김남천 소설의 인물과 이야기 정체성- 지식인–소시민–청년 인물을 중심으로

Abstract

In the history of research on Kim Namcheon, interpretation of intelligent/petit-bourgeois/young men characters including Kim Kwangho has been regarded important. This research present a way to understand Kim Namcheon and his literature before and after 1940s, by separately reading identities such as narrative identity(identité narrative), sameness(identité-idem) and selfhood (identité-ipse) of Paul Ricoeur characterized and re-presented in between Kim and his characters. This can be thought as to elaborate two ways of current interpretation: to interpret Kim mainly on ‘what’ considered of him such as a convert or a socialist and again interpret his characters from that understanding on the one hand, to interpret his characters with the author’s perspective or viewpoint on the other hand. In addition, a different approach can be tried with this research to where researches barely go beyond two polars: novels to be read as autobiographical novels or the “I” stories on the one side, novels written with socialistic/realistic method on the other side. With this awareness, the research tries to confirm a new standpoint to explain ‘whom’ Kim attempted to draw, ‘who’ Kim was and the appropriacy of the standpoint presented. To achieve this, it is necessary to look through Kim’s literary review and essays thoroughly, and to compare Kim’s autobiographic facts and his created characters in both sameness and selfhood. Thus, after reviewing his critical essays in time and his self-description about his “lifetime of literary method”, the research could confirm that ‘self’ and ‘accusation’, his two keywords for earlier method, had been maintained as sublated- thus-enhanced. This method in the process of formation affected character making of Kim, and the author’s introspection/reflection on his characters again affected formation of the method in reverse. 1940s was a terminus ad quem where those dialectic method met Balzacian realism, and this method of fission can be summarized as ‘Kim-like character’s un-Kim-like activity.’This characterization was tried firstly because they can be deep and easily embodied due to the fact that they are similar to Kim ‘himself’ and to ‘the (his) experienced’. Secondly when this characters of sameness act completely different from him, accusation from ‘the observed’ of society and the era through the characters. Because the characters were the fruit of the then society, so it was an accusation against the human nature made from the current era. For the last reason to be discussed, it was necessary for Kim himself to fission with character, for the character to cover the life Kim did not want to, demanded to or tempted to live. It is a very private way to make himself to live a life that he want or that he must continue.