만주 향토문학 논쟁에 대한 어떤 다른 관점 — 문총파(文叢派)와 예문지파(藝文志派) 다르게 보기

Abstract

This paper started the question that the reason which Manchurian rural literature became a resistance literature and ethnic literature, was related to Russian. Thus this paper formulated three hypotheses as below; First, Manchurian writer was affected by Russian literature more than 5⋅4 literature. Second, Manchurian rural literature did not follow the genealogy of Chinese rural literature. Third, rural literature argument between Wencong and Yiwenzhi was not a conflictual argument based on patriotism narration. In the first hypothesis, this paper searched that Shanding, Wang Qiuying, Yichi were influenced by Russian literature. In the second hypothesis, this paper examined the context of Chinese rural literature according to Chen Jihui’s History of China rural literature. China rural literature could be classified as Luxun style, Shen Congwen style and contemporary literature style. However Manchurian rural literature could not be analyzed by such categorization due to its complexity. In the third hypothesis, this paper indicated that Shanding declared the rural literature on the authority of Yiwenzhi group's novel, Guding did not dispute the core opinion of Shanding, actual argument point between Wencong and Yiwenzhi was the issue between art and life, a lot of members of Yiwenzhi group participated in the editor and contributor of journal Wenxuan, the ideology of literature of journal Wenxuan was similar to that of Guding. On the basis of above discussion, this paper concluded that the rural literature argument was described oppositively in a while because of the intervention of national ideology. As evidence for that, this paper compared the writing Liang Shanding's own story of year 1937 with that of 1991. It was concluded that while the rural literature argument discussed rural area of value neutrality, political authority injected ‘value’ into the discourse forcibly.