The announcement of Han Kang’s Nobel Prize in Literature in early October 2016 sparked a wave of unusually acrimonious reactions. Beyond the standard debates surrounding literary merit and suitability, a chorus of dissent arose, claiming Kang was already ”too known” and that her selection was merely fulfilling a diversity quota, ticking boxes for both female and Asian/South Korean representation. This line of reasoning, of course, presupposes that all identities except certain white, Western men constitute minorities requiring specific representation. However, the most peculiar criticism leveled against Kang revolved around her age and perceived lack of experience: at 54, she was deemed ”too young” and her body of work ”too slim.”
This ageist critique appears particularly baffling when considering the case of Albert Camus, who received the Nobel Prize in 1957 at the age of 44. His literary output at the time comprised three novels, a collection of short stories, and some essays. In contrast, Han Kang had already published eighteen books, including novels, short stories, poetry, and essays, although admittedly much of her work remained untranslated at the time. Camus’ early recognition proved fortuitous, as he tragically died just two years later. This highlights the inherent unpredictability of life and the potential absurdity of delaying recognition based on arbitrary age thresholds.
Furthermore, 54 is hardly an outlier age for a Nobel laureate. As the 121st recipient of the prize, Han Kang became the 21st to receive it at 54 or younger. Rudyard Kipling holds the record for the youngest recipient, having received the award at a mere 41 years of age in 1907. A closer look at the historical data reveals a trend of younger laureates in the earlier years of the prize. Besides Han Kang, only three other writers in the past fifty years have received the Nobel at 54 or younger: Joseph Brodsky (47), Wole Soyinka (52), and Orhan Pamuk (54). In contrast, thirteen writers received the prize at that age or younger during the first fifty years of its existence.
Interestingly, three other laureates received the Nobel Prize at the exact age of 54: Orhan Pamuk in 2006, Heinrich Böll in 1972, and Thomas Mann in 1929. Presumably, their relative youth attracted less criticism at the time, although Mann had only published three novels by then, albeit alongside numerous short stories. Other relatively young recipients include literary giants such as Gabriel García Márquez (55), Ernest Hemingway (55), Halldór Laxness (53), William Faulkner (52), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (51), and Selma Lagerlöf (51). These examples further underscore the fallacy of equating age with literary achievement.
The argument against Han Kang’s age seems even more absurd when considering cases where recognition was arguably delayed to an almost insulting degree. Doris Lessing, for example, received the Nobel Prize at the age of 88. While undoubtedly deserving, the lateness of the award could be interpreted as a slight, a belated acknowledgement of a long and prolific career. It begs the question: what purpose is served by waiting decades to celebrate a writer’s contributions? Isn’t it more meaningful to recognize talent and achievement while the writer is still actively creating and contributing to the literary landscape?
In conclusion, the criticisms leveled against Han Kang for her age and perceived lack of experience highlight a prevalent bias against recognizing younger writers and a misguided notion that literary greatness is solely a function of time. The Nobel Prize, while undeniably prestigious, is ultimately a subjective judgment, and the criteria for selection remain nebulous. Han Kang’s body of work, despite being largely untranslated at the time of the award, demonstrated her unique voice and literary prowess. The criticism she faced underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of literary merit and a willingness to embrace and celebrate diverse voices, regardless of age or background. The case of Han Kang serves as a reminder that literary genius can flourish at any age, and delaying recognition based on arbitrary age thresholds risks overlooking exceptional talent and potentially missing the opportunity to celebrate a writer’s full potential.
