Korean Studies

Internet Discussion List

KOREAN STUDIES REVIEW


Understanding Korean Literature, by Kim Hunggyu. Translated by Robert J. Fouser. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1997. (ISBN 1-56324-773-9 cloth, US$66.95; ISBN 1-56324-774-7 paper, US$21.95). xiii + 230 pp. (Photos.)

Reviewed by Carolyn So
Claremont McKenna College

[This review first appeared in
Pacific Affairs, 71.1 (1998): 115-7]

Recent years have been good to Korean literature in translation. Although the quality and quantity of translated Korean literature in no way compares to those of Chinese and Japanese, more and more fine translations are being published in English. Robert J. Fouser's translation of Kim Hûnggyu's Han'guk munhak ûi ihae (Understanding Korean Literature) serves as a useful resource for teaching and studying Korean literature, providing the necessary background work to begin the discussion of both premodern and modern Korean literature. Although Kim Hûnggyu focuses on generally discussed subjects, ignoring more marginalized areas such as women's literature, he nevertheless attempts a comprehensive and accessible understanding of Korean literature.

Divided into seven chapters, this volume moves from such diverse topics as literary style to folk songs. Of particular interest are chapters 2 to 6: "The Extent of Korean Literature"; "Language, Style, and Meter"; "Genres of Korean Literature"; "Literary Criticism"; and "The Trade in Literary Works." The bulk of the book is devoted to chapter 4, "Genres of Korean Literature," revealing the author's intent to give a basic introduction to Korean literature. This volume will undoubtedly be valuable for undergraduate courses in Korean literature, culture, and East Asian literature.

Topics usually left out in comprehensive one-volume works on Korean literature, such as literary criticism, are touched upon in this one. Chapter 6, "The Trade in Literary Works," is particularly valuable, since very little work has been done on Korean readership, publication, and circulation.

Fouser has taken on a challenging task by translating Kim Hûnggyu's work: the original contains a wide range of literary languages and styles, from literary Classical Chinese to Middle Korean, folk songs, dialects, and poetry. In view of what Fouser faced, then, he has done an admirable job as a translator. Expository sections work fine in English.

The translation, however, reveals major and minor issues. In this translation, Chapters 1 and 7, the two chapters that provide a compelling framework for Kim's work, have been greatly reworked and some material omitted by the translator (at Prof. Kim's request, according to Fouser). This decision is an unfortunate one, since these two chapters reveal Kim Hûnggyu's discourse on Korean literature and Korean literature in the place of world literature. Chapter 1, "Why Do We Discuss Korean Literature" in the original, has been completely changed. What was once a potent and philosophic discussion on the issues of Koreanness and literature has been changed to an uncritical nationalistic position concerning the uniqueness of Korean literature. The second half of chapter 7 that opens up the discussion on the relationship between nationalist literature (minjok munhak) and world literature in the original has been omitted in the translation. In addition, chapters 3 and 4 have been reversed from the original version. Although Fouser's decisions may have been based on Kim's own wishes, Fouser provides no explanations, except to state that he has "followed Professor Kim's original closely, omitting and embellishing as little as possible" (p. vii). The end product is most unfortunate, especially in comparision with the original.

Aside from these larger problems, chapter 7 has elisions that actually obfuscate the content. One of Kim's projects in this volume has been to provide a paradigm of "problematic continuity" (munje chôk yônsok sông), to open up the discussion that ties in premodern and modern literature. Fouser, however, has omitted sections and parts of sentences that render this complex discourse even more elusive and unclear.

Stylistically, Understanding Korean Literature exhibits the usual problems translations of Korean literature contain. Translations of literary excerpts in Understanding, especially poetry, do not work well as literary texts, and translations of literature should read as literature in the target language. Despite these shortcomings, Understanding Korean Literature will serve as a valuable work on the pursuit of Korean literature, a field that anticipates more quality translations.


Citation:
So, Carolyn 1998
Review of Kim Hunggyu, Understanding Korean Literature (1997)
Korean Studies Review 1998, no. 13
Electronic file: http://koreanstudies.com/ks/ksr/ksr98-13.htm
[This review first appeared in Pacific Affairs, 71.1 (1998), 115-7].
Return to Index of Reviews

Return to Entry Page