고석규 비평에 나타난 애도 비평의 (불)가능성과 1930년대 시 담론의 흔적

Abstract

Negative expressions such as ‘blank' or ‘absence' often appear in the early criticisms of Ko Seok-gyu, post-war critic and poet. It is common that negative expressions have been explained in relation to the fear of war(death). However, considering Ko Seok-gyu’s writing method that signifies these concepts and evokes the discourse of poetry in the 1930s, Ko Seok-gyu's early criticism is not a narrative of response to or overcoming post-war trauma, but rather a form of mourning for the forgotten pre-war era. Rather than mourning the ‘loss' of an object, Ko Seok-gyu mourns the ‘oblivion' of an object that cannot be mourned because it is placed outside of records and archives. This is similar to Derrida's concept of mourning, and corresponds to a paradoxical mourning that builds a conversational relationship with others through the failure or impossibility of mourning. Ko Seok-gyu brings the discourse of poetry in the 1930s, the era of the impossibility of mourning, into a conversational relationship without recognizing the period before and after the war as disconnected. In particular, the article 「The Abyss of Modern Poetry」 not only quotes the poetic theory of Park Yong-cheol, a representative critic of the 1930s, but digests it in his own way. Ko Seok-gyu's great interest in Rilke can also be explained by the influence of Park Yong-cheol, who succeeded Rilke's poetry theory. Ko Seok-gyu's ‘blank' is also a conceptual word that translates the invisible poetic impulse that Rilke and Park Yong-cheol valued, and we can get a glimpse of Ko Seok-gyu, who inherited the writing of the 1930s in the context of the postwar situation. Another characteristic of Ko Seok-gyu's criticism is that he strongly criticizes modernism. At this time, when Ko Seok-gyu criticizes modernism in the 1950s, he places Kim Gi-rim at the center. In the end, his critical writing, which can be converged to ‘Kim Gi-rim criticism', is also an act of reproducing the poetic discourse of the 1930s, because his logic is almost identical to the position taken by Park Yong-cheol in the debate on techniqueism developed between Park Yong-cheol, Kim Gi-rim and Im Hwa. For example, Ko Seok-gyu's sentences, which understand poetic transformation as the poet's ontological ‘transformation' rather than ‘technique', are variations on Park Yong-cheol's sentences, which suggested using 'skill' instead of the concept of ‘technique' in the debate on techniqueism. In this way, Ko Seok-gyu's early criticism, unlike contemporary criticism that tried to hastily establish a new post-war social order in the new problematic reality of the 1950s, attempted dialogue with writers of the 1930s such as Park Yong-cheol or Kim Gi-rim, thereby reviving the discourse of the forgotten era. It can be seen that it has left a noteworthy precedent in modern literary criticism.