한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작,  채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

반응형

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

 

한강(Han Kang), 노벨문학상 수상작, 채식주의자(The Vegetarian), 표지

노벨문학상 수상작 "채식주의자"의 한국어판 표지 그림은 '에곤 쉴레'의 "네 그루의 나무"입니다. 우울한 적갈색의 나뭇잎과 앙상한 몸으로 곧게 서있는 에곤 쉴레의 회색빛 나뭇가지가, 소설의 주인공 영혜를 닮았습니다.

 

채식을 하면서 점차 나무가 되어가는 주인공의 마른 육체와 영혼을 상징하는 나무들의 그림이죠. 세계 여러 나라에서 번역 출판되었던 이 책의 표지는 각각 어떤 모습들인지 둘러보세요.

 

                                                                                                     About It

 

The Vegetarian was first published in South Korea in 2007 and translated into English by Deborah Smith in 2015.

 

There are some novels that I take to immediately. I am enchanted by them on a word-by-word level because I love the personality of a character, or I love the voice of the author. Other novels, I merely like. They are readable because I want to know what will happen. I’m afraid The Vegetarian by Han Kang was like that. I kept reading not because I loved it, because I wanted to know where it was going and why.

 

I selected The Vegetarian to read because it was #49 on The New York Time’s “The 100 Best Books of the 21st Century” list, the one voted on by writers, critics, and editors. The Vegetarian wasn’t on the list of books voted for by readers. The writers’ list seemed to be filled with serious literature, while the readers’ list seemed to be filled with bestsellers. Nor was The Vegetarian on any of the public ballots. I wish all 503 ballots had been public because I would like to know what other books the nominators who voted for The Vegetarian liked to read. I’m not suggesting that The Vegetarian is a bad book, but its story is not pleasant.

 

In the original review of The Vegetarian in The New York Times, Porochista Khakpour called it transgressive literature. I had to look that up. Wikipedia defines transgressive fiction as “a genre of literature which focuses on characters who feel confined by the norms and expectations of society and who break free of those confines in unusual or illicit ways.” It goes on to say, “Because they are rebelling against the basic norms of society, protagonists of transgressive fiction may seem mentally ill, anti-social, or nihilistic. The genre deals extensively with taboo subject matters such as drugs, sexual activity, violence, incest, pedophilia, and crime.” Reading the full entry at Wikipedia clearly defined the genre and gave examples that made me better understand what Han Kang was expressing, including: Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller, Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, Crash by J. G. Ballard, Less Than Zero by Bret Easton Ellis, as well as works from the past.

 

I wish I had read the review before reading the book. Especially when Khakpour says, “All the trigger warnings on earth cannot prepare a reader for the traumas of this Korean author’s translated debut in the Anglophone world.” And, “But there is no end to the horrors that rattle in and out of this ferocious, magnificently death-affirming novel.” The story is bleak, if not nihilistic.

 

Reading this makes the novel make a whole lot more sense – maybe. What is the point of being transgressive? This short novel is about a woman, Yeong-hye, that is presented in three sections. The first section, “The Vegetarian” is told by her husband Mr. Cheong. It describes how Yeong-hye quits eating meat, disturbing her family. The second section, “Mongolian Mark,” is told by Yeong-hye’s sister’s husband, who is not named but takes advantage of the mentally ill woman for his art. The third section, “Flaming Trees,” is told by In-hye, Yeong-hye’s older sister, who is crushed by events in the first two sections.

 

I don’t want to give too much of the story away, but at one-point Yeong-hye is committed to a hospital for having an eating disorder and is classified as being schizophrenic. With each section, Yeong-hye’s life goes further downhill.

 

As I read the novel, I thought I’d learn about how another culture, South Korea, handled mental illness. It’s not a disease that the United States handles well. I wasn’t thinking in terms of transgressive fiction. I just felt that all the characters in this story have either mental problems due to genetics, or personal problems due to cultural upbringing. For example, Yeong-hye’s father demands that she obey him, and hits her when she doesn’t. Or how In-hye’s husband abuses Yeong-hye sexually.

 

Normally, I read science fiction or nonfiction. The intent of science fiction is usually obvious. Typically, sci-fi stories are an exciting escape, or they’re about speculative ideas. You can tell how well the book is succeeding if the reading is fun or if the ideas blow your mind. Judging literary works is harder.

 

I’ve recently decided to take a break from science fiction and explore other forms of literature. I’ve always read widely, but never deeply into mainstream popular fiction. I chose The Vegetarian because it was on the recent 100 Best Novels of the 21st Century list.

 

I was an English major in college, so I’m vaguely aware of quality literature. Mainstream literary fiction can be fun to read, but I’m never sure why I’m reading it. Novels like Lessons in Chemistry and A Gentleman in Moscow are pure fun. The writing is clever, and the characters are endearing. They are like a captivating film. But when I’m finished, I tend to forget them.

 

With science fiction, which is usually poorly written compared to literary fiction, I do maintain a vague sense of their science-fictional ideas. For example, A Case of Conscious by James Blish was about a planet where a Jesuit encounters a species without original sin. Or that Flowers for Algernon was about a mentally challenged man who was temporarily given accelerated intelligence.

 

In the future I might remember that Lessons in Chemistry was about an eccentric woman in the 1950s who wanted to be a chemist but ended up with a successful cooking show. Or that A Gentleman of Moscow was about a charming aristocrat that was sentenced to house arrest in a luxury hotel after the communist revolution. But do such memories do those novels justice? Should I be working to get more out of fiction?

 

For The Vegetarian, I could say it was about a Korean woman who descends into madness and refuses to eat meat. Right now, I can cite the details but that won’t last long. I’m not sure what memories it will leave with me. Before reading the article in Wikipedia about transgressive fiction, I would have told people The Vegetarian is a sad depressing story that they might not want to read. Now I can say, if you’re into transgressive fiction then try it. But if you ask me why people would be into transgressive fiction, I couldn’t tell you. If you’re a fan of the genre, please leave a comment about what you get out of such stories.

 

The next novel I’ve started is Lolly Willowes; or The Loving Huntsman by English writer Sylvia Townsend Warner. It came out in 1926 and is considered an early feminist classic. Lolly Willowes was the very first Book-of-the-Month-Club book. It is delightful. It’s also about an excentric woman who is oppressed by her family and society, but it’s far from nihilistic. It’s available to read for free, but I recently bought the NYBR edition for $1.99.

 

Lolly Willowes is a very British novel, and I’ve read enough books about England that I’ve feel sentimental and nostalgic for its people, places, history, and traditions, like I do for America. So far, the story makes me feel good, unlike The Vegetarian. That again makes me wonder why we choose the books that we do.

 

I plan to read many of the books on the New York Times list. Even before the list came out, I had read twenty-five of them. I want to think about what we get out of fiction. Or what we want from fiction if we’re conscious in our approach.

 

I wish I knew how many writers voted for The Vegetarian to put it #49 on the list. I wish The New York Times had published the voting totals. Of the 503 voters, how many votes did each book get? I can’t believe there weren’t ties.

 

If you look at the way Lib Hub tallies votes and shows results, you’ll know what I mean. Here are the results for books published in 2023. For example, three books came in second by being on 19 different best-of-the-year book lists. Of the 503 votes in The New York Times list, how many votes did My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante get? I think it’s odd that of the over 50 public ballots, only two voted for My Brilliant Friend.

---

 

리차드 비에르클룬드(Richard Björklund), 스웨덴, 화가, 1897-1974

 

마리아 수자렌코(Maria Susarenko), 카자흐스탄, 아티스트, 1992-현재

 

조 그런디(Jo Grundy), 영국, 화가, 현재