Any serious exploration of Korean literature makes us meet Russian writer Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky in the Korean context. Noticing his presence in the Korean literary locus, this dissertation examines the impact of Dostoevsky on modern Korean li...
Any serious exploration of Korean literature makes us meet Russian writer Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky in the Korean context. Noticing his presence in the Korean literary locus, this dissertation examines the impact of Dostoevsky on modern Korean literature. Before the Korean Liberation in 1945, Dostoevsky was fairly widely read by Korean writers who received significant literary and cognitive stimuli from his works. Although “Dostoevsky phenomenon,” the introduction and influence of Dostoevsky in Korea, contributed to the formation of the invisible inner world of modern Korean literature, the meaning of the phenomenon that can be extracted from the perspective of literary and intellectual history has not been explored in earnest until now. Thus, this study attempts to reveal the meaning of various aspects of the Korean understanding of Dostoevsky, focusing especially on the literary context of “the transitional period” of the late 1930s.
Dostoevsky’s works are characterized by heated compassion for the poor and the afflicted, exploration of the depth of the human soul, and intuitive understanding of the tragedy of life. Moreover, Dostoevsky transcended his country and age to awaken a keen sense and perception for understanding modern man’s condition and fate. In other words, questions that people face in the context of “the transitional period”?a period of change marked by the transitional nature of the age and the spirit that Dostoevsky himself has experienced as the clarity of the world symbolized by reason and rationalism was collapsing?are widely present in his works. Arguably, Korea’s literary people in the 1930s instinctively responded to such aspects of Dostoevsky’s works. In the meanwhile, attributes of Dostoevsky’s works at times collided with progressive orientation and reason-centric attitude that can be found in Korean literature.
The introduction of Dostoevsky to Korea in the late 1930s was essentially shaped by an unstable world politics, deadlocked domestic society, and resulting perceptual changes experienced by the intellectual class. Having noticed the environment affecting the introduction, this dissertation tried to examine the complexity found in the details of the introduction, most importantly: positive response and rejection. It is from such a perspective and structural understanding that this study focuses on the works of Lim Hwa, Kim Nam-cheon, “Dancheung-pa (School of Dislocation)” and Choi Myeong-ik. Their works, which are directly related to the impact of Dostoevsky, clearly show intellectuals’ understanding of their age?the late 1930s.
Apparently, the most noticeable characteristics in the encounter between Korean literature and Dostoevsky centered on the late 1930s are a near absence of Korean translation of Dostoevsky’s works, and unique involvement of philosopher Lev Shestov. The absence of the Korean editions meant that the Korean understanding of Dostoevsky was closely connected to the literary situation in Japan. In addition, reliance on Lev Shestov’s review of Dostoevsky’s works to get closer access to Dostoevsky or to renew understanding of his works was a salient characteristic that determined the Korean reception of Dostoevsky in the late 1930s.
From a deeper perspective, however, the reception of Dostoevsky was primarily related to the existential recognition of life and the world. The works of the School of Dislocation and Choi Myeong-ik as a whole illustrate the intellectual Grenzsituation afflicting the intellectuals who were living in “the transitional period,” an expression that summarizes the reality in colonial Korea. The development of a series of internal views?a pessimistic understanding of the world, individuals’ situational awareness in the world, and subjects’ search for directions or pursuit of a valuable life? naturally connects their works to the existential characteristics of Dostoevsky and Lev Shestov’s literature and thought. In the process, the person of Dostoevsky and his literary world in particular are espoused at the level of psychological pain and suffering that look for “what kind of life to live”?in other words, as a world outlook that painfully seeks the meaning of life?rather than at the level of irrational, anti-modern orientation.
In the case of Kim Nam-cheon and Lim Hwa, who attempted to overcome difficulties of the times by reconstructing the dissolved subjects that fell into a chaos after the break-up of Korea Artista Proleta Federacio (KAPF), the focus was on Honore de Balzac, the great writer of the 19th century Western realism as they tried to find an exit through realism. In contrast, Dostoevsky was overlooked in the literary criticism written of Kim Nam-cheon and Lim Hwa. A new approach proposed by this study tries to understand their choice by a hypothetical structure of “Balzac vs. Dostoevsky.” Kim Nam-cheon and Lim Hwa thought that Dostoevsky’s works?often interpreted as works of self-consciousness?were avoiding reality. Their literary pursuit was in sharp contrast with that of Dostoevsky in terms of the basic framework of thought and the orientation of concrete creative methods.
Unlike Kim Nam-cheon and Lim Hwa, Japanese critic Kamei Katsuichiro?who suffered a conversion process?sought an exit not through Balzac but through Dostoevsky. Kamei Katsuichiro’s understanding of Dostoevsky and Lev Shestov involved talking about “the self that stares at powerlessness.” Kim Nam-cheon and Lim Hwa, who were likewise conscious of their powerlessness in reality, consistently negated powerlessness. What this exercise in contrast reveals is the differing deep inner world of the intellectuals who faced “the transitional period.” During the 1930s, intellectuals of colonial Korea and imperial Japan both experienced “the transitional period.” However, their world view that stemmed from their “place” could not be identical. In that sense, “the transitional period” of the two countries was not identical.
，免费韩语论文，韩语论文题目 |
