NEW CASTLE —
If there’s one place you’d expect to find support for free expression, it would be among Nobel Prize recipients.
The people who win these awards almost have to be the sort who think big and manage to do so outside the box.
Earning these top awards for chemistry, economics and other areas of human endeavors requires exceptional effort and the ability to examine issues free of outside control.
But I suppose there is an exception to every rule. And one of these is Mo Yan, this year’s recipient of the Nobel in literature.
If you’ve never heard of Mo, that’s not surprising. His work, while widely respected, doesn’t always translate well. And let’s face it: American readers aren’t exactly an adventurous lot.
But the literature prize typically goes to a writer who has proved himself or herself with a body of work. Mo indeed has a lengthy track record in this regard.
Yet Mo’s receipt of the literature prize was a controversial decision, not necessarily because of his writing talents, but rather, because of his beliefs. Appearing in Stockholm last week to accept his award, Mo defended the practice of censorship, something the Chinese government performs with regularity.
In justifying censorship, Mo compared it to airport security checks, unpopular but necessary. However, in comments translated by an interpreter, Mo indicated that censorship should be employed with care, noting, “I also hope that censorship, per se, should have the highest principle.”
If those who engage in censorship indeed had principles, Mo might have a point. But the reality is that the power to censor inevitably leads to abuse. The Chinese government, for example, routinely restricts critical comments made about its activities. That’s not principled; that’s a silencing of dissent.
And on that subject, Mo also failed a crucial test for a free thinker. He pointedly refused to support an appeal, signed by 134 other Nobel laureates, calling for his government to release Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. A literary critic and human rights activist, Liu had the audacity to call for an end to single-party rule in China.
Arrested in 2008 on charges of “inciting subversion of state power,” Liu is serving an 11-year prison sentence in China. Is that principled censorship?
When asked about Liu amid calls for his release, Mo tried to duck the issue, saying he had previously expressed the hope that Liu would be released soon. It’s hardly the dramatic stance one would expect from a supposed literary lion.
In his native country, Mo is known for enjoying close relations with the Chinese government. Hence his defense of its actions. Of course, the political winds inevitably change, and one day Mo may find it is his work that’s begin censored.
Under those circumstances, will he be so charitable to the powers that be?
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Should Nobel Prize recipients live up to award’s ideals?
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
