이 글은 우리들의 심청읽기가 심청을 진정으로 재현해 내지 못하고 있다는 반성으로부터 시작되었다. 이 글에선 선행 연구 성과들을 긍정적으로 수용하였다. 최인훈의 희곡이 재현하려는 당대적 진실들을 밝혔다. 또 그것이 어떤 의의를 갖는지에 대해 설명했다. 먼저 논의의 대전제인 재현 방식으로서의 미메시스와 환타지에 대해 그 대략을 짚었다. 2장에서는 언어와 주체의 관계를 중심으로 심청의 재현이 어떤 방식으로 이뤄지고 있는지를 살폈다. 이를 통해 최인훈이 재현하려는 지점들과 우리들의 해석이 만날 수 있었다. 이 만남은 우리에게 심청이 진정하게 재현되었는지, 우리가 그들(심청과 최인훈)을 제대로 재현하였는지에 대해 반성하도록 이끌었다. 당초 <달아 달아···>는 작가가 심청의 고뇌와 절규를 경험하고 재현한 것이 아니다. 그것은 <달아 달아···>가 최인훈의 경험을 전이한 것이 아니라는 의미이다. 그런데 우리에게 고전 <심청전>의 서사는 최인훈의 언어로 옮겨져 경험된다. 동시에 최인훈의 언어가 고전 <심청전>을 읽는 우리의 경험을 이끄는 일도 일어난다. 시간적인 연속을 역행하는 이런 일은 우리가 고전 <심청전>과 최인훈의 <달아 달아···>를 한 곳에 동시에 놓고 봄으로써 가능하다. 우리는 최인훈의 언어로 심청을 경험하는 동시에 고전 <심청전>의 언어로 최인훈의 언어를 겪는다. 결국 이런 쌍방향적인 경험의 과정과 대화적 관계 속에서 고전서사와 최인훈은 서로를 재현하며, 우리는 우리 앞에 펼쳐지는 그런 재현의 과정 속에서 그것들이 새로운 진실을 드러내는 기제들로 거듭나는 것을 보게 된다. 그리하여 최인훈과 우리는 서로 어떤 동일화의 관계에 있다기보다 주권적 주체로서 재현의 진정성을 찾는 계기들을 갖게 된다.

This writing began from the reflection that our Sim Cheong reading doesn't represent the real Sim Cheong. For this, it accepted the preceding study results positively. It revealed the truth of that times that Choi In Hun's play was trying to represent. Also, It explained about what it meant. In the second chapter, it gave an outline of mimesis and fantasy in the representation way, In the third chapter, it showed that which way Sim Cheong's representation was made up, centering around the relationship of language and subject. Through this, our interpretation could meet Choi In Hun's representing points. This meeting led us to reflect if Sim Cheong was represented truly and if we represented them (Sim Cheong and Choi In Hun) correctly. At first, <Dal Ah Dal Ah Balgeun Dal Ah> is not the thing which the writer experience and represent Sim Cheong's suffering and exclamation. That means <Dal Ah Dal Ah...> doesn't transfer Choi In Hun's experience. By the way, We experienced <Sim Cheong Jeon> with Choi In Hun's language. At the some time, it happens that Choi In Hun's language leads our experience reading classic <Sim Cheong Jeon>. This thing which is going back to the succession of time is able to see the same place of classic <Sim Cheong Jeon> and <Dal Ah Dal Ah...> at the same time. We experience Sim Cheong with Choi In Hun's language and Choi In Hun's language with the language of classic <Sim Cheong Jeon> at the same time. Eventually, the classic narration and Choi In Hun represent each other in this both sides experience process and dialogic relationship. We can see the new truth in the process of such representation in front of our eyes. This, Choi In Hun and we have chances that find the truth of representation as the subject of sovereign power rather than a certain identifying relationship.

This writing began from the reflection that our Sim Cheong reading doesn't represent the real Sim Cheong. For this, it accepted the preceding study results positively. It revealed the truth of that times that Choi In Hun's play was trying to represent. Also, It explained about what it meant. In the second chapter, it gave an outline of mimesis and fantasy in the representation way, In the third chapter, it showed that which way Sim Cheong's representation was made up, centering around the relationship of language and subject. Through this, our interpretation could meet Choi In Hun's representing points. This meeting led us to reflect if Sim Cheong was represented truly and if we represented them (Sim Cheong and Choi In Hun) correctly. At first, <Dal Ah Dal Ah Balgeun Dal Ah> is not the thing which the writer experience and represent Sim Cheong's suffering and exclamation. That means <Dal Ah Dal Ah...> doesn't transfer Choi In Hun's experience. By the way, We experienced <Sim Cheong Jeon> with Choi In Hun's language. At the some time, it happens that Choi In Hun's language leads our experience reading classic <Sim Cheong Jeon>. This thing which is going back to the succession of time is able to see the same place of classic <Sim Cheong Jeon> and <Dal Ah Dal Ah...> at the same time. We experience Sim Cheong with Choi In Hun's language and Choi In Hun's language with the language of classic <Sim Cheong Jeon> at the same time. Eventually, the classic narration and Choi In Hun represent each other in this both sides experience process and dialogic relationship. We can see the new truth in the process of such representation in front of our eyes. This, Choi In Hun and we have chances that find the truth of representation as the subject of sovereign power rather than a certain identifying relationship.