• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.133-164
• /
• 2018

This purpose of this paper is to focus on anti-Japanese literature and pro-Japanese literature skills among Korean literary history written in Japan, and to observe the differences between Korean and Japanese perception surrounding anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Analyzed texts are "Taste Korean Literature" by Saegusa Dosikatsu and "The Footsteps of Modern Literature of Chosun" by Shirakawa Yutaka, the earnest modern Korean literary historians written from the perspective of Japanese writers, and though there's no overall written history of literature, they were seen through with the perspective of Omura Masuo, at the forefront of Japanese researchers in modern and contemporary Korean literature. The main results of the review are as follow: First, In Korean literary history by Japan, the frame "pro-Japanese literature" is clearly embedded. It is clearly distinctive from the aspect of China or North Korea, and though it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, it also forms the breaking (turning) point of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature relative to anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Second, even if it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, that question was constantly raised on existing Korean academic evaluation of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature, and different interpretations of reading were practiced. For example, Korean academic circles highly regard literature of writers such as Kim, Jong han or Lee, Seok hoon, while Korean academics do not place much importance on Lee, Gwang Soo's pro-Japanese elements that are important. The third point is that generous marks are credited to writers with outstanding Japanese or to Japanese creative writing. As a result, they dissolve internal logic in different pro-Japanese collaborators such as Chang, Hyuk Ju, Kim, Sa Ryang, Lee, Seok hoon, or Kim, Yong Jae by melting the same "Japanese literature" in a cage. The last point is reading different inner thoughts of Kim, Jong-han or Lee, Seok-hoon unlike outspoken pro-Japanese collaborators such as Lee, Gwang soo, Jang, Hyuk Joo or Kim, Yong je. These points require more in-depth analysis, and will be continued in follow-up tasks.

• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.222
• /
• pp.12-12
• /
• 1997

이 논문집은 구체적인 역사와 현실 안에서 우리 근대문학과 문학사 논의를 반성하고 새로운 전망을 제공하고자 한 노력이 돋보인다. 특히 친일문학.북한문학 논의는 '문제적'이며 그대 비판 논의 역시 시사적이다.

• 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.