NOTES
Chapter 1. Colonial Modernity and the Conundrum of Representation
1. Edward Said describes the “voyage- in” thus: “[It is a] powerful impingement, that
is the work of intellectuals from the colonial or peripheral regions who wrote in
an imperial language.” Culture and Imperialism, 243. See chapter 3: “Resistance and
Opposition,” particularly section 6, “Voyage In and the Emergence of Opposition,”
239– 61. Said is mindful of the moments of resistance and opposition to imperialism
produced from its margins. While my focus is on a wide range of complex affects,
not necessarily unequivocally resistant or oppositional, at work in the colonial
interaction, I hope to open up a space through the critical encounter in which to
read these affects oppositionally in order to critique imperial logic.
2. Many personal and place names are rendered simultaneously in Japanese and
Korean readings in this book because the Sino- Korean/Japanese characters may be
read as either/or. Unless marked by glosses by the author, their indeterminacy in
the majority of written texts is significant. The name is glossed as Bunkichi in “Aika”
but even in such cases, echoes of plural reading possibilities coexist.
3. The English translation by John Wittier Treat appears as part of a welcome retro-
spective on Yi Kwangsu. I have relied on Treat’s masterful translation here with
some minor modifications. Yi Kwangsu, “Maybe Love (Ai ka),” in Azalea. This
passage is from 321– 22. For the Korean translation, see Yi Kwangsu, “Saranginga,”
translated by Kim Yunsik, in Munhak sasang, 442– 46.
4. I discuss intimate textual and metatextual intercourse or interconnections through-
out the book. By metatextual intercourse, I am referring to the text’s intimate
relationship to extratextual elements beyond the narrative content such as the
language and form in which the story was written as well as broader transnational
historical contexts and social circumstances within which the text was produced
and consumed.
Previous Page Next Page