郭松棻的〈談談台灣的文學〉（1974）發表於香港《抖擻》雜誌創刊號。以此文獻為線索，本論文企圖梳理底下幾個脈絡與問題：（一）本文企圖將1960年代中、後期《盤古》雜誌中的文獻、海外保釣運動時期的論述、1970年代香港文藝雜誌中對此議題的持續討論，還有1970年代台灣的現代詩論戰與鄉土文學論戰當作一個整體的、辯證的、互涉的發展階段去進行研究。（二）上述這個知識連結所形成的跨地域文化場域，是由兩股力量共構而成：在推力方面，是台、港與海外的知識份子對當時國民黨政權的反思與反抗；在拉力方面，是他們對彼時文革時期共產黨政權的樂觀期待與浪漫想像。並且，這批在海外的留學生，因為受到1960年代西方新左翼、反戰、民權運動和婦女運動等等的世界浪潮之洗禮，在經歷知識與理論的轉化之後，因而反省了當時在冷戰結構下帝國主義對第三世界的文化干預與輸出等問題。（三）在冷戰的歷史語境之下，這批在時間幅度上延續前後十幾年，在空間上跨越台、港與北美地域，具批判性與反思性的文獻，無論在話語風格、思考模式與框架上，有其微妙的呼應與類似性，呈現了思想與文體的共振效應。經由這樣的考察，本文認為，如果能將保釣運動與論述的疆界打開，和之前的香港回歸論述與之後的台灣現實主義論述，當成相互影響與流動的整體來思考，才能釐清那段時期許多糾結的文學與文化議題，當我們在討論台灣文學史的相關議題，就不能僅僅侷限於台灣的框架，也不能以簡單的影響論或架空的東亞想像來整編與置放。

＂Discussion on Taiwanese Literature＂ by Guo Songfen (1974) was published in the first issue of Duo Suo（抖擻） magazine in Hong Kong. Using this article as a clue, the author aimed to analyse the following developments and questions. 1. The author treated the articles on this subject published in Pan Gu（盤古）, a Hong Kong magazine, in the mid-to-late 1960s, the discourses on the Defend Diaoyutai Movement, the continuing discussion in the Hong Kong literary magazines in the 1970s and the debates on the Taiwanese modern poetry and Taiwanese Literature Movement in the 1970s as a stage of a whole dialectic interactive development and researched into this issue. 2. The platform created by the intellectual links in different regions was constructed by two forces; one was the resistance to the KMT Government in Taiwan and the anti-KMT feeling shared by the intellectuals in Taiwan, Hong Kong and abroad. The other was their optimistic expectation and romanticized imagination of what was happening in the Communist China during the Cultural Revolution. Furthermore, these intellectuals educated in the West had been influenced by the New Left, Anti-War Movement, Civil Rights Movement and Feminism. After having studied these theories, they examined the intervention and cultural exportation from the imperialist powers to the Third World during the Cold War. 3. In the historical content of the Cold War, these critical and introspective articles written cross a span of more than a decade and in different regions, including Taiwan, Hong Kong and North America shared interesting subtle similarity and echoed each other in terms of their language, logic and frame of mind. They resonated with each other in their thinking and literary styles. Based on the observation and research described above, the author believes that only when we break down the boundary between Defend Diaoyutai Movement and its discourse and treat the discourses on the handover of Hong Kong and Taiwanese realism as a mutual influence can we clarify all those tangled literary and cultural issues. When we discuss the subjects related to the history of Taiwanese literature, we can neither confine ourselves to Taiwan nor analyse it with a simple theory of influence or the pure imagination of East Asia.