杜甫的“新诗改罢自长吟”这句诗,说到了写作方面的两个问题,即写作过程中的修改和诵读。古今中外,愈是有经验、有成就的作家,对待这两个问题,愈是严肃认真。曹植在与杨修谈论创作的信中说: 世人之著述,不能无病。僕尝好人讽弹其文,有不善者,应时改定。昔丁敬礼(丁翼)尝作小文,使僕润饰之。馔自以才不过若人,辞不为也。敬礼谓僕:“卿何所疑?文之佳恶,吾自得之,后世谁将知定吾文者耶?”吾尝叹此达言,以为美谈。曹植这封信里,淡到了他自己和当时另一作家丁翼对修改文章的看法。曹植认为,写文章不可能绝无毛病,因此他很欢迎别人批评他的文章,以便将毛病立即改掉。可见,这位“才高八斗”的曹子建,对待写作倒颇有实事求是的精神。而丁翼,不仅重视文章的修改,并且还主动地请求别人为他提意见修改。只是,他的用心似乎有点市儈气,光从个人的声名着眼,而且老实不客气地将别人为他修改的功绩,干脆就算在自己的眼上。曹植对这种看法非但不加非议,竟还赞叹不已,称之为“美谈”,可见,他对修改文章的认识,他的出发点,也仍然是不高的——尽管这 Du Fu’s poem entitled “The New Poetry is Changed by Long Yin” refers to two problems in writing, that is, the revision and reading in the process of writing. At all times and in all countries, the more experienced and successful writers treat these two issues, the more serious they are. In his letter to Yang Xiu talking about creation, Cao Zhi said: The writings of the world can not be free from illness. Servants taste good people caricature, there are not good, should be changed. Xi Ding Ting Li (Ding Yi) taste for small text, so that the servant decorated. Food since only if people, speechless also. Salute that the servant: “What is the suspicion of the text? The text of the good and evil, I enjoy it, future generations who will know me?” I lamented this to speak, that the United States talk. Cao Zhi, in his letter, came to the point where he and Ding Yong, another writer at the time, had to modify the article. Cao Zhi thinks that writing articles can not be absolutely free of problems, therefore, he welcomes criticisms of his articles so that problems may be immediately corrected. This shows that Cao Caizhijian, who was “a good man,” actually takes the spirit of seeking truth from facts in his treatment of writing. And Ding Yi, not only attached importance to the revision of the article, but also volunteered to ask others to comment on the changes for him. However, his intentions seem a bit cautious, light from the personal reputation of the eyes, and honestly others will not be modified for his merit, simply even in their own eyes. Cao Zhigang not only criticized this view but also praised it as “talking about beauty.” This shows that his understanding of the revision of the article is still not very good starting point - though this