「純文學」的生產體制：以臺灣「五小」出版社為探究對象

作家兼出版者隱地說七、八○年代是「文學的黃金年代」，九○年代《文訊》、《聯合報》卻同聲哀悼「文學已死」，在盛衰遞嬗的史觀之中，必要追問：盛世何去何來？　　文學社會的養成端賴出版，而書籍之生產與接受過程，也是考察文學氣候的重要向度。臺灣文壇曾稱：「投稿要上兩大報，出書就要找五小。」本文擬據此對其中的「五小」出版社──純文學、大地、爾雅、洪範與九歌──提問：何能言「小」的同時又占據文學場域裡的關鍵地位？　　相關前行研究以汪淑珍的史料整理最具規模，惟難循其論文看出「五小」的蓬勃是如何可能、如何折衝與拉扯。因此本文以Pierre Bourdieu的場域理論（Field）與Roger Chartier之書籍史理論（Book History）為取徑，藉出版品目錄、傳記、書信、書序與謝辭等，探究「五小」同在「純文學」頭銜下、各自的出版路線與結盟情狀，並回看其出版者（林海音、姚宜瑛、隱地、瘂弦、楊牧、蔡文甫等）的位置／關係，重新建構臺灣文壇之權力圖景與文學想像，試圖論述：諸文學出版社的鋒芒，正是來自其出版者本身坐擁的社會資本，在資本轉換間，以文學之名挾帶政治之勢，形塑一條「純文學」走道。是自五○年代的外省文學菁英為與反共文藝政策分庭抗禮而來，卻在文學市場漸趨成型之際，轉變為權力者對文學大眾之趨雅避俗的排斥。

關鍵字

五小；純文學；書籍史；文學出版；文學場域

並列摘要

"The Golden Age of Pure Literature", 1970s and 1980s are thus described by YIN DI, a writer as well as a publisher. Nonetheless, when it comes to 1990, "The death of Pure Literature" is mourned publicly on Wen Hsun and United Daily News. In the vicissitude of history, we can't help but wonder: how did the heyday happen and how did it end? The literature community is based on publication. The production as well as the distribution of books, therefore, are the critical indicators through which we can examine the trend of literature. In Taiwan, as the renowned saying in the literature community had went, "Be seen on Two Papers; Be published by Five Indies." This is where my problem awareness originated — how could these Five Major Indie Publishers (FMIP, including Pure Literature, Vastplain, Er-ya, Hong-Fan and Chiu Ko ) remain independent and small, while still play a critical roles in the field of literature? The related previous research is primarily made by Wang Shu-Jen, who mainly focused on combing literature. However, it is not intended to provide a coherent reasoning about how did the prosperity of the FMIP happen and how did them interact and cooperate with each others. To answer the question, this thesis adopts Pierre Bourdieu's Field Theory along with Roger Chartier's Book History; by synthesizing data from book catalogue, biography, letter, preface and acknowledgement, it tried to provide an unorthodox attribution. That is, under the halo of Pure Literature, how did the FMIP develop their publishing strategy and how did they foster alliances. By clarifying that, we can further retrospect the correlation between the political status and social connections of those publishers (Lin Hai-Ying; Yao Yi-Ying; Yin Di, Ya Hsien; Yang Mu; Tsai Wen-Fu) and reconstruct a whole new map of power relationship about Taiwan's literature community. The core commitment is to state: the success of FMIP is in fact derived from the social capital they possessed. Through capital conversions, with the outer facade of literature and inner privilege of politics, they constructed an exclusive path for Pure Literature. Such phenomena can be traced back from 1950s, when Pure Literature strived to separate itself from Anticommunist Literature; to the later time, when literature market steadily went mature. At the time when, Pure Literature gradually lose it's authority as well as the political privilege. Without being aware that, disappointed writers and publishers attributed their ebbs to the general audience; mourned for the lost of the pure spirit.