1951年台灣首度發布徵兵令，當兵成為台灣男性的義務，年滿18歲，一定得當兵。但義務役軍人不是職業軍人，僅暫時擁有軍人的身分；而預官，限定大學畢業才能報考，錄取率低，過去被視為「精英」。本文以曾任預官的「四年級」作家（民國四○年代出生、戰後台灣出生的第一代）：小野、渡也、吳鳴為例，討論軍隊如何讓大學即有名氣的文青成為軍人，以及他們在軍中的自我調適。本文發現，軍隊以集體分發的物件來取代個人物件，「中斷」青年原生世界的自我；同時，讓個人無法掌握軍隊行動，但又須全力配合，便利軍隊將青年塑造成符合其機制的物件。軍中以勞務、體能訓練為主，和大學的知識活動不同，讓預官作家因為不熟悉而感覺羞愧；加上體能文弱，令其在軍中的年齡感受，早衰於軍隊外的社會。預官透過和同袍稱兄道弟，在軍隊找到立足點，而書寫，也成為受傷時，抵禦病痛的抗戰方式。三名預官作家的書寫透露出視從軍報國為榮耀，以及認同「陽剛勇猛」的男性氣質，印證國家透過軍隊進行性別化的治理，成功的將軍事目的以「成年禮論述」，合理化的嵌進台灣男性的人生。

After Taiwan’s conscription order issued in 1951, all male citizens in Taiwan would need to join the army when they are 18 years old. However, the compulsory servicemen only possess the status of soldiers temporarily, and the reserve officers were regarded as “elites” in the past because only those university graduates were qualified for application and the acceptance rate was low. This paper focuses on writers Hsiao Yeh, Tu Yeh and Wu Ming, who were born in the 1950s (the so-called “fourth grade” generation; part of the first generation born after WWII) and had once served as reserve officers, in order to explore how the army turned the already famous young writers into soldiers and their self-adjustment in the army. It is found that, in the army, personal objects are replaced by collectively distributed objects, thus “leaving off” the youths’ original living environment; besides, the individuals could not control military operations and could only fully cooperate with the army, making it convenient for the army to shape the youths into objects fitting nicely into its design. Different from the knowledge activities in the university, the labor activities and physical training in the army make the reserve officer writers feel ashamed due to the unfamiliar feeling. Moreover, their physical weakness would make them understand the impact of aging on human bodies earlier, compared to their counterparts outside the army. However, the reserve officers find a foothold by calling their comrades brothers. Writing also becomes a way for them to resist ailment when injured. Overall, their writings indicate how military service had been regarded as an honorable act at that time and how their identification with “aggressive masculinity” had revealed the permeation of military governance among male citizens’ life experience through a coming-of-age discourse.