The purpose of this paper is to review Mao Dun’s position and attitude in Revolutionary Literary Debate Era. During the years 1928-1930 Mao Dun not only published his first work trilogy Disillusion but also participated in the debate. In this simultaneous position(debating+writing)Mao Dun’s critic work had two distinguish marks: 1) self-defense toward revolutionary writer’s criticism, 2) self-description about his own work. In the process of the debate, Mao Dun cleverly managed defensive and descriptive work. And the direct relation between literature and politics, which is included two contrast attitudes: 1) As a writer, Mao Dun’s work had always proceeded along realistic lines as advocated by the writers of the May Fourth Era. So he refused to be hurried in labelling literature with names and stressed that there is no need to jump past the times and try to reach beyond the present into future. 2) As a early member of the Communist Party, Mao Dun took a favorable view of revolutionary writers. He recognized that revolutionary literature would come to have its sway in the field of Modern Chinese literature, thus he suggested that the foremost requirement is a large circle of readers. Mao Dun’s view point is not on “class” (阶级)but on “reader”(读者). But apparently revolutionary writers complained about the middle-class consciousness of Mao Dun and had nothing to say against his suggestion. This appears to be an unsound basis for literary criticism. I think the use of diversified angles (simultaneous position, contrast attitude) is very useful method. Beyond that, We must do further the study of Mao Dun’s critic work for the new development of Modern Chinese literary criticism.

The purpose of this paper is to review Mao Dun’s position and attitude in Revolutionary Literary Debate Era. During the years 1928-1930 Mao Dun not only published his first work trilogy Disillusion but also participated in the debate. In this simultaneous position(debating+writing)Mao Dun’s critic work had two distinguish marks: 1) self-defense toward revolutionary writer’s criticism, 2) self-description about his own work. In the process of the debate, Mao Dun cleverly managed defensive and descriptive work. And the direct relation between literature and politics, which is included two contrast attitudes: 1) As a writer, Mao Dun’s work had always proceeded along realistic lines as advocated by the writers of the May Fourth Era. So he refused to be hurried in labelling literature with names and stressed that there is no need to jump past the times and try to reach beyond the present into future. 2) As a early member of the Communist Party, Mao Dun took a favorable view of revolutionary writers. He recognized that revolutionary literature would come to have its sway in the field of Modern Chinese literature, thus he suggested that the foremost requirement is a large circle of readers. Mao Dun’s view point is not on “class” (阶级)but on “reader”(读者). But apparently revolutionary writers complained about the middle-class consciousness of Mao Dun and had nothing to say against his suggestion. This appears to be an unsound basis for literary criticism. I think the use of diversified angles (simultaneous position, contrast attitude) is very useful method. Beyond that, We must do further the study of Mao Dun’s critic work for the new development of Modern Chinese literary criticism.