??? ?? ?(MONSIEUR LICHAN)? ???£­¡¸??? ??¡¹? ????£­ (The Writing of Novelist MONSIEUR LICHAN)

??? ??? ???(??)?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ? ??? ?????. ?? ??? ????? ???? ???, ? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????.
???? ??? ?? ???? ¡°??? ???¡±?? ¡°??¡±? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??. ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??. ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????, ??? ??? ???? ¡°??? ?¡±????? ¡°??? ?¡±??, ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??.
??? ??? ???? ¡°??? ?¡±??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???. ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ¡°???? ??¡±???? ¡°??¡±? ?????, ?? ??? ??? ?? ??(??)??? ???? ???? ???? ¡°???? ??¡±???? ¡°??¡±? ???? ????. ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??(??)??? ????.
?? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??, ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??(??) ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ???? ???? ? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ??. ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? French letter ? ? ??? ???. ? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ¡°??? ???¡±?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ?? ???.

Unlike Yi Kwang-su and Kim Dong-in who emphasized the author(autuer) as the father(origin) of literary works, Yi Sang showed one aspect of Korean colonial literature which shifted from ¡®work(oeuvre)¡¯ to ¡®text(texte)¡¯ by presenting the ironical relation between his hero and himself as a novelist. He introduced the paradoxical I-novel that concealed himself with exposing his own episodes. While it made representations to avoid constructing and controlling literary works, at the same time it also organized very complicated literary structures in order to hide writer`s personal experiences.
Therefore, Yi Sang`s life and texts stand against pursuing intelligence or logos executed through ¡°writing of zero degree(l`¨¦criture au degr¨¦ z¨¦ro).¡± They are not in the clear, transcendental, and hygienic positions, and this fact is to be the main reason why his literature is difficult to be understood. In this way, Yi Sang`s texts are more ¡°writerly(scriptible)¡± than ¡°readerly(lisible)¡±, which sometimes deny not only the separation of novelist from his characters but also division of novelist and his readers.
By the way, Yi Sang`s texts as ¡°the writerly¡± do not mean the structures unrelated with the representations. It is because Yi Sang was neither the ¡°writer(¨¦crivant)¡± as a ¡°transitive man(homme transitif)¡± who attached weight to reflection of the outer world, nor the ¡°author(¨¦crivain)¡± as a ¡°intransitive man¡± who absorbed in the construction of text with his representation(concealment) of his own living. Instead, the core of Yi Sang`s writing lies in the constant contacts(infections) of the transitive writing and the intransitive writing.
For practicing this sort of writings, Yi Sang used puns, foreign languages, and inter-textual citations. And by relating his private life with the world wide references and the representative(concealing) systems, the languages of Yi Sang not only separated his private experiences from himself and the real episodes but also liberated the texts from their interior with boring the closed boundaries. And it is the very meaning of Yi Sang`s French letters and their splits. With their creviced openings, Yi Sang`s literatures as the ¡°texts of jouissance¡± that preside the pleasure and the fear simultaneously will be read and written so many times transitively and intransitively.