This is truly disturbing. On October 10, 2024, the award Nobel Prize in Literature 2024 was awarded to Han Kang, a 53-year-old South Korean writer. The jury highlighted her "intense poetic prose that confronts historical traumas and exposes the fragility of human life" - here is the big question. Are there limits in literature? Is censorship necessary in extreme cases? What limits - if any - should a writer take into account?
A couple of days ago, I looked into Kang's life and saw that his most important work -and for which he had been awarded the award-, is The Vegetarian, a work that deals with the story of Yeong-hye, a housewife who decides to become a vegetarian after a dream. At first, I thought it could be a very enriching read -sad of me-, as it had a captivating synopsis. The illusion was short-lived. Before I start reading any work, I enjoy doing a little research about it -although I run the risk of falling into spoilers-. I read a article published in The New York Times written by Porochista Khakpour, a celebrated writer. Khakpour commented on the major themes of the play, including sex and eating disorders. Upon reading this, the distaste was tremendous.
The Vegetarian is a groundbreaking work -in the bad sense of the word-. I do not want to comment much about it, because I find it deplorable, but I outline the structure of the work to give you an idea: in the first part, it addresses the topic of abuse and non-consensual sexual assaults; in the second part, it explores the concept of pornography; and, in the third part, it deals with mental illnesses such as anorexia. This alone shows that it is not a common structure or work. It is a clear example of how literature has changed over the years -for better or worse, I leave that to you to decide.
Literature is a way of expressing art and I feel that, as time goes by, unfortunately, this conception has been lost. Many critics point to a certain decadence of literature. H. Bloom, in The Western Canon, argues for the importance of preserving the bequest of the great classical authors. On the other hand, the notorious M. Vargas Llosa, in his essay La civilización del espectáculo, argues the impact of mass culture on the quality of literature: "The predominance of entertainment and consumerism has caused quality literature to lose its central place in society, leading to a decline in terms of influence and depth". However, many other professionals, such as J. Wood, Z. Smith or A. Manguel, argue that literature is not in decline, but is evolving and adapting to social, technological and cultural changes.
In my view, stories have gone from describing the journeys of legendary heroes such as Achilles or Ulysses to narrating violent scenes that may hurt readers' sensibilities -and for me, that is despicable. I say it is despicable because in ancient texts, the heroes' journeys and struggles, although they contained violence, were presented in a symbolic or moral context. However, in today's stories, the approach in brutality and sensationalism is perceived as a gratuitous exhibition of violence, i.e., a trivialization of suffering, and this may be disturbing to some readers. At this point, the great dreaded censorship comes into play. Is it necessary? What effects does it have?
Today's society promotes, even more, the abolition of censorship. And this has taken a very decisive role in literature. It has always been said that writers should have full freedom of expression, expressing all subject ideas, even if they are controversial or uncomfortable for certain sectors of society. The negativity of censorship is also often attributed to critical thinking, since, if there is censorship, thinking will not be exercised -a completely wrong conception, since it is not necessary to deal with sensitive issues such as sex or drugs to foster a critical mentality-.
On the other hand, there are several arguments in favor of censorship. One of the most essential is the protection of values and morality, as certain literary contents, especially those that are explicitly violent, sexual or morally controversial - such as those addressed by Han Kang in his work - can have a negative impact on society, particularly on young or vulnerable audiences. Another aspect is the prevention of hate speech, because literature can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, racism, sexism or gender-based violence.
At final, although literature continues to be one of the most powerful and useful tools to explore the human condition and encourage a rich reflection, we cannot ignore some current trends -around the last 5 years- that seem to move it away from its true purposes. One of these trends is the excessive search for commercial formulas -to 'grow' the issue readership-, but they only manage to divert the approach towards immediacy and entertainment that leads to a 'supermarket literature'. However, I am still hopeful that this panorama can evolve positively. The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing innovation with the preservation of the classic values that give literature its impact and transcendence across generations.
