![]()
Map 1 East Asia
![]()
Map 2 North Korea
![]()
Map 3 Central Pyongyang
![]()
Critical introduction from Adam Zulawnik
The following highly annotated English edition of Talbuk Yeong’ung Samsib Sam’in Teukbyeol Inteobyu originally in Korean by Lim Il, who is himself a North Korean defector, was first published by ByBooks in South Korea at the end of 2019.
There is almost as much context to the English edition as there is to the 34 candid interviews with North Korean defector-residents contained therein. 2020 saw the introduction of a new unit I designed at Monash University Korean Studies: ATS3321 Korean Research Project. Coming from a Translation Studies background myself (Korean and Japanese), I wanted to try and find a way to engage advanced and heritage students in Korean Studies in a project that would hit a sweet spot – a combination of language, content, and research-focused study. Ultimately, however, I wanted to achieve much more than this – I wanted to give students the invaluable opportunity to publish their work, a goal that is difficult to achieve within the domain of translation, as group work is often challenging. A novel, for example, would almost surely sound broken and disorganised, whilst a compilation of poetry and prose would run the risk of disengaging students. I needed something that would engage students, be of interest to publishers, and feature a multitude of voices. And, most importantly, make a valuable contribution within academia within the field of Korean Studies and beyond.
Specialising in the development and implementation of translation methodology for “controversial” writing such as political and historical texts, I did a survey of the publishing market for interviews with North Korean defectors, only to realise that there was a rather noticeable void here. Yes, there are some accounts of life in North Korea available in English; however, they either have been rewritten (and often somewhat dramatised) by Anglophone authors or “aids” or are presented by scholars in an already heavily processed, subjective format. In other words, there was not much in terms of primary sources and candid “from the horse’s mouth” materials. Thus, I was in great luck to discover that author Lim Il had just published Talbuk Yeong’ung Samsib Sam’in Teukbyeol Inteobyu with the South Korean publisher, ByBooks. I immediately contacted ByBooks and soon secured a digital copy of the publication for review. The book, which originally features interviews with 33 prominent North Korean defectors residing in South Korea, was just what I had been looking for in terms of theme, scale, and veracity.
ByBooks were happy for me to proceed with the English edition project and, together with my Research Assistant, Joey Chan (an excellent Master’s of Interpreting and Translation Studies student at Monash), we translated the first two chapters and preface as part of a book proposal. The translation approach, which was key to the project, is based on my earlier research (Zulawnik, 2018; 2020), where I argue that the translation of so called “controversial” texts is an important activity in promoting intercultural understanding and extending constructive debates regarding pressing issues. In that sense, the following critically annotated and expanded English edition may be seen as a prime example of my methodology and approach.
Whether it be politics or humanitarian issues, scholarly opinion on the realities of the Democratic Republic of Korea varies greatly. The aim of this English edition, however, is not to try and “sway” readers either way or convince them that things are a certain way – that the DPRK is “hell” or “heaven” on earth, but so as to provide a candid and revealing glimpse at what prominent North Korean defectors residing in South Korea have to say about life in the North and, just as importantly, now in the South. In that sense, this book is unique, in that it provides a rather detailed survey of both sides of the won, so to speak.
A few things must be noted about the English edition. The translation methodology falls within what may be broadly called a “foreignising” and “documentary” translation approach, whereby the translator works to retain features of the source text that may be seen as particularly significant to the source culture (Nord, 1991/2001; Venuti, 2004). This is opposed to a “domesticating” approach, where the translator prioritises target text readability, sometimes sacrificing certain source text features.
The Korean edition, although published in South Korea by a South Korean publisher, with South Korean spelling and spacing rules, has been, nevertheless, written by a North Korean defector-resident based on interviews with fellow North Korean defector-residents. Subsequently, as the students involved in the project soon discovered, the book exhibits a unique style which, during an interview (included as exclusive content at the end of this translation), Mr Lim confirmed to be “Northern.” The interview with Mr Lim revealed that South Korean readerships provided similar feedback – the vocabulary, sentence structure, and expressions were seen as “peculiar.” When asked about how he would like for me to notify readers about this, Mr Lim stated, “please include a note saying that the Korean edition was written by a North Korean defector-resident and thus in a ‘Northern style’.”
To give a prime and very important example from this English edition, the North Korean terms for South and North Korea are nam-joseon and buk-joseon, respectively. In this translation, this has been foreignised as South Joseon and North Joseon. This is in contrast to the most commonly used terms in South Korea, which are nam-han and buk-han. The latter have been translated as they normally would in English, South Korea and North Korea (as opposed to South Han and North Han, respectively), as the book is written by a North Korean defector-resident within a South Korean consumer market, where the terms do not seem unusual or foreign.
Translation is sometimes referred to as “impossible” – the idea of formal equivalence, that text from language A can be perfectly reproduced in language B, has been long abandoned. What I argue a translator can achieve, however, is guidance in the understanding of discourse, through active preservation of the signified–signifier chain.
Finally, it should be noted that the translated material contains absolutely no supplementary information in-text. All translator input has been placed within Translator Notes (TNs) which were carefully designed so as to be informative, but not prescriptive. The purpose of the English edition should, therefore, be seen as that of an informative resource for further analysis, close to that of a primary source, with the addition of helpful new content in the form of contextual information, maps, and an interview with the author of the Korean edition, Lim Il. It must also be noted that the content of the translated material does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the translators. The facilitation of fair discussion (and potential conflict resolution) requires what I term “contraverse,” or the discussion of perceived “controversies.” If this is to be achieved, there ought to be more effort put into the translation of a variety of opinions, from across the discursive spectrum. It is my great hope that this book shall serve as example.
Adam Zulawnik
November 2020
![]()
Source text introduction by Lim Il
There may be readers who upon glancing at the title of this book, wonder just why it contains exactly 33 interviews. 2019 marks the 100th anniversary of the March 1st Movement, which declared Korea’s independence from Japanese colonial occupation and was the catalyst of the Korean Independence Movement.1
1 March 1st Movement (Kr. sam’il undong, 삼일 운동, 三日運動), also known as the Sam-il Movement, was one of the earliest public displays of Korean resistance during the period of Japanese colonisation. The event occurred on March 1, 1919, and may be literally translated as Three-One Movement.
The March 1st Movement was a resistance movement of unprecedented scale in world history. The signing of the Korean Declaration of Independence by the 33 Korean activist leaders leading the movement ignited a nationwide patriotic uprising against the oppression of Japanese Imperialism. Whilst the merit of their actions may be debated upon evaluation from a historical perspective, one cannot deny that the 33 activist leaders played a pivotal role in Korea’s Independence Movement.
A hundred years ago, there were 33 activist leaders who devoted themselves to the cause of independence on a Korean Peninsula that was still under Japanese Imperial rule.2 Following the example of these great individuals, it is only right that today we present the voices of 33 North Korean defector-residents who have committed and continue to commit indomitable effort to the cause of peaceful reunification on the Korean Peninsula – our long-cherished wish of almost 100 years.3
2 Korean Peninsula (Kr. hanbando, 한반도, 韓半島) is the term used in South Korea to refer to the Korean Peninsula. This is in contrast to Joseon Peninsula (Kr. joseon bando, 조선반도, 朝鮮半島), the term used in the North, where there is an avoidance of the character han (Kr. 한, 韓), as it is reminiscent of the Korean Empire (Kr. daehan jeguk, 대한제국, 大韓帝國) and, thus, imperialism.
3 North Korean defector-resident (Kr. talbukmin, 탈북민, 脫北民) is one of the many naming terms that refer to North Korean defectors, where talbuk (Kr. 탈북, 脫北) means escape the North and min (Kr. 민, 民) refers to people or person, which connotes a sense of national pride and community.
In order to make collective achievements at a societal level, humans, as social creatures, look to flagbearers to lead and guide them to the frontline. In order to be a successful leader, this flagbearer must be recognised as a fine individual by those around him.
Approximately 33,000 North Korean defector-residents have fled to South Korea since the North–South armistice of 1953. Amongst these courageous and righteous individuals, I selected 33 of whom to include in this book as exemplars of patriotic spirit in their yearning for reunification and the passion with which they live their new lives. That is a ratio of 1,000 to 1.
One might say that the wish for reunification held by 70 million Koreans only exists in imagination. Even if that may be the case, the Korean people will continue to carry hope and stride towards this future ...
