韩中日文学中“万宝山事件”的小说化研究

发布时间：2018-03-23 09:03

本文选题：“万宝山事件”　切入点：认同性　出处：《延边大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：“万宝山事件”发生于1931年,宣告日本的对华侵略扩张全面拉开序幕。这一事件由于牵扯到中国人、日本人、韩国人,事件发生后成为中国、日本、韩国的作家们多部小说的素材。如李辉英的《万宝山》、伊藤永之介的《万宝山》、安寿吉的《水稻》、李泰俊的《农军》等。这些作品同样以“万宝山事件”为素材,却由于作者对事件的认识与理解不同,对事件的描述也存在不少相异点。归根结底,是作者的认同性决定了作者看待事件的立场。因此,从历史事件与文学作品的互文性入手,比较上述作品能够阐明在日帝殖民统治这一特定环境下中韩日作家对民族、国家、阶级等方面的认同性问题。但是就先行研究成果而言,对上述个别作品的研究已经取得不少成果,将上述作品置于同一地平线上加以比较的研究成果却不多。本文以上述中韩日作家以“万宝山事件”为素材的作品为研究对象,着重考察文学作品与事件的异同点,从而阐明作家的阶级认同性、民族认同性、国家认同性对作家们认识和处理历史事件的视角和立场造成的影响。基于上述研究目的,本论文将从以下三个部分展开论述。首先,根据相关的历史资料和研究成果,尽力还原“万宝山事件”‘的真相。这是本论文的前提。因为,只有尽可能客观充实地还原历史事件的真相,才能查明不同的作家对事件的认识以及在作品中的处理。第二,对“万宝山事件”在中韩日三国小说中的艺术形象化进行探讨和对比,阐明不同身份的作家对同一历史事件的不同处理。第三,从历史与文学的互文性入手,阐明阶级身份、民族身份、国家身份对作家认识和解释历史事件的过程中引发的影响。概而言之,中国作家李辉英的《万宝山》是作者立足于阶级身份对“万宝山事件”的解释,而日本无产阶级作家伊藤永之介立足于阶级立场,但是其作为日本人的国家认同性也影响到其对“万宝山事件”的解释。而韩国作家安寿吉和李泰俊,则基本立足于民族立场,解释“万宝山事件”。但是由于两位作者对民族矛盾的视角不同,两者解读事件的视角也存在相异点。
[Abstract]:The "Mount Marlborg incident", which occurred in 1931, declared that Japan's invasion and expansion of China began in full swing. This incident involved the Chinese, the Japanese, the Korean, and after the incident it became China, Japan, Korean writers have many novel materials, such as Li Huiying's Mount Marlboro, Ito Yong-suke 's Marlboro Mountain, an Shouji's Rice, Li Taijun's Agricultural Army, and so on. These works are also based on the "Mount Marlborg incident," but due to the author's different understanding and understanding of the event, there are many differences in the description of the event. It is the identity of the author that determines the author's position on the matter. Therefore, from the perspective of the intertextuality of historical events and literary works, the comparison of the above works can illustrate the relationship between Chinese, Korean and Japanese writers against the nation and country under the specific environment of the colonial rule of the Japanese Emperor. The problem of class identity. However, as far as the first research results are concerned, a lot of achievements have been made in the study of the above mentioned individual works, and the results of comparing the above works on the same horizon are few. This paper focuses on the similarities and differences between literary works and events in order to clarify the class identity and national identity of the writers, taking the above-mentioned works of the Chinese, Korean and Japanese writers as the research objects, which are based on the "Marlboro incident", and focuses on the similarities and differences between the literary works and the events. The influence of national identity on the perspective and position of writers to understand and deal with historical events. For the above purpose, this paper will be discussed from the following three parts. First of all, according to the relevant historical data and research results, try to restore the truth of the "Mount Marlborg incident". This is the premise of this paper. In order to find out the different writers' understanding of events and how they are handled in their works. Secondly, it discusses and compares the artistic visualization of Marlboro Mountain incident in the novels of China, Korea and Japan, and clarifies the different handling of the same historical events by writers of different identities. Thirdly, starting with the intertextuality of history and literature, this paper clarifies the influence of class identity, national identity and national identity on the writers' understanding and interpretation of historical events. To sum up, Chinese writer Li Huiying's Marlboro Mountain is the author's interpretation of the "Marlboro incident" based on his class identity, while Japanese proletarian writer Ito Yutsuke is based on the class position. However, his national identity as a Japanese also affected his interpretation of the "Marlborough incident." Korean writers Anshouji and Lee Tae-joon, on the other hand, were basically based on their national position. But because the two authors have different perspectives on the ethnic contradictions, there are also differences in the interpretation of the incident between the two authors.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：I106.4-03

【参考文献】