이광수 문학의 독법 - ‘친일’과 ‘민족주의’의 틀을 넘어서 -

Abstract

The evaluation of a literary text should be based on the independent interpretation by the readers according to the sociohistorical and intertextual contexts. However, it might not be overstatement to say that in the field of discussing Korean literature, there have been the tendencies of asking restrict classification and clear understanding of the literary texts whereby demanding forcibly ideological judgement to the interpretative acts. This can possibly destroy the liveliness of literature which derives from accumulating the indeterminacy of interpretations over and over again on the possible strata of interpretation; here literature can be maintained. My suspicion is that we lack this kind of reading; this kind of suspicion echoes particularly in relation to the ideology of nationalism as it has been the extensive and strong criterion for evaluating the works of Korean literature. Literary text is directed toward language sign whereas can never bear the strictness of national identity. The language sign is the object of signification and communication so that it is not confined to the narrow boundary of national identity. One of the important points that we need to consider in Yi Kwang-Su's literature is how his capacity as a writer operated facing the distorted modernity. A way in which we consider nationalism in reading Yi Kwang-Su's literature is to adopt the paradox that nationalism explains it and simultaneously does not; that is to say, Yi Kwang-Su's literature starts from nationalism and is based on it but nevertheless it does not start from nationalism and is not bound to it. This is a cogent way of reading Yi Kwang-Su's literature beyond the ideological frame of nationalism and at the same time without neglecting its literary value. From such perspective I read particularly Heartless, Saint Wonhyo, Diary of House Moving, Love, An Ascetic Devotee and Darkness which were mostly written in the late time except for Heartless. I interpret each of them and also connect all these so as to examine the conversational relationship among them with reference to such concepts as nationalism, modernity, vernacular, resistance, pro-Japanese literature, enlightenment, and the Other. I expect that this kind of work contributes to reconsider the possibility that Yi Kwang-Su realizes 'literature' and to emphasize that his literature demands us much more complex discourse, not limited to the non-literary frames such as pro-Japanese literature and nationalism.