• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2017

This study compares the history of modern Korean literature written in China with the history of South Korean literature, the history of North Korean literature and the history of national literature, explores aspects of narrative and therefore examines transcultural practice presented in such texts. There have hitherto been approximately 25 works on the history of Korean literature written in China, and 16 of 25 works are on the history of modern Korean literature. Regarding their purpose, the number of pedagogical works outstandingly exceeds the number of research works. In terms of perspective and contents, it can be divided into three categories; one that only embraces the history of South Korean literature, another embracing the history of North Korean literature only and the other embracing the history of South Korean and North Korean literature. This study has selected representative texts from each category and compared recognition and narrative aspects to that of the history of South Korean literature, the history of North Korean literature and the history of Chinese literature. It further examines loci of definitions' transfer and formation as well. As a result, this study reveals valuable understanding of recognition and narration of the history of Korean literature. First, this study offers an introspective attitude, as the history of modern Korean literature accentuates influence of only Western literature, overlooking influence of Chinese literature. Second, this study proposes a new narrative perspective on the history of Unified Korean literature through independent and objective identification of the history of North Korean literature. Last, it emphasizes popularization of literature - aside from pure literary-centrism - and expands possibilities of embracing distinct works relevant to multimedia.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to review two books on the history of Korean literature written in Japanese, taking special interest in ancient Korean literature, examining transcultural patterns between the history of North and South Korean literature and that of Japanese literature, and thereby identifying perceptions and description patterns of the history of Korean literature from the perspective of comparative literature. This study analyzes two books with the same title The History of Joseon Literature written in Japanese by Kim Dongwook and Byeon Jaesoo. The two books are not translations of Korean books but were written in Japanese for Japanese and ethnic Korean readers in Japan. The History of Joseon Literature (1974) by Kim Dongwook mainly compares Joseon literature with Japanese literature. The History of Joseon Literature (1985) by Byeon Jaesoo, an ethnic North Korean in Japan, was written from socialistic perspectives. The two books have different standards for evaluating value of the history of Joseon literature and different perceptions about it. Due to the division between North and South Korea, the history of literature is unfolding in different ways in the two Koreas, and the two books reflect such differences. However, they have several common features. For example, they highly regard the value of literature written in Chinese characters and originality of hangga (a folk song of Silla), Hangeul (the Korean alphabet), and pansori (a form of Korean folk music in which a singer accompanied by a supportive drummer sings and chants an epic story). In addition, they both demonstrated that literature written in Hangeul and that written in Chinese characters interacted with each other as the same Korean literature. When the two books were written, the history of Korean literature had been considered a subunit of the history of East Asian or Chinese literature. However, as this study found, Kim and Byeon wrote the two books from a perspective of departing from this view based on nationalism, re-establishing the value of Korean literature, promoting Japanese people's understanding of the high quality of Korean literature, and imbuing ethnic Koreans in Japan with nationalistic pride.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.59
• /
• pp.233-261
• /
• 2015

This paper describes the system and check the characteristics of Korean classic literature in English. Examine the name of the classic novel, classification. More specifically would described the Purpose of writing of Korean classic novel(soseolsa). Name of the classic novel, How classic novel genre classification, Classic novels are classified into several types, Are some types of literature are applicable, How to determine the type of name, how did the name written work, a description of the work is to encompass any attitude looks. This paper is significant to the Korea Arts and Technology of Korea as an classic novel in English.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.135
• /
• pp.18-18
• /
• 1993

우리문학사 연구의 뜨거운 감자인 북한문학을 한국문학사에 '수용'한 저서들에 잇따라 출간됐다. 최초의 업적이므로 과소평가할 수도 개관의 수준이므로 과대평가할 수도 없다는 게 학계의 대체적인 반응이다. 아직까지는 자료부족, 연구의 일천함, 문학사서술의 새로운 방법론 부재 등으로 인해 아쉬운 방법론 부재 등으로 인해 아쉬운 부분이 많지만 그 작업은 매우 진지하고 활발하다.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2003.11a
• /
• pp.91-95
• /
• 2003

한국전쟁기 북한 소설에 대한 북한의 문학사적 평가는 남한의 문학사와 비교할 경우 매우 큰 차이를 보여주고 있다. 남한에서 나온 대부분의 문학사에서는 한국전쟁기 남한 소설에 대해 대체로 부정적인 평가를 내리고 있으나, 북한에서 나온 문학사의 경우에는 한국전쟁기 북한 소설을 매우 긍정적으로 평가하고 있는 것이다. 물론 이러한 평가는 남북한 문학사의 문학에 대한 관점의 차이에서 비롯되었다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 북한에서 나온 북한문학사의 경우에는 정치적 목적에 따라 작품을 왜곡하여 평가하고 있는 경우가 많으므로 사실에 대한 면밀한 검토가 필요하다. 이태준, 김남천, 임화 등 남로당 계열 작가의 작품에 대한 북문학사의 평가는 특히 그러한데, 남한에서 이루어진 북한문학에 대한 논의들은 이러한 사실을 지적하면서 한국전쟁기 문학에 대한 실증적인 자료조사와 과학적 연구의 필요성을 제기 하고 있다.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.143
• /
• pp.13-13
• /
• 1994

어떤 문학사를 평가하기 위해서는 사적 체계화를 위해 감행한 일반화가 여러 다양한 문학현상을 얼마만큼 체계적으로 서술하는가 하는 점이 살펴져야 한다. 이에 대한 답은 일단 부정적이다. 이 책에서 우선 지적할 수 있는 것은, 한국근대문학의 특수한 전개양상이 거의 부각되지 못했다는 사실이다.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.67-106
• /
• 2017

This study focuses on two specific history of Korean literature in Chinese: the outline of The History of Joseon Literature (2010) by Li Yan and The History of Joseon Literature (1988, 2008) by Wei Xu-sheng; it was conducted to compare narrative viewpoints to the history of South and North Korean literature and therefore identify distinguishable characteristics. As a result, the following was concluded. First, The History of Korean Literature by Cho Dong-il and The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes) include thorough discussions on division of historical eras, concept of genres as well as individual literary works and applied such discussions on writing literary history. However, Wei Xu-sheng and Li Yan's The History of Korean Literature did not illuminate theoretical discussion of South and North Korea. Li Yan's outline of The History of Joseon Literature was published in 2010 and the first edition of Wei Xu-sheng's The History of Joseon Literature was published in 1986 and later was published as revised editions in 2000 and 2008. Regarding published dates, it is a matter of course to reference Cho Dong-il's The History of Korean Literature, published in the 1980s, or The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes), published in the 1990s; nevertheless, neither Wei Xu-sheng nor Li Yan used those texts in their works. Their works were heavily influenced by the narrative tradition of the history of national literature and therefore, entailed unsophisticated discussion on the division of historical eras or the concept of genres. Second, those two texts also emphasized external factors such as politics, society, economy and culture and explicitly mention these factors in historical overview of each chapter. Such an approach is commonly used in narratives of literary history under socialist regimes, including The History of Korean Literature in North Korea (15 volumes). Accordingly, evaluations based on 'political standards' - stress of people, nationality, practicality and so forth - in main texts are particularly accentuated, akin to narratives of literary history under socialist regimes. Finally, since those two Korean literature history works are written by Chinese scholars, they focus on correlation between Chinese literature history and Korean literature history. However, several genre-related terminologies such as Xiaopin (a kind of essay), Yuefu (a kind of popular song/poem), Yuyan (fable), Shuochang (telling of popular stories with the interspersal songs), Shizhuan (biography or/and memoirs in history) were adopted directly from Chinese literature. In analyzing Korean literature using terminologies introduced from Chinese literature, differences between original and alternative definitions were not examined in detail. While some terminologies and concepts were adopted directly without further consideration as to state of the two nations, it is also interesting to note that dichotomy, mainly used in Korean literature history, was used to discuss the genre of Cheonki (romance tale), relevant to Suyichon and Keumosinhua, rather than follow traditions of Chinese literature history.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.223-251
• /
• 2018

This paper comparatively considered how Korea and Japan address the concept of 'postwar' in descriptions of their literary history. In Japan, 'postwar' refers to the period after World War II (Asia-Pacific War). This word implies a variety of contexts such as collapse, poverty, confusion, calendar reform, reconstruction and restoration as well as a series of historical events such as war, war defeat, and American occupation; and so it has been treated in Japanese society a significant period. In the history of Korean literature, it is after national liberation that the word 'postwar' appeared; however, it has usually indicated 'the period after the Korean War.' The question is that although the term of postwar refers to periods after different wars, Koreans used the term of postwar also in the same way as Japan, and their concept of postwar overlaps with the concept of prewar or postwar used in Japan, and accordingly, side effects are produced that fail to grasp properly the independent characteristics and significance of the Korean War. In conclusion, the Korean War brought about contrasting effects on the history of Korean and Japanese literature. While the Korean War meant a start after the war in Korean literature, it became a turning point marking the end of postwar in Japanese literature. Such different perceptions on postwar also have major implications in that perceptions represent postwar discourses in today's Korea and Japan.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2017

This study examines ways of recognizing and aspects of describing Korean modern literature revealed by each literary history from the viewpoint of 'transculturation', focusing on Lim Jeon-Hye's "History of Korean Literature in Japan until 1945", Shirakawa Yutaka's "Footsteps of Korean Modern Literature", and Saegusa Toshikatsu's "Taste of Korean Literature" from the history of Korean literature written in Japan. First, Lim Jeon-Hye periodically examines Korean literature written in Japan, focusing on literary activities of Korean students in Japan and the proletarian literature movement, and addresses points of active cultural negotiation, mutual understanding and political solidarity between Korea and Japan. Shirakawa Yutaka focuses on the concurrency and connection of Korea, China, and Japan in the process of modern literary formation, covering Japanese language literature and pro-Japanese literature with great care, and describes the middle-layer position as a mediating researcher in the conflicting boundaries between Korea and Japan. Saegusa Toshikatsu provides interesting transcultural momentum in exploring internal logic and denotation of Korean literature via comparative literature review encompassing East Asia, implementation of literary forms and themes connecting tradition and modernity, and an out-of-boundary point of view to overlook 'pro-Japanese literature', etc. Transcultural aspects in this literary history to examine are as follow. First, the history of Korean modern literature based on 'national literature history' is catabolized in the magnetic field of the 'colonial experience' and 'national nationalism' and considered in multifaceted context. Second, they provide the possibility of three-dimensional and micro-narrative description of literature that complement the narrative aspect of existing Korean literature history. Third, they provide an opportunity to expand and open the description of literature history through acceptance of comparative literary perspectives encompassing East Asia. Fourth, through discovery of Korean-Japanese literature and Japanese language literature, they contribute to broadening the history of Korean modern literature and enriching foundations.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.39
• /
• pp.4-5
• /
• 1989