The debate about the limits and purpose of literature has gained new strength following recent statements by Juan del Valbrand new Planeta award in Spain, in the massive television program The Anthill. There the writer defended the need for a “literature for the people” opposite to that which is only addressed to an intellectual elite. A few days before the announcement of a desirable award – one million euros plus a considerable public exhibition – the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Literature for the Hungarian writer László Krasznahorkaia European author of “prestige” and very far from any mass nature, revived a historical debate in the cultural sphere, which revives old tensions about the role of popular literature and its legitimacy compared to works considered more intellectually demanding.
During his television appearance, Juan del Val argued that there is a disconnection between a good part of current literary production and the general public, stating that “there is literature that is written so that the people understand it and another that is written so that an elite understands it.” The writer and television panelist defended the validity of books that seek to reach a broad audience, arguing that “Literature does not have to be difficult or exclusive”a statement that has been interpreted by some sectors as a direct criticism of authors who privilege formal complexity or experimentalism.
In this context, the Nobel Prize for Literature awarded to the Hungarian writer László Krasznahorkaican be read as an endorsement for this type of authors that are “difficult to read” but more nutritious and stimulating for the intellect of their readers. The Swedish Academy has described it as an epic writerwith a narrative characterized by absurdity and grotesque excess. The prose of Krasznahorkai has been considered by some critics as “torrential”: its narratives constantly challenge traditional expectations of clarity or literary resolution.
Ambiguity, a central feature in his work, is manifested in the construction of characters who almost always wander along the edges of society, dominated by obsessions or impulses close to delirium. Instead of offering answers, his books invite us to go through true narrative “labyrinths”according to different literary analyses, generating in those who approach them a feeling of sustained restlessness.
Various writers and critics have responded to the words of Valnoting that the distinction between literature “for the people” and literature “for the elite” can contribute to a reductionist view of the literary scene. Some of these critics have recalled that many of the great works of universal literature, today considered canonical, were at the time popular texts or accessible to the general public. Others, however, have defended the need to maintain spaces for experimentation and intellectual demands, emphasizing that “literature can also be a challenge for the reader,” as expressed by a columnist cited by the newspaper.
In this context, the figure of Juan del Val has become the center of a controversy that transcends his own work and calls into question the criteria of legitimacy and success in the publishing world. The writer, known both for his novels and for his media presence, has insisted that “writing for the people is not writing worse.” This defense of popular literature has been interpreted by some as a vindication of commercial genres and of authors who manage to connect with a mass audience, while others see it as an implicit disqualification of those who opt for more risky or minority proposals.
