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