‘현재’에 대한 대안적 상상과 불가능한 자유의 서사 - 최인훈의 「회색인」 연구

Abstract

This thesis looks into unique narrative strategy and technical characteristics that appeared in Choi In-Hun’s Grey Man from the 1960s’ political and historical context. Although Grey Man was published after the 5ㆍ16 Coup d’état but this literacy work narrates a period before the April 19th Revolution. Thus, the work shows a variety of anachronistic characteristics. This literary work superficially shows many characters seems to have a conversational relationship, however, the main character, Dokgo Jun utterancely reveals more in depth hierarchical and monological world that overwhelm the other voice of all characters. In that respect, the voice of all characters converge the argument of Dokgo Jun and his utterance has propaganda characteristics. The most important meaning in the utterance of characters is the question of whether revolution is possible in Korea, but his work does not specifically suggest what revolution means. The situation where it is impossible to find the signified from the signifier is in parallel with the situation where Dokgo Jun cannot find a place to call his hometown. This reflects the social atmosphere of the time when discourse on “freedom” and “democracy” was actively conducted in the 1960s, but there was no foundation for such ideas to be realized. Grey Man shows the characteristics of staying in the present time but continuously pursuing the past. Grey Man often deal with past events but do not directly reproduce past events. In other words, past moments are not directly reproduced through devices such as the flashback, but past scenes are indirectly mentioned through the current Dokgo Jun ritual. Many of the characters in the work are ignited and reasoned by hypothesis, when it is the past rather than the future that becomes the main object of the hypothesis. This work emphasizes the fact that an alternative present was possible through assumptions about the past, and shows that the present may not be the result of historical inevitability. This can be seen as an expression of criticism of contemporary discourse, which wanted to regard the 5ㆍ16 Coup d’état as a historical necessity.