How Dark is Too Dark? An Exploration of Trauma in A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara | Video Essay
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2023
- Hello! It's been a while but here is another video essay, this time exploring How Dark is Too Dark? An exploration of trauma in a little life. I've been reading about trauma theory, sentimental literature and the trauma plot and it got me thinking about the well known "saddest book ever", A Little Life by Hanya Yanigahara. I hope you enjoy, and don't hate me too much if it's your favourite book!
CZcamsrs Shown
@jack_in_the_books • i read 'A Little Life'...
@DrinkingByMyShelf • What is A Little Life ...
@GKReads • A Little Life reading ...
@paperbackdreams • i FINALLY read a littl...
@OliviasCatastrophe • A Little Life || Rant ...
@RaduDumitrescuCN • A Little Life is a lit...
References
A Sentimental Education by Hannah McGregor
blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/pro...
www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n...
www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/bo...
www.nybooks.com/articles/2015...
www.nybooks.com/articles/2015...
www.washingtonpost.com/entert...
www.theatlantic.com/entertain...
blgtylr.substack.com/p/emotio...
www.latimes.com/books/jacketc...
www.npr.org/2015/03/19/394050...
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/bo...
www.wsj.com/articles/fiction-...
www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
www.newyorker.com/books/page-...
www.vulture.com/2015/04/how-h... - Zábava
One thing I find about the idea that fiction makes us more empathic: sentimental fiction makes a lot of people LESS empathic.
Here’s a common experience when you’re disabled: someone produces a book, a picture, a meme, something that serves the inspiration-p*rn niche. Non-disabled people publicly and loudly ‘empathise’, talking about how moving and uplifting and wonderful it is…
And if you, a disabled person, say anything that punctures their moment by pointing out it’s unrealistic or kind of patronising or invades a disabled person’s privacy? You know, something that calls for active empathy? BOY do they lash out at you.
They were supposed to be caring about disabled people, right? But when a disabled person from reality tips up, the reaction is hostile and contemptuous.
A lot of this stuff - and I certainly include A LITTLE LIFE - isn’t about becoming more empathic towards the actual people who actually live with this stuff. The sentimental will attack a real disabled person for criticising a fictional one. No: it’s about having a little weep and admiring your own tears as proof of your sensitivity. And that, being an entirely selfish pleasure, easily turns mean.
Selfish pleasures aren’t all bad. Yanigahara puts a lot of baked goods in her fiction too; eating or thinking about eating a cookie is a selfish pleasure and it’s quite harmless. But nobody expects to be morally admired for eating a cookie - and that’s the level inspo-p*rn operates on. Ask for real empathy and people feel like you stole their cookie, and act about as compassionate as you’d expect.
Some fiction may encourage empathy, sure. But sentimental fiction is just nastiness with a sugar coating.
Thank you for this comment, really well said and I appreciate it. I’ve actually been working on a video about reading and empathy after reading A Sentimental Education by Hannah McGregor
Sounds good! Marianne Noble’s The Masochistic Pleasures of Sentimental Literature is good too; it talks about how a perfect victim of this form is the girl child who doesn’t protest except by presenting a ‘suffering body’, which acts as a reproach. Jude is very like that, I think, or at least related. He’s entirely defined by his childhood, and while diegetically male he’s possessed of lots of traditionally ‘feminine’ traits: meek, self-doubting, devoid of anger, sexually passive and always the done-to rather than the doer. (He even bakes.) And being the suffering body of an unsaved child is basically his whole role.
@@kitwhitfield7169 thanks for the tip, I'll look it up
I hated it. I wasn’t traumatized by it, but it just didn’t seem real. The author does a number where she says that that was her intent, and she seems quite proud of not having done any research because she WANTED it to be unrealistic. But for me, if it’s that unreal, I don’t care. I staggered through the 800 page doorstop of a book (dear God it’s WAY too long) and by the end was just skim reading because… who cares? None of the people felt real. My reaction wasn’t horror or sadness, more just Meh. A lot of bright people love it, and to each their own, but not for me.
I think, to me, what really gets me about this book and made reading it unbearable towards the end, was the cynical, unrelenting belief that the author has that Jude cannot and will not get better. That at no point does she commit to making him better only to find that the character is derailed. That there is no hope, no way out, ever. And as someone who has gone through harrowing trauma in my life, I felt so dehumanized by that cynicism. Like I could be Jude and the author would be watching on in fascination every time that something from my past reared its head and made a present moment difficult. Even the few pages where Jude goes to therapy are mired in sarcasm about the shortcomings of therapy and does nothing, ultimately, to give Jude any way out. And, that doesn't really speak to how I've experienced my own horrors or how I see the horrors in those around me. It's not a relentless barrage. It's two steps forward, one step back. it's accepting that yes, this has changed you, inevitably, unflinichingly, forever, but that you will find ways to navigate it. You'll find ways to live and love with it. And some things will always be harder than they otherwise would have been, but that doesn't mean that they are impossible. But to Jude, all hope, all love, all real sustained happiness and contentment are never there. All the way to the bitter end, where he dies still believing that he was worthless, that he needed to repent, that he decieved people
Well said
Thank you for sharing and for your insights.
Yikes. Makes one wonder what the author did with the check she received for writing this Debbie-Downer of a book? Had a latte with her boyfriend (or girlfriend) down at the coffee bar, or bought some lottery tickets or a new flat in Kensington?
The author obviously wanted Jude to have an obscure but bitter and angst-filled story arc. Good God, I'd have a hard time even making coffee in the morning if my outlook was always and unrelentingly this pessimistic.
Well, there *are* people who don't get better and eventually don't make it. Why shouldn't their stories be told and understood? Because there are readers who can't handle it?
@@TimeIdle We're discussing literature, the quality of said work, whether it's true to the source material, whether it speaks to us. What does this have to do with "being able to handle it"?
Every human story ends in tragedy (the hero or heroine of the story dies). If people are so lucky, they become feeble and weak with age. We all deal with it (or don't). My dad died at 51, after being completely paralyzed with polio, which meant my mother had to care for him and four young children. Without heroic family support from both sides of the family, we would have slipped through the cracks. I never heard him complain ONCE.
We can't read everything, which means we must follow our inclinations and make choices.
I can spend all my time reading Japanese manga or watching porno or shooting imaginary monsters on video games. I can even read trauma porn (like this), or perhaps something about someone overcoming adversity, and helping others and themselves by acquiring a wider viewpoint.
If you want to stew your brain, add a little more water, put the lid on the pot of your angst, and turn down the heat "just a little", sugar.
Just because a book is realistic doesn’t mean it’s good or well written. It’s like singers telling you to listen to the words not the voice- the art cannot sublimate to the reality because then, as in film, it’s documentary, not fiction. It’s like if I shock you enough and appeal to your emotions you MUST accept it’s a good book. No
truthfully this book genuinely made my mental health worse. i understand that this was not the authors intention, but the content of the book really enabled me to continue with sh and that it validated it in a way. that being said, as someone who has gotten much better over the years, i look back on this book and just wonder what was going on??? the author said somewhere that she did no research for it, which really contributes to the issues of the ethics of the book.
As a person who was in a relationship with a person who had been sexually assaulted by their step father, I can say that he never got over it. Ever. I related to the Willem character a lot
And really helped me understand my exes psyche. I don’t think of it as trauma porn at all.
The goal is never to 'get over' trauma, especially related to SA. Invasive thoughts related to such things won't just end typically, but understanding that those thoughts don't define you and developing coping mechanisms are important steps that WILL make life more meaningful. Those are my opinions and thoughts on the matter anyways. I'm debating reading this book because it is a big undertaking and I'm quite wary of it, but it keeps popping up in my feed, so, like, idk
Thank you SOOOOO MUCH for this video, I am so tired explaining to A little life fans why objectively it's a very well written but terrible book. It also bugs me when people describe it as "a story of four friends", which in my opinion it is absolutely not. It is a story of two exceptional people and their absolutely unbelievable and unnecessary relationship (don't get me started on a straight man taking pity on his best friend whom he doesn't know at all and falling in love with him overnight) which came out of nowhere and had no depth whatsoever, and two other exceptional people who are there just to create some background. Oh and let's not forget that everybody is so exceptional in their professions and in what they do and how they do it, including traumatic experiences. The book should've been finished after page 400, the author should've killed the protagonist and it would've been ok-ish since she was unable to give him any arch that made sense. Yet no, she continued to pile on suffering as if they are character traits. In my opinion Yanagihara honestly believed that this is character development. I didn't know she was a lifesyle/travel writer for Conde Nast but it makes all the sense in the world. I despise this book and I can not comprehend why people like it, it's exceptionally cardboard characters doing exceptionally dumb things. I wish content creators would stop popularizing this nonsense and making videos of themselves ugly crying. Thank you so much for your work, we need more videos like yours.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the video!
"Objectively well written but terrible" - that's a perfect description. What I find really Gawd awful is that Yanagihara has come out with another book and it's at least similar. Yanagihara's collected works should be titled Endless Bummer.
It is not objectively well written. The writing is at the level of a 10th grader, the realism is lacking, the characters are nothing but vehicles for messages that lack nuance. Yanagihara herself admitted to doing no research and when you want to write a good book about topics like trauma, you either should have experiences, or you should do your research. Considering she isn't a gay man, I highly doubt Yanagihara has the experience, and again, she admitted to no research. She is one heck of a lucky fraud that overshadowed gay writers who could've created a more realistic AND more nuanced piece of literature, who is arrogant to no end, and whose fans don't acknowledge that, no, A Little Life isn't "objectively well-written".
Well-written books can put the author's intent into words. Well-written books show the development instead of claiming to have it. Well-written books don't have things in them "just because", there's a reason for the different elements of it. Unnecessarily relationships, as you've helpfully pointed out, are just one small element of poor writing, but combined with everything else, overall, this book is poorly written. From a lack-luster and uninspired opening paragraph that contributes nothing, to shallow characters, and idealised victims, the book is a show of what not to do in writing.
@@js66613 For me, each individual scene worked well enough, but taking it as a whole… yeesh. Her tendency to kill off characters when she was done with them became klutzy in the extreme. Of course she would claim that she meant to do that, which to me begs the question, Why would you want to do that?
I loved reading the book, it definitely made me sad so I considered the goal accomplished. But it’s important to remember that some books are just a good read and not a good book, because by analyzing it and breaking it down you realize that it was actually pretty horrible and there’s no real lesson behind it😅, it’s was just a pretty picture and not a work of art y’know, I still like pretty pictures but you don’t put them in museums.
This was so thoroughly researched and thoughtfully delivered. Thanks so much for your work.
The video was better researched than the book itself.
Loved your eloquent thoughts on this. I haven't read the book but was active on Booktube when a lot of people started reading it and from how it was discussed, I immediately felt uneasy about it. I don't think that a book placing multiple traumatic experiences/topics at its center in this way serves us as a society/as humans, neither to better understand nor to be able to better help survivors. All that's left is the sensationalism or cathartic aspect, which can be some people's jam (not judging here), but it's definitely not for me.
Thank you
Great video. I was also thinking of The Discomfort of Evening as a great example of trauma in fiction done well.
Thank you. Enjoyed is the wrong word but I really appreciate The Discomfort of Evening
I appreciated this video so much and think it's going to generate a great discussion! I have not read the book and I have no intentions of reading the book. I know it's not something that I can read objectively and walk away unscathed from and that's ok. I'm glad I know that about myself. Still, I am interested in discussions around the book, and hearing differing opinions. I'm specifically interested in the idea of Jude's trauma being the character and not Jude himself. I wonder if that was intentional or if the author was unaware of what she was doing there. Either are problematic, aren't they? I look forward to seeing others comments. Great video!
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the video
I don't think of this book as trauma porn. I see it as a more realistic portrayal for a lot of people who experience severe child abuse. Not all of them will get better. People can and do get better, but it doesn't always happen and that's because trauma is hard to overcome.
This book was horrible and a big DNF for me. No thanks, I’ve got enough trauma and don’t need more therapy after this book. It’s abusive
I managed to push through to the end but there was no point
Good for you, respecting your own boundaries and taking action to protect yourself!
I really enjoyed her writing style in People in the Trees, but I found that book so disturbing that I unhauled A Little Life without reading it. I think she’s just not an author for me. Based on your video, I definitely think it was the right choice for me to skip A Little Life.
I haven't read either of her other books, so if won't comment on them really!
The People In The Trees is … hm. I read it because I dislike A Little Life and have never felt so actively gaslighted by good reviews, and felt I needed to see if I was missing something. I don’t think I was.
It’s more competent than A Little Life. The plot is more disciplined and the structure is coherent. It has an unreliable narrator who’s done … again, the word ‘competent’ comes to mind. It’s one of those books that would have got called sci fi if the author didn’t have a ton of connections in the reviewing scene, and which experienced sci fi readers would find heavy-handed on the message (Colonialism is bad? Who knew?) and soft on the sci fi, so it helped Yanagihara a lot that she got marketed to different readers.
It’s very sour in tone. The narrator, a colonialising p*derast, is a nasty old dude and the narrative does very little to present counterbalancing viewpoints. When anyone disagrees with him he quickly dismisses them, which is character consistent, but a defter writer could have found ways to keep more contrast in view than Yanagihara did.
The story is utter destruction of paradise that just goes on and on with no relief at all. That would be fine if you felt Yanagihara was driven by compassion or anger, but honestly her fixation in the SA of boys by men is what really drives things here too. A sympathetic critic could argue she’s making a ‘r*pe of the natural world/other cultures’ analogy, but it doesn’t read that way even if you don’t know how doggedly she writes about SA elsewhere. It reads more like the cultural/environmental r*pe is an intellectual excuse for writing the literal ones.
I agree with Owl Reviews calling A Little Life fan fiction (which is why the algorithm sent me here I think, thanks algorithm!). It reads that way structurally too, like Malcolm, JB, Willem and Jude are all characters from a book that’s actually about four friends and Yanagihara was just shipping her favourites. And The People In The Trees with all its compassionless horrors … honestly, the best word for it is ‘edgelord’.
I guess you know what I think of the book already 😅 But harrowing to see it based on the definition of TP as well. Part 2 on him having no character outside of tr*** sounds about right, although painfully so 😩😪 Even without analysing it to definition it read so clearly to me as what it was to me...
Yes it's a tough read, and yet also empty in some way
I think its a beautiful book , its about friendship and love too and it changed my life
When people say it's a book about friendship and not trauma, can anyone gove examples of when friendship is presented? Because all i read was sex, how disturbing sex was, how sex hurt Jude emotionally and physically, how Willem and he Spoiler * towards the end had a sexual relationship? I couldn't find anything else!
The only non sexual relationship was the one with his doctor and the touching one with his adoptive parents.
Enjoy is not the correct word. I listened to the end of your video. Yes, this is not your usual wheelhouse, but I'm glad you didn't defend the book. The cover photo seems to be Jim Carrey suffering from an extreme attack of piles, but I'm sure I'm in error there. Bad English sushi?
I will not read the book. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would want to wallow in such material. Ottessa Moshfegh will not be in my TBR either. Clearly, I have lived too long and have lived a very sheltered and insufficiently examined life. I think I'll go give my cat an extra hug or two for no reason at all.
Thanks for taking one for the team, just as long as you're not going to be traumatized by it. Cheers.
Say hello to your cat from me!
@@RoisinsReading I'm going to channel my inner Pip and say "thanks for the kind words".
He's a good boy. He is (right now) sitting in my lap, with his head resting on the arm of the chair, pretending he's not listening to my fingers typing.
I look after Pip the way Joe Gargery had to keep on eye on his flighty nephew-by-marriage.
My Pip has great expectations of being fed and entertained, and thus far no convicts have shown up at the door, making him question the true state of things.
He actually owns me, or at least that's what I suspect he's figured out.
This book is problematic in so many ways it's tiring😅... Can't even begin to unpack, but the interviews with the writer tell A LOT, lemme just put it that way... At moments its almost like a fetishising text for sado-masochist voyers.... And furthermore the writer proudly w/o any shame announces that she made ZERO research before making a 1000 page book about the struggles of a disabled person, an asexual person, several gay characters...black characters....SA survivors.....while she herself is NONE of those things 😅..... the Jude character is basically like an empty vessel for her projections about disabled ppl. Zero personality beyond the pain. Seriously? I'm just waiting for more decent reviews.... Don't believe the hype ppl! Use your time for way better words than this brick of bull. Thank you for this review 🙏
I’ve come across so many doctors who have expertise in trauma who had read the book said that the A Little Life is realistic.
Simply bc you or others can’t Handel the book you’re reading.. doesn’t mean it’s trauma p*rn, y’all find a word and run with it. By no means did this book romanticize trauma but told the trauma through a completely broken person. And how his trauma kept him from getting better! I thought the book was beautiful! It’s soo devastating and really does shed light on a taboo topic “male sexual abuse” and really explains how hard it is for men in general to talk about their own trauma. The whole point of the book was to DESTROY you and it does that! Would I recommend it?! no! Simply bc it is a VERY tough read
Except the trauma was completely over the top. It felt like a cheap AO3 MHA fanfic where the main guy gets assaulted by literally everyone he meets.
No, the whole point of the book is extreme nihilism, not to destroy the reader. Jude has no substance beside being a walking clump of traumas, that's it. What do we know about Jude beside the horror of his past and present? Nothing, because the author is doing this on purpose, Jude only exists in the prism of horror and terror, that's why he would never be happy, never be healed, as if his sole purpose is to be miserable from the beginning to the end. The author is an opportunist which used trauma while doing 0 research about it, despite looking up for anything else (law, arts, maths...). The voyeurisme isn't the worst part, the worst part is when people believe it's a realistic portrait of life. This book is bearly realistic, this is an attempt to portray realism through the lense of cynicism. It's not about being able to handle it, because the horror becomes superfluous and over the top.
Listen, if the author wanted to really explore male sexual trauma and bring awareness to the topic, then she would have researched it thoroughly, it's that simple. That was not her intention, clearly.
It sheds no light because it has no knowledge. Yanagihara literally boasted that she didn’t learn anything about the subject. Fantasising is not shedding light.
@kitwhitfield7169 what would have changed if she had researched about it? Nothing was unrealistic in that book. Not everyone who goes through traumatic experiences has the ability to move on from them and have a happy ending, life is not a happy ending for every person
Labeling something that you think is too dark as "p*rn* is being reductive and, frankly, a cheap shot. Perhaps you were too "traumatized" by the depiction that you failed to get the author's full intention?
It’s not the darkness, it’s the shallowness and the indulgence. The only traumatic effect Yanagihara achieves is making disabled, traumatised and LGBT+ people watch her ignorantly talk over them.