고한승과 연성흠의 아동문학 연구-‘착함’에 내재된 의미를 중심으로-

Abstract

This study examines children’s literature by Go Han-Seung and Yeon Seong-Heum that create the symbol of ‘children’ in the 1920s. This study examines the point of ‘goodness’ both writers view together periodically, and the look in which such ‘goodness’ is divided in the inner world of characters within the works by each writer. First of all, ‘goodness’ as abstract universality of the 1920s is shown as recognition, sympathy, and empathy. Both writers were faithful to the authorial desire to deliver the values socially-regarded as important to children. As a result, the symbols of children and thematic consciousness appear as abstract universality of the 1920s. The child characters need the sacrifice for helping others, greed that should not be too much, best effort in every reality, and courage to endure any kind of unfair treatment. In order to examine the ‘goodness’ as concrete universality shown in Go Han-Seung’s children’ literature, this study pays attention to ‘flower’. Flower are replaced with the desire, betrayal, and sorrow of the main characters. The result of goodness is not always interpreted as good meanings, and good deeds may not always be received as grateful or happy from the perspective of the recipients. The value of ‘goodness’ as abstract universality forms a connection with the characters of the time, and shows the aspect of getting divided inside. What should be paid attention to in the ‘goodness’ as concrete universality shown in Yeon Seong-Heum’s children’s literature is that the resulting value of ‘goodness’ the main child character possessed is returned as ‘capital’. It is important that the ‘goodness’ in works cannot move toward the area where the main character’s independence is shown, and this result does not bring about the true growth. This point is a crack that is inevitably shown when the abstract universality appears as concrete universality through each character. This study aims to secure the special viewpoint on children’s literature of the 1920s by comparing the goodness as ‘abstract universality’ and contrasting the goodness as ‘concrete universality’ shown by those two writers. It is significant to examine that the works cannot function for themselves even though they accept the flow of the time, and the ’goodness’ is repossessed and divided to reveal the characteristics of child characters in works according to the characteristics of each writer.