為香港文學寫史引發的爭論，始自一九九○年代。香港一向沒有本地編撰的香港文學史，然而在政權轉移前後，中國內地學者接連出版多部香港文學史，其史觀、論述及資料都引來香港學者異議。鄭樹森、黃繼持、盧瑋鑾合作編選香港文學史料，以「三人談」方式表達一種「香港本地人」看香港文學發展的觀點以作抗衡。十多年後，另一位香港學者陳國球主持《香港文學大系》編輯計劃，同樣試圖呈現香港過去的「文學的存在」。雙方所處時機不同，面對的問題、商榷的對象皆有變化，本文通過分析鄭、黃、盧「三人談」及陳國球〈香港文學大系總序〉，以了解他們把「文學史」和「香港」連接的設想有何改易。但原來在變化之外，仍有不變之處，是乃史家關懷所在。

The controversy on the writing of Hong Kong literary history began in 1990s. Before that, there was no Hong Kong literary history written by local scholars. Around the time of the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, several Hong Kong literary histories written by Mainland China scholars were published. Nevertheless, the perspectives and methodologies of these publications aroused great disputes among local Hong Kong scholars. To contend these speculations, three local scholars, William Tay, Wong Kai Chee and Lo Wai Luen, jointly compiled a series of anthologies of Hong Kong literature. In the prefaces ＂A Dialogue of Three Editors,＂ they conveyed a local perspective on the development of Hong Kong Literature. More than a decade later, another local scholar, Chan Kwok Kou Leonard, presided over an editorial committee to compile the Compendium of Hong Kong Literature. These two projects intend to retrieve ＂the presence of literature in Hong Kong in the past.＂ Situated in different moment of history, the two research teams were faced with different perplexities and readers. Through analyzing Tay, Wong and Lo's ＂A Dialogue of Three Editors,＂ and Chan's foreword of the Compendium of Hong Kong Literature, this paper compares how they relate ＂literary history＂ to ＂Hong Kong,＂ and their basic understanding of the framework of Hong Kong literary history. We will find that despite all these changes of thought in different periods, something remains unchanged, and this is where a historian pursues.