아나톨리 김을 어떻게 읽을 것인가? - 소비에트 비평의 곤경에 대하여

Abstract

In this paper, my intension is to demonstrate that what I term a critical

confusion" exists concerning the fantastic elements in Kims works. I review the current situation regarding critical studies of Kim. what call a certain critical confusion", exists regarding his work, a confusion which seems to stem mainly from serious terminological problems related to the critical language of the fantastic. I argue that a coherent critical theory is necessary in order to provide basic definitions, and thus make conceptual language both operational and useful. 1 would like to emphasize here that my study of Kim' s works is within the context of current literary theory. Critics, (most of whom are Russian) tend to apply practically any and all available concepts to their frequently judgemental readings of Kim. Almost all of these critical reactions are accompanied by two features

which are particularly often met with in discussions of the fantastic - quotation marks around basic terms and proliferation of critical notions. It becomes clear that the critical task must consist in dealing with what approach works specifically for Kim. Because it is crucial, because the acceptance of a given paradigm determines all later critical evaluations. Against this background of the proliferation of terminology, critics are agreed that Kims works belongs to fantastic literature, but they do not trace the links consistently. They tend to apply all possible notions in their attempts at pinpointing the exact character of Kims relation to the fantastic.

It is possible that by seeing how they justify the presence of the fantastic in Kims works in general, we can understand better their application of terminology