Kim Dong-Ri’s ‘purity’ and Kim Dong-Seok’s ‘poisonous claws’ produced lots of critical contradiction and dogma. However their meaning in history of literature is nothing to be sneezed at. Two powers exist in the base of arguments leading Korean modern literary history, maintaining themselves as each other’s rivalries. The one is the power that tries to understand and interpret literature with a sphere of purity and self-control. And the other is with the logic of progress and development related with social and historical realism. Though this is not only for Korean special quality, the point to see is that Kim Dong-Ri supporting the purity and Kim Dong-Seok criticizing him, both of them were not free from actual situation. Kim Dong-Ri was under the flag of the purity in the literature. However he was more political than anybody in realities outside of literature. Kim Dong-Seok was under the flag of realism based from dialectical materialism. However outside of the literature he showed the irony that he existed as his fate was unknown, not applying his political sense. It means that Korean modern literature history has formed particularity and universality of the literature in the functional relation between realities and literature and between life and politics. Unfortunately intermediation or middle point couldn’t be established in the argument of the two. Their argument brought up lots of agenda which are still valid topics in our time, such as the purity/participation, shamanism/science, humanism/mechanism, spiritualism/materialism, poetry/prose, modernism/pre-modernism, bourgeois/proletarian, tradition/modernity, literature/politics, realities/observation, purity/enlightenment, rationalism/subjectivism, instrumental rationality/aesthetic rationality, spirit/material, and nationalism/globalism.