Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch and Prophets”: Kaebyŏk and ... · Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch...

Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch and Prophets”:

Kaebyŏk and the Rise of Ideological Critics

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I discussed how creative writers emerged in Korea‘s first literary

coterie magazine, Ch’angjo (Creation, 1919-1921). To recapitulate, the author‘s artistic identity

and authority as the ―creators or art‖ was achieved through a collaborative production of literary

works. The coterie writers‘ strong support for the ideas of art for art‘s sake worked both

negatively and positively. On one hand, their disposition for belles-lettres distinguished and

dissociated the ―like-minded‖ writers from the rest of the society, but on the other, their artistic

exclusivity provided an effective condition for positioning the aspiring writers at the vanguard of

modern literature.1 In the case of a literary coterie magazine, which stood for ―modern

literature‘s autonomy that was realized in the context of [print] media,‖ literature was its raison

d’être.2 Under such textual conditions, aspiring writers valorized creative works and sought to

establish their literary authority through the publication of qualified works.

While Ch’angjo prioritized the ideas of art, general interest magazines provided extensive

coverage of social phenomenon as subjects for their articles. Of the general interest magazines in

the 1920s, Kaebyŏk (The opening of the world, 1920-1926) was the most prominent in terms of

the scope and depth of its interest in society. Published by the young activists of Ch‘ŏndogyo

(Heavenly way), Kaebyŏk was its religious organ and aimed at modernizing its Confucian

humanism. But under the name of ―chŏnggyo ilch’i‖ (aligning the political with the religious),

1 Pak Hŏnho, ―Tonginji esŏ sinch‘un munye ro – tŭngdan chedo ŭi kwŏllyŏk chŏk pyŏnhwan,‖ in Chakka ŭi

t’ansaeng kwa kŭndae munhak ŭi chae saengsan chedo (The birth of authors and the reproduction system of modern

literature) (Seoul: Somyŏng Ch‘ulp‘an, 2008), 84-5. 2 Ibid., 87.

Jae-Yon Lee, Writing Sample 2/40

the magazine also dealt actively with contemporary issues faced by educated readers.3 As one of

the few magazines permitted to cover political matters, it regularly reported on current socio-

political affairs and carried critiques and comments on social ideologies such as Marxism, along

with pieces of realist fiction. But more importantly, the magazine also offered perspectives on

how an ideal society might be achieved in the future.

In examining Kaebyŏk, two kinds of scholarships have prevailed: approaching the

magazine either from an ideological perspective or through the framework of literary history.

Intellectual historians, who have delved into a wide array of ideas such as Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s

humanitarian ethics, bourgeois nationalism and Marxist socialism, have argued that the ideology

of ―social reformism‖ (kaejoron) was the common denominator.4 Scholars have inductively

analyzed literary works, linking their content to the intellectual issues addressed in the socially-

engaged articles. This method, which Han Kihyŏng calls ―the ideologizing of literature‖ (munhak

ŭi sasanghwa), has helped us see the role of social engagement that Kaebyŏk‘s literature played

in shaping the dominant social and political discourses of its time.5 Despite the great care

bestowed on content analysis, however, this discursive method paid little attention to what

enabled contributors to deal with literary works, reviews, and social commentary simultaneously.

While discursive analysis tended to subsume the magazine‘s literary works within the

magazine‘s broader reformist worldviews, the second approach took the alternate route of tracing

3 Yun Haedong, ―Hanmal ilcheha Chŏndogyo Kim Kijŏn ŭi ‗kŭndae‘ suyong kwa ‗minjok chuŭi‘‖ (Reception of

‗the modern‘ by the Ch‘ŏndogyo Kim Kijŏn and [his] ‗nationalism‘ in the end of the Taehan Empire and the

colonial period), Yŏksa munje yŏn’gu 1 (December 1996): 209-261; Chŏng Yŏngsŏ, ―Ilcheha Ch‘ŏndogyo

ch‘ŏngnyŏndang ŭi undong nosŏn kwa chŏngch‘i sasang,‖ in Kaebyŏk e pich’in singminji Chosŏn ŭi ŏlgul (The

appearance of colonial Korea mirrored in Kaebyŏk) (Seoul: Mosinŭn Saramdŭl, 2007), 123-78. 4 Yun Haedong, ―Hanmal ilcheha Chŏndogyo Kim Kijŏn ŭi ‗kŭndae‘ suyong kwa ‗minjok chuŭi‘‖: 209-261; Hŏ Su,

―1920-nyŏn chŏnhu Yi Tonhwa ŭi hyŏnsil insik kwa kŭndae ch‘ŏlhak ŭi suyŏng‖ (Yi Tonhwa‘s perception of reality

and reception of modern philosophy before and after 1920), Yŏksa munje yŏn’gu 9 (December 2002): 175-216; Hŏ

Su, ―1905-1924 nyŏn Ch‘ŏndogyo chonggyo sasang ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwajŏng‖ (The formation of the Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s

religious ideologies from 1905 to 1924), Yŏksa munje yŏn’gu 12 (June 2004): 187-224. 5 Han Kihyŏng,―Kaebyŏk ŭi chonggyojŏk isang chuŭi wa kŭndae munhak ŭi sasanghwa‖ (The religious idealism

of Kaebyŏk and the ideologization of modern literature), Sanghŏ hakpo 20 (2007): 39-78.


key literary events in the magazine‘s history. Pak Hyŏnsu has shown how children‘s literature in

Korea emerged through the magazine as part of Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s reformist youth movements.6 Yi

Kyŏngdon has identified a short narrative, which was akin to the magazine‘s social reports and

reporters‘ commentaries on current affairs.7 Their approaches help us understand the

institutionalization of literary values and norms, but end up shifting our attention away from the

magazine‘s emphasis on social concerns. Furthermore, the literary methods by Pak and Yi also

do not give prominence to its future-oriented visions based on reformist ideas.

Rather than dealing with social ideologies or literary issues separately, chapter 3 raises

more fundamental questions: In a general interest magazine in which the role and stake of

literature was defined by its engagement with social issues, what kind of literature did the

contributors make collective efforts to achieve? And in order to achieve their literary ideal, what

types of writer did the contributors imagine and identify themselves with? One of the

characteristics of formative Korean literature in the 1920s is that specific ideological and stylistic

inclinations of literature which magazine contributors wanted to realize were yet unformed, and

only came into existence through their collaborative endeavors. A particular type of an author

came into being while contributors embraced, questioned, and participated in such a process of

filtering diverse intellectual impulses into a consistent literary tendency in the magazine.

A distinctive aspect of literature in Kaebyŏk is its holistic perspective on society. Unlike

Ch’angjo‘s approach of art for art‘s sake, Kaebyŏk‘s literature reflects society as a whole.

Although literature is just a small part of the world that the magazine seeks to represent, it played

a key role by providing a concrete and comprehensive lens through which to view discrete

6 Pak Hyŏnsu, ―Adong ŭi palgyŏn kwa chakka ŭi t‘ansaeng,‖ in Chakka ŭi t’ansaeng kwa kŭndae munhak ŭi chae

saengsan chedo (The birth of authors and the reproduction system of modern literature) (Seoul: Somyŏng Ch‘ulp‘an,

2008), 48-75. 7 Yi Kyŏngdon, ―Kŭndae sosŏl ŭi riŏlliti wa Kaebyŏk,‖ in Kaebyŏk e pich’in singminji Chosŏn ŭi ŏlgul (The

appearance of colonial Korea mirrored in Kaebyŏk) (Seoul: Mosinŭn Saramdŭl), 371-406.


domains of the contemporary society together.8 Literature constitutes only a part of Kaebyŏk‘s

reformist scopes; yet, it projects the alternative worldviews for envisioning a future society.

In order to examine various articulations on the meanings of literature in Kaebyŏk‘s

articles on social ideologies, this chapter pays attention to a particular mode of expression:

criticism. More than being a simple mediator between creative works (objects of criticism) and

evaluative norms, Kaebyŏk‘s criticism was a form through which contributors could bring about

the intertextual convergence of the social and the literary. Through this form, contributors could

conceptualize society as a whole and debate on the kinds of society and literature that was

needed now and in the future. Furthermore, criticism was the channel through which contributors

developed a kind of a writer that they identified themselves with in order to realize a literature

that was socially meaningful. Therefore, by exploring the rise of criticism in the magazine we

will not only come to understand the different characteristics of Kaebyŏk‘s literature, but see the

kind of author that such a literature helped shape.

In tracing the historical emergence of criticism, which I classify into three subcategories

of social expositions, literary expositions, and literary reviews in the magazine, I examine two

processes: How did contributors exchange their diverse views on contemporary society and form

them into coherent reformist ideas? How did contributors transform such reformist worldviews

into standards for a literary genre that would herald the coming of a new society and art? By

examining these two processes, I contend that ideological critics emerged from Kaebyŏk in order

to materialize literature of holistic perspectives. Based on their cumulated debates on worldviews,

8 Han Kihyŏng considers modern literature in Korea as an alternative channel to express political visions that

Korean intellectuals were not allowed to articulate during the colonial period (1910-1945). To support his argument,

he demonstrates that in the latter half of Kaebyŏk‘s publication years (1924-6), when its socialist essays were being

heavily censored there was an increase in the number of literary works being published. As the colonial government

tightened its control over socialism, efforts were made to replace the language of ideology with literature. Han

Kihyŏng, ―Kaebyŏk ŭi chonggyojŏk isang chuŭi wa kŭndae munhak ŭi sasanghwa.‖


such critics with a future-oriented vision established their authorship by proactively furthering a

literary guidance that characterized the literature to come.

Kaebyŏk: Contributors and Types of Content

The emergence of criticism in Kaebyŏk was a response by the magazine‘s editors and

contributors to the contemporary social, religious, and literary expectations of its readers. A brief

historical survey of Ch‘ŏndogyo Youth Society, the publisher of the magazine, is a prerequisite

for understanding both the social characteristics of such a response. The Society‘s history goes

back to Tonghak (Eastern Learning), the predecessor of Ch‘ŏndogyo, which was founded by

Ch‘oe Cheu (1824-84) in 1860. It led the spiritual movement to integrate the three dominant

Eastern religions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism against the ―wicked‖ expansion of

Western learning (sŏhak). The nationalist ideology embedded in the Tonghak movement led to

the peasant uprising of 1894-5 against the Western and Japanese forces in Korea. The Tonghak

members eventually suffered defeat at the hands of Japanese forces. Following that loss, they

split into two groups in the 1900s: the pro-Japanese Ilchinhoe (Advance in unity society) and the

nationalist Ch‘ŏndogyo (Heavenly way).9

The Ch‘ondogyo leaders actively participated in the historic March First independence

movement in 1919; however, such political engagement brought heavy consequences to their

organization, which was still in its nascent stages of development. Many senior and junior

leaders, including the third patriarch Son Pyŏnghŭi (1861–1921), O Sech‘ang (1864–1953), and

9 Yi Yonggu (real name Yi Mansik, the renowned former Tonghak leader, 1868-1912) is a disciple of Son Pyŏnghŭi.

He set up the Inchinhoe (Advance in unity society) and worked on the populist but non-nationalist local activities,

such as regional tax reforms and the construction of railways. Such efforts gained local support, yet at the same time,

invited a serious question of national sovereignty. Perceiving a threat in Ilchinhoe‘s collaboration with the Japanese

protectorate government, Son severed the ties with the Ilchinhoe group and started a new chapter under the name of

Ch‘ŏndogyo. Yumi Moon, ―The Populist Contest: The Ilchinhoe Movement and the Japanese Colonization of Korea,

1896-1910‖ (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 2005).


Ch‘oe Rin (1878–?), were arrested and imprisoned. As a result, the Central Headquarters of

Ch‘ŏndogyo (Ch‘ŏndogyo chungang ch‘ongbu) was unwilling to get involved in any form of

nationalist movements. In contrast to the passivity of Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s main institute, a number of

young believers formed alternate organizations within the religion with aspirations of developing

them into nation-wide associations.10

The religious and nationalist passions of Yi Tonhwa (1884-

?), Pak Talsŏng, Pak Raehong, Chŏng Tojun, et al., resulted in the creation of the Lecturing

Society of Ch‘ŏndogyo Disciplines (Ch‘ŏndogyo kyori kangyŏnhoe) soon after 1919.

The Lecturing Society‘s objectives were twofold. It aimed to strengthen religious

principles and reorganize the Chŏndogyo structure, which seemed to be on the verge of collapse.

Secondly, it planned to engage more aggressively with social and nationalist movements as a

way to gain popular support from the colonized masses.11

It soon developed into the Ch‘ŏndogyo

Youth Society (Ch‘ŏndogyo ch‘ŏngnyŏnhoe) with nationwide branches by April 1920.12

The

initial members of the Lecturing Society, such as Pak Talsŏng and Pang Chŏnghwan (1899-

1931), were the leading figures of the Youth Society, along with new members such as Kim

Kijŏn (1894-1948?). Indeed, they were the core members of the Kaebyŏk‗s reporters and editors.

As part of its social engagements, the Ch‘ŏndogyo Youth Society was actively involved

in publishing magazines. Its publication strategy was to identify target audiences and tailor a

magazine specifically for their needs and demands. Accordingly, Ch‘ŏndogyo published

different kinds of magazines during the 1920s and 1930s. Sin yŏsŏng (New womanhood, 1923-

1934) carried light readings, social gossip, and educational essays for would-be modern women,

while Ŏrini (Children, 1923-34) targeted children and young students and published folktales,

10

Ch‘oe Suil, Kaebyŏk yŏn’gu, 379. 11

Chŏndogyo Ch‘ŏngnyŏnhoe Chungang Ponbu, ed., Ch’ŏndogyo Ch’ŏngnyŏnhoe p’alsip-nyŏnsa (80-years of

Ch‘ŏndogyo Youth Association) (Seoul: Kŭlnamu, 1988), 99-104. 12

There is a report that Ch‘ŏndogyo Youth Association had 107 branches nationwide and 7600 members, as of 1921.

Ibid., 106.


legends, and children‘s stories, along with school aids. Pyŏlgŏn’gon (Another world, 1926-34)

tried reaching the popular masses by providing reading material suitable for their hobbies and

cultural tastes. It covered various topics, such as movies, music, drama, literature, sciences, and

romantic stories. Unlike these periodicals, Kaebyŏk targeted educated intellectuals; as mentioned

earlier, the magazine carried readings on weightier subject matters such as religion, philosophy,

and social ideologies and included reports on current political and economic affairs as well as

serious literary works.

Kaebyŏk published a total of 72 issues between June 1920 and August 1926, and each

issue had about 150 pages. It was printed monthly in Seoul and distributed nationwide through

bookstores and local Ch‘ŏndogyo branches. The average circulation number was between 8,000

and 9,000.13

The publisher of the magazine was the Society of Kaebyŏk (Kaebyŏksa), and

consisted of Yi Tonhwa (editor-in-chief), Kim Kijŏn (managing editor), Pak Talsŏng (social

affairs editor), Ch‘a Sangch‘an (1887-1946, economic and political affairs editor) and Hyŏn

Ch‘ŏl (1891-1965, literature and art editor). Except for Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl, all the members of the

Society of Kaebyŏk were from Ch‘ŏndogyo.14

As mentioned, they were keenly aware of the

important role of religion in actively engaging with social issues.

[Figure 1] The Covers of Kaebyŏk, June 1920 and June 1921 (left) and December 1921 (right)15

13

A monthly selling 8,000 to 9,000 copies in the 1920s is remarkable given that the illiteracy rate as of 1930 was

77.74 percent and that the circulation of a daily newspaper Tonga ilbo was about 60,000. Pak Hŏnho, Chakka ŭi

t’ansaeng kwa kŭndae munhak ŭi chae saengsan chedo, 32-33. 14

Ch‘oe Suil, Kaebyŏk yŏn’gu, 401. 15

The pictures of the cover pages are taken from Ch‘oe Suil‘s book, 9, 11.


As shown above, the magazine‘s cover pages illustrate its interest in both domestic and

international contexts. The cover of the inaugural issue (June 1920, #1), which was used again in

the issue of the first anniversary celebration (June 1921, #12), shows a picture of a tiger sitting

on a mound—shaped like the top of a globe. The tiger‘s mouth is wide open, as if it is roaring.

The thick clouds that cover the hemisphere mystify and beatify the scene, while the title declares

triumphantly ―kaebyŏk‖ or the opening of the world. Given that a tiger symbolizes ethnic

Koreans, the cover symbolizes a new birth for Koreans, who are envisioning themselves in the

future at the top of the globe. While the cover of the inaugural issue mythicizes the future of the

ethnic Koreans, who at the time were under Japanese colonial rule, the one on the December

1921 issue (#18) manifests Kabyŏk‘s macroscopic perspective more objectively. Through this

picture, we come to know that the ―mound‖ on which the tiger was sitting was a representation

of Earth. It presents a global map, with East Asia, specifically Korea, at its center. Through this


simple picture, the magazine reveals its ambitions of engaging world affairs with specific designs

for Korean society and its neighbors. The three-dimensional globe lined with latitudes and

longitudes seems to indicate that its approach in dealing with world issues will be accurate and

precise.

Kaebyŏk‘s textual content also displays its interest in social issues: articles on social

ideologies and socio-political affairs outnumber those on literature and art. As a general interest

magazine, it covered an array of themes and genres. Analyzing all the 2,074 articles of the

magazine, which Ch‘oe Suil has listed in his book, I have classified the pieces roughly into four

categories: creative works, reports, expositions, and literary reviews.16

As figure 2 shows, the

percentage of each type is 22, 34, 38, and 1, respectively.

[Figure 2] Composition of Articles in Kaebyŏk (On the Basis of the Number of Articles)

16

In his book, A study on Kaebyŏk, Ch‘oe Suil has categorized the writings in the magazine into three groups:

nonsŏl (formal essays): 322 articles; munhak (literature-related pieces): 788 articles; and chapmun (miscellaneous

writings), which are neither nonsŏl nor munhak. Despite his meticulous record-keeping, Ch‘oe‘s grouping of three

modes of writing is less useful in terms of mapping out the interaction between the literary and the social, because it

attempts to stylistically differentiate one form from another. The issues on society were covered not only in the

nonsŏl which offered in-depth reviews of politics, ideology, and class, but also in the chapmun, which addressed

current affairs (sisa), public reports, and activities of contemporary social organizations, albeit more informally.

Fiction, poetry, plays, and literary essays in munhak also articulated social issues. Ch‘oe Suil, Kaebyŏk yŏn’gu (A

study on Kaebyŏk) (Seoul: Somyŏng Ch‘ulp‘an, 2008), 57. To address this weakness, I have classified the articles

thematically and stylistically, at the same time, trying to find in the form of criticism a mode of expression that

enabled a dialogue between social and literary concerns.

Creative Works 22%

Reports on Current Affairs

34%

Literary Expositions

7%

Social Expositions 31%

Reviews of Creative Works

1%

ETC 5%


The proportion of creative works, including poetry, fiction, drama, and children‘s stories, is

significantly low, especially compared to the 69 percent in Ch’angjo. In their place, we have

reports on current social affairs (sisa, pogo in Korean; 34 percent), which were not carried in the

coterie magazine. This section is greatly enhanced by the magazine‘s biggest special feature,

―Chosŏn munhwa ŭi kibon chosa‖ (Basic researches on Korean culture).17

The Kaebyŏk

reporters conducted extensive ethnographic and sociological surveys on industries, education,

cultures of a target region by presenting folktales, legends, and rituals, along with the interviews

of influential as well as ordinary villagers. If one were to thematically divide the Kaebyŏk

articles into the social and the literary, the first would take up 65 percent (social reports + social

expositions) and the second (creative works + literary expositions + literary reviews), 30 percent.

Though the section of Kaebyŏk’s creative works makes up a smaller portion of the

magazine‘s whole than in the coterie magazine, it played an important role in allowing qualified

writers to publish their works irrespective of their coterie backgrounds. Many influential

fictionists and poets who worked through Kaebyŏk include Kim Tongin (1900-1951), Chŏn

Yŏngt‘aek (1894-1968), Yi Kwangsu (1892-?) and Chu Yohan (1900-1979) from a coterie

Ch’angjo; Yŏm Sangsŏp (1897-1963), Kim Ŏk (1896-?), Hwang Soku from a coterie P’yŏhŏ

(Ruins, 1920-1921); and Kim Kijin (1903-1985), Pak Yŏnghŭi (1901-?), Pak Chonghwa (1901-

1981), and Yi Sanghwa (1901-1943) from a coterie Paekcho (White tides, 1922-1923). A famous

short-story writer Hyŏn Chin‘gŏn (1900-1943) launched his literary career through the magazine.

Kaebyŏk published Yŏm‘s ―The Green Frog in the Specimen Gallery" (P‘yobonsil ŭi

ch‘ŏnggaegori, 1921), which portrays a schizophrenic idealist in colonial Korea. It also carried

17

The special feature lasted for two years between 1923 and 1925 (#34-64, April 1923- December 1925). The

serialized articles covered the entirety of the country, including 13 to (provinces), 218 kun (counties), 2507 myŏn

(sub-counties), and two islands of Korea.


Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi‘s realist short stories depicting the lives of the poor and the

struggles of dissident intellectuals. In addition, the magazine published nationalistically idyllic

poems by Kim Sowŏl (1902-1934) and romantic poetry of resistance by Yi Sanghwa. Kaebyŏk is

known for having covered all the modern creative genres, from fiction to drama, but also to have

focused relatively more on fiction (more than 100 pieces) and poetry (more than 500 pieces).18

Despite the importance of creative works, I pay closer attention to social expositions,

literary expositions, and literary reviews to trace the rise of criticism as Kaebyŏk‘s dominant

form for engaging social and literary concerns. The magazine refers to the expository genre in

Korean in various ways, such as ―non” (treatises), ―p’yong” (comments), ―nonpy’ŏng” (treatises

and comments), ―p’yŏngnon” (comments and treatises), and ―pipyŏng” (comparative

comments). These terms usually do not distinguish between reviews and expositions or between

social and literary themes. Hence I disaggregate them in order to reveal how social ideologies are

related to literary trends and how such a convergence provided literary norms for actual

evaluation in Kaebyŏk.

By ―social expositions,‖ I refer to any kinds of expository writing and commentary on

ideas of society in broader terms (religion, philosophy, politics, economy, and culture). Various

kinds of writings fall under this category. The Ch‘ŏndogyo-theorist Yi Tonhwa wrote essays on

religious cosmology and the role of religion in modern society. A Kaeybŏk reporter Sŏn Uchŏn‘s

wrote essays on the economic life of Koreans under colonial rule. The cultural nationalist Yi

Kwangsu provided moral critique of contemporary society. Another reporter Kim Kijŏn

introduced social ideas of Western thinkers, such as Nietzsche, Rousseau, Russell, and the leftist

18

Ch‘oe Suil, Kaebyŏk yŏn‘gu; recited in Han Kihyŏng, ―Kaebyŏk ŭi chonggyojŏk isang chuŭi wa kŭndae munhak

ŭi sasanghwa,‖ 50.


Kim Kijin expounded Barbusse‘s radical perspectives of internationalism. As mentioned above,

social expositions cover 31 percent of the published articles in the magazine.

―Literary expositions‖ means a critical discussion of worldviews articulated from a

literary perspective. In a broad sense, however, it includes debates on literary trends and ideas

about the social functions of literature and writers. For instance, it includes the essays on how to

analyze fiction by Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl; aspects of ―ideological literature‖ (sasang munye) by Kim Kijin

and Pak Yŏnghŭi, who were once ardent followers of Romanticism but were supporters of

Marxism in Kaebyŏk; debates between so-called ―cultural nationalist‖ writers and leftist authors

on the imperatives of socialist literature. Though this category covers only seven percent of the

published articles, it shows how the discussion of literary trends and ideas were not disconnected

from the discussion about society and its ideologies.

Literary reviews are actual evaluations of literary works in the form of monthly, quarterly

and yearly reviews. Though this practical criticism took up only one percent of the Kaebyŏk

articles (19/2074), it was one of the more important sections in that Kaebyŏk editors consciously

published them in order to compete with other magazines reviewing the same works.19

As

suggested, literary reviews at times became the site of heated debate on the role of critics and

standards for literary evaluations. The influential poet Kim Ŏk and novelist Pak Chonghwa

quarreled over their literary authority which devolved into exchange of personal diatribes. But,

as Pak Yŏnghŭi‘s practical criticism demonstrates, literary reviews were also a site where social

ideologies could transform into norms for literary analysis.

19

―Practical Criticism‖ with P and C capitalized, refers to a method of close reading in New Criticism, which

regards literary works as self-contained verbal entities to be distinguished from scientific and social writings. Martin

Coyle et al., Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism (London: Routledge, 1991), 11. Practical criticism, in my use,

also means the analytical reading and evaluation of literary works; however, I do not follow New Criticism’s

premises. On the contrary, I show how in colonial Korea, practical criticism was a historical product of the

intersection between social and literary perspectives.


Though criticism, including the aforementioned three subcategories, marks only 39

percent of the total number of articles, it deserves our special attention. This is because their

uneven and layered unfolding shows concrete engagements between the sections of social affairs

and literature beyond their separate domains in the magazine. If the globe on the cover of

December 1921 issue offers a visual rendering of Kaebyŏk‘s macroscopic view of the world, it is

criticism that presents the general interest magazine‘s holistic social vision.

Convergence of Literary and Social Worldviews

Examining the development of criticism in Kaebyŏk allows us to identify two key

characteristics in1920s criticism in Korea. The term ―criticism‖ in the Western sense is equated

with literary criticism, which refers to all the activities of ―defining, classifying, analyzing,

interpreting, and evaluating works of literature.‖20

In 1920s Korea, as the terms of ―p’yongnon‖

and ―nonp’yŏng‖ showed, criticism objectified not only literary thought and works, but also

social ideologies and phenomenon. This characteristic perhaps stemmed from the historical

context of the period, where discussions about literature took place within a journalistic space

rather than in educational and literary institutions, such as universities. Editors and contributors

of an intellectual magazine dealt with social and literary concerns conjointly in a yet-to-be

bifurcated form of criticism.

Secondly, in 1920s Korea, ―defining [and] classifying‖ literature and ―evaluating works

of literature‖ were not activities that could be thought of as necessarily occurring simultaneously,

as per Abraham‘s definition. The establishment of monthly, quarterly, or yearly reviews of works

took a long time, as did the deepening of literary thought, and it occurred with an uneven pace of

development. In this light, the exploration of unsymmetrical unfolding of social expositions,

20

M.H. Abrahams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999), 50.


literary expositions, and literary reviews would reveal how these constituents of criticism

dynamically engaged with one another to reflect literary and social issues in the magazine.

The rise of criticism as a socio-literary genre can be characterized in three phases. This

periodization is based on changes in the object, subject, and content of its three subsets (social

expositions, literary expositions, and literary reviews) and distinctions in their relationships.

During phase one, from June 1920 (#1) to June 1923 (#36), ideas of moral reforms gained

powerful currency, though they were not equipped to provide ideological norms for literary

analyses. Literary reviews were not actively presented. During phase two, from July 1923 (#37)

to January 1925 (#55), the ethical criticism of society‘s backwardness was quickly opposed by

Marxist social and economic thought. As Marxism became available as an alternative social

vision, leftist writers adopted and applied it to literature, calling for a consideration of literature

as an instrument for social change. But, such a literary perspective was outside the purview of

practical criticism; literary evaluation remained grounded in impressionist readings of creative

works. It was during phase three, from February 1925 (#56) to June 1926 (#72), that the

magazine regularly published reviews of works. By evaluating actual literary works, critics

established Marxist social and literary visions as the theoretical grounds for the advancement of

leftist literature.

Phase One

The first period of emergent criticism in Kaebyŏk (from mid-1920 to mid-1923) had the

following literary and social environment. In terms of literary history, aspiring writers published

their works by forming literary coteries such as Ch’angjo, P’yehŏ, and Paekcho. Some of the

major members of the coteries, such as Yi Kwangsu (Ch’angjo), Hwang Soku (1895-60), Kim


Ŏk (P’yehŏ), and Pak Chonghwa (Paekcho) also were the frequent contributors to Kaebyŏk.

These coterie writers tended to concentrate on ―pure literature‖ (sunmunhak) separating it from

other social domains. The authors from different coteries had fierce debates over their authority

over literary analyses; yet, they refused to consider social issues as a valuable part of the literary

domain. In terms of intellectual history, this period witnessed the rise of Marxism as a social

(and ―scientific‖) ideology; however, it did not yet wield enough centripetal force to draw other

social ideas into its purview. Consequently, contributors like Ch‘ŏndogyo theorist Yi Tonhwa

and the cultural nationalist Yi Kwangsu presented moral and religious ideas about social change

under the broader rubric of ―reformist treatises‖ (kaejoron). Their claims for social reforms were

laid out in a rather fragmented form and thus one can hardly find traces of conversations between

the social and the literary. Yi Kwangsu was a conspicuous figure who engaged both literary and

social issues, but his case was rather exceptional.

In the serialization of religious and social essays, such as ―A Study on Innaechŏn‖ and

―Reformist Project of Korea Based on the [Current] Conditions of Living,‖ Yi Tonhwa

articulated a religious and organic universalism in which a human being, nature, society, and god

are interconnected as part of the larger universe in progress. He explains such a universalism

through his perspective on ―consciousness‖ (ŭisik). According to him, consciousness exists not

only in human society but also in the natural world.21

The powers of attraction and repulsion

among atoms in physics, for instance, are reflected by their own consciousness and ―feelings.‖

The feelings of atoms will influence those of cells, which will eventually affect the entire

organism. A human being as the most developed organism cannot be irrelevant to the

consciousness of the material world. As the latter follows the rules of progress, so does a human

21

Yi Tonhwa, "Innaech'on ŭi yŏn‘gu‖ (A study on innaech'on), Kaebyok 7 (January, 1921): 73.


being to the higher stage of one‘s conscious.22

For Yi Tonhwa , the highest stage of this

development is expressed in the neo-Kantian ―perfection of the self.‖

That imperative, as Yi Tonhwa sees it, is for man to stabilize the chaotic world with his

consciousness.23

While equating the role of consciousness with that of innach’ŏn Yi eventually

concludes that it is through the discipline of innaech’ŏn that the self progresses from its small

mind to its unification with the consciousness of the universe. In other words, he stresses the

importance of cultivating the minds and bodies of contemporary people, since this acts as an

accelerator of natural progress.24

In pursuit of this cultivation he advocates ―labor‖ (nodong),

which links mental and physical activities.25

His conception of labor as the means of self-

cultivation opened an intellectual space in religion that would later converge with the Marxist

social ideas. In the second period, Yi further theorized that when the ideals of Heaven (or

paradise) are realized in this world, there would be no classes and no differences between the

rich and the poor, and that worldly suffering would cease.26

Yi Tonhwa‘s concept of the organic universe and the constant communications between

things in the world turned Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s religious interests toward social engagement. The

Kaebyŏk reporters such as Pak Talsŏng and Kim Kijŏn regularly contributed articles and reports

22

Yi believed in the progress of religions and that the traditional and contemporary religions, such as Christianity,

Buddhism, and Confucianism, communicated with one another to develop the ―ultimate religion‖ (ch’oehu

chonggyo) and proclaimed Ch‘ŏndogyo as this summum bonum. Hŏ Su points out that Yi‘s idea of the ultimate

religion was influenced by the Japanese religious theorist and philosopher. Hŏ Su, ―1920-nyŏn chŏnhu Yi Tonhwa

ŭi hyŏnsil insik kwa kŭndae ch‘ŏlhak ŭi suyŏng‖: 191. 23

Yi Tonhwa, "Innaech'on ŭi yŏn‘gu‖: 75-76. 24

We are unsure whether Yi Tonhwa wrote the celebratory remark of the inaugural issue; however, it clearly

demarcates two kinds of ―opening the world‖: ―God progressed [the world] from nothingness. He divided it into

being and non-being, organized the solar system, and ten thousand things on the earth. This is the opening (kaebyŏk)

of the world. People, as the advanced [creatures] of God, have made a progress of living…and today, they have

come to meet the revolutionary force, the so-called ―great reconstruction of the world – this is the [new] opening of

the opened [world] or the change of the change (kaebyŏk ŭi kaebyŏk).‖ ―ch‘anggansa‖ (Commemorative speech),

Kaebyŏk 1 (June 1920): 2. 25

Yi Tonhwa, ―Saenghwal ŭi chogŏn ŭl ponwiro han Chosŏn ŭi kaejo saŏp 2‖ (Reformist project of Korea on based

on the conditions of living 2), Kaebyŏk 16 (October 1921): 21-24. 26

Yi Tonhwa, "Ch'ŏn‘guk haeng‖ (Towards heaven), Kaebyok 49 (July 1924): 8-9.


on the activities of the Society for Korean Education (Chosŏn kyoyukhoe), the Korean Mutual

Aid Society (Chosŏn nodong kongchehoe), and the Korean Youth Association (Chosŏn

Ch‘ŏngnyŏn yŏnhaphoe), etc. They even drew readers‘ attention more actively toward social

issues by organizing a special group of subscribers, called the ―Friends of the [Kaebyŏk] Society‖

(Sau), and converting them into local reporters. Under the magazine‘s future-oriented

―regeneration movement‖ (kaengsaeng undong) and its ―pan-humanistic nationalist movement‖

(pŏm inganjŏk minjŏk undong), the Society‘s Friends were expected to ―report and examine

special events and tendencies observed in his or her village.‖27

The Friend‘s reports of special

events in their villages resulted in the magazine‘s special feature, ―Chosŏn munhwa ŭi kibon

chosa‖ (Basic researches on Korean culture). Through the serials on the contemporary life of the

Korean people, Kaebyŏk reporters and readers strove to socialize their religious ideology of

―People are Heaven.‖

If Yi Tonhwa‘s essays account for reformist ideas from religious and philosophical

perspectives, those of Yi Kwangsu approach them morally and ethically. In his controversial

articles, ―To Youth‖ (Sonyŏn ege, #17-21) and ―On National Reconstruction‖ (Minjok kaejoron,

#23), Yi Kwangsu addressed both the past and present of Korea as economic, intellectual, and

moral ―collapses.‖ In particular, he argued that ―imposture‖ (hŏwi) and ―indolence‖ (nat’ae) are

the evil characters of the Korean nation, resulting in a dearth of professionals in the areas of

education, business, industry, law, art, and others. For Yi Kwangsu, it was the want of social

leaders that eventually brought about the downfall of the Korean nation. Accordingly, Yi

Kwangsu argues that the role of men of letters (munsa) and youngsters who want to emulate

them is to enlighten the masses toward more positive and constructive moral attitudes.28

In his

27

Kaebyŏk 29 (November 1922): 115. 28

Yi Kwangsu, ―Minjok kaejoron‖ (On national reconstruction), Kaebyŏk 23 (May 1922): 18-72.


literary treatise, ―Art, Literature, New World, and the Duty of Korean Literature,‖ Yi Kwangsu

further claims that one can regenerate his or her ethical views through ―the artistic reconstruction

of personalities‖ (insŏng ŭi yesulchŏk kaejo).29

His bold proposal to reconstruct society‘s moral

perspective, consistently expounded in his social and literary expositions, was positively

received by Yi Iksang30

and Pak Chonghwa.31

Aside from the special case of Yi Kwangsu who wrote both social expositions and

literary works, most contemporary writers were more interested in writing solely about literature.

They were especially interested in exploring the various constituents of modern literature and

endeavored to demarcate their boundaries. For instance, Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl contributed a series of

articles on the definition of fiction in ―Outline of Fiction‖ (Sosŏl kaeyo, #1-2) and on how to

study it in ―Methods to Examine Fiction‖ (Sosŏl yŏn‘gupŏp, #3-4). His interest moved on to

poetry when Hwang Sŏku attempted to evaluate the ―new‖ poems written by Chu Yŏhan and

others. The debates between Hwang and Hyŏn, although they were in the form of personal

harangues, revealed important differences between ―sinch’esi,‖ (or the new verse style that

emerged in the Enlightenment period of the 1910s), free verse, and the components of national

poetry.32

A similar pattern of debates on literary works (also abusive in tone) appears between Kim

Ǒk and Pak Chŏnghwa from January to June 1923 (#31-36). Kim Ǒk, a well-known poet from

29

Yi Kwangsu, ―Yesul kwa insaeng, sin segye wa Chosŏn munhak ŭi samyŏng‖ (Art, literature, new world, and the

duty of Korean literature, Kaebyŏk 19 (Jaunary 1922): 6. 30

Yi Iksang, ―Yesulchŏk yangsim i kyŏlyŏ han uri mundan (Our literary sphere which lacks artistic conscience),

Kaebyŏk 11 (May 1921): 102-112. 31

Pak Chonghwa, ―Mundan ŭi ilnyŏn ŭl ch‘uŏkhaya: hyŏnsang kwa chakp‘um ŭl pip‘yŏnghanora‖ (Remembering

one year of the literary sphere: commenting on its phenomenon and literary works), Kaeybŏk 31 (January 1923):

Literature and Art 1-14. 32

Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl, ―Pip‘yŏng ŭl alko pip‘yŏng ŭl hara‖ (Criticize after being aware of what criticism is) #6; Hwang

Sŏku, ―Chumunch‘i anihan si ŭi chŏngŭi rŭl illŏ chugettanŭn Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl kun ege‖ (To Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl who would

want to define poetry without being asked) #7; Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl, ―Sowi sin sihyŏng kwa mongrongch‘e (So called new

poetic forms and those of confusion) #8; Hyŏn Ch‘ŏl and Hwang Sŏku, ―Kŭnko‖ (Notification) #11.


both Ch’angjo and P’yehŏ coteries, played an active role in Kaebyŏk by serializing Western

literary trends 33

and translated literary theories, like that of Romain Rolland (1866-1944).34

Kim

Ǒk was provoked by ―impressionistic‖ reviews of his works in Pak Chŏnghwa‘s yearly review.35

Pak rates Kim Sowŏl‘s poems higher than those of Kim Ǒk, stating that the ―beautiful rhythms‖

of the former echo against ―the trembling sentiment‖ of the poetic persona. Pak criticized Kim

Ǒk‘s poems for being nothing but ―showy ornamentation‖ (kigyo).36

Given that Kim Sowŏl was

a disciple of Kim Ǒk and still an inexperienced poet while Kim Ǒk had already published his

collection of poems, Pak‘s remark must have offended the latter. Their fight became an occasion

for examining various kinds of practical criticism: classic criticism, scientific criticism, and

impressionistic criticism.37

Overall, the series of debates sparked by literary reviews manifest the unsettled status of

a literary critic between 1920 and 1923. Exhibiting an ability to enunciate Western literary

figures and literary trends emerged as one of the mandates for gaining literary authority in these

debates. However, demonstrating a command of Western aesthetics would have afforded critical

authority only in a limited sense, because literary expositions and reviews were located within

the world of literature, having but little dialogue with social critiques and the world of reality.

For them to communicate, contributors had to ―ideologize‖ literary knowledge. This process took

place in the second phase.

Phase Two

33

Kim Ǒk, ―Kŭndae munye‖ (Modern literature and art), Kaebyŏk # 12-21. 34

Kim Ǒk, ―Minjung yesullon‖ (Treaties on people‘s literature), Kaebyŏk # 26-29. 35

Pak Chonghwa, ―Mundan ŭi ilnyŏn ŭl ch‘uŏkhaya: hyŏnsang kwa chakp‘um ŭl pip‘yŏnghanora‖: Literature and

Art 1-14. 36

Ibid.: 7-8. 37

Ibid.; Kim Ǒk, ―Much‘aekim han pip‘yŏng‖ (Irresponsible criticism) #32; Pak Chonghwa, ―Hangŭicha katchi

anŭn hangŭicha ege‖ (To the dissent who does not look as such) #34.


As mentioned, the second phase was from July 1923 to January 1925 (issues 37 through

55). This period has the following characteristics. First of all, vague ideas of social

reconstruction were replaced by more systematic Marxist theories. The class-based Marxist

ideology emerged to criticize the moral cultivation of Yi Kwangsu‘s nationalism as ―kaeyrang

chuŭi‖ (literally the ―ideologies of improvement,‖ though it carries a connotation of the

reactionary bourgeois movements conforming to the policies of colonial development). The

worldview founded on economic determinism was shared not only by social activists, but also by

literary writers like Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi. Kim and Pak sharpened their views of social

thought through social expositions and revisited Korean literature from the perspective of the

universal development of world economy. Their literary expositions articulated the historical

inevitability of the rise of class-based literature in prophetic narratives. As the Marxist

worldview gained recognition as a substantive mode of envisioning future literature, Yi

Kwangsu became the icon of an outdated, perhaps even false, literature, which according to Kim

and Pak‘s contention, needed to be negated. Nevertheless, Kim and Pak‘s Marxist visions

remained in literary expositions. Reviews of literary works, which still appeared irregularly in

the magazine, were detached from the turbulent debates on how to advance society and literature.

The social expositions of the second phase display basic concerns of Marxism as well as

its complicated logics of internationalism. In his serialized essays, ―Outlines of Socialism‖

(Sahoe chuŭi haksŏl taeyo, #40-43), Chŏng Paek justifies historical materialism, the class

struggles between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the inevitable collapse of capitalism

and the triumph of socialism on the basis of social Darwinian progress. SY translated ―The

Nation and the Class‖ (Minjok kwa kyegŭp, #51-55) by the Japanese thinker Ōyoma Ikuo (1880-

1955), who explicated the close affinity between nationalism and capitalism from the perspective


of Marxist social theory. Ōyoma argued that nationalism always carries a certain amount of

imperialist potential due to the international collaboration of the domestic bourgeoisie with one

another. In order to sever this capitalist imperialism formed on the basis of nationalism, the class

differentiation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must disappear. To this end, he

implicitly advocates internationalism, in which the proletariat from all over the world are

working together. Chu Chonggŏn too promoted similar international collaborations, asserting

that ―There are no national boundaries amongst the proletariat.‖38

These Marxist social expositions induced intellectuals to regard with suspicion the notion

of ―promoting national strength‖ (sillyŏk yangsŏng) through accepted and apparently legitimate

cultural movements. They argued that the means of violence (muryŏk) should not be avoided in

order to advance the economic interests of the poor masses in social movements that have been

negated by the indigenous bourgeoisie and the colonial government.39

By this logic, the position

of cultural reformism and resistance began to be considered as a kind of conformism to the

Japanese government‘s projects of developing colonial Korea.

Professing Marxist internationalism, Kim Kijin, a writer of a literary coterie Paekcho,

contributed social expositions by selectively translating debates between pacifists and

internationalists in the Clarté movement after WW I.40

The Clarté (―light‖ in French) movement

initially developed in France between 1919 and 1921 as a collective of anti-war and anti-

imperialist forces. A well-known leader of the movement was the writer and activist Henri

Barbusse (1873-1935). Starting out from a pacifist position, he argued for uniting the world‘s

38

Chu Chŏngyŏn, ―Kukche musan ch‘ŏngnyŏn undong kwa Chosŏn‖ (The international proletarian youth

movements and Korea), Kaebyŏk 39 (September 1923): 8.

39 Anonym, ―Chŏm chŏm chŏm isanghae kanŭn Chosŏn ŭi munhwa undong‖ (Cultural movements in Korea that

gradually turn out to be strange), Kaebyŏk 44 (February 1924): 2-3. 40

Kim Kijin, ―Pparŭppyusŭ tae Romaen Roran kan ŭi nonjaeng, kŭlarŭte undong ŭi segyehwa‖ (Debates between

Henri Barbusse and Romain Rolland: the internationalization of the Clarté Movement), Kaebyŏk 40 (October 1923):

23-51. ―Ttodasi ‗Kŭlarŭte‘ e taehaesŏ, Pparŭppyusŭ yŏn‘gu ŭi ilp‘yŏn‖ (Again regarding Clarté: a piece of study on

Barbusse), Kaebyŏk 41 (November 1923): 116-136.


intellectual powers against imperialism; however, he later shifted his position eventually to leftist

ideas, such as those of the Third International and later, bolshevism.41

This transition disturbed

another writer and activist Romain Rolland (1866-1944), who adhered to the pacifist stance of

non-violence, insisting that using violence against violence would only elicit more forms of

violence.42

In translating the debates between these two prominent figures, Kim Kijin argued on

the side of Barbusse. Kim considered Rolland‘s concept of absolute non-violence as an anarchist

line of thought and criticized it for protecting only individual freedom. As opposed to Rolland,

Kim considered violence as a necessary and inevitable means of achieving social equality and

bringing about social change under capitalism.43

While Kim clearly prioritized the problem of social inequality over that of individual

freedom through his commentary on the Clarté movement, he also addressed the issue of

disciplining mechanisms that reinforce the bourgeoisie economy.44

For him, the struggle between

the bourgeoisie and the proletariat was exacerbated by the function of the bourgeois kŏltŭ (―cult‖

[sic], kyohwa or discipline). In his own words, its function was to ―mechanize the spirituality of

mankind, teach irrational exploitation, and [justify] the unjust accumulation of wealth.‖45

Accordingly, he argued that the proletarian ―cult‖ should be established in order to destroy the

modern bourgeois institutions, as well as the ruling class tradition, which had worked for the

benefit of the colonizers and the indigenous rich. Kim‘s dichotomy between the bourgeoisie and

the proletariat remained vague about whether it was founded on the basis of class or ethnicity.

41

Nicole Racine, ―The Clarte Movement in France, 1919-21,‖ Journal of Contemporary History 2:2 (April 1967):

197. 42

It seems that Kim translated the debates between Rolland and Barbusse from the Japanese translation by Omi

Komaki (1894-1978) in the literary magazine, Tanemaku hito (The sowers, 1921-23). But we need a thorough

textual investigation. 43

Kim Kijin, ―Pparŭppyusŭ tae Romaen Roran kan ŭi nonjaeng, kŭlarŭte undong ŭi segyehwa‖: 29. 44

Kim Kijin, ―Chibae kyegŭp kyohwa, p‘ichibae kyegŭp kyohwa‖ (The bourgeois discipline, the proletarian

discipline), Kaebyŏk 43 (January 1924): 13-27. 45

Ibid.: 21-22.


Yet, Kim‘s critical essays are significant in that literary writers began to actively engage in social

theories.

Literary expositions of the second phase recognized the importance of ideology in

guiding the social vision of literature. The main contributors of this ―ideological literature‖ were

Kim Kijin Yi Iksang (1895-1935), Pak Yŏnghŭi (the second editor of the section of literature and

art, succeeding Hyun Ch‘ŏl in January 1925). Kim Kijin, in his literary essays, such as ―Today‘s

Literature and Tomorrow‘s Literature‖ (#44), ―Disciplines for Destruction and Disciplines for

Construction‖ (#55), predicts what the future of literature might look like in colonial Korea. His

prediction is based on the two premises of modern literature‘s cosmopolitan development. First,

literature cannot be detached from modes of life, and therefore, as the social and economic

conditions change, literature would naturally reflect these changes. Secondly, the current

capitalist system promotes class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. According

to Marxism, it is inevitable that the latter will be eventually victorious, so future literature will

address this social phenomenon, induced by the universal development of capitalist economy. In

applying these premises to Korea, Kim claims that the ―entire nation will maintain one kind of

living,‖ which is that of the poor masses; he envisions that the literature of tomorrow will arise to

reflect ―the commonly shared zeitgeist,‖ which is the spirit of the deprived people.46

For that

matter, he underlined the ―willed, ideological power‖ as a principle for constructing this shared

life of the masses as opposed to individual freedom, the principle of, as he calls it, destruction.47

Kim‘s emphasis on ideology as a perspective to link economic and literary domains is

shared by Yi Iksang and Pak Yŏnghŭi. Yi separates ideology (sasang) from personality in

46

Kim Kijin, ―Kŭmil ŭi munhak, myŏngil ŭi munhak‖ (Today‘s literature and tomorrow‘s literature), Kaebyŏk 44

(February 1924): 49-50. 47

Kim Kijin, ―Punggoe ŭi wŏlli, kŏnsŏl ŭi wŏlli‖ (Disciplines for destruction and disciplines for construction),

Kaebyŏk 55 (January 1925): 19-20.


literary works on the grounds that the personal view of life is willfully organized by the author‘s

ideology.48

Pak goes further to identify the spirit of writing literary works as a ―utilitarian effect‖

of the main ideology each piece attempts to realize.49

As the investigators of this spirit of literary

creations, critics share the hardship of literary writers and shoulder the duty to analyze it by

reflecting upon not only current social and moral values, but also the future zeitgeist of mankind.

In this light, Pak claims that ―literary critics should be both men of the epoch (sidaea) and

prophets (yeŏnja).‖50

Here, Pak Yŏnghŭi and Yi Iksang, along with Kim Kijin, as explained in

the preceding paragraph, raise their voices in concert to demarcate the image of a critic. A critic,

according to their definition, is a man of ideology capable of mulling over the social effect of

present worldviews in current literature and on the making of its yet-to-be realized future.

This new image of a critic as a man of ideology in the second phase was notably distinct

from the figure of Yi Kwangsu as a moral critic. As the editor, Pak Yŏnghŭi organized the first

special literary feature, which he devoted to the criticism of Yi Kwangsu. Yi Sŏngt‘ae

distinguishes Yi Kwangsu‘s literary expressions from his ideology and argues that it was the

former that absorbed him ten years ago (when Yi‘s Heartless, considered as the first full-fledged

modern novel in Korean literary history, came out), not the latter.51

Pak condemns Yi Kwangsu

more severely calling him ―isangjŏk kaein yesulga,‖ or an idealistic individualist artist, a

description that suggests a man of aloofness who rebukes the moral decay of the Korean people

without considering their social and economic situation. Pak attacks Yi Kwangsu‘s premise of

rampant unethical social attributes by contending that it is not moral hazards but colonialism that

48

Yi Iksang, ―Sasang munye e taehan p‘yŏnsang‖ (A small thought on ideological literature and art), Kaebyŏk 55

(January 1925): 97. 49

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Ch‘angjak pip‘yŏng kwa p‘yŏngja‖ (Composition, criticism and critics), Kaebyŏk 55 (January

1925): 93. 50

Ibid. 51

Yi Sŏngt‘ae, ―Nae ga pon Yi Kwangsu‖ (Yi Kwangsu whom I saw), Kaebyŏk 55 (January 1925): 83.


made it difficult for ordinary people to find ways to make a living. Yi Kwangsu‘s overbearing

admonitions and humanistic sympathy towards the poor are unnecessary; instead what is needed

is the power to mobilize around a social cause. Likewise, leftist writers such as Yi Sŏngt‘ae and

Pak honed their critical insights by objectifying Yi Kwangsu as an obsolete and misguided icon

of the bygone decade.

The literary expositions, inspired by Marxist social and economic ideologies in the

second phase, however, did not take the form of practical criticism. Between issues 33 and 55,

the magazine carried reviews of literary works on three occasions: in December 1923 (#42)52

;

March 1924 (#45)53

; and December 1924 (#54).54

While specialists in the genre of poetry, drama

and fiction evaluated works in their respective genres, the reviews only appeared irregularly on a

quarterly and yearly basis.

Kim Ǒk, a poet from the coterie journal Pyŏhŏ, was still suspicious of literary criticism‘s

claim to professionalism. Though he acknowledged that his reviews could not be categorized as

―objective‖ literary criticism and he could not regard himself as a professional critic, he tried to

justify his impressionist commentary.55

While half of Kim Chŏngjin‘s comments on drama

addressed the issue of whether there could be ―a professional field of drama‖ (kŭktan) in Korea,

the other half provided plot summaries of new dramatic scripts published in 1923. Pak

Chonghwa‘s reviews of fiction, which were published in the first quarter of 1924, also failed to

go beyond impressionist commentaries, which had recourse to plot summaries, brief critiques of

expressions, and stylistic comparisons of one author‘s works. Yet, Pak‘s yearly review of fiction

in 1924 demonstrates an interesting gap between his people-centered literary ideology shared by

52

Kim Ǒk, ―Sidan ŭi ilnyŏn‖ (A year of the world of poetry); Kim Chŏngjin, ―Kŭkkye illyŏn ŭi kaep‘yŏng (Outline

of a year of the world of plays); Yŏm Sangsŏp, ―Olhae ŭi sosŏlgye‖ (The world of fiction in this year). 53

Pak Chŏnghwa, ―Sinch‘un sosŏlgye‖ (The world of fiction in the spring quarter). 54

Pak Chŏnghwa, ―Kapcha munhak chonghoengkwan‖ (An overview of literature in 1924). 55

Kim Ǒk, ―Sidan ŭi ilnyŏn‖: 41.


Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi and his impressionistic comments on fiction. While reviewing Kim

Kijin‘s ―Red Rat,‖ later considered by Pak Yŏnghŭi to be a fine example of realism, Pak

Chŏnghwa recognized only its elevated sentiment and powerful mood, and did not attempt to

investigation into what had engendered these effects.

In short, criticism of the second phase can be characterized by the phenomenon in which

elements of Marxist social critiques entered into the magazine‘s literary expositions. The masses

are recognized as subjects whom writers should embrace and represent clearly in literary works,

rather than as an ignorant herd which had to be taught and corrected. The social function of

literature, put forth by Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi, was to relieve the poor from contemporary

economic and social exploitation. On the basis of this literary vision, they carved out the image

of a critic as an ideological prophet capable of predicting the coming of a new leftist literature.

And yet, this farsighted vision was not yet integrated into the evaluative standards of actual

works. The synchronization of ideological literary expositions with practical criticism emerges in

the third phase.

The Rise of Ideological Critics and

the Dialogues between Literary Expositions and Reviews

Phase Three

Between February 1925 and January 1926 (issues 56 through 65), one can find more

active conversations between literary and social expositions as well as between those expositions

and literary reviews. During this period, as Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi continued to write

regularly about the literary works published in the previous month, the form of monthly reviews

gradually stabilized. With the routinization of practical criticism, Kim and Pak started

incorporating their social and literary views into their textual analyses. Through their ideological


reading of contemporary fiction, these critics even developed a literary genre through which they

might more realistically portray the wretched life of the colonized, as well as herald the coming

of a new society and a literature. The genre of the so-called ―New Tendency Literature‖ (sin

kyŏnghyangp’a munhak, hereafter NTL), known as a transitional form linking belletristic trends

to proletarian literature in Korea, was a product of the critics‘ efforts at interlacing literary

expositions and reviews, and also at proactively interpreting the ideological potential of the yet-

to-come proletarian literature. I mark as phase three the period when Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi

set up the new genre of NTL and transformed themselves into ideological critics by responding

to their own call for a new type of literary critics: ―the men of the epoch and prophets.‖

In order to understand the critics‘ proactive reading of contemporary works, one should

be attentive to two literary and social events of the mid-1920s: the foundation of KAPF (Korean

Federation of Proletarian Artists in English, 1925-35) in August 1925 and the start of monthly

reviews by a ―pure‖ literary magazine, Chosŏn mundan (The Literary Sphere of Korea, 1924-

1927). The literary and political movements of KAPF enhanced the role of literary criticism in

guiding the creation of textual models for proletarian literature. In the meantime, the monthly

reviews by Chosŏn mundan, which focused on narrative techniques, provided a counter-example

to the ideology-centered criticisms by the Kaebyŏk reviewers. Through the stimulus of these

social and political events, literary expositions and practical criticism underwent an accelerated

integration and even served to demarcate NTL. It should be noted, however, that dialogues

between literary and social expositions and practical criticism in the first through third phases

were the main cause behind the rise of an ideologically charged literary criticism.

As social critics came to understand Marxism more deeply, they raised the question as to

who constituted the Korean masses. On the basis of class theory, for instance, Kim Kijŏn


deprecated the idea of promoting national strength (sillyŏk yangsŏngron) as ―middle-class

liberalism‖ (chungsankŭp chayu chuŭi). He suggested that social movements by the masses

should transform the entire societal system, and not merely benefit the middle-classes.56

Pak

Ch‘unu went a step further in defining the masses and mass movements in Korea by

differentiating Leninism from Marxism. According to traditional Marxist theory, it was the

factory laborers, the most severely exploited by the industrial bourgeoisie, who had to lead the

proletarian revolution. The economic situation in Russia, however, was not sufficiently mature to

produce enough factory workers to successfully revolt against the capitalist system. Lenin

recognized this and subsequently enlightened and mobilized the poor farmers and successfully

led them in the Revolution of 1917. By referring to this history of the Russian revolution, Pak

proposed that intellectuals in Korea too should work with the deprived farmers, since the

development of the Korean economy was closer to that of Russia.57

From a similar Leninist

position, Chŏng Paek called for a coalition between youth and farmers organizations.58

SY

argued that tenants‘ strikes should be understood as part of the overall class struggle, and that

they should be developed to destroy the discrepancies within the capitalist economy.59

The deepening of Marxist economic ideas affected the religious and social reformism of

Ch‘ŏndogyo theorists. Yi Tonhwa‘s initial religious materialism, which emphasized labor as a

means to realize ―Heaven‖ in this world, and his simple economic pragmatism of the greatest

good for the greatest number of people were gradually replaced by the Marxist attack on

capitalism. He criticized the capitalist economy which unethically fostered the possessive desires

56

Kim Kijŏn, ―chugŭl saram ŭi saenghwal kwa sal saram ŭi saenghwal‖ (The ways of managing a life by the dying

and the living), Kaebyŏk 57 (March 1925): 2-7. 57

Pak Ch‘unu, ―Segye nongmin undong ŭi kwagŏ wa mirae‖ (The past and the present of rural movements in the

world), Kaebyŏk 63 (November 1925): 14-20. 58

Chŏng Paek, ―Ch‘ŏngnyŏn kŭp nongmin yangchŏng tongmaeng, che 2 hoe chŏnggi taehoe e imhaya‖ (The second

regular meeting of the Youth and Farmers Associations), Kaebyŏk 58 (April 1925): 5-9. 59

SY, ―Sojak undong ŭi kwich‘akchŏm‖ (The conclusion of tenant movements), Kaebyŏk 65 (January 1926): 19-23.


of the rich who attempted to oppress and ―eat‖ others by means of money.60

He also inveighed

against the scientific rule of nature for its aimless and mechanical principle and its construction

of a human being as nothing more than a combination of organic cells.61

Opposed to a society

operating under merciless capitalism and mechanical scientism, Yi Tonhwa advocated a society

which secured human nature (saram sŏng) founded on the basis of mutual aid and protection.

Seen from the perspective of phase one, Yi Tonhwa‘s Ch‘ondogyo religious and social

critiques demonstrated a consistent worldview based on the following: linear progress,

convergence of religious ideals and social change, positive recognition of materialistic desires,

and evaluation of the economy as a domain for sharing social goods. He presented these ideas

within the future-oriented framework of ―kaebyŏk,‖ or the opening of a new and better world.

His religious materialism did not demonstrate a deep discernment of Marxism‘s core ideas such

as the classes, the masses, and races. However, it had two valuable features.

First, the interconnectedness between the individual, society, the nation-state, the world,

and the universe provided a conceptual framework for intellectuals to engage with the local and

marginal issues of Korea in the context of an interlinked contemporary world. Secondly, such a

macroscopic perspective of the social within a prophetic narrative could be easily adapted to

Marxist social critiques and literary expositions, which will be discussed later in this section.

In dialogue with the issues in social expositions regarding who the Korean masses really

were, literary critics raised questions about the subject and object of ideological literature. Pak

Yŏnghŭi in particular arranged a special feature and wrote articles on this topic, such as ―Debates

60

Yi Tonhwa, ―Saram ŭi him kwa ton ŭi him. Saram ŭi him ŭro saram ŭl tomnŭn sahoe rŭl mandŭrŏ nohaya hal kŏsi

animnika?‖ (The power of people and the power of money: should we not construct a society that helps people with

the power of people?), Kaebyŏk 56 (February 1925): 5. 61

Yi Tonhwa, ―Saeng ŭi kaejŏk kach‘i wa chŏnjŏk kach‘i‖ (The individual and collective values of life), Kaebyŏk

63 (November 1925): 5.


on Class Literature‖(#56),62

―Responses to Chosŏn mundan‘s Joint Review‖ (#60)63

; and ―New

Tendency Literature and Its Status in the World of Letters‖ (#64).64

Through these featured

literary expositions, Pak and his leftist colleagues carefully crafted the stake of class-based

literature among cotemporary literary authors. The ―Debates‖ was devoted to the justification of

leftist literature through the rebuttal of belletristic writers; ―Responses‖ attacked the bourgeois

writers‘ technique-oriented literary reviews; and a literary exposition of New Tendency

Literature proposes a new genre of leftist literature by providing examples of reviews based on

ideological reading.

Kim Tongin, a living icon of romantic individualism and the former leader of the coterie

magazine Ch’angjo, argued against the validity of class literature. He contended that one cannot

pronounce the advent of a self-sufficient ―animal literature‖ simply because animals are the

principle subject being represented. Kim Kijin objected to this approach based on subject

materials and underlined that the ideology of the writer should be the deciding factor for

distinguishing a proletarian literature from a bourgeois equivalent. Yŏm Sangsŏp, a famous

fictionist who claimed for the depiction of life ―as it is,‖ recognized the necessity of identifying

an emergent proletarian literature. Yet, he opposed its ideological promotion if it meant

sacrificing the independent status of art. Just like Yŏm, Pak Yŏnghŭi also emphasized the

autonomy of literature but asserted that it should be in balance with the proletarian literature‘s

utilitarian function. Pak argued that the development of industrialism and capitalism in colonial

62

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Kyegŭp munhak sibiron‖ (Debates on class literature), Kaebyŏk 56 (February 1925): Literature

and Art 43-55. 63

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Chosŏn mundan happ‘yŏnghoe e kwanhan sogam‖ (Responses to Chosŏn mundan‘s Joint Review),

Kaebyŏk 60 (June 1925): 101-108. 64

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Sin Kyŏnghyangp‘a munhak kwa kŭ mundanjŏk chiwi‖ (New Tendency Literature and its status in

the world of letters), Kaebyŏk 64 (December 1925): Literature and Art 1-5.


Korea had led to an unbalanced growth in a sense of freedom of art; it was now time to nourish

art‘s potential social function and work towards a balanced progress of literature.

―Responses to Chosŏn mundan‘s Joint Review‖ published in June 1925 manifests the

Kaebyŏk critics‘ discomfort and anxiety about the launching of literary reviews by writers whom

they deemed to be ―bourgeois‖ authors. In various aspects, Kaebyŏk‘s monthly reviews and

Chosŏn mundan‘s collective reviews were in competition. In terms of temporality, Kaebyŏk

presented regular monthly reviews from February 1925 for six consecutive months as the table

below demonstrates. Within a month after that February, Chosŏn mundan also started its first

monthly ―Joint Review,‖ and featured it six times through September. As for the format, the

monthly review was a critic‘s monologue-like response to the fiction from the previous month,

whereas the ―joint review‖ (happyŏnghoe) was a transcribed roundtable discussion by multiple

reviewers. Reflecting the literary orientations of the two magazines, those of the reviewers were

in contrast as well. Kaebyŏk included Kim Kijin, Pak Yŏnghŭi, and Yi Sanghwa (1901-1943),

who acknowledged the existence of emergent class-based literature. Chosŏn mundan had Yŏm

Sangsŏp, Hyŏn Chin‘gŏn, Yang Kŏnsik, and others, who were not under the same persuasion

and shared a belief in the autonomy of art.

[Table 1] Literary Reviews in Kaebyŏk and Chosŏn mundan Month

/

1925

Kaebyŏk Chosŏn mundan

Issue

#

Reviewer Title Issue

#

Reviewer Title

2 56 Kim Kijin January Comments on the

World of Composition

5

3 57 Pak Yŏnghŭi February Comments of

Creative Writings

6 Joint

Reviewers

Joint Review 1

4 58 Pak

Chonghwa

Kim Kijin

March Comments on

Creative Writings

Poets in the Current World

of Poetry

7 Joint

Reviewers

Joint Review 2


5 59 Kim Kijin Overview of Literature in

the Spring Quarter

8 Joint

Reviewers

Joint Review 3

6 60 Yi Sanghwa

Kim Kijin,

Pak Yŏnghŭi

et al.

Poems and Fiction in the

Previous Month

Responses to Chosŏn

mundan Joint Reviews*

9

Joint

Reviewers

Joint Review 4

7 61 Kim Kijin A Recent Tendency in the

Literary Sphere (After

Reading Creative Writings

in June)*

10 Joint

Reviewers

Joint

Reviewers

Joint Review 5

The Joint Reviews I

witnessed*

8 62

9 11 Joint

Reviewers

Pang

In‘gŭn

Joint Review 6

Third Quarter

Review of Fiction

10 12 Pang

In‘gŭn

Yearly Review

11 63 13

12 64 Pak Yŏnghŭi New Tendency Literature

and Its Status in the World

of Letters*

(Note) The titles with asterisks (*) mark the essays and featured articles that are not literary reviews. I have included

them nevertheless in the table to indicate that the two magazines interacted with each other in a contestation of

literary authority embedded in the act of reviewing and that the leftist literary expositions in Kaebyŏk were fortified

through the routinization of literary reviews.

―Responses,‖ a collection of the Kaebyŏk contributors‘ impressions on the ―Joint Review,‖

symbolically demonstrates a particular direction in the development of criticism. That is, a

discussion of literary expositions should not be detached from actual reviews of works. Yi

Iksang is uncomfortable with the detailed descriptions of the mood of meetings, which he calls

―drama stages performed by literary critics.‖65

Yet more importantly, he points out that the

Chosŏn mundan‘s joint reviews are only significant as modes of expression without detailing the

central ideology of the reviewed works. Yi‘s emphasis on the importance of locating main ideas

in the works produced is shared especially by Pak Yŏnghŭi.

65

Kaebyŏk 60: 106.


Pak published his short story, ―A Hunting Dog‖ (Sanyanggae, April 1925) to symbolize

the oppressed people‘s spirit of resistance by depicting a dog which attacks the owner. A month

later, however, the story was received very poorly by Chosŏn mundan reviewers; Yang Kŏnsik

wrote, ―It cannot be categorized as fiction,‖ for its ―unnatural‖ development of fictional events.66

Pak, angered by such comments, launched a counter-attack upon the joint reviewers‘ attitudes

that only prioritized plot structure and the mode of narration, without considering the class

conflict and its ideological implications. Further, Pak and Kaebyŏk critics branded the joint

reviewers of Chosŏn mundan as the followers of Yi Kwangsu, an outdated and even ―reactionary‖

and ―bourgeois‖ writer. A month after Kaebyŏk‘s attack on Chosŏn mundan, the Chosŏn mundan

reviewers rebutted such accusations as groundless; since they shared little consensus on a

dominant and representative ideology for the magazine, there were no writers who could be

considered representative of the group. Nevertheless, joint reviewers including Yŏm Sangsŏp

generally agreed with the importance of fortifying evaluative standards for art.

As a way of critiquing the inhumaneness of capitalist society, the Kaebyŏk reviewers find

an important literary motif reflected in recently published short stories: destitution. Kim Kijin,

for instance, pays attention to the self-destructive arson by the female protagonist in Hyŏn

Chin‘gŏn‘s ―Fire‖ (Pul, 1925). Kim interprets her violent action as a means of self-protection, as

a way of avoiding being sexually abused by her new husband, to whom she had been sold in

order to relieve her family‘s starvation. In reading, ―A Rickshaw Puller‖ (Illyŏkkŏkkun) by Chu

Yosŏp, Kim also highlights that the protagonist‘s death by starvation symbolizes the economic

disparity in Chinese society.67

Observing the frequent descriptions of the poor in short fiction

and interpreting the detailing of their transgressive actions such as suicide, manslaughter, and

66

―Happ‘yŏnghoe‖ (Joint review), Chosŏn mundan 8 (May 1925): 119. 67

Kim Kijin, ―Sinch‘un mundan ch‘onggwan‖ (Overview of literature in the spring quarter), Kaebyŏk 59 (May

1925): Literature and art 3-4.


arson as expressions of social resistance, Kim Kijin declares that ―the literary sphere has

progressed.‖68

Kim‘s commentary is insightful insofar as it offers an overview of the literary

orientations of a short story beyond the scope of individual pieces. More importantly, however,

he provides such observations in the context of analyzing actual works, demonstrating the close

connection between the forms of literary expositions and practical criticism.

Less than six months after Kim‘s insightful monthly review, Pak presented a historic

literary exposition, entitled ―New Tendency Literature and Its Status in the World of Letters.‖69

Considering ten short stories and one poem, including Kim Kijin‘s ―Red Rat‖ (Pulgŭn chwi,

November 1924) and Ch‘oe Sŏhae‘s ―Destitution and Massacre‖ (Kia wa sallyuk, June 1925),

Pak argued that they shared a new tendency to feature protagonists or narrators who notice

inconsistent systems embedded in the current bourgeois society and who subsequently attempt to

destroy them verbally and physically. Essentially, Pak subscribes to what Kim called ―new

tendencies,‖ the violent and resistant actions expressed by literary protagonists, and used them to

categorize a new genre.

Rather than simply evaluating this tendency as an analytical tool for characterizing a

group of literary works, Pak proactively took them to be an ideological sign indicative of the rise

of proletarian literature. By doing so, he declared such pieces as ―sin kyŏnghyangp’a munhak‖

(NTL), situating it as a transitional genre that would bridge contemporary nationalist or realist

works to forthcoming proletarian compositions in the process of formation. Like Kim Kijin‘s

literary exposition, ―A Recent Tendency in the Literary Sphere,‖ Pak‘s piece too integrates

practical criticism into literary exposition. This integration, especially used for the demarcation

68

Kim Kijin, ―Mundan ch‘oegŭn ŭi il kyŏnghyang‖ (A recent tendency in the literary sphere) Kaebyŏk 61 (July

1925): 124. 69

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Sin kyŏnghyangp‘a munhak kwa kŭ mundanjŏk chiwi‖ (New Tendency Literature and its status in

the world of letters), Kaebyŏk 64 (December 1925): Literature and Art 1-5.


of the new literary genre, facilitated the rise of ideological critics who were, as Pak Yŏnghŭi

expressed, ―both the men of the epoch and prophets.‖

Pak Yŏnghŭi‘s proposal of NTL can be interpreted in a number of different ways. It

could be a pronouncement of his ideals in the outfit of realism because NTL stories did not yet

reflect the class consciousness he wanted to identify. Those stories focused instead on the

expression of wrath caused by the economic issues at a personal level and accordingly the

resolution was also made within familial boundaries. There is, therefore, a gap between the

direction at which NTL criticism aims and actual characteristics that NTL stories illustrate. In

addition, Pak‘s proactive move to proclaim a literary genre could be seen as his preemptive

gesture to claim literary authority through the act of reviewing. The literary circle in 1920s Korea

was still small as demonstrated by the fact that the two major magazines of Kaebyŏk and Chosŏn

mundan shared many of their literary contributors and often evaluated the same literary works.

The two magazines‘ competition over main writers and literary reviews might have pushed him

to jump at the opportunity to pursue ideological literature and preemptively establish its authority

over literature based on the autonomy of art.

Pak‘s ―preemptive‖ and therefore seemingly immature proposal of a new genre, however,

seems to have manifested his self-reflexive observation that imported Western literature failed to

accurately reflect the wretched life of Koreans. While criticizing Korean writers for merely

―mimicking‖ Western literary trends without having fully digested the culture, Pak states:

These days, it takes a year or half a year for even [new] ideologies to come to us via

Tokyo…We were busy following the ideologies of our precedents without considering

the close relationship between saenghwal [no proper equivalent available in English;

usually it means ways of living and livelihood, but at times it refers more specifically to

the living conditions of colonial Korea] and literary environments. In other words, we

managed a mimetic life: prior to tasting the true beauty of yearning, we imported


naturalism, and we also introduced idealism before seriously tasting the naturalism of

others.70

With a stress on the close affinity between literature and saenghwal as its environment in Korea,

Pak warns against a superficial mimicry of Western literary trends, imported especially via Japan.

Here he argues that ―in our current situation, it is not literature and art that should lead our

saenghwal, but it should be our saengwhal that leads our literature and art.‖71

In this sentence,

the first ―literature and art‖ refer to foreign importations and ―our literature and art‖ signify

Korean efforts. In this passage, he urges Korean writers not to lean on Western literature and art

in the process of creating an indigenous equivalent. Instead, he exhorts artists to come down and

reflect on the real life the Korean people manage to live under colonization. Since the

contemporary literary development could not accommodate such a request, he explicitly states

that his call was ―a prophecy rather than a tendency of the literary sphere,‖ and that it was his

own ―new idealism.‖72

In the current state where Korean writers had to import and imitate

Western literary trends rather quickly, Korean literature would always have a prophetic form of

narrative in order for one to put priority on the saenghwal of the Korean people as an impetus

leading literature, not the other way around.

Pak‘s emphasis on the literary critic as an ideological prophet asks us to revisit the

canonization of the NTL genre in Korea‘s literary history. Hitherto, studies of NTL started from

how NTL was characterized by Im Hwa, an influential leftist critic, poet, and the last chairperson

of KAPF in the late 1930 and early 1940s. In his newspaper serial of literary histories,

―Perspectives on a History of New Literature in Korea‖ (Chosŏn sin munhaksa ron), Im finds

70

Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Chŏsŏn mundan ŭi ch‘oesin kyŏnghyang‖ (Up-to-date tendencies of the literary sphere in Korea),

Kaebyŏk 44 (February 1924): 94-95. 71

Ibid.: 96. Repeated in Pak Yŏnghŭi, ―Sin kyŏnghyangp‘a munhak kwa kŭ mundanjŏk chiwi‖: Literature and Art 1. 72

Ibid.: 96.


two literary legacies of Romanticism and Naturalism within NTL and argues that NTL as a

transitional genre indicates writers‘ efforts in trying to link Romantic and Naturalistic trends to

leftist literature in Korea.73

Im stresses the continuation of Korean literature from what he calls bourgeois to

proletarian literature. Im‘s emphasis was loaded with his hopes of seeing evidence of resistance

during the suffocating colonial conditions of the 1930s, including the rapid militarization, the

quick spread of Fascism, and a large number of chŏnhyang (political recantation and submission

to colonial assimilation) by the former members of KAPF. He even states that ―the literary

subjects I treat here [his literary history] are of realistic needs which are too desperate to be of

academic research and interest in peaceful days.‖74

This urgent call for canonization of NTL as a

sign of continuity in modern Korean literature betrays his resistant spirit, which deserves our due

attention. Nevertheless, Im‘s political overreading of NTL as a real entity has created a great deal

of confusion among recent scholars who have attempted to identify the two sources of

Romanticism and Naturalism in NTL.75

Im‘s interpretation has also baffled scholars who have

wondered if the form‘s transitional position, between bourgeois and proletariat literature, should

be considered belonging more to the latter or, rather, to an independent genre of its own.

The proletarian visions that the stories of NTL were supposed to reflect are indeed rarely

visible –class consciousness, utopian vision for a better future, collective identity of the poor

masses – are not evident in the pieces of so called NTL writers, such as Ch‘oe Sŏhae and even

Kim Kijin. Instead they exhibit personal struggles of the destitute, the destruction of the

73

Im Kych‘an and Han Chinil eds., Im Hwa sin munhaksa (Im Hwa‘s a history of new literature) (Seoul: Han‘gilsa,

1993), 366-7. Im identifies the legacies of Romanticism through Pak Yŏnghŭi and his followers and Naturalism

through Ch‘oe Sŏhae and others. Pak‘s stories represent his realistic vision; however, such perspectives are rendered

through the ―naked‖ self-consciousness of the author. In contrast, Im argues that Ch‘oe is able to create the

verisimilitude of life by detailing and situating the activities of the protagonist within concrete social conditions. 74

Ibid., 318. 75

Pak Sangjun, Han’guk kŭndae munhak ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa sin kyŏnghyangp’a (The formation of modern Korean

literature and New Tendency Literature) (Seoul: Somyŏng Ch‘ulp‘an, 2002), 295-395.


protagonist or his/her family, and the private resolution of social conflicts. In short, there were no

stories of NTL in 1925. Rather, only criticism of NTL existed to guide the potential ideological

orientations of NTL with a prophetic voice. Such a worldview was inevitable to Pak because he

saw that the authority of imported literary trends and social ideologies was stronger than the

careful reading of saenghwal of the colonized. Hence, he came to a compromise: while

emphasizing literary pieces that realistically depicted the suffering of the poor, he imagined their

personal suffering as a possible condition of the collective hardships of the future class. Such an

ideological critic with a forward-looking worldview could not have appeared without Kaebyŏk,

in which discussions of religious concerns such as Ch‘ŏndogyo, and social ideologies like

Marxism became constellated into norms of literary interpretation.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the general interest magazine dealt with a wide range of intellectual

discussions such as Ch‘ŏndogyo‘s religious cosmology, elitist cultural and ethical reforms,

Marxist historical materialism and Bolshevism. This thick accumulation and constellation of

worldviews in Kaebyŏk was the profound base on which emergent literary critics founded their

holistic visions toward new society and literature. By examining the process from the

ideologizing of literature to the creation of a normative genre in the magazine, I argue that

ideological critics with a prophetic voice emerged from and through Kaeybŏk. Kaebyŏk‘s new

critics gained proficiency in social ideologies beyond art for art‘s sake and confidence in

claiming the kinds of literature they would like to achieve by extensively and interactively

writing social expositions, literary expositions, and literary reviews.


Historically speaking, Kaebyŏk‘s dialogues between multiply layered worldviews

contingently provided a fermented moment for ideological critics to emerge. Indeed, such

ideologies quickly disintegrated as the newly trained socialist theorists blamed Ch‘ŏndogyo

theorists and activists for their lukewarm responses to economic determinism. Such a bifurcation

precipitated the feud between Marxist hardliners such as the KAPF members and the leftist

softliners of the Society of Kaebyŏk, although the magazine was discontinued due to colonial

censorship. After Kaebyŏk was banned in 1926, the Society of Kaebyŏk no longer printed an

intellectual magazine. Instead, it started a popular and commercial magazine, Pyŏlgŏn’gon. The

Kaebyŏk‘s tradition of intellectualism was taken over by Chosŏn chi kwang (The light of Korea,

1922-1930), a leftist literary magazine and the organ of KAPF. Chosŏn chi kwang refined its

discourses on the politicization of literature; however, such an argument also quickly

marginalized them from society at large.

Typical examples of Kaebyŏk‘s ideological critics are Kim Kijin and Pak Yŏnghŭi who

had earlier witnessed how religious discourses addressed social and ideological concerns.

Drawing from religious tendencies of prophecy that heralded the coming of a new world, Kim

and Pak hybridized them into a Marxist social prophecy and applied it to the creation of a literary

genre that predicted the ideal society and literature geared to the poor masses (NTL).

This chapter has focused on such an aspect of guidance embedded in NTL criticism as an

alternative way of preparing for a future literature. As mentioned, the contributors and editors of

a literary magazine Chosŏn mundan routinized the reproduction system of discovering new

writers through literary competitions, recommendation by established writers, and joint reviews

which stressed creative innovation. In fact, Kaebyŏk hosted writing contests four times and

presented regular monthly reviews. It could also have introduced new writers into literary scenes;


yet, it paid relatively less attention to such a task. Instead, ideological critics paved the way for

the future by means of criticism through the establishment of critical standards for a literary

genre.

It might seem that laying out a set of norms for literature is less powerful in terms of its

potential to influence the future of a literary field, than the direct selection of a new generation of

writers by already established authors. Yet, one should note that the future-oriented literary

principles and worldviews contain ideals that are unrealized in current society; these ideals are

latently subversive since they can always be reinterpreted alternatively by the current literary

scene. The uniqueness of NTL criticism is that it explicitly addressed the guiding capacity of a

genre and deployed it to destabilize conventional literary ideas and systems: for instance, moral

awakening by Yi Kwangsu and Chosŏn mundan‘s way of introducing new writers. Such a

prophetic voice, even if it is not subversive, specifically distinguishes Kim Kijin and Pak

Yŏnghŭi, the ideological critics emergent in Kaebyŏk, from those in other magazines.

What is suggested here, then, is that the ways of legitimizing new authorship in the 1920s

was greatly influenced by the socio-literary characteristics of the magazines that the contributors

collaboratively defined. If the belletristic magazine Ch’angjo grounded its writerly identity

within the closed coterie by separating and elevating art from other social domains, Kaebyŏk did

it in a completely opposite way: it marked ideology as the common denominator of literature,

religion, and society and valorized ideological critics through the convergence of and permeation

between discrete social and literary worldviews. The next chapter will explore how a literary (yet

non-coterie) magazine Chosŏn mundan elaborated and materialized its artistic vision.

Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch and Prophets”: Kaebyŏk and ... · Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch and Prophets”: Kaebyŏk and ... · Chapter 3: “Men of the Epoch...