|
The
Impact of Censorship on Modern Cambodian Literature
Although a frequent trope for
Southeast Asia is “crossroads of the world[i]”
the region remains undiscovered for most academics in the disciplines of Asian,
world, and comparative literatures. For
them, Southeast Asia’s existence as a literary domain remains unmapped and
unproblematized, while the literatures of East and South Asia exert a colonizing
influence over both public consciousness and academic discourse. One factor for
this elision is Southeast Asia’s complex literary landscape. The sheer number
of its nations and their linguistic constituencies make it a daunting field of
inquiry. Whatever the cause,
Southeast Asia’s modern literature remains the least anthologized in either
Asian or World literature collections. [ii]
I suggest that
an analytical frame for the region would assist in the goal of introjecting
Southeast Asian literature into contemporary academic discourse on Asian and
World literatures. Among the
contradictory bricolage of current literary theories, ranging from structuralist
to post-colonial, Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production provides one
possible solution, especially in the context of state censorship and literary
production, a problematic issue found in all Southeast Asian nations. (1993).[iii]
According to Bourdieu, the field of literary production is situated
within and relationally subordinate to the field of power, which includes such
factors as State censorship. I define the “State” in the context of literary
production as the dominant player in the field of power in terms of the
following factors: its synergistic deployment of censorship laws and the
violence or intimidation necessary to enforce them; ideology; control or
manipulation of literary prizes; economic
sponsorship and legitimization of writers’ organizations; and economic and
political constraints on publishers and publications.
In Bourdieu’s
scenario, a writer’s product will be positioned in the field of literature
somewhere along the continuum of art for art’s sake to social art, according
to the degree and design of state domination. The state may deploy a synergistic
strategy of economic, legal and ideological dimensions or may resort to
violence, thus manipulating writers through coercion or accommodation to produce
a “politically correct” literature, that is one in which criticism of the
State has been elided or so encoded that it remains undetected and uncensored.
Writers who refuse to be intimidated, or who situate themselves on the margins
of political correctness, do so at their own risk.
One common
literary response of tenacious writers has been to produce politically encoded
literature, often so cryptically or allegorically written as to be opaque to
outsiders. In any case, whether
blatantly oppositional, politically correct, or deeply encoded, literary content
and technique of craft are often influenced by State power.
This influence occurs throughout Southeast Asia, albeit in different
degrees in different nations at different historical junctures. Modern Southeast
Asian nations may also have historical moments of comparative literary autonomy
when the relationship of State power to the literary field remains either weak
or disinterested. At these times, a writer may create freely without fear of
State reprisal; although the same author’s safety may change later in tandem
with altered historical and political circumstances. This pattern of censorship and literary repression is also
seen in East and South Asia.
*
*
*
Cambodia’s
literary history provides fertile ground for a case-study application of
Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production and its relation to State power. In
fact, Cambodia may be an extreme example in Southeast Asia of the negative, or
rather crushing, influence State censorship can exert on the development of
literary arts. Cambodia’s
literary productivity, educational system, and publication industry have yet to
recover from the Pol Pot era, dragging down the country’s economic viability.
A March 2002 project synopsis from the Center for Khmer Studies on the
current state of publishing in Cambodia notes the following:
“There
is a crisis in publishing in Cambodia that has severe negative effects on the
educational system and impedes the proper flow of intellectual knowledge and
information in all fields. There is an imbalance in the scholarly material
written about Cambodia, too: most such materials were written and published
abroad in foreign languages, not Khmer. These problems are evident at all points
of the process: writing new texts or translating texts from other languages;
editing, designing, printing, and publishing books; and marketing, distributing,
reading, and storing books.”[iv]
The lesson here is for the
State: too much censorship is economically counterproductive.
In
general, Cambodia follows the historical pattern of other SEA nations in its
development of modern literature. Like
Laos, however, its development was delayed into the 1940s, quite late when
compared to the emergence of modern literature in Vietnam, Thailand and Burma,
which occurred during the late nineteenth century.[v]
Irrespective of this relative delay, Cambodia shares a similar pattern of
literary development with other SEA nations: there must be independent printing
presses, a written national language, an educated middle class along with a
developing public school system, and an aesthetic influence from modern Western
and East Asian literary genres. Its
initial development also requires that writers remain relatively free of State
censorship, enabling them to create in multiple directions across a wide range
of literary possibilities, from social to apolitical content and experimental
forms.
Cambodia
also shares a similar pattern of censorship in Southeast Asia.
This pattern takes the following form: the “independent” nation-state
typically emerges, in part, through the utilization and promotion of its
creative writers who are frequently journalists.
They are willing, and often inspired, to write on behalf of their
country’s independence project and its hegemonic need to establish a public
consensus through the construction of a national identity. After this honeymoon
period, the State becomes hostile to these writers as soon as they turn their
talent towards criticism of State management, typically its misuse of funds,
friends, and power. The State then
imposes various practices of censorship to maintain its hegemony.
Examples of this are bountiful in SEA: Indonesia’s New Order regime;
North Vietnam’s Socialist government, Burma’s SLORC, Singapore’s
“theoretical” democracy.
Censorship in
Cambodia began under the French who hindered the introduction of popular
printing presses and the training of journalists during the 1920s—factors
needed for the development of modern literature— and then exerted strict
censorship on newspaper content in the 1930s. (Amratisha 77; Mehta 1997)
This French delay of print technology affected the development of modern
literature since it was the Khmer-language newspapers that would first publish
serialized novels and short stories to a growing literate Khmer, middle-class
audience.[vi]
(Amratisha 45, 47)
This delay was
exacerbated from 1943-1945 when the French colonialists tried to implement a
romanized script for Khmer, hoping to emulate the success of Vietnamese quoc
ngu script for the modernization of
Viet Nam. (Chandler 1991: 15; Amratisha 89) This romanized Khmer met with
great resistance and was finally dropped; but this failed experiment impeded the
process of literacy in a country already lagging behind most of Southeast Asia.
(Sharma 147) The French were also very interested in Khmer classical texts, an
absorption said to preclude the fostering of modern literature.
To be fair, the French l’Institute Bouddhique in Phnom Penh did
establish the first literary prizes and publish some information on an emerging
Khmer modern literature in their journal Kambujasuriya
. (Amratisha 79) The l’Institute Bouddhique was also the first organization in
Cambodia to publish a modern Khmer novel (Pisac Sneha; Kulap Pailin,
Kambul Kamsat; Kambul Sneha) in serialized form, as well as a number of
modern Khmer plays. (81, 90) This
was accomplished during WWII with paper shortages and high printing costs.
Irrespective of
these multiple obstacles, the first experimentally modern Khmer novels were
written and self-published during the late 1930s. They emerged through the desire of their authors to create a
modern Khmer fiction in an urban market place already saturated with modern
Vietnamese and Chinese novels[vii]
(Amratisha 63-68) and in response to a colonial school system with French
instruction in the 19th century romantic literature of France (Amratisha
57). These modern Khmer writers were ashamed that Cambodia had no modern
literature. (83, 85, 100) In this
new literary field with a small literate audience, these emerging novelists
experienced relative autonomy since they were not yet influential enough to be
noticed by the Vichy French regime which had begun to censor and shut down Khmer
newspapers during W.W. II. (Amratisha, 87)
Following a developmental pattern similar to other SEA authors at the
initial stage of modern writing, their concern was on form and language, such as
the shift from verse to colloquial prose. Their
first attempts were largely socially critical romantic novels exploring a modern
Cambodian identity in terms of realistic human experience. (Amratisha 49, 99,
161) This period, from the late 1930s through Cambodia’s
independence from the French in 1953 is perhaps the most freely creative and
experimental era in the history of modern Cambodian literature. (Vickery 1990;
Bitard 1955) The uniqueness and
freshness of this literature remains unsurpassed in Cambodia’s subsequent
history.
After the
French returned in 1946 they allowed the formation of political parties,
elections, and the development of a constitution.
The 1947 Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression, which appears to
have encouraged Khmer writers. (Amratisha 91) Novels were now being serialized
in Khmer language newspapers which flourished during this period, especially
after 1949 when all educational institutions were transferred from French to
Cambodian control and Khmer language became more important.
Creative
autonomy was short-lived. Most of
the early experimental novelists stopped writing after Cambodia’s independence
from France, largely because of political reasons. (161-62) It appears to have
ended in 1955 with Prince Sihanouk’s successful subversion of Cambodia’s
first pro-democracy movement, led by the Khmer Independence Party under the
direction of newspaper publisher, journalist and creative writer Son Ngoc Thanh.
With this political co-option, Sihanouk ushered in a period of social and
political control until he was deposed in 1970.
The Sihanouk
era is symbolized by his new organization, the Sangkum Reastr Niyam (Popular
Socialist Community). (Sharma 71) In
contrast to Thailand and Vietnam, an effective public school system with
instruction in Khmer developed very slowly so that a middle-class audience
interested in literature only began to emerge in the late 1940s and 1950s. An
interest in the new novel and short fiction, typically published in various
Khmer language newspapers, met the demands of a growing literary public in the
1950s. Finally in the 1960s, a
literary public emerged that showed a strong preference for escapist fiction and
romance. A crucial growth stage in Cambodia’s modern literary development,
over 1,000 novels would be published during these two decades.
At first
glance, all may seem well for the autonomy of Cambodia’s new literary field of
production during the Sangkum period (1955-1970). Sihanouk successfully expanded social and educational
development along with literacy programs throughout the country, creating an
audience interested in the new literature.
A closer look, however, reveals the political manipulation of writers by
State ideology. Sanjeev Sharma
describes Sangkum ideology as “nationalism, loyalty to the monarch, a struggle
against injustice and corruption,” and protection of a Buddhist religion which
accepted social inequalities as legitimate because of the workings of karma.
(71) Although state ideology
advocated the struggle against injustice and corruption, Sihanouk’s regime was
noted for its “vanity, eccentricity, and intolerance to dissent” riddled
with “unbridled greed and corruption inspired by a foreign policy motivated by
opportunism rather than a desire to preserve national independence.” (70)
The Sangkum era was a time of serious restrictions on freedom of speech,
as Sihanouk brooked no opposition, even if his critics posed little political
threat. (Martin 1994; Mehta 1997; Chandler 1993)
“Freedom of speech and writing, a right guaranteed in the constitution,
was not officially interpreted as including the right to question or criticize
his policies and the Sangkum government” (Amratisha 172).
Writers during
this period were often actively associated with political parties. Their fiction
was published in party newspapers, the major venue for short fiction and
serialized novels. Mehta relates a
1960-incident involving, Khieu Samphan, the founder of the newspaper
L’Observateur: “Sihanouk could not tolerate gratuitous criticism from young
French-educated political activists in their columns. As a result Samphan’s humiliation began on April 13, 1960,
when he was riding his motorcycle near the police headquarters in Phnom Penh.
He was stopped and taunted by the police agents, stripped and
photographed in the nude” (1).
Sihanouk was
especially antagonistic to the Pracheachon Party since some members of the
communist Khmer Peoples Revolutionary Party (KPRP) had become affiliated with
it. (Sharma 89) In order to control
writers and align them with his political agenda, he became the patron of
literature. He provided political,
social and financial support to members of the Association of Khmer Writers (AKW)
as the organization’s honorary president. He presented some politicians who were members of the
association with political positions in his government.
The first literary competition of the AKW, the Indradevi Literary
Competition, was held in the royal palace in 1961, financially supported by the
Prince. During his speech at his
event, Sihanouk informed the writers that they must take every opportunity to
support government policy, yet if they described political ideologies in their
writings, their works would not be considered literature. (Amratisha 174) In
spite of Sihanouk’s control of the field of literary production through both
his sponsorship and censorship, he created what Cambodian scholar Khing Hoc Dy
considers the period of full cultural development for the Khmer novel. (Khing
Hoc Dy 1978). It also ushered in
the era of politically correct fiction in the form of the historical novel.
Frequently dedicated to Prince Sihanouk, they typically extolled the
glories of Angkor, and the current monarchy’s commitment to the betterment of
Cambodia. The reading public became conditioned to this type of nation-building
literature that reflected the glories of the Angkorean past.
(Amratisha 176)
After the new
press law in 1957, there were essentially no political or socially critical
novels, nor new creative developments in psychological depth of character
development or literary form. Permission
to publish any book had to be obtained through the Ministry of Information,
which clearly approved only pro-Sihanouk literature.
The few novels that were critical of the monarchy and published
clandestinely were banned or the writers arrested. (180).
Soth Polin was able to get several of his socially critical novels
published (Jivit It Nay, “Life without Sense” and Anak Phsan Bren Arat Aray,
“The Anarchist”) by disguising them as sentimental novels dedicated
to Prince Sihanouk. Piat describes
popular literature of this period as an escapist, melodramatic literature,
rarely portraying contemporary society; and if portrayed, only through
stereotypical characters devoid of self-reflection or psychological depth. (257,
259) As the country devolved into civil war in 1967 and 1968, the government
implemented strict censorship measures against both Communist and progressive
thinkers. As all private newspapers
were shut down, a number of writers, including Laing Peng Siek, stopped
producing fiction to protest such strict censorship. (181)
In 1970 while
on a trip abroad, Sihanouk’s regime was dramatically deposed by a quiet coup
under the direction of U.S.-backed General Lon Nol.
State ideology was reshaped to support the new agenda as Lon Nol worked
to undo the socialist economic policies of Sihanouk, which he believed had
impeded economic development. (Sharma 76, 89) Yet Lon Nol’s government had the
reputation of being equally corrupt as it ineffectually engaged in a full-blown
civil war with the encroaching Khmer Rouge.
In a familiar pattern, writers were encouraged to criticize the previous
regime as corrupt and decadent. Tomoko
Okada reports that during this period writer Khun Srun “was imprisoned for
half a year in 1971, because his integrity and honesty kept him from accepting a
conciliatory gesture of the new government that needed him.” (2001: 23)
There was pressure for the literary allegiance of a small number of
popular writers. After a year in power, Lon Nol’s policy toward literature
mimicked Prince Sihanouk’s repression of socially critical fiction directed
against the current government. (Amratisha 182) His control over the Khmer Republic was disintegrating;
paper had to be imported since the only paper factory was now in an enemy zone.
Martial law was declared in 1973 and all private newspapers forced to
suspend publication (184). Adventure,
mystery and sentimental novels were safe and popular with the readers living in
the midst of an emerging dystopia.
The appearance
of black-clad Khmer Rouge cadres in Phnom Penh on April 17, 1975 signified the
end of Lon Nol who had already resigned and fled the country on April 1.
Year Zero of Democratic Kampuchea had begun.
Sharma reports that the “Khmer Rouge attempted to change Cambodian
society to an extent that is unmatched in post World War II history.” (91) The
Khmer Rouge emptied the cities in an attempt “to eliminate the bourgeoisie,
capitalist, and feudal classes of the previous society.” (91)
The “new people” from the cities, now treated as slave labor, were
all suspect in contrast to the more trustworthy “old people,” the poor and
middle class peasants who had remained in the countryside throughout the civil
war years. (92) Although the ideology of the Khmer rouge was to pursue
“equality among the people,” they produced new class distinctions.
Family members were promoted to influential positions in the new
government, a trait previously seen in former Cambodian governments. (Kiernan
1996)
The Khmer Rouge
period (1975-79) illustrates an
extreme example of how State power can so contract the cultural space for a
writer’s autonomy of expression as to halt all literary activity. (Thion 1993)
The range of literature was limited to certain revolutionary songs defined by
the State as products in conformity with its definition of socialist realism and
forced confessions, which appear to have become the popular literature of the
Khmer Rouge. (Chandler 1999) To establish their new Cambodia, Angka executed
thousands of teachers and set up new “schools” for children that taught only
the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic, essentially leaving an entire
generation of Khmer children illiterate. (Sharma 93, 151; Vickery 1990)
Although Khmer
Rouge cadres would conspicuously display confiscated ballpoint pens in their
shirt pockets as a symbol of power; they did not like writers, who were found
mostly among the bourgeois new people. Only a score of writers and intellectuals
survived this experience of starvation, disease, starvation, torture and
execution. When the Vietnamese
finally overthrew the Pol Pot regime in 1979, many of the surviving writers fled
to France where over the next several decades they would develop a distinct
Cambodian literary tradition in exile.[viii]
(Khing 1994) A few writers eventually relocated to the United States,
such as Soth Polin and U Sam Oer, but they would have difficulty publishing
their works due to a small literate population interested in Khmer fiction in
the United States.[ix]
The remaining handful of well-known literary survivors became part of the new
government established by the Vietnamese as the People’s Republic of Kampuchea
(PRK). (Khing 1994) One of the first actions of the new government of anti-Khmer
Rouge Cambodians under President Heng Samrin was to sign a twenty-five year
Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with Vietnam followed by other
agreements of cooperation on economic, cultural, educational and other sectors.
Although Heng
Samrin set out to restore social and economic stability, the intellectual
capital of Cambodia had been nearly destroyed and the material infrastructure
dismantled. Most of the educated
elite had been murdered or fled and the government had to expend energy it could
ill afford on combating Pol Pot insurgencies along the Thai border.
It also had to contend with dissension from a pro-Lon Nol Khmer Peoples
National Liberation Front (KPNFL) and a weaker pro-Sihanouk faction. The
socialist agenda once against constrained literature in a politically correct
mode, this time towards the prescriptions of socialist realism.
Since all published novels had to be approved by a state agency and
produced through state publishing houses, politically correct, social realist
novels occupied the entire field of Cambodia’s literary production during the
1980s. (Khing 1994) One exception is Vandy Koan’s “Devils Island,” a
cleverly disguised allegory of state corruption, which slipped by the censor’s
gaze. (Okada 1998)
When Cambodia
finally regained more literary independence during the UNTAC era, mass media was
introduced. A new generation of
writers, born after 1975 with little memory of the Khmer Rouge era, began to
publish short fiction in the scores of newspapers that began to flourish.
Tomoko Okada describes these works as “often overlooked or ignored
because they are not significant for the canon”; yet they are ethnographically
relevant. (2001: 24)
Television and karaoke have replaced literature as a form of popular
entertainment in Cambodia. Writers
tend to produce scripts for television productions since these are much more
lucrative than novels. Newspapers
flourished in the mid-1990s and provided a venue once again for serialized
novels and short stories, yet the quality remains comparatively low with a
penchant towards the pornographic. Literacy
rates remain a problem as the public education system is slowly rebuilt,
especially in the rural areas.
In 1997 Hun Sen
overthrew the democratically-elected government and currently exerts an
authoritarian control over censorship and the judicial system, having recently
issued an indict to shut down all karaoke businesses, discos and bars, and
banned western dress on television shows. (Seth Mydans, 2002)
The depiction of the Khmer Rouge era in contemporary history books is
still being debated, with Phnom Penh youth first learning about this history
from a rap song on an illegally marketed rap CD by Long Beach rapper Prac Ly.
The Phnom Penh Post has recently reported that well-known novelist Kong
Bunchoeun is writing a fictionalized version of the acid-attack incident on his
16-year-old niece, former mistress of Council of Ministers Undersecretary of
State Svay Sitha. He states his
purpose:
“Cambodia
is a society that has lost any sense of morality, riven by violence and
injustice….By highlighting the case of Tat Samarina, we can hold up a mirror
to the ills affecting Cambodian society….The book is not a product of anger,
but for the purpose of educating girls not to become involved with married men
and to teach ‘first wives’ not to use violence against ‘second wives.’ (Bou
Saroeun and Phelim Kyne)
Kong Bunchoeun is reported to
have written over 130 “sentimental” novels since the 1960s and made a
“career” out of attempting to “highlight the problems of the poor.”
His current project follows a didactic trend also seen in short newspaper
fiction of the 1990s. (Yamada 2002).
The
current state of modern Cambodian literature is described in a document prepared
by the Literature Panel at a January 1999 Conference convened by the Center of
Khmer Studies in Siem Reap: “Although
Cambodia has a long and strong literary heritage, this has not passed through to
contemporary literature. There are
relatively few writers currently writing in Cambodia.
There are few literary groups to support them; it is hard for them to get
their works published, and when they do, few people to read it.” (Harrison and
Okada 1999)
*
*
*
Throughout this
essay, I have described the interplay between two relational fields according to
Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production: the field of power, defined in terms
of State censorship, and the field of literary production.
The field of literary production in a functional democracy would have
relative autonomy from State manipulation, and writers hypothetically would be
free to explore a range of literary options constructed along the spectrum of
art for its own sake and social art. Although
political regimes changed repeatedly during Cambodia’s modern history, the
only era in which a free range of literary possibilities existed for writers was
the earliest period of literary development between the late 1930’s and Prince
Sihanouk’s Sangkum era in 1955. One
reason for this early era’s relative freedom of expression is the absence of a
wider reading audience, Khmer language newspapers, and state recognition of a
modern literary tradition. Deemed
non-threatening or unimportant, writers were left alone to create in an
unimpeded manner.
This period of experimentation ended with the
Sangkum era and the instigation of the politically correct sentimental and
historical novel, 1955-1970. Strict
censorship laws were similarly deployed by General
Lon Nol in the Khmer Republic (1970-1975) and taken to a horrendous
extreme in the Khmer Rouge era (1975-1979).
After the defeat of the Khmer
Rouge, socialist realism became just another form of politically correct fiction
in the subsequent PRK period. Ultimately
after the early 1990s, the free market of visual media entertainment has acted
synergistically with a high rate of illiteracy to suppress the development of a
modern Cambodian literature beyond the sensational, didactic or pornographic.
>>> Learn more at the
Modern Literature of Southeast Asia website
>>>
[i] For example, Northern
Illinois University, Southeast Asian Studies Center’s journal
“Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies”
and Clark D. Neher’s 2001
publication”Southeast Asia: Crossroads of the World.”
[ii] For example, Modern
Literatures of the Non-Western World: Where the Waters Are Born (1995)
contains one section for South Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia and New
Zealand. Of thirty-five
stories, nine represent Southeast Asia as follows: two for Vietnam (Ho Chi
Minh and Thich Nhat Hanh); two
for the Philippines (Bienvenido N. Santos and Amador Daguio; two for
Indonesia (Mochtar Lubis and Pramoedya Toer); one for Malaysia (TanKong Peng)
and two for Malaysia/Singapore (Edwin Thumbo and Catherine Lim). In Global Cultures: A
Transnational Short Fiction Reader (1994) containing 62 short stories,
three represent the Philippines (Paulino Lim, Jr., two by Leoncio P.
Deriada), one represents Vietnam (Thich Nhat Hanh), one represents North
Vietnam/Australia (Uyen Loewald). In
One World of Literature (1993) in
the section on “Asia,” there is one story by Pramoedya Ananta Toer for
Indonesia, one poem by Shirley Geok-lin Lim for Malaysia ; one poem by Lee
Tzu Phen for Singapore; a short story by Vo Phien for Vietnam, compared to
six entries for Japan, five for India, and seven for China.
[iii] A cogent critique of the
current disconnect between theory and literary text/context is Aijaz
Ahmad’s “The Politics of Literary Postcoloniality.” Ahmad has also critiqued Fredric Jameson’s interesting
argument about third world literature as national allegory.
[iv] E-mail correspondence from
John Weeks, Center for Khmer Studies, 13 March 2002.`
[v] Martine Piat in her article
“Contemporary Cambodian Literature,” states that popular literature in
Cambodia only existed since the end of the 1960s.
She defines popular literature by the criterion of low price.
It includes film strips, historical novels.
The priint run is 1,000 copies at most which typically takes six
years to run out, and there are no reprints. This literature is found for
sale in bus-stations, market places, and itinerant fairs.
[vi] The issue of technology is
important. The first Cambodian
typewriter, invented by Keng Vansak in 1955, with the 120-plus elements of
Cambodian script and punctuation marks required a larger keyboard than the
standard typewriter of 46 keys and 92 positions (“Modern Cambodian
Writing,” p. 45).
[vii] The influence of both
traditional and modern Chinese literature on the development of Cambodian
fiction has been generally overlooked with the exception of
Jacques Nepote and Khing Hoc Dy.
[viii] Other Khmer literature
in exile includes border literature, see Thompson.
[ix] Research assistant Kiry
Poeun’s March 2002 survey of
the Long Beach Khmer stores that sell books revealed only one Khmer novel published in the U.S.:
Khmer Oeuy Khmer by Sou
Sieu Heng.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, A., The Politics of Literay Postcoloniality. Race and Class, 1995.
36(3): p. 1-20.
Amratisha, K., The Cambodian Novel: A Study of Its Emergence and Development,
in School of Oriental and African Studies. 1998, University of London:
London. p. 363.
Bitard, P., La Littérature Cambodgienne Moderne. France-Asie, 1955. 114-115:
p. 467-479.
Bou, S.a.P.K., Victim's Misery a Modern Morality Tale, in Phnom Penh Post.
June 23-July 6, 2000 (Issue 9/13): Phnom Penh.
Bourdieu, P., The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature.
1993, New York: Columbia University Press.
Chandler, D., Voices from S-21: Terror and History in Pol POt's Secret Prison.
1999, Berkeley: University of California Press.
---. A History of Cambodia. second ed. 1993, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Jameson, F., Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism.
Social Text, 1986. 15: p. 65-88.
Khing Hoc Dy , Écrivains et Expressions Littéraires du Cambodge au XXème Siècle.
1993, Paris: L'Harmattan.
---. Khmer Literature since 1975, in Cambodian Culture since 1975: Homeland
and Exile, C.A.M. May M. Ebihara, and Judy Ledgerwood, Editor. 1994,
Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
Kiernan, B., The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under
the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79. 1996, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Martin, M.A., Cambodia: A Shattered Society. 1994, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Mehta, H.C., Cambodia Silenced: The Press under Six Regimes. 1997, Bangkok:
White Lotus Press.
Nepote, J.a.K.H.D., Chinese Literary Influence on Cambodia in the 19th and
20th Centuries, in Literary Migrations: Traditional Chinese Fiction in Asia
(17th-20th Centuries), C. Salmon, Editor. 1987, The Foreign Languages
Printing House: Beijing.
Mydans, S., Cambodian Leader Rules as if from the Throne, in The New York
Times. March 19, 2002: New York. p. A3.
Oeur, U.S., Sacred Vows. n.d., Iowa City: Zephyr Limited Edition Chapbook.
Piat, M., Contemporary Cambodian Literature."The Journal of the Siam
Society, 1975. 63(3): p. 251-259.
Thompson, A., "Oh Cmbodia! Poems from the Border". New Literary History,
1993. 24(3): p. 519-544.
Thion, Serge and .Helen Jarvis., SASTRA: A Progject for the Resoration of
Cambodia's Written Heritage. LASIE, 1993. 24(2 & 3): p. 52-56.
Tonkin, D., Modern Cambodian Writing. 1962, Phnom Penh: Université Buddhique
Preah Sihanouk Raj.
Vickery, M., Cultural Survival in Cambodian Language and Literature. Cultural
Survival Quarterly, 1990. 14(3): p. 49-52.
Yamada, T.S., Virtual Lotus: Modern Fiction from Southeast Asia. 2002, Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
|
