本文藉由二十世紀中文文學有關砍頭的描寫，討論中國現代性與怪獸性(monstrosity)之間的辯證關係。憂患餘生、魯迅和沈從文筆下的砍頭描寫控訴社會與政治的不義，憂心人性的愚蠢和殘酷。對他們而言，現代性用一種身體裂解的形式―砍頭―在中國經驗裏留下印記。不論就事實或象徵而言，他們筆下的中國都是一個傷痛的所在。臺灣作家舞鶴在千禧年的開始追問：除了總是把中國當作「傷痛本身」之外，作家是否還有別的活路可走？在批判中國文化的真確性上，舞鶴其實與魯迅遙相呼應。不同的是，不論魯迅的批判多麼負面，「中國性」(Chineseness)仍然是他書寫的前提；但對舞鶴來說，「中國性」從來不是前提，而只是問題。另一方面，舞鶴和沈從文一樣，不認為文學能提供任何「真實的」方案，可以一了百了地解決生命困境。舞鶴所希望的是藉文字調適出一種方式，好與生命的困境共存。但舞鶴並不看好沈從文式的抒情敘事。用舞鶴自己的話來說，構成現代中國文明最初也最重要的條件，恰恰是那些慘烈的（中國的？）「餘生」。

This essay describes a dialectic of modernity versus monstrosity in twentieth-century Chinese literature. Rereading writings on decapitation by Youhuan Yusheng 憂串餘生, Lu Xun 魯迅, Shen Congwen 沈從文 and Wu He 舞鶴 reveals that, for them, modernity left its first imprint on Chinese experience in a form of bodily severance: decapitation. Both literally and symbolically, China is invoked as the site of a trauma. Youhuan Yusheng empathizes with the dead from a Confucian perspective, with a hope, however minimal, of reforming Chinese by Confucian, pedagogical means. Lu Xun is both horrified by and obsessed with the spectacle of decapitation; the severed head paradoxically "embodies" for him a world broken into pieces. Shen Congwen is engaged not in what the beheading means in itself but in how it can be written about so as to let US remember and "re-member" the rest of the world.The question how to survive China as trauma is being asked by Wu He at the beginning of the new millennium. Wu He echoes Lu Xun in critiquing the authenticity of Chinese culture, but goes further by problematizing the premise of Chineseness that makes the latter's critique possible. On the other hand, Wu He concurs with Shen Congwen in that literature cannot provide any real solution to human misery; instead he tries to negotiate a way to live with it. What survives of (Chinese?) life, as he would have it, is precisely what first and foremost constitutes modern Chinese humanity.