The ″historization″ of contemporary Chinese literature is a retrospective investigation guided by the historical concept. After the influence of ″Re-evaluation″, ″Rewriting″ and ″Rearranging″ in the 1980s, literary historization now faces a new ″historical reconstruction.″ There are two unavoidable questions that need to be addressed. Firstly, after discarding subordinate theory and political determinism, how does literature (dis)avow its political engagement Secondly, how do we use literature to expatiate revolution, after abandoning the theory of class struggle To answer these questions concerning the originality and fundamentality of contemporary Chinese literature, we need contextualize them in historical process, so that not only can we reveal its historical logic, but also discover unbiased dialogics recognizing its homogeneity and heterogeneity. Furthermore, contemporary Chinese literature shares a ″consanguineous tie″ with politics and revolution. It would depart greatly from this reality, should we seek to depoliticize and de-revolutionize literature in order to safeguard its so-called independence and purity.  For a long time, there has been a conspicuous trend of historical politicization in the field of contemporary Chinese literature. (In)correct political stance once became the sole evaluation criteria for literary studies. Although this situation has changed drastically since 1990s, it was also rendered that the actual practice between literature and politics was more complex and paradoxical. Many scholars often intentionally adopt the ″oppression/resistance″ model for the fear of ″subordinate theory.″ They regard the ″historical romance″ as ″ unreal, pompous, and hollow(Jia Da Kong).″ In this vein, their studies are in danger of historical monism, hence, reaching preordained conclusions. Such endeavors fail to reveal the inherent richness and complexity of contemporary literature. Nor do they allow sufficient space for exercising ″proper utopian″imagination. Revolution has always been another important dimension of ″the historical″ in the development of contemporary Chinese literature. It has always been pedestalled in a ″lofty″ position because of the Chinese historical-cultural reality. To label it as hooligan or terrorist literature by simply using the Western norms of modernity obviously contradicts the Chinese historical context. From the point of literary practice, not all revolutionary narratives are, as we have assumed, the products of conceptualization. Of course, violent revolution is a subset of all violence in historical struggle and social development. Hence, it cannot be expanded conceptually and unendlessly to accommodate its philosophical relevance. Nor shall we deny its demerits concerning the revolutionary second coming. In short, we must face the problems of legitimacy and rationality, while not forgetting negativity and absurdity of the revolutionary narratives.