[KS] KSR 1998-13: _Understanding Korean Literature_, by Kim Hunggyu

Stephen Epstein Stephen.Epstein at vuw.ac.nz
Mon Nov 23 19:00:39 EST 1998


Understanding Korean Literature. By Kim Hunggyu. Translated by Robert J.
Fouser. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1997. xiii, 230 pp. (Photos.) US$62.95,
cloth, ISBN 1-56324-773-9; US$21.95, paper, ISBN 1-56324-774-7.

Reviewed by Carolyn So
Claremont McKenna College

[This review first appeared in Pacific Affairs, 71.1 1998].

	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
Hunggyu's Han'guk munhak ui 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 Hunggyu 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 Hunggyu'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
Hunggyu'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 chok yonsok song), 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.


Carolyn So
Claremont McKenna College

Citation:
So, Carolyn  1998
Review of Kim Hunggyu, _Understanding Korean Literature_
Korean Studies Review 1998, no. 13
Electronic file:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/korean-studies/files/ksr98-13.htm
[This review first appeared in Pacific Affairs, 71.1 1998].




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





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list