罗蓀同志《談〈半把剪刀〉的两种演出》发表后,編輯部陆續收到二十多篇来稿,有同意的,也有不同意的。薛允璜、方可、董延泰三同志的文章,就表达了两种不同的看法。可以清楚地看出,爭論双方的分歧意見,由对結尾处理的不同看法,而具体涉及到对剧中人物性格、情节結构及主題意义的不同理解。薛允璜同志是主張悲剧結尾的,他认为象陈金娥这样一个具有悲剧性格的人,她的悲剧遭遇和悲剧結局,都是必然的。文中还明确地提出他的論点:在具有悲剧性格、悲剧遭遇的人物身上,只能是悲剧的結局,不会有喜剧的結局;而另一些具有喜剧性格的人物(即使他們也是被压迫的),則只会有喜剧,不会有悲剧。方可、董延泰两同志是主張喜剧結尾的。前者就情节綫索的貫串同結尾的关系提出看法,后者則比較了两种結尾方法,在揭示主題的作用方面,孰得孰失,說出了他的看法。上述这些意見,是否正确,是否全面,还需要大家进一步展开討論。順便在这里提一下,我們收到的来稿中,較普遍地存在着一个文章写法上的通病,就是长篇累牘地引述剧情,显得过多和过于冗长。本期刊登的三篇,同样有此現象。編者从讀者的利益考虑,不得不将这些文章中的“多余”部分,予以刪节。但是,編者动手,有时就免不了会損及作者原意。希望文章作者在动手写作前,对此加以注意,避免不必要的剧情叙述,不要重复别人說过的話,少讲讀者已經了然的事,如若有必要时,也务必力求文字的簡短和精炼。要知道,話說多了,不一定就能使自己的論点鮮明;恰相反,論点鮮明的文章,常常是文字簡短而有力的。 After the publication of the two performances by Comrade Luo Sun on the two performances of “Half Scissor Scissors,” the editorial department successively received over 20 contributions, and both agreed and disagreed. Xue Yunhuang, Fang Fang, Dong Yantai three comrades article, expressed two different views. It can be clearly seen that the disagreements between the two sides of the controversy are divided into different opinions on the treatment of the ending, and specifically involve different understandings of the characters, plot structure and theme of the play. Comrade Xue Yunhuang advocated the end of the tragedy. He considered that such a tragic person like Chen Jin’e, both her tragedy and the tragedy, are inevitable. The article also clearly put forward his argument: tragedy character, tragedy of the character who can only be the tragedy ending, there will be no comedy ending; while others with comic personality (even if they are oppressed) , Then only comedy, there will be no tragedy. Only two Comrades, Dong Yantai and Zhang Dongtai claim the end of the comedy. The former puts forward his opinion on the relationship between the ending and the end of the clues, while the latter compares the two ending methods and gives his opinion on what is to be done to reveal the role of the subject. Whether these opinions are correct or not is comprehensive and needs further discussions. By the way, let me mention here that among the manuscripts we received, there was a common problem in the wording of the essay, which was that it was too long and too lengthy to quote the story. This issue of the three, the same phenomenon. In the interests of readers, editors have to delete the “unnecessary” parts of these articles. However, the editor’s hands, sometimes inevitably will damage the original intention of the author. It is hoped that the author of the article should pay attention to this before he starts to write, avoid unnecessary story narration, do not repeat what others have said, and make things less obvious to the readers. If necessary, be sure to strive for shortness and refinement of the text. You know, speaking more, may not be able to make their own arguments sharp; the opposite, sharp arguments, often the text is brief and powerful.