Writing a review of a book you’ve yet to finish is never a good idea. But the thoughts and ideas arising from Hanya Yanagihara’s ‘To Paradise’ have moved beyond the book itself and, with how it links to my previous post, it’s too good an opportunity to wait till I’ve finished it, then forgot about it and then moved onto another topic.
The premise of the book is this:
Three turn of the century narratives of 1893, 1993 and 2093 surrounding this one American family and their descendants. Each of these narrative echo each other with their issues of class and race, their focus on relationships with grandfathers, and the setting of the same house.
The final part is set in a dystopian 2093. Here, disease has shut down boarders, cities, houses and bodies, leaving a once lively cityscape dull. With each narrative the passion shared between characters has been whittled down to the world the reader finds themselves in in this final part: one without creativity or, seemingly, emotion. It’s through this absence that the reader is allowed to see their inherent connection.
Emotion = Creativity. And vice versa.
Despite being under a government that is wholly American- Capitalist and how this ideology is often associated with individuality, the characters here have none. They are blocked off from the world emotionally, partly from trauma, partly from the medicine for a disease and partly by a government that curates emotionless workers.
The narrator’s life centers around work: going to and from it, what she does when she’s there and when she’s not.
And it appears that everyone in this near-future work in science. This is partly from need, due to the pandemic after pandemic that this society faces, but in the end, their lack of individuality is linked to their universally mutual field of work.
Now, I’m not against science- I think it is necessary, but only with it’s counterpart of the arts, because science is pure fact and fact doesn’t breed individuality.
It’s through the arts that we find our personality and this individuality that we all crave: we are what we wear, listen to, read, watch and look at. Yet for a society that places so much emphasis on individuality, we place little emphasis on the arts.
And this is taken to extremes in Yanagihara’s book.
Stripped of their individuality, the figures in this bleak future are their work… as well as a decided amount of external factors like their race, gender, class, sexuality and immigration status. Racism and other issues have not been solved in Yanagihara’s future, to the extent that even questioning the government surrounding these issues leads to death.
They have no internal world or secrets, just these external factors. They are passionless individuals, if they can even be called that.
The reason why is because of the erasure of the arts. And it’s here that art can be viewed as activism.
By creating or simply appreciating art as a person (rather than the slightly stereotypical caricature of the rich art collector who gains their money through exploitation) in the capitalist system, you are rebelling. Not only are you going against the elitist ideals of art and its history (lead by this rich exploiter-collector), but also against the imposed lack of individuality that the Capitalism imposes: the worker collective whose life and soul needs to be defined by what they produce versus the small elite with the money and therefore ability to have individuality, to consume without this relating to what they produce.
Art allows both reflection on society, issues and individual feelings as well as creating a space for expression of the viewer, something rarely allowed in work.
Of course there are cadences to this argument with consumerism and commodification of art in the modern society, but, ultimately art is expression. And without expression, who are we?
For me, art history has provided a space to reflect and express. The exploration of vast concepts of time, setting, society and politics which are often abstract and therefore there’s other way to really explore these. But there’s also the small parts: the subject and the artist’s own thoughts and emotions: their identity.
So, in short, art is important and Hanya Yanagihara’s books, even if they fail to make me cry, they do make me feel something. ‘To Paradise’ is included in this. But maybe I shouldn’t say that considering I am yet to finish it.
Please feel free to comment about today’s essay, whether that be criticism (or praise, which I am also partial to) or further discussions of this topic perhaps linking to your understanding, world outlook and personal subject knowledge no matter your area of expertise.
Here are some questions to consider:
Do you think the dystopia that Yanagihara creates is what will actually happen in the future?
How has art changed your life? And what art does this specifically for you?
And,
Does individuality exist under capitalism? And what would be it’s reverse?
Further reading and few materials used:
Currently reading: ‘To Paradise’ by Hanya Yanagihara
Random Recommendation: ‘The Belles’ by Dionelle Clayton, ‘Three Dark Crowns’ by Kendare Blake or some other light-hearted YA fantasy after you read any of Yanagihara’s books.
Have a good day! (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ)