70년대 리얼리즘 논쟁에서 ‘진실한 리얼리즘’의 문제 - 김현과 최인훈의 논의를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Based on recent research on the logical similarities found in the literary theories of Choi In-hoon and Kim Hyun, this study analyzes their debates on ‘realism’ with a focus on cross-references. In the realism debate of the 1970s, Kim criticizes conventional realism by referring to Alain Robbe-Grillet and others in the West. One of Kim's main arguments is the discourse in Choi In-hoon's novel. Choi In-hoon's and Kim Hyun's logic overlaps considerably, especially when it comes to ‘realism’. Choi In-hoon and Kim Hyun reappropriate realism and advocate ‘true realism’, but they do not aim for a new literary school of thought. This study attempts to problematize the above facts, which have been largely ignored by existing research, and to reveal the following two facts through argumentation: first, Choi In-hoon and Kim Hyun's realism is actually expressionism, but they have adopted a strategy of rewriting realism; second, their stance on realism implies a questioning of modernity, and the problem of modernity in contemporary Korea is tied to the problem of its historical continuity or self-generation. This is where we can infer the intention of rewriting realism. When interpreting Kim's theory of realism through the reference point of Choi In-hoon, we can read the pursuit of rationality to match the substance of the realist style with our reality, and the attempt to recognize the genealogy and continuity of modernity and modern literature anew.