Hanya Yanagihara’s most infamous novel, A Little Life, had sat on my bookshelf for nearly four years before I dared to pick it up. After seeing numerous reviews on GoodReads and TikTok, I wanted to ensure I had the mental capacity to take on and understand the heavy topics discussed. This 800+ page novel touches on sexual assault, pedophilia, self-harm, physical abuse, and so much more, while not straying away from the gory details. Despite focusing on such important topics, I was disappointed, to say the least by Yanagihara’s portrayals of men, gay relationships, and suffering. However, there are bits of light amongst the dark, which I must give her credit for so let’s talk about it. 

In the simplest of descriptions, A Little Life tells the story of four best friends, all from different backgrounds and classes, as they navigate life as 20-something-year-olds, into their mid-50s. From about page 20, the audience can quickly identify that the story primarily centres around Jude St. Francis, who is depicted as poor, living with a disability, and struggling with his mental and physical health for the entirety of his life due to a severely traumatic childhood. 

Yanagihara does a superb job of conveying each moment with extreme detail, allowing the audience to fully immerse themselves in the world that she has created. Because of this, each terrible thing that happens to Jude, made me squirm in my seat, often needing to set the book down to read or watch something lighter. I can appreciate Yanagihara’s ability to describe events with so much detail and perspective, to allow the audience to see how each event not only affects Jude but the people around him, as well. I truly felt connected to these characters–primarily Jude, Harold, and Willem. I felt deeply moved (and uncomfortable at times) by Jude’s experiences, finding myself begging for a break from the suffering, mirroring Jude. You get to know the characters so thoroughly that the perspective from which the story is told switches frequently, and you can tell from the way the character speaks, whose perspective you are listening to. 

There is no question that Yanagihara is a talented writer, and I can see why so many people enjoy reading her work. However, about halfway through the novel, I began asking, when will this end? Why would an author create a character with so much suffering, self-hatred, and loathing? Why won’t Jude take advantage of the resources put in place to help him? Most importantly, why do all these people who seemingly care about Jude, allow him to continue suffering? 

Perspective of Men:

In an interview with ElectricLit and Adalena Kavanagh, Yanagihara discusses how, she believes, men lack the emotional vocabulary and intelligence that women typically possess. Likely due to gender norms, conditioning, and several other factors. Throughout the novel, I questioned endlessly why Jude’s loved ones ignored his suffering, despite knowing and seeing the harm he was causing himself. Yanagihara believes that “these men’s friendships, while close by anyone’s definition, are also built upon a mutual desire to not truly know too much”. While I partially agree with this statement, I also find it somewhat problematic. Do we as a society expect so little of men that we believe they are incapable of the same emotional intelligence as women? If a man’s best friend is suffering, do we believe he would turn a blind eye to avoid knowing too much or crossing a boundary? Characterizing men in this way allows us to lower our expectations regarding friendships, forcing men of lower emotional intelligence to resist growth due to a societal norm. If we continue to hold men to such a low standard, they will continue to resist change and emotional friendships, which amplifies loneliness and isolation. Yanagihara’s perception of men’s emotional intelligence is clear in Jude’s inability to get better, seek help, or take advantage of the resources that are given. 

Perspective of Gay Relationships:

When I first started reading A Little Life, I never categorized Jude as gay, considering all of his relationships with men up to a certain point are with pedophiles. However, it is alluded to that many of these pedophiles are gay. Because of this, I began to question Yanagihara’s motives upon reading her interview with The Guardian. In the interview, she states that she has frustrations with the #ownvoice movement because she believes “[she has] the right to write about whatever [she] wants. The only thing a reader can judge is whether [she] has done so well or not”. This made me question why Yanagihara thinks it’s important to share the experiences of gay men. Is it simply because she can? Further, why are gay relationships portrayed with verbal and physical abuse? Even with Jude’s life partner, Willem, there are scenes where Willem strips him naked during an argument, where Willem commits infidelity, where Willem admits to having sex with Jude knowing how much he hated it. Jude treats Willem similarly to the way he treats his abusers; by allowing Willem to use his body, despite Jude being retraumatized, out of fear that he will lose him. Frequently, Jude is taken back to being sexually assaulted when he and Willem have sex. Their relationship references his relationships with his abusers, Jude’s inability to heal from these experiences, and Willem’s willingness to take advantage of that for his benefit. While some reviewers are calling this the “great gay novel,” I would argue that it has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with abuse. 

When writers’ reasoning to discuss specific minority groups is simply that they can, then continue to write about them in horrifying ways, we, as an audience, should question the author’s intention more. Especially when the writing can be contributing to harmful stereotypes about said group. This is explained exceptionally well by Paige Hettinger on her blog.

Perspective on Suffering:

I’d like to preface this section by saying I enjoy books about trauma and suffering. I enjoy reading books that mirror real life, which means many of my favourite books have descriptive scenes of trauma. I don’t see an issue with this, as long as the portrayals are realistic and add something to the story. A Little Life has such descriptive scenes of abuse and sexual violence that by about halfway through, I began to wonder how much it was really adding to the story. Some people seem to appreciate Yanagihara’s ability to write these scenes with so much detail; I feel the opposite. With each chapter, the abuse got more brutal and more descriptive. At a certain point, it felt like the author was writing this way to get that “shock factor” and increasingly expose the audience to more violence to keep them entertained. In her interview with ElectricLit, she shares that she wanted to “create a character who never gets better,” and she does that by making the worst things that come to mind all happen to Jude. She also goes on to explain that she does not believe in talk therapy and that “any medical treatment, is finite in its ability to save and correct,” which is a pessimistic view toward our ability to treat mental illness and those who have experienced trauma. There are numerous forms of treatments for mental illnesses, and like any other medical treatment, it may take time for someone to find what works best for them. Jude hardly attempts to receive the help he is offered, and again, much of his surrounding circle ignores the problem or enables his behaviours. So, how can we categorize him as a character that never gets better, when he doesn’t take the necessary steps to attempt to get better? He saw a single therapist over the course of 30-something years, wasn’t medicated, and didn’t try any other forms of treatment. The concept of suffering and Jude’s ability to deal with his trauma, was once again, unrealistic and it became clear the lack of research that was done to ensure his character was portrayed accurately. 

Conclusion:

Authors must write about topics that may not be frequently discussed due to stigma. However, Yanagihara brutalizes the topic of mental and physical health to the extreme for shock factor and controversy. If the only reason an author writes about traumas they do not understand is because they can, they shouldn’t be writing about it in the first place. If an author is unwilling to research to prevent the spread of misinformation and avoid harm to the reader, they shouldn’t write about it. While the novel did leave a lasting impact, it doesn’t do this for the right reasons. Overall, I would not recommend this novel for general audiences, as it does more harm than good and does not accurately depict the topics of abuse, friendships, gay relationships, or suffering, which are its claims to fame.