以上所提，本人認為，無論我們如何稱呼葛倫，他書中所描述的人生種種，以及所呈現出的人性觀，才是我們研究此書的主題。的確，葛倫是一位自然主義者，因他每每將書中人物至於一冷酷的世界中。而在英勇紅徽章這部小說中，葛倫運用了意象，印象派與寫實派技巧，又同時慣用反諷的語氣，無怪乎如諸約翰.哈特，伯納德，伍伯格，查裡.伍卡，等批評家要稱其為象徵主義者，寫實主義者，及反諷家。然而最重要的是葛倫在書中極力描繪的均是一些基本的人性問題，人類對於其所身處惡劣環境的種種內在與外在的反應，其中包括人的恐懼、焦慮、逃避、與抱怨，自我解釋等等心態與行為。儘管作者對人的私心與妄自尊大的行為傾向多有反諷，然而再描寫其角色遭受挫折，感受無助的過程中，葛倫不僅流露出他對人類在大自然中孤獨無助的悲愴之感，更使我們目睹人在與自身環境及命運搏鬥的情況下所表現的高昂意志、勇氣、與尊嚴。
因此，為了對英勇紅徽章這部小說有更深刻的瞭解，本人就將亨利.彿萊明的心態，他對外在環境的反應，與其他角色的關係，以及葛倫在小說中所運用的意象，與其所慣用的象徵、寫實、反諷等手法作深入的分析與探討。藉著這項研究，我們希望能洞悉葛倫在書中所呈現出的人性觀，與他對人生所抱持的態度。換句話說，我們希望能瞭解葛倫，身為一位自然主義作家，是如何的在英勇紅徽章這部小說中表現與傳達他對人性與人生看法。
Stephen Crane has always been considered one of the most important figures in American literature. With the publishing of Maggie: A Girl of the Streets(1893), Crane is often labeled America's first naturalistic writer. And his The Red Badge of Courage, published in 1895, is an acknowledged masterpiece of naturalistic writing. Especially since 1950s, This novel has been closely examined and much debated. The critical issues have ranged from the meaning of Jim Conklin's death on the first day of battle to Carne's ironic or non-ironic intention on the second day when Henry Fleming presumably arrives at a quiet, unflinching manhood. As Donald Pizer puts it, the problem of Henry's growth or moralityhas always been central to this criticism. "Does henry, in the sense of morality, become better or remain self-deceived?" and "Is Crane a naturalist, realist,symbolist，or ironist?" are the questions mostcritices appear to be answering. However, if we only lay emphasis on one of Crane's techniques, and use it as a tool to interpret Crane's writing, we will miss or even misinterpret some aspects and problems of humanity that Crane describes and suggests in his novel. For example Charles C. Walcutt and Donald Pizer both assert that Crane is an ironist. They point out that Henry never improves morally, and his final recognition of his growth is nothing but his own self-deception. In Walcutt;s opinion, Henry is never able to evaluate his own conduct, and he is vain, selfish, ignorant, and childish. Obviously, Walcutt reaches his conclusion simply because he takes Crane's tone of mockery for granted. Thus, he denies not only the significance of Henry's heroic deeds in the battle-field, but the possibility of his growth in morality,. As to Pizer, he claims that Henry is a raw, untried country youth who seeks the romance and glory of war but finds that his romantic, chivalric preconceptions of battle are false. For this, Pizer never gives us any evidence as to why and how Henry finds his preconception false.
On the other hand, speaking of human nature, some critics tend to simplify or skip over some important problems that Crane suggests in his novel. For example, William B. Dillingham considers that Henry's courage and heroic deeps performed in the second day of battle are from nothing but his inborn bestiality. Opposite to this interpretation, Kermit Vanderbilt and Daniel Weiss refute that Henry's heroic performance is motivated by his fear and wish of perserving his esteem within the regiment, so that he tries to deny fear and danger by exposing himself to the thing he fears. We must admit that fear and bestiality both play important roles in Henry's heroic deeds.But we too have to know that the aspects of humanity Crane presents in his novel are even wider,the aspects of humanity which,in addition to fear and bestiality,should include Henry's anxiety, isolation, rationalization, self-pity, selfishness, sense of guilt, and his final recognition.
In my opinion, the things that Crane talks about in his novel are more important than how he has been labeled by critics. Indeed, Crane is a naturalist, for he likes to put his characters in an inhospital world. He applies images, impressionistic technigques, and realistic description to his work, and in the mean time, he retains a tone of mockery in his narration, so that some critics, such as John. E. Hart, Bernard Weisberger, and Charles C. Walcutt, call him a symbolist, realist, and ironist. However, the most important thing is that what Crane tries to portray in his novel are the basic problems of human nature, the problems that, in fact, exemplify the various aspects of humanity in a really harsh world. And in the following analysis, we shall find that not only is Crane a writer who is good at portraying human nature, but he reveals, in the mean time, his sympathy for the characters and his strong pathos for man's role in the universe. Crane is indeed one of the literary greats who tries to describe faithfully what he has seen of human nature, to help us envision, through his literary craftsmanship, the various problems of humanity in the harsh world. |
