지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study is aimed at reinterpretation of the debate of Content and form, proletarian literature, acting by Kim－Gi－Jin and Park－Young－Hee, the korean proletarian literature theorist in the middle of the1920’s. Until now, this debate was understood that, this debate went to the triumphs of the park, the political elements was increasing and aesthetic elements was decreasing in the proletarian literature theory. But This debate was more complication. These hypotheses is evident once, if being highly analytic the debate of Yoem－Sang－Sub and Park－Young－ Hee, what happened in 1926. There are two important issues in this debate. First, there’s the matter of the novel and the representation. Yoem thought the novel is the mirror to the reproduce the real－life. By contrast, Park thought the novel is the devise of destroying the illusion, created by the mirror. The second, there’s the matter of the relation between novel and Social life. Yoem thought that Social life is the subject matter for creating novel. But Park thought that Social life is hidden historical truth, that is concealed by the bourgeois literature.
Considering the date of Yoem and Park in 1926, Yoem－Sang－Sub’s proletarian literature theory could give rise to new understanding the debate of Content and form in proletarian literature. Kim－Gi－Jin hold the identical views on the subject of th Content and form in novel with Yoem’views. Kim thought the novel is the mirror to the reproduce the reallife. and Kim thought that Social life is the subject matter for creating novel. As a result, kim’s view is no way out of the framework of content and form in novel, the modern perspective of literature. On the contrary, Park’s view has a possibility for getting out of the framework of this modern perspective.
Considering the date of Yoem and Park in 1926, Yoem－Sang－Sub’s proletarian literature theory could give rise to new understanding the debate of Content and form in proletarian literature. Kim－Gi－Jin hold the identical views on the subject of th Content and form in novel with Yoem’views. Kim thought the novel is the mirror to the reproduce the reallife. and Kim thought that Social life is the subject matter for creating novel. As a result, kim’s view is no way out of the framework of content and form in novel, the modern perspective of literature. On the contrary, Park’s view has a possibility for getting out of the framework of this modern perspective.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 신경향파 소설 독법의 두 가지 쟁점 : 염상섭과 박영희의 논쟁
3. 염상섭이라는 타자와 내용 형식 논쟁의 의미
4. 근대 소설의 문제틀과 프로문학의 고유성－맺음말을 대신하여
참고문헌
참고문헌 (28)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
역사적 건축물 보존에서 지구단위계획의 역할과 과제 : 인사동 지구단위계획 구역의 근대건축물을 대상으로
이범훈
,
김기호
국토계획
2015
.11
식민지 근대사회의 속물근성 연구 : 염상섭의『모란꽃 필 때』를 중심으로
전훈지
동서비교문학저널
2015
.04
염상섭 장편소설 〈불연속선〉 연구
김병구
우리문학연구
2015
.01
염상섭의 장편소설과 식민지 모던 걸의 서사학 : 『사랑과 죄』의 ‘모던 걸’ 재현 문제를 중심으로
이용희
동악어문학
2014
.02
한국 근ㆍ현대 소설사의 세 가지 패러다임 정립을 위한 시론 : 주체와 타자의 관계 양상을 중심으로
송지연
인문과학연구
2013
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-800-001628005