[KS] Discussion of _Understanding Korean Literature_

[Carolyn So]

In response to Dr. Sungjong Paik's "Different View on _Understanding Korean Literature_"

I appreciate the attention you paid to my review on Kim Hunggkyu's _Understanding
Korean
Literature_. Your response assures me that our discussion group provides a useful
and necessary space for exchanging ideas and concerns. You may have, however, inadve
rtently overlooked a few issues I would like to point out for your and others' benefit.
I also would like to invite further discussions of Korean literature at large for other
understanding souls of Korean literature. I will give a brief  (hopefully) repl
y to some of the issues you point out regarding my review.


>>"In my view, So's review focuses on the translator and translation, not
on the meaning of what is translated. In addition, some details of the book were
discussed without looking at the place of the book in Korean studies."


The first half of my review concerns the importance of Kim's work:
"...providing the necessary background work to begin the discussion of
both premodern and modern Korean literature....[Kim] attempts a comprehensive
and accessible understanding of Korean 
literature...This volume will undoubtedly be valuable for undergraduate courses
in Korean literature, culture, and East Asian literature."
I also point out the generally ignored topics, such as "The Trade in Literary Works." 


>>"Concerning Kim's research method, we may have to stress that his book
is composed of chapters on crucial topics or themes, whereas other
introductory books on Korean literature follow from one period to another."


Although I agree that, in general, other introductory works on Korean literature
(although Kim's work is much more than an introductory volume) will take a periodic
scheme (there are exceptions, of course, such as Yi ChaesOn's _Han'guk munhak chujeron),
Kim's work also take a chronological approach within each topic and theme. 


>>"Omission of some sections and changes in order of the original text in
Korean are severely criticized in So's review.  Such reorganization by
the translator, however, cannot hardly prevent Western readers from
understanding of the main messages of the author, as it was proven
in my Korean literature class at Tuebingen University this spring.  On the
contrary, many readers or beginners in Korean literature will even
profit from restructuring."


Given the limited space of a book review, I felt that it was not a proper
channel for a lengthy discussion of Korean studies or Korean literature for that matter.
I pointed out critical problems the readers and scholars may not be aware of, if he or
she has not read the original version in Korean.
As I have stated in my review, Fouser "has taken a challenging task...[and]...has done
an admirable job as a translator." Without going into details about a stance a translator
must take, the merits of Ezra Pound's translations, or Walter Benjamin's view
in "The Task of the Translator," not to mention my own position, my task as a reviewer,
as I understand it, is to point out significant contributions and problems of a particular
volume. Understanding Korean Literature is a scholarly volume. As such,
if the translator has departed significantly from the original,
it will help the reader if the translator makes a reference to such a departure.
This particular aspect of translation, in my view, has little to
do with the actual rendition into the target language.
In fact, as I point out in my email review-"Chapters 1 and 7, 
the two chapters that provide a comopelling framework for Kim's work
have been greatly reworked and some material omited by the translator
(at Prof. Kim's request, according to Fouser).
This decisino is an unfortunate one, since these two chapters reveal
Kim Hunggyu's discourse on Korean literature and the position of Korean literature
in world literature." 

I am unclear how many readers and beginners in Korean literature will even profit
from restructuring, but I think the original version contained a potent philosophical
discussion on Korean literature. Furthermore, when I met Robert Fouser in Vancouver, he
informed me that Kim Hunggyu himself requested that these changes be made 
for the English audience.
So, I am afraid that the final result had nothing to do with translator's
interpretation of the original text.


>>"Because of its clear structure, readability, and lots of important
literary works covers almost every period and genre, Fouser's
translation can be not only used as a reference text in Korean studies,
but also as a general introduction to Korean literature for peoples
interested world literature.

I agree with you completely. As someone who has been engaged in Korean literature,
I am acutely aware of the paucity of good material in English,
and I hope that our continuing discussion will spark a further understanding
of Korean literature.



******************************
Carolyn So
Assistant Professor
Claremont McKenna College
850 Columbia Ave.
Claremont, CA 91711-6420
USA
Tel: (909) 607-3060
Fax: (909) 621-8419
email: CSo at McKenna.edu
******************************



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%