“理论”也是古代文学研究者,也许更应该说是古典文学编辑的一“执”。在学会,在笔谈,在访谈和对话中,“理论”经常是古典文学研究者孜孜追求的目标;而在学术刊物的编辑,则不仅运用在语言中,更溶化在血液中,落实在行动上,甚至成为他们衡量论著学术价值的唯一标准。请回想一下,在日常语境中,我们最常听到的两个评价尺度不就是“扎实”和“有理论”吗?然而从根本上说,两者其实都是毫无意义的;“扎实”并不一定与创见相连,“理论”更不意味着深度。前一点比较容易理解,后一点则还须破其执,因为有没有理论,已成为潜在的价值前提,根深柢固地左右着许多学者和编辑的判断,影响到对学术 “Theory” is also an ancient literature researcher, and perhaps more should be said that a “literary” editor of classical literature. In learning, in writing, in interviews and in dialogues, “theory” is often the goal diligently pursued by classical literature researchers; in academic journals, editors are not only used in the language, but dissolved in the blood and implemented in action , And even become the only measure of their academic value of the standard. Please recall that in the daily context, the two evaluation criteria we hear most often are not “solid” and “theoretical.” However, fundamentally, both are in fact meaningless. “Not necessarily linked with the creative,” theory "does not mean depth. The former is easier to understand, and the latter is still to be broken. Because there is no theory, it has become a potential value premise. It is deeply rooted in the judgment of many scholars and editors that it affects the academic