Taking dissemination and reception as its core dimensions, this study constructs a three-dimensional analytical framework encompassing chronological trajectories, translation mechanisms, and readers reception landscapes. Drawing on translation theory and reception aesthetics, and grounding its analysis in primary translated texts and a wide range of documentary sources, this paper systematically traces the seventy-year evolution of the translation and dissemination of contemporary Chinese literature in the English-speaking world, with a view to assessing its actual communicative impact. This developmental history falls into four phases: state-directed translation during the Cold War, market-oriented transition in the reform era, large-scale dissemination in the early twenty-first century, and a diversifying landscape in the post-Nobel period. This chronological framework clarifies the developmental trajectory from unidirectional ideological output to multi-genre, market-driven bidirectional exchange. By analyzing structural constraints such as the imbalanced text selection, the over-concentration of premium translation resources on a few prominent writers, inadequate cultural adaptation, and ideological interpretation and incorporating the translation practices of translators such as Howard Goldblatt and Ken Liu, this study demonstrates the pivotal role of translator subjectivity and cultural negotiation in shaping the reception of translated texts. Meanwhile, through typical case studies of Mo Yan, Liu Cixin, and Can Xue, this paper compares the reception patterns of academic and general readerships. The findings suggest that digital media have created new opportunities for the global circulation of Chinese literature. However, to overcome communication barriers, redress the cultural deficit, and facilitate the deeper integration of contemporary Chinese literature into the global literary system, it is imperative to move beyond the unidirectional-output paradigm. A diversified, collaborative dissemination framework must be developed; empirical readers research must be strengthened; and a multi-dimensional evaluation mechanism must be refined—all with a view to fostering genuinely reciprocal cross-cultural dialogue.