見證與反思：希利斯?米勒之“文學(xué)終結(jié)論”在中國（英文）

Abstract： J. Hillis Miller delivered a speech in China in July 2000， in which he quoted Jacques Derrida to address the question： Will literary study survive the globalization of the university and the new regime of telecommunications？ This speech caused a great disturbance among Chinese scholars， and many of them wrote articles and even books to argue with him. As a witness and particularly as a translator of Millers speeches in China， I have been following and pondering over this issue， which revealed the strong and hidden anxiety of the Chinese scholars at the turn of the 21st century in regard to the prospects of literature and literary studies upon the invasion of globalization and cultural studies. In this paper， the background and some details of the discussion are reviewed and some personal reflections are presented.

Key words： J. Hillis Miller; end of literature; globalization; Chinese context

Author： Guo Rong is currently teaching English at China University of Mining & Technology， Beijing （Beijing 100083， China）. She translated from English to Chinese Momme Brodersens Walter Benjamin： A Biography， J. Hillis Millers An Innocent Abroad： Lectures in China， Ugo Rossis Cities in Global Capitalism， and published her own book， Approaching History： The Fictional Worlds of Ha Jin and Yan Geling. Her main interests are postcolonial theories， diasporic studies and overseas Chinese literature. E-mail： 504027506@qq.com

標(biāo)題：見證與反思：希利斯·米勒之“文學(xué)終結(jié)論”在中國

內(nèi)容摘要：2000年7月，希利斯·米勒在他在中國的主旨發(fā)言中，以雅克·德里達的話為引子，探討了文學(xué)研究在大學(xué)全球化和新的電信王國中能否生存下來的問題。這一發(fā)言在中國學(xué)界引起了極大震動，許多學(xué)者紛紛撰文回應(yīng)他的觀點。作為米勒在中國發(fā)言的譯者和見證者，我也一直在關(guān)注和思考這個問題。究其實，這場論爭所揭示的乃是中國學(xué)者在世紀(jì)之交，面對全球化和文化研究的大規(guī)模入侵，所產(chǎn)生的潛在的對文學(xué)和文學(xué)研究前景的焦慮。本文回顧了這場論爭的背景和一些細節(jié)，并對此提出了一些個人的反思。

關(guān)鍵詞：希利斯·米勒；文學(xué)終結(jié)論；全球化；中國語境

作者簡介：國榮，現(xiàn)就職于中國礦業(yè)大學(xué)（北京）外語系，主要從事后殖民主義、華裔美國文學(xué)與流散理論研究。出版有譯著《在不確定中游走：本雅明傳》《萌在他鄉(xiāng)：米勒中國演講集》《城市與全球資本主義》，以及英文專著《走近歷史：哈金與嚴(yán)歌苓的小說世界》。

In late July 2000， J. Hillis Miller was invited to deliver a keynote speech at theinternational symposium entitled “The Future of Literary Theory： China and the World” inBeijing. In his speech， Miller quoted Jacques Derrida and fully illustrated the question heproposed in his title： Will literary study survive the globalization of the university and the newregime of telecommunications？

Because of the stunning diction appearing in his speech， “the end of literature，” thisspeech stirred an unprecedented disturbance among Chinese scholars， and many of them wrotearticles and even books to confront Miller. As a witness of the dispute and particularly as atranslator of Millers lectures in China， ① I have been following this campaign all these yearswith keen interest， from its explosive rise to its disappearance into the void， which reflects tosome extent the superficial and hidden gaps between Western and Chinese scholars owing tovarious factors. To commemorate Miller， the kind， noble and highly respected scholar whohad done so much to boost and promote the academic exchanges between China and the West，I re-evaluate this event， brewed and fermented mainly in China， and present some personalreflections on this issue.

From 1988 to 2012， Miller travelled to China for as many as 18 times， lecturing onliterary theory， especially the role of globalization in literary theory. Due to the languagebarriers， however， as well as other differences between China and the United States in termsof the development in globalization， the Internet and digital technology， cultural studies， etc.，Miller was more often than not criticized and misunderstood in China. For this reason， theconfrontation and quasi-one-sided debate resulting from his speech is understandable thoughit is indeed beyond his awareness that the discussion had lasted for more than two decades，and that till today， there are still Chinese scholars writing about it. ②

Millers speech starts with Derridas La carte postale and discusses the influence ofprinting and telecommunications technologies such as film， television， telephone and theInternet on literature， philosophy， psychoanalysis and even love letters. He writes，

Jacques Derrida， in striking passages written by one or another of the protagonistsof La carte postale （The Post Card）， says the following： … an entire epoch of so?called literature， if not all of it， cannot survive a certain technological regime of telecommunications （in this respect the political regime is secondary）. Neither can philosophy， or psychoanalysis. Or love letters…” （Innocent Abroad 57）

He acknowledges with “passions of anxiety， dubiety， fear， disgust，” “What Derrida， or rather his protagonists， in La carte postale says in the citation I have made is truly frightening， at least to a lover of literature like me…，” and he continues to claim that to live beyond the end of literature， love letters， philosophy， and psychoanalysis， “all prime examples of ‘humanistic discourse，” would be like living beyond the end of the world （58）. In spite of that， Miller concludes， after pages of long and detailed analysis， “if Derrida is right， and I believe he is， the new regime of telecommunications is bringing literature to an end by transforming all those factors that were its preconditions or its concomitants” （59; emphasis added）.

Unexpectedly （though reasonable， especially reviewing it after two decades）， Millers speech， like a stone thrown into a pool of peaceful water， induced ripples that disturbed and provoked much discussion among usually placid Chinese scholars. One of the conference participants， Xu Ming， attached at that time to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences， put aside his original manuscript， which had been translated into English beforehand，③ and delivered an improvised keynote speech at the last session of the conference. He said abruptly that he did not agree with Millers speech for the following reasons： every university with liberal arts in China teaches courses of literary theory; there are more than 30，000 scholars engaged in the teaching and research of literary theory and aesthetics in universities and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences， as well as the provincial and municipal academies of social sciences; there are 33 institutes specializing in doctoral programs in literary research， including literary theory， modern and contemporary Chinese literature， classical Chinese literature， and comparative literature， etc.④ How could literature come to an end？ He did not understand.

In August 2001， the Center for Literary Theory Studies， Beijing Normal University， co-organized an international conference with Tsinghua University and several other universities， “Culture， Literature and Human Beings in the Context of Globalization.” I happened to be there and heard face-to-face the joint attack of Chinese scholars against Miller， represented by Tong Qingbing⑤ from Beijing Normal University and Li Yanzhu from Shandong Normal University. They quoted Millers speech in 2000 and refuted it one by one. Their talks stimulated me to stand up and clarify because， for me， the two highly respected Chinese scholars seemed to have targeted the wrong object， and as it happens， the speech they quoted from was translated by me. It seemed that it was me who had failed to translate the speech faithfully and led to such unexpected interpretations. I told all people present that the Chinese?translation of Millers speech was published in the first issue of Literary Review in 2001， ⑥asking them to read the full text carefully before making targeted criticism.

As one of the main refuters， and more importantly， as one of the most influential scholarsin the Chinese circle of literary studies， Tong Qingbing published a series of articles from 2001to 2005， along with his lectures at different places in China. In his article， “Will Literature andLiterary Criticism Disappear in the Age of Globalization？ A Dialogue with J. Hillis Miller，”published first in China Education Daily on September 6， 2001 and later in Social ScienceJournal in 2002， Tong first acknowledges that he feels sad after reading Millers article， andthen he claims clearly that he does not agree with Millers conclusion and prediction， i.e.，along with the development of new media， literature， philosophy， psychoanalysis and loveletters will die out; and when literature dies， so does literary criticism. He firmly believes，“Human beings are not subject to telecommunications and media， but control them. The fateof mankind is in their own hands. If human beings need literature to express their emotions，literature and literary criticism will not die” （133; my translation）.

On December 18， 2004， the Academic Frontier Forum of Literature and Arts， initiated byBeijing Literature and Art Society， was held in Beijing Normal University， the theme of whichwas： “Will literature come to an end？” Tong Qingbing， as the vice president of the Society，presided over the meeting. Together with his colleagues， Cao Weidong and Dang Shengyuan，he insisted that the marginalization of literature and the end of literature were not the same，and further pointed out， “As long as human beings have emotions and as long as humanbeings have artistic forms， there will be literature， and literature will not come to an end！” （Yue406）

In his 2005 article， the target of his criticism has been extended from Miller per se tohis followers. ⑦ He quotes Millers words in an interview that literature is safe， concludingthat Miller has changed his idea， but not his followers. He criticizes Millers followersworshipping blindly the academic hegemony of the US， believing that the marginalization ofliterature is more suitable for the healthy development of literature， and that the legitimateexistence of literature lies in its unique use of language and its significance as a uniqueexistence of aesthetics. Furthermore， Tong quotes Lessings “Laocoon： or On the Limits ofPainting and Poetry，” to differentiate the effects generated by painting and poetry. For Lessingand for Tong， the picture produced by poetry in ones mind eyes lasts for a longer time andprovides more space for imagination （72）. In this sense， Lessing， as early as the 18th century，seemed to have helped Tong defeat Miller.

To compare Millers speech and Tongs articles， one may easily find that most of thecriticisms are taken out of the context， and that the dialogue is carried out on different levels.In other words， this dialogue is more like a displaced， paralleled communication， with no?divergence in the end. Firstly， Millers original intention is not to claim that literature is coming to an end. He writes at the end of his article，

Literary studys time is always up. It will survive as it has always survived： as a ghostly revenant， a somewhat embarrassing or alarming spectral visitant at the feast of reason. … though theres never time， though it is never the time， … ‘literature as survivor， as a feature of absolute singularity within any cultural forms， in whatever medium—will continue to demand urgently to be ‘studied， here and now， within whatever new institutional and departmental configurations we devise， and within whatever new regime of telecommunications we inhabit.” （70）

That is exactly what I mean that Tong and his colleagues have been flailing against the wrong target. Miller is somehow innocent in this end-of-literature controversy. He might be stunned and speechless if he could understand the Chinese attack and argument against him， since he never claimed or foretold the end of literature， but tried all his time to doggedly defend its legitimate existence. The end-of-literature controversy is in large part a construction of his Chinese counterparts， which reveals their hidden and strong anxiety at the turn of the 21st century regarding the future of literature and literary studies. It is， to some extent， a demonstration of “Chinese literary theorys exercise in self-reflection and self-scrutiny using the mirror of the West” （Zhu 304）.

Miller published in 2002 his classical book， On Literature， in which he reiterates on the opening page that literature is “perennial and universal” and that as a “feature of any human culture at any time and place，” it will survive all historical and technological changes （1）. He explains more clearly from the etymological perspective that “l(fā)iterature in that sense is now coming to an end， as new media gradually replace the printed book” （2; emphasis added）. To read between the lines， one may realize that Miller， as an extraordinarily learned master of language， is digging into the evolution of its lexical meaning and playing with the word “l(fā)iterature，” which constitutes a pitfall for most Chinese scholars who fail to know that literature， apart from its commonly-known connotation， i.e.， literary production as a whole， is also a cultural discourse relating closely to printing technology. Derrida initiates and Miller follows， based on their common understanding that literature， as a byname of printing culture， is coming to an end， as many Chinese did not see it through.

Unfortunately， the Chinese version of this book was published in 2007， and before that few people had a chance to read its English original， including Tong， I am afraid; owing to the barrier of language and its rare availability in China， Millers real intention failed to be recognized till then. Out of the consideration of market， perhaps， the book title was translated?as 文學(xué)死了嗎， which literally means： Is literature dead？ or Has literature come to an end？It may have indeed fuelled the dispute， in a somehow positive way， since after that moreChinese scholars begin to defend and support Miller in terms of his argument about the end ofliterature. For instance， Xiao Jinlong writes in his 2007 article， “as used by Miller，” literature“means a discourse with special connotations coming from a special social environment， ratherthan， as the Chinese understand， an academic discipline or any objective entity independenthuman will. Therefore， the attack against Miller waged by the Chinese academicians is but anaimless babbling” （20）.

Another main focus of Tongs rebuttal is Millers statement， “the medium is theideology，” which is obviously a parody of McLuhans classical assertation， “the medium is themessage.” Tong writes，

In terms of the content per se， it is hard to say that those TV programs， like sceneryfilms， animal worlds， various sports programs， medical and health programs，popular science programs， etc.， are ideological. How could those stuff becomeideological after they are put on TV？ Is it true that the TV producers want to spreadany ideology through those programs？ Or does the medium have magical powerto change the original content， endowing them with ideological thoughts？ As weall know that printing （which is also a medium） fail to endow landscape poetryand flower-and-bird painting with class nature， i.e.， ideology， how can they getthat from the new medium like TV and VCD？ Message is a broad category. Boththe ideological and the non-ideological can be considered as messages. Therefore，even if McLuhans assertion is reasonable， Millers inference — “the medium isideology” is against the common sense， and thus unacceptable. （“A Dialogue” 132）

This discussion seems to have chopped logic. In his speech， Miller presents in detail his wayof reference， and he even uses the word “notoriously” when he quotes McLuhan. He writes，

New communications technologies are making a quantum leap in the generationand imposition of ideologies. … It used to be the newspaper. Now it is television，cinema， and， increasingly， the Internet. These technologies and media， it might beargued， are in a sense ideologically neutral. They will transmit whatever they aretold to say. Nevertheless， as Marshall McLuhan notoriously said， ‘the medium isthe message. I take it that this means， as Derrida in his own way is saying， that achange in medium will change the message. To put this another way， ‘the medium isthe ideology. （Innocent Abroad 63; emphasis added）

Miller further points out， “…it is not only language as such that creates and enforces ideology， but also language or other signs as generated， stored， retrieved， transmitted， and received by one or another technological prosthesis. This is as true of manuscript and then print culture as it is of digital culture today” （63）. If Millers reference is inappropriate and impressive， why isnt McLuhans？ The problem is that we cannot overlook the context and make such a logical reasoning about a persons sentence. Strictly speaking， class nature and ideology are not the same. Moreover， the term of “ideology” is understood differently in China and in the West. As Miller observed， the word of “ideology” might have a positive meaning in China， whereas the Americans “would not ordinarily use the word in a positive sense” to name the primary values of their culture and the word “generally has a negative connotation; it names either unconscious and prejudiced presuppositions or the conscious program of some group” （21）. In China， people usually attach great attention to ideological education， i.e.， the so-called ideological and political education; in the West， however， most people， especially intellectuals， are often sensitive and even disgusted with “ideological indoctrination.”

Comparing the articles of Miller and Tong， one may also notice that the two scholars have revealed different attitudes towards the end-of-literature issue. What Miller revealed in his speech is more like a kind of helplessness of an old man who had been engaged in literary research all his life and he is deeply distressed in the face of the pervasive telecommunications media and the increasingly marginalized reality of literature and literary studies; whereas， Tongs article shows a kind of confidence， which seems to have kept some remaining influence of the traditional Chinese optimistic philosophy， i.e.， human beings would certainly have the final control. If we would like to face the reality objectively， however， we would have to admit that contemporary people are indeed helpless and hopeless in front of the overwhelming invasion of multi-media. Along with the advancement of globalization of communications technologies， this distress and frustration must have influenced writers and literary scholars. Otherwise， there would not be so many conferences and meetings constantly discussing the impact of the media on literature and the Internet on traditional newspapers and magazines.

In 2000， Tie Ning， the well-established female novelist （also President of China Writers Association from December 2007 to present）， writes in the preface of her book， How Far is Forever （2000）： Literature is no longer the main focus of everyones street talk as it was in the mid-1980s （3）. This is how the mainstream writer bemoans in the face of the reality that literature is no longer the highlight of our society. One may also notice that the paper books begin to take the ride of film and TV adaptation to improve their share of markets. In fact， this phenomenon does not begin in the 21st century， but can be traced back to the early 1990s. Starting with the TV series 渴望 （which literally means “l(fā)onging for”） in the early 1990s， a long list follows， like 過把癮 （means “l(fā)ive fast and die young”; some translates it as Eat，Drink and Be Merry）， 北京人在紐約 （A Native of Beijing in New York）， etc. Along with theincreasing popularity of TV series， the paper books with the cover of TV stills also becomebest-sellers in the book stalls and newspaper kiosks. Interestingly， the novel， Cell Phone （2003），was published almost at the same time as the film was put on， and it is said that the bookwas written after the movie was produced. Mo Yan， who was awarded the Nobel Prize forLiterature in 2012， is also a successful example that benefits from their works being adaptedinto films. Though one cannot say for sure that the successful shooting of Red Sorghum is theopen sesame of his award， it is definitely the initiator and pushing force of his popularity inChina and the other parts of the world. At the beginning of 2022， the TV series that occupiedthe prime time of CCTV1， 人世間 （A Lifelong Journey）， attracted the attention of manyChinese， and consequently its book sale also improved dramatically （Zhang）.

Although the popularity of film and TV series has greatly driven the sales of books andwriters benefit from their engagement with them， the writers may not necessarily be happyor gratified by this fact. The Chinese writer Bi Feiyu， as the scriptwriter of the film ShanghaiTriad （1996） and the author of the novella， Tsing Yi （2000）， which was adapted into TV series，acknowledged that he had benefited from film and TV adaptation， but he did not altogetherapprove it. He said， “Im a writer. I have an object in my heart， and this object is my readers.The audience of film or television and readers of literary books may be overlapped or not thesame group of people. If they are not the same， I value readers more. In my heart， readers arethe most important. I care more about people reading my books， instead of those watchingTV and movies” （Xie）. He said bluntly， “In a word， the relationship between me and film andtelevision is for mutual advantage” （Xie）.

Born in 1964， Bi Feiyu began his writing career in the mid-1980s. His works havebeen translated into a variety of languages and published abroad widely. He won twice LuXun Literature Award. In the 1990s， literature was gradually alienated and marginalized.Many writers felt deeply abandoned， but Bi Feiyu， who has experienced the developmentof literature from its peak to the bottom， said， “though our readers are decreasing， I firmlybelieve that literature will always have readers. As long as we have this group of readers， I amsatisfied. Cao Xueqin lived on porridge and finished his great Dream of Red Mansions. I haveno complaints. Literature will never die， but the era of literature is over. We must recognizesuch a reality and cant complain” （Xie）.

Yan Geling， an overseas Chinese American writer who is very popular in mainland Chinain recent years， can be regarded as another example benefiting greatly from film and televisionadaptation. Famous Chinese directors like Zhang Yimou and Feng Xiaogang have adaptedher works. Talking about the relationship between literature and TV and movies， she said， “itis true that many of my novels have been adapted into film and television， but this is not my?intention. I hope each of my books has its own life， instead of living on in the form of film and television. But now， it is the age of media， and I also wish my film and television audiences could become my novel readers in the end. This may also be a way of promoting literature” （He）. She continued， “I dont want to see the result that film and television spoil literature. I have always regarded novel creation as my spiritual life， and film and TV screenwriting as my secular life” （He）. In any case， she does not object to adaptation of her works. “No matter what to say， at present， film and television are the best and most effective advertisements of novels，” and she hopes that “film and television will eventually feed literature” （He）.

As professionals of literary research， we certainly do not want our research field to become cold and byways， but to face reality is better than deceiving ourselves and playing the ostrich. In fact， both paper books and electronic products like film and TV series are media intervening in peoples lives and affecting their thinking. Though literature becomes a field of minority， there are still people appreciating literary creations as long as writers can stand loneliness and create good works. As Bi Feiyu says，

… It is not necessary to overemphasize the importance of literature. In any case， it is impossible for literature to resume the crazy situation in the 1980s， … but compared to other cultural products， literature， like a headstream， is more creative and original. One of the most basic facts is that literature can be adapted into movies and TV series， but not the vice versa. In this sense， literature plays a crucial role in the process of cultural building. Ten years ago， no directors or actresses emphasized the importance of literature， but now they all realize that literature is too important for their success. （“An Interview”）

In retrospect， Millers speech title and some of his statements sound indeed shocking， but this way of writing is more of a strategic consideration， rather than a simple and plain style of writing. As readers， we should read between the lines， instead of focusing on merely one sentence while ignoring the whole context. McLuhans statement that “medium is information” is true. The change of the medium of literature will naturally influence peoples reading and appreciation of literature. With the overwhelmingly strong invasion of fast-food culture， online reading cannot provide the same experience of holding a book in hand， and long times staring at the screen does impede peoples thinking， resulting in an empty mind， instead of an inspiring and thoughtful moments. Moreover， online information is updated quickly， and the changing information does attract peoples eyes， making it impossible for them to sit down and immerse themselves in the world of books for a long time. Meantime， the special sound and visual effects of TV and movies are indeed powerful and impressive，but they do stop people from quieting down and throwing themselves into deep thinking.

In this situation， how can we ensure that literary readers will not be reduced dramaticallyand literary research will not be further marginalized？ It is true that the advancement of mediapromotes the dissemination of literary works and the conduction of literary research， but onthe other hand， it results indirectly in the marginalization of literature and literary studies.In any case， the decline of literature and literary research is not the fault of humanists. Ashumanists， however， we still need to raise our arms and shout at the right time， just as Millerdid.

In September 2010， Miller delivered his speech at Guangdong University of ForeignStudies entitled “Cold Heaven， Cold Comfort： Should We Read or Teach Literature Now？”Derridas shocking words in The Post Card appeared again， as epigraph and a timely warningor reminder as well. Miller traced his 19 years “happy time” at John Hopkins University（1953-1972） to show that they used to have unquestioned consensus about the nature andmission of the humanities， a “（somewhat absurd） ideological defense of literary study”（Innocent Abroad 228）. In spite of all those negative information about the humanities，Miller returned to Yeatss poem， “The Cold Heaven，” and made a specific attempt to “readrhetorically” and to illustrate the benign effect that literature could have on many people.

In September 2012， Miller came to China for the last time and delivered at BeijingLanguage and Culture University the speech， “Mixed Media Forever： The Internet asSpectrum， or the Digital Transformation of Literary Studies.” He started with Guy Debord，Jean Baudrillard and Maurice Blanchots views about “spectacle，” and reiterated once againthat we had entered an era of picture reading. Miller “read” in detail the cover photo ofthe New Yorker for 23 July 2012 and an advertisement in the August 2012 issue of Wiredmagazine. To illustrate that “multimedia in different forms and mixes has characterizedverbal texts from the beginning，” he traced back to several novels published in the Victorianera and pointed out that words and pictures had never been completely separated （InnocentAbroad 250）. In any case， he concludes， “working with digitized materials as opposed to printmaterials means submission to a quite different technological or spectacular regime， eventhough both print and the results of prestidigitalization are different forms of mixed media”（Innocent Abroad 256）.

Millers speech at Tsinghua University， i.e.， his last speech in China， was “Literaturematters today，” in which he emphasized once again the reasons and benefits of readingliterature in the digital age of media， calling for the anachronistic reading of older literaryworks. In place of the virtues claimed for the so-called historical imagination， he argues that“l(fā)iterature matters most for us if it is read for today， and read ‘rhetorically， partly as trainingin ways to spot lies， ideological distortions， and hidden political agendas such as surround us?on all sides in the media these days” （Innocent Abroad 265）.

To review the topics and contents of his speeches， one can see clearly that Millers so-called “end of literature” per se is merely a publicity stunt， a pseudo-proposition. He never imagined that it would develop into a big issue in China. Yet， no matter how people think of this mix-up and false proposition， Miller himself adhered always to the front line of literary criticism. Literature and media are destined to coexist and prosper. If we do not care about whether we are the mainstream， literary research should continue to exist in the foreseeable future.

On April 23， 2022， the 27th World Book Day， the inaugural meeting of China Reading Association （CRA） was held in Beijing. Initiated by Guo Yingjian of RUC Capital Development and Governance Institute， CRA aims to promote teaching and study of reading strategy， encouraging people to read more classics. This is certainly inspiring news in the epidemic COVID-19， when humanities are increasingly marginalized and book reading is less and less. Fragmented reading， as its name suggests， is doomed to be fragmented. To obtain long-lasting strength， one needs to immerse long time in the virtual world of classics. Hopefully， the establishment of the association and many other reading clubs scattering around each corner of the world could play a positive role in the rescue of human beings spiritual pursuit by means of classical readings， as Miller wished and had been calling for all his life. If Miller could hear and see， I am sure that he would nod his head with consolation， and smile at those who are struggling to make a difference in this rapidly changing new world.

Notes

① From 2000-2001， I acted several times as Millers interpreter when he came to lecture in China， and his speeches were also translated by me into Chinese. In 2014， Miller prepared for the publication of his book， An Innocent Abroad： Lectures in China （Evanston， Ill.： Northwestern UP， 2015）， and I undertook the translation of its Chinese version： 萌在他鄉(xiāng)：米勒中國演講集 （Nanjing： Nanjing UP， 2016）.

② Miller writes in his essay， “Western Literary Theory in China”： I had no idea that my “end of literature” essay had been so widely read and discussed in China. […] I had not known anything about the controversy in China in response to my “end of literature” essay （343; 346）. See Modern Language Quarterly： A Journal of Literary History 79.3 （Sept. 2018）： 341-353. For other references， see Xiao Jinlong， “Termination of Literature as Advocated by Hillis Miller，” Journal of Lanzhou University （Social Sciences） 4 （2007）： 15-20; Zhu Liyuan， “‘The End of Literature in China，” Chinese Journal of Literary Criticism 1 （2016）： 34-48， 125; Xu Dejin and Lan Xiujuan， “The Reception of J. Hillis Millers Literary Criticism in China，” Contemporary Foreign Literature 4 （2021）： 130-137.

③ I know that clearly because I happened to be the person helping him translating his paper from Chinese to English.

④ The information cited here is based on his talk at the conference. I searched online and CNKI data， but failed to find his article in this aspect.

⑤ Prof. Tong Qingbing passed away in 2015. I quote his words just for the purpose of argument， without any disrespect intended. We are all limited and confined by our times and the education we received， and Tong is no exception.

⑥ See J. Hillis Miller， “Will Literary Study Survive the Globalization of the University and the New Regime of Telecommunications？” trans. Guo Rong， Literary Review 1 （2001）： 131-139.

⑦ See Tong Qingbing， “Literature as a Unique Aesthetic Field and Its Fans： A Dialogue with the End of Literature Followers，” Literary and Artistic Contention 3 （2005）： 69-74.

責(zé)任編輯：李睿