21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
Human Acts
2017 Book Discussions
>
Human Acts - Entire Book Discussion, Spoilers Allowed (June 2017)
date
newest »
newest »
It looks as if this wasn't covered much because of the US role in it. Thank you for posting the links in the other discussion. I had no idea about any of these events and was anxious to remedy that, particularly given the connections between the dictators of 1980 and the recently impeached South Korean president. This was a beautifully written book, but yes, emotionally difficult. I took a break in the middle because it was so unsettling, but I couldn't read anything else in the meantime because the story haunted me too much; I felt I'd be two-timing it if I started a journey with different characters. Odd, isn't it? I don't think I've ever had that response to a book before. As if it were alive.
The concluding chapter about the writer's motivations and [painful] process felt like some therapy for me, almost. She bore witness so well, frankly confronting the visceral indignity of the deaths while paying homage to the soul. How sad that so many years later, Dong-ho's brother still felt that the boy's memory had been unjustly served. I thought the book powerfully showed his bravery and vulnerability, and how much those qualities moved the other characters who knew him.
For that reason, I really love the original title. Each section and character was chosen for the relationship to Dong-ho, for its ability to bear witness to his last days or moments. The English title is fine too, as the story shows both extremes of human capability: for cruelty and for courage. Reading the extra articles about Gwangju uprising and massacre, I'm amazed by the relentlessness of the rebellion. I don't think I'd have been that brave.
I found this book brutal but brilliant. I too wondered if I could ever have been that brave (I doubt it). I loved the varying point of view. I was so touched by the fate of the children.
Mod
Really insightful comments, Nastasya.
Well put about the visceral indignity of the deaths while paying homage to the soul. In all of the chapters we get details of pain, humiliation and putrescence. Seon-ju even states that she ended up despising her own body; yet even she says that she might do it all again. In the Guardian article I linked to in the "General" topic, Deborah Smith discusses the difficulty of translating the Korean "hon", here's the excerpt from the article:
"“If you look it up in a dictionary, it is translated as soul, but I used shadow or soul-self, because it’s impossible to use the word soul in English without evoking the Christian context,” says Smith. It stands at the point where translation shades into cultural philosophy. “Deborah translated it as something related to animism or shamanism,” says Han. “It’s the part of you that can be alive after you’re dead, though it has no religious meaning. Since a child I’ve imagined it to be a soft, pure thing.” "
Did you think the translation succeeded in conveying that idea? I wasn't able to find anything discussing more detail on the concept of "hon", perhaps someone more intrepid than me, or who knows more about Korean culture, can provide something.
This book, of course, crushed me. It made my "books I've cried over" list when I read it, and it's been haunting me ever since.Whitney, while I can't make an argument based on the nuances of the Korean word or concept of "hon", I can argue that Smith did a great job as a translator with the concept. I agree in that "soul" has too many Christian connotations to work well in an anglophone audience, and I think the words she used worked very well.
There are probably many reasons why the West did not widely cover the Gwangju massacre.One of the reasons could be what was going in the US as the late 1970s was a troubling time, budding Middle East troubles, economic crises and Americans being troubled by the direction of the government.
Also in many ways South Korea was a "closed" society so the news being broadcast probably was to make the government look good and not the full disclosure. Even within South Korea, the citizens did not get the full truth.
But I am a believer in the saying - the only thing new is the history yet to learn.
I am so happy that this book was translated into English so we can learn this history.
Shortly after I read Human Acts I read Everything Belongs to Us which looks at South Korea in the 1970s and some of the budding unrest and I could relate to some of the history presented in Human Acts and both together I got a better picture of the South Korean landscape.
I am glad that in recent years we have started to see more fiction books looking at Korea (both North & South).
And yes, this is a very haunting book.
Nastasya wrote: "It looks as if this wasn't covered much because of the US role in it. Thank you for posting the links in the other discussion. I had no idea about any of these events and was anxious to remedy that..."I agree the final chapter makes this story even more powerful.
While I would have been very satisfied with the book without the final chapter - it just showcased for me Han Kang's awesomeness as a storyteller and writer.
Mod
Mod
Mod
I agree, sometimes when writers insert themselves in stories it can be self-indulgent and/or clunky. Kang certainly avoided these pitfalls. What was it about the final chapter that you thought contributed so much? How would the book have been different without it?
Whitney wrote: "Beverly wrote: "While I would have been very satisfied with the book without the final chapter - it just showcased for me Han Kang's awesomeness as a storyteller and writer..."I agree, sometimes ..."
For me that final chapter made a history story more intimate and how historical events are not in the past but definitely part of the future.
Looking at historical events for those who survived are forever changed.
If you wondered how walls could talk and/or who lived here before me, this brings stories up-to-date for me.
I read in another book how having stories gives a sense of self.
And this book for me gave ordinary people a sense of self so not forgotten.
I think it still would have been a very good book without the final chapter but the way the author did it make it seem "fresh" and elevated it higher than other similar books.
Mod
Given that the article is only 2 years old, it makes me think this book is one that will continue to be timely as the history of it is still being written and rewritten. Kang is quite literally speaking for the dead. For me, the final chapter gave this book a more concrete human element by specifically connecting the past with the present (much as Beverly wrote above).
It really makes a person aware of how fragile and subjective history can be (especially if those in power benefit from suppressing or altering the story).
Mod
Mod
And what about the structure of the book, with it's 6 interconnected sections and then the writer's epilogue? Could this have been as effectively written in a more 'conventional' style?
I finished Human Acts about a year ago, and I remember it as chilling and deeply troubling. I’ve looked again at my heavily marked copy, reviewed my earlier comments, and reconsidered two aspects of Human Acts that strike me as most memorable. The first aspect is the confusion of Kang’s characters about their country and its leaders. What does patriotism entail?; what allegiance is due to their country given the pain its inflicted?; is national pride still possible and still appropriate, given the 5-18 Gwangju uprising and its aftermath? An example is the middle school boy speaking in 1980: “The one stage in the process that you couldn’t quite get your head around was the singing of the national anthem, which took place a brief, informal memorial service for the bereaved families, after their dead had been formally placed in the coffins. It was also strange to see the Taegukgi, the national flag, being spread over each coffin and tied in place. Why should you sing the national anthem for people who’d been killed by soldiers? Why cover the coffin with the Taegukgi? As though it wasn’t the nation itself that had murdered them.” And in 1985, the editor speaks: “’down with the butcher chun doo-hwan.’ Those words feel seared into her chest as she gazes up now at the photograph of the president hung on the plaster wall. ‘How is it,’ she wonders, ‘that a face can so effectively conceal what lays behind it? How is it not indelibly marked by such callousness, brutality, murderousness?’”
A second aspect is the survivors’ loss of faith in their countrymen. The editor reflects in 1985: “She had no faith in humanity. The look in someone’s eyes, the beliefs they espoused, the eloquence with which they did so, were, she knew, no guarantee of anything.” And the editor quotes from a play that she’s editing: “After you died I could not hold a funeral, And so my life became a funeral.” And the factory girl in 2002: “I couldn’t even make it through the Lord’s Prayer without the words drying up in my throat. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. I forgive no one, and no one forgives me.”
I completely agree with the comments above that the books relates the past with the future and that stories on the uprising will just begin to be told more fully (or in full?). I think the second person narration really put the reader in the front seat by making me feel part of the story - here you are experiencing this atrocity, here you are complicit in the atrocity, here you are asking too much of victims/survivors. I thought it was very effective.
Thanks, Kay, this is very helpful to me: here you are experiencing this atrocity, here you are complicit in the atrocity, here you are asking too much of victims/survivors
Mod
Yes, excellent! Second person can certainly be a hit or miss proposition, when done badly it really stands out. I think you've really captured how Kang made it work so well with this novel. That certainly resonates with the English title of the book as well.
Dan, I also highlighted the section of the book where Dong-ho questions the use of the national flag and anthem to honor those murdered by the government. I think it especially resonates given the increasing divides between people in the US, Britain, et. al. Who represents a country or a people? Is it de facto the government, or is it those standing up to what they see as an illegitimate government? In the initial exchange, Dong-ho is of the first opinion, while Eun-sook is of the second.
Later, when Seon-ju is remembering the exchange, she decides her answer would be that "... We needed the national anthem for the same reason we needed the minute’s silence. To make the corpses we were singing over into something more than butchered lumps of meat." Do you think her answer offers a contrast to the sides of the argument presented by Dong-ho and Eun-sook? Soon-ju is probably the most brutalized person in the book, and also one that says she would do it again despite the nearly unbearable personal cost she paid. What do you make of her and her motivations?
I just finished the first section and I actually thought Dong-ho was a woman at first. Odd...
Whitney wrote: Do you think her answer offers a contrast to the sides of the argument presented by Dong-ho and Eun-sook? Soon-ju is probably the most brutalized person in the book, and also one that says she would do it again despite the nearly unbearable personal cost she paid. What do you make of her and her motivations?Whitney, Whitney, you're making me think, which is always difficult at my age! I'm going to skim through Human Acts again, and try to answer your excellent questions.
Mod
Given that the article is only 2 years old, it makes me think t..."
I agree and as someone else had said the book felt alive to me. I finished it in a day in a half because I didn't want to be taken out of the world and into another. The others just seemed to shallow with this out sitting there sort of breathing and bleeding out.
I really enjoyed this book I thought it would be grim but being someone scientifically minded and having read Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers last year the first chapter didn't bother me as much. Also the second was interesting while overall the translation grated me at times I have to admit that she gave us a highly engaging end product. Her choice of translation for hon worked for me.
That part where they mentioned that they had brought enough bullets to shot every person there twice really struck me.
It makes you wonder what the government was up to. If they were willing to obliterate an entire city (one with a population almost equal to Minneapolis) what does that mean? A government must rule over something or somebody. Otherwise what is its purpose?
What does that mean when a government is so willing to destroy so many people that is is supposed to be managing? That is incredibly frightening.
I felt angry and then almost numb after reading this. If we collected the stories of all the genocides, dictatorships and mass murders around the world how many rooms would these volumes fill? How many of these atrocities would each person in the room already be aware of? Would it open our eyes just a little? Help us determine the warning signs and maybe how to prepare?
The English title fits I think. This is a Human Act. I don't see one gang of animals actively going out and massacring entire groups of other animals. Only humans seem to be the ones with this capability to kill when there is no need, sense or reason behind it.
Whitney wrote: "Regarding the aesthetics of the book, how did people feel about Kang's recurring use of the second person? What was her intent in using it, and how did it change the reader's perspective, if it did..."Second person is not my favorite when the gender of the "you" does not match my gender. This book was no exception but I did get used to thinking of myself as male eventually! :-) The author did it well though, and it made the events seem closer than a third person narration would have.
I like the title "Human Acts". It is a very shocking reminder that humans actually did those horrible things to other humans.
Whitney wrote: Dan, I also highlighted the section of the book where Dong-ho questions the use of the national flag and anthem to honor those murdered by the government. I think it especially resonates given the increasing divides between people in the US, Britain, et. al. Who represents a country or a people? Is it de facto the government, or is it those standing up to what they see as an illegitimate government? In the initial exchange, Dong-ho is of the first opinion, while Eun-sook is of the second. Later, when Seon-ju is remembering the exchange, she decides her answer would be that "... We needed the national anthem for the same reason we needed the minute’s silence. To make the corpses we were singing over into something more than butchered lumps of meat." Do you think her answer offers a contrast to the sides of the argument presented by Dong-ho and Eun-sook? Seon-ju is probably the most brutalized person in the book, and also one that says she would do it again despite the nearly unbearable personal cost she paid. What do you make of her and her motivations?
Whitney, thank you for your excellent and thought-provoking questions (see #18 above), and please excuse my delay in responding. I do think that Seon-ju’s answer that "... We needed the national anthem for the same reason we needed the minute’s silence. To make the corpses we were singing over into something more than butchered lumps of meat" represents a stark contrast to Dong-ho, on the one hand, and Eun-sook, on the other hand. Perhaps Seon-ju feels the need to find meaning in the horrors and deaths accompanying the 5-18 Gwangju uprising and its aftermath: “Twenty years lie between that summer and now. Red bitches, we’re going to exterminate the lot of you. But you’ve turned your back on all that. On spat curses, the abrupt smack of water against skin. The door leading back to that summer has been slammed shut; you’ve made sure of that. But that means that the way is also closed which might have led back to the time before. There is no way back to the world before the torture. No way back to the world before the massacre.”
Seon-ju is not ignoring the deaths and the torture, she’s not glossing over them, she’s not excusing them: but in order to continue living, she needs to find meaning in the deaths. And, although it’s not a sentiment that I particularly understand or sympathize with, the national anthem at that moment provides her with that meaning.
Mod
I also liked the use of second person narration - it's not something I'm used to so it forced me to pay attention to details I might have skimmed over otherwise. As someone wrote above, it does pull the reader into the scene and create a sense of accountability.
It was somewhat of a struggle reading this book. Some parts were so brutal and sad that I couldn't bring myself to read more than a chapter or two at a time. However, if I left it too long, I'd forget the relationship between some of the characters and would need to backtrack.
I read somewhere that Han Kang is also a poet and primarily used to write poetry and only turned to prose in more recent years. I think that really shows in this book. The structure of the book feels purposeful, the diction makes almost every sentence stand out, and the imagery resonates with me still, even days after finishing the book. I was particularly moved by her take on the soul exiting the body but being unable to move far away from it. I don't know how she did it, but that description of the soul being able to observe the world around it while feeling alone until it sensed the presence of other souls felt haunting - both because it was heartbreaking and because the imagery was relateable. As much as I don't want to spend time thinking about what happens to us when we die, I was able to grasp onto this idea and could imagine a soul floating, hanging on - simultaneously fully aware of but removed from the world of the living.
Mod
Wow, thanks for that really thoughtful analysis, Dan. Confession - I participate in these discussions so that other readers can provide insight into the tough questions.
I think you're right, she sees the anthem as giving some sort of tangible meaning to the deaths. Do you think that this may also imply how the real meaning of and motivation for people's extreme sacrifice is something that can't really be expressed? Maybe people grab onto symbols like the flag to give them something solid to hang on to when deeper motivations remain ineffable.
Mod
I thought the title very apt as well. In one section of the book, Kang mentions similar massacres that have taken place in other countries. The title makes it clear that this is a book about extremes of humanity, not just a few days in the history of Korea. Did you think it was mainly referring to the atrocities, or was it also referring to the resilience and sacrifice of the victims?
Whitney wrote: Do you think that this may also imply how the real meaning of and motivation for people's extreme sacrifice is something that can't really be expressed? Maybe people grab onto symbols like the flag to give them something solid to hang on to when deeper motivations remain ineffable. Whitney, thank you for continuing to delve into this: you’re challenging my thinking and leading me to think more about these issues. I agree with your second sentence ( Maybe people grab onto symbols like the flag to give them something solid to hang on to when deeper motivations remain ineffable. ) but I only partially agree with your first ( Do you think that this may also imply how the real meaning of and motivation for people's extreme sacrifice is something that can't really be expressed? On the one hand, I think that in Human Acts (as in life), we should take people at their word about the real meaning of and motivation behind extreme sacrifices: in other words, we should explore their plain speech first, before looking for any hidden meanings. On the other hand, I think that sometimes plain speech may not reveal the full range of motivations and emotions behind extreme sacrifice.
Wonderful, shattering book that I just finished yesterday. Thanks everyone for your comments.
Mod
Probably both really. The atrocities are awful but they way the victims who survive deal with these events shows a lot as well.
It's interesting to look at both parts of the equation.
For example the Gulag is really fascinating to me, first that government would do that to their people and second that the people would just succumb and accept it (at least according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn it seemed that way). I remember reading a story in Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster where someone mentions that of half the population was imprisoned there so things like prison jokes and other mannerisms where just ingrained in the society at large.
It also changed the population distribution of Russia, many people died and many survivors ended up staying permanently in those far off cities in the Arctic North. Cities that pretty much only had nomadic peoples before hand.
In Human Acts it seems most of these individuals stayed in the country and just kept on living they all found their own way of cooping with what happened to them. Although human acts only covers the people who were on the other side of the guns (which is totally fine of course) it would be interesting to find out more about the people who committed the atrocities, the soldiers who had to carry out the orders.
No matter what side you are on after the dust settles everyone has to cope with what happened some way or another. But the consequences irrevocably affect everyone.
Interesting to see that the new Korean President made a point this week of watching a new film set around the events in Gwangju:http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/natio...
Thanks for the link Paul. I like that they mention a few movies about Gwangju and about other Korean events in the story--I want to try to find them. They all seem to have been viewed by Moon and before him by Park to send a political message, which is interesting.
Mod
I tried to find "May 18th" prior to starting this discussion, but could only find used DVD's and the trailer. I expect that "A Taxi Driver" will at least get a Netflix level release. It played some theaters in the US and has the star power of Song Kang-ho, probably Korea's best known actor. Let us know if you watch any of the other films mentioned in the article and what you think.
There is a very good film called "The President's Last Bang", which is about the assassination of Park Chun-hee in 1979 (which led to coup -> martial law -> Gwangju massacre).
The assassination also threw his, not unreasonably rather traumatised, daughter under the control of a rather odd guru. She went on to become President herself only to be impeached this year due to revelations about her dealings with the guru.Note to other countries: It is possible to impeach a President who goes off the rails!
Mod
I had only heard about her being impeached due to corruption. Her own Rasputin / Wormtongue makes it so much more tabloid worthy. Here's hoping for more presidential impeachments in 2017.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster (other topics)Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers (other topics)
Human Acts (other topics)
Everything Belongs to Us (other topics)
Here are a few questions to get things started, but as usual no topic is off limits.
Sadly, I was also unaware of the Gwangju massacre before starting this book. Does anyone have any insight into why it seems to have been so poorly covered in western media?
In the general discussion, Kay brought up the issue of personal responsibility in bearing witness to atrocities, and whether someone who didn't experience it can really be a witness. What do you think Kang's opinion is on this as expressed in the book? The narrator of chapter 4 (do we know who he is? I can't recall if he was ever named) certainly at times takes a hostile tone toward the professor, asking if his dissertation will benefit anyone besides the professor himself.
One review stated the Korean title of this book translates as “The Boy Approaches”. Do you think that the English title is representative of the book’s intent? What "acts" does it refer to?