My era, 1979!

Chapter 63 Basic Qualities of Graduates

After a moment of contemplation, Xu Chengjun, with a steady gaze, turned to the professors and began to answer: "I believe that the study of Chinese literature can be classified into four progressive levels, realizing a complete path from textual understanding to academic creation."

The professors were surprised when he spoke, and they exchanged thoughtful glances.

This educated youth's logical thinking ability is quite good, as can be seen from just one sentence.

"The first step is to read the text. Taking the work as the foundation, the starting point for critical and cognitive literary research is the text. Extensive reading is required, distinguishing between extensive reading and intensive reading. Great works or research subjects should be read and savored carefully, while other works can be read extensively. Literary history and anthologies are introductory references, such as Zhu Dongrun's Selected Ancient Literature and Qian Liqun's Selected Modern and Contemporary Literature, but they should not be regarded as the ultimate guide."

Wear it a thousand times, but flattery never wears it.

Didn't you see Old Zhu nodding? Even his student, Yan Suzhang, was nodding as well?
Looking at the professors' expressions, and realizing he was right, he swallowed hard and continued:
"The true value of reading lies in this: the more you read, the more you can question the narratives of literary history. Why is a certain masterpiece overlooked? Why is a certain work overly praised? This kind of questioning is precisely the beginning of independent thinking, and the text itself is always the most core basis."

The five professors who were flipping through Xu Chengjun's manuscript all stopped what they were doing.
Even Wang Shuizhao's nonchalant expression turned somewhat serious.

Do you think what Xu Chengjun said is simple?
Not simple at all!
His statement about the "critical cognition" behind reading texts was a very courageous statement in 1979!
The academic community has just emerged from the inertia of thinking that "every sentence is the truth." "Questioning the established conclusions of literary history" is essentially a call to break the "dogma worship" and restore the text itself as the core basis for research.

You can tell from the fact that even Jia Zhifang is nodding in agreement that this emphasis on "independent thinking" is actually the spiritual awakening that the academic community needs most right now.

"The second step is to learn theory. Methodology is a tool, and to break through the surface interpretation of texts, theoretical tools are needed for analysis. Literary studies at the undergraduate and even graduate levels cannot stop at the surface interpretation of 'central idea' and 'paragraph summary,' but must master the analytical logic of literary theory. Classical Chinese literary theory and 20th-century Western literary theory are important resources, but we need to focus more on the theoretical framework that can directly serve text analysis. Theory is a 'scalpel,' not dogma; the core is to use it to illuminate the undiscovered dimensions of the text."

At this point, Su Liancheng, who had always disliked Xu Chengjun, softened his gaze a little.

But for some reason, her expression was like that of a girl who had been tricked by a blond guy.

What's going on?

Zhang Peiheng glanced at him and coughed.

He seemed to approve of the statement.

At this critical juncture in 1979, young scholars lacked basic training, and the research methods of the older generation of scholars were difficult to continue systematically.

Literary studies are characterized by fragmentation and empiricism, lacking a clear sense of direction.

What we need now is that bit of what Xu Chengjun is talking about.
"The third step is to understand the history of scholarship. Using the context as a coordinate, we can accurately position our research. Scholarly research is a relay race of 'dialogue with predecessors.' We need to sort out the history of scholarship: from the generations of scholars, such as the research context of scholars in different periods, such as Zhu Ziqing, Wang Yao, and Qian Liqun, to the research fields, such as writers and their works, literary trends, the evolution of schools of thought, and the study of the history of scholarship itself."

"Understanding three core questions: What are the existing research results? What methods and ideas did predecessors use? What gaps in the field have not yet been addressed? The significance of academic history lies in enabling our generation of students to think based on existing achievements, thus avoiding duplication of effort and finding our own research direction from the 'unfinished'."

Zhu Dongrun's lips twitched, and he glanced at Jia Zhifang beside him.

The two elders exchanged a knowing glance, seemingly wanting to say something, but ultimately couldn't bear to interrupt the "lecture."

They are the people who know best what the academic community is currently lacking. They had thought about it before, but they never expected that a rural educated youth who wasn't even an undergraduate would explain it so clearly.

Xu Chengjun's current discussion of "generational scholarly issues" and "research gaps" actually points directly to the core problem of academic inheritance at that time.

After a decade-long hiatus, young scholars are left wondering "what their predecessors did" and "what they themselves can do."

This approach of "thinking based on existing achievements" can provide a rational path for academic reconstruction that "avoids duplication of effort and identifies breakthroughs."

"The fourth step is to practice writing. With output as the goal, after completing the accumulation of the first three abilities, the ultimate goal is to put them into practice through academic writing. Mastering basic norms is fundamental, but more importantly, through continuous practice, revision, and polishing, one can transform textual understanding, theoretical application, and knowledge of academic history into clear and rigorous academic expression. Writing is not the end point, but rather a yardstick to test whether the first three abilities are solid, and also the final presentation of academic thinking." At this point, Zhang Peiheng already had a general idea of ​​what Xu Chengjun was talking about.

He is defining the methodology of academic writing!
Xu Chengjun connects the four elements into a progressive relationship of "foundation-tool-coordinate-transformation", defining a complete chain "from input to output" and "from inheritance to creation".

That kid's got some nerve!
Zhang Peiheng had by now put aside his initial disdain for the recommendation and even felt a bit of appreciation for it.

After all, this is a ruthless person who can say that Jin Yong is better than "Li Zicheng".

Treason?
What I want is utter rebellion!
“These four levels are progressive: text is the foundation, theory is the tool, academic history is the coordinate, and writing is the transformation. Ultimately, they point to the transformation from ‘passively receiving knowledge’ to ‘actively creating knowledge’.”

The "Five Great Vajras" are all figures with considerable expertise in literary theory research. To put it bluntly, these people, if they were to stomp their feet now...

The entire field of Chinese literary theory research was shaken to its core.

Xu Chengjun's explanation was not complicated.

The professors present already understood what Xu Chengjun was talking about.

But it is precisely because I understand that I am awestruck.

In this day and age, even if you write an outstanding work, it may not necessarily impress professors.

After all, every era has so many people who have a flash of brilliance and write words that amaze an era.

Especially the golden age of literary works in the 80s,
It's no exaggeration to say that masterpieces are being created every moment!

What truly surprised these professors was...

You're only 20 years old, and you already want to provide a theoretical path?

In 1979, what the academic community lacked most was not the accumulation of knowledge, but the logical framework of "how to do scholarship" and an independent spirit.

Xu Chengjun's answer seemed simple, but it was like a precise scalpel.

It not only removed the lesions of dogmatic thinking, but also mended the wounds of academic discontinuity, and built a bridge for dialogue between tradition and modernity.

The "four-level progressive method" he proposed is essentially a set of "operable, bottom-lined, and growth-oriented" academic paradigms for the academic community, which is currently in a state of confusion.

This was precisely the "methodological enlightenment" that the era of "intertwining destruction and construction" needed most.

This allowed his answer to transcend a mere "test response," becoming a subtle academic innovation.

Xu Chengjun himself was completely unaware of what he had said.

What's the matter?

Isn't this a basic quality of an outstanding master's graduate from a 211 university's Chinese literature department?
Hey, what do you guys think of my taste?

(End of this chapter)