: Why Does the Boy of Gwangju "Come" in the Present Tense?){kind=link}
Han Kang's Human Acts (Sonyeon-i Onda): Why Does the Boy of Gwangju "Come" in the Present Tense?
The English edition of Han Kang's (1970– ) novel about the May 1980 Gwangju Uprising is titled Human Acts. The Korean original, published in 2014, carries a different title: Sonyeon-i Onda. Three words. A boy comes. Present tense. The verb that closes the title is not "came," not "is coming," not "will come." It is onda — the bare present, the form a Korean speaker uses to describe an action happening now, in this room, within reach.
This is not a translator's error. Deborah Smith, who rendered the book into English in 2016, made a defensible choice. Sonyeon-i Onda would have read as oddly affectless in English — "A Boy Comes" — and the new title gestured toward the moral terrain Han herself was excavating. But something is lost in the swap, and what is lost is precisely the question that organizes the entire novel: who, exactly, is doing the coming, and to whom?
To take Han's title seriously is to begin reading the book before the first sentence. The grammar of the title is already the ethics of the book. The boy is not over. He is approaching. The reader is the destination.
What the present tense does to a forty-year-old corpse
Korean verb conjugation has a feature that English does not. The form onda is what grammarians call the plain present declarative. It is the form used in newspaper headlines, in narrative voice-over, in the moment a mother sees her child rounding the corner: 아이가 온다. The child comes. The action is happening as the sentence is spoken.
Now consider what Han is doing. The historical fact behind the novel is the murder of a fifteen-year-old boy named Moon Jae-hak (1964–1980), a first-year student at Gwangju Commercial High School. On the night of May 26, 1980, paratroopers of the Republic of Korea Army were already mobilized to retake the South Jeolla Provincial Office in central Gwangju, which civilian militias had been holding for ten days. Moon stayed. He was killed in the predawn assault of May 27. His remains were laid out in the municipal gymnasium nearby, the building that locals called Sangmugwan, where families came to identify their dead. He was the inspiration for the novel's protagonist Dong-ho.
If Han had titled her book in the past tense — "the boy came," "a boy who came" — she would have been writing a memorial. She would have been doing what nearly every well-intentioned book about state atrocity does: gathering the dead into a respectful past, lighting a candle, sealing the lid. Korean readers know this convention exhaustively. Every May, the country produces an industry of commemoration in the past tense.
Han refused the past tense.
The verb onda does something that no English construction can replicate without cumbersome paraphrase. It places the boy in the same temporal plane as the reader holding the book in 2014, in 2024, in 2026. He is not arriving from history. He is arriving in the kitchen, in the subway car, on the page. The reader does not commemorate him. The reader receives him.
The six chapters and the second-person command
The novel's structure makes this grammatical decision into a moral architecture. Human Acts is composed of six chapters and an epilogue, each told from a different vantage point. Chapter one is set inside the gymnasium where fifteen-year-old Dong-ho is helping to cover corpses with white sheets and light candles. The narrative voice addresses him in the second person.
You are looking at the candles. You are wondering whether souls have wings, the way birds do.
— Han Kang, Human Acts (2014)
The Korean second-person pronoun neo — the intimate "you" — is what a mother uses with her child, a friend with a friend. It is not a literary distancing device. It is the form of speech reserved for a body close enough to touch. By placing the dead boy in this pronoun, Han forces the reader into the only position the second person permits: the position of the speaker, the one who is close enough to address him by name.
Chapters two through six rotate the perspective. Chapter two is narrated by the murdered friend Jeong-dae, whose soul hovers near his decomposing body. Chapter three follows the editor Eun-sook, surveilled and beaten by the dictatorship's security apparatus. Chapter four enters a former prisoner who has been tortured. Chapter five gives the floor to a survivor named Seon-ju, a young woman who worked at the citizens' council during the ten-day uprising. Chapter six is the voice of Dong-ho's mother, decades later, walking toward her son's grave and speaking to him in the present tense, as if he were still expected at the dinner table.
What unifies these six voices is that they all speak about Dong-ho, and they all speak to him. He is the silent center around which six survivors circle. He is never granted his own first-person voice. He cannot be. The dead, in Han's universe, are not permitted to speak for themselves — that would be the easy consolation. Instead, the living must learn to speak to them, and the title's verb onda announces what that act of address makes possible: the dead boy, addressed, comes. Not as a metaphor. As a structural fact of the prose.
The historical specificity that the title refuses to abandon
It is tempting, especially in international reception, to read Human Acts as a universal meditation on state violence. The English title encourages this. It abstracts. It elevates. It speaks the dignified vocabulary of human rights discourse.
The Korean title does the opposite. It refuses to abstract. It says: a boy. This boy. The one whose body was in the gymnasium that Dong-ho's character is modeled on, the gymnasium where Moon Jae-hak's mother Kim Gil-ja came to identify her son's body in May 1980. Han spent more than a year reading more than nine hundred testimonies before she wrote a sentence, and the specificity of those testimonies is what the title Sonyeon-i Onda preserves against the polite generalizations the world prefers.
The chapters bear this specificity at every level. The torture techniques in chapter four are described with documentary precision: the wooden boards, the water, the routines. The administrative banality of the dictatorship's response — how the security services tracked which books an editor was publishing, how they decided which sentence in a manuscript to demand removed — is reconstructed not as symbol but as procedure. Han has said that during the writing she lost what remained of her trust in the human capacity for goodness. The novel records that loss without redeeming it.
And then, in the final pages, comes the inversion that her Nobel Lecture in December 2024 made explicit. The questions she had carried since her mid-twenties — can the present help the past, can the living save the dead — were the wrong questions. The correct grammar was reversed. Can the past help the present? Can the dead save the living? The title's verb was the answer to a question she had not yet learned to ask when she wrote it.
Why this matters now, in a country that keeps trying to forget
In October 2024, when Han was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, certain quarters of South Korean political culture responded by recycling the denialist literature about Gwangju that had circulated since the 1980s. The 5·18 Memorial Foundation issued a public statement condemning the resurgence. Conservative commentators questioned whether the novel "distorted" the historical record. The familiar machinery of forgetting ground back into motion.
This is what the present tense of Han's title was designed to resist. A past-tense title can be allowed to recede. A present-tense title keeps walking toward the reader, decade after decade, regardless of who would prefer it to stop. The boy comes. He keeps coming. He came in 2014 when the book was published, and the country was forced to look at him again. He came in 2024 when the Nobel medal placed him on every front page. He comes now, in this paragraph, in any sentence that names him.
This is the political function of the grammar. It is not nostalgic. It is not therapeutic. It is a refusal of the temporal architecture by which states bury their dead under the soft phrase "in the past." Han's verb says: the past you have buried is in this room with us. Until you address it, it will continue to enter.
A common noun called Gwangju
Near the close of her Nobel Lecture, Han articulated something she had come to understand only in the years of writing Human Acts.
When a time and place in which human cruelty and dignity existed in extreme parallel is referred to as Gwangju, that name ceases to be a proper noun unique to one city and instead becomes a common noun.
— Han Kang, Light and Thread (2024)
A proper noun is bounded. A common noun is generalizable. The boy's coming, in the present tense, is what performs that grammatical conversion. Gwangju is now the name of the 1948 Jeju 4.3 massacre, in which South Korean security forces and right-wing paramilitaries killed between ten and thirty thousand civilians on the island. It is the name of Phnom Penh in 1975, when the Khmer Rouge emptied an entire urban population into the countryside and presided over the deaths of roughly 1.7 million Cambodians. It is the name of Srebrenica in July 1995, when Bosnian Serb forces killed more than eight thousand Bosniak men and boys in a matter of days. It is not the name of a city alone. It is the name of the structure that produces such cities, and the name for the dead who refuse the polite past tense.
To live well with a book like this is to accept that the verb onda has consequences. The reader who lets the boy in must reorganize the rest of the day around the arrival. The reader who keeps the title in the past tense, who reads Human Acts as a finished tragedy belonging to another country and another decade, has not yet begun to read the book.
Readers of Han Kang opening this novel for the first time, the title is the entire instruction. The boy is not a memory. He is approaching. Whether you make the room he can enter is, in the most literal sense the verb permits, your decision.
Forty-six years after his death, Moon Jae-hak's name still belongs to the present tense in any sentence willing to keep it there. That is what the grammar of Sonyeon-i Onda finally requires: not that we mourn him correctly, but that we do not let him become a sentence in the past.
Post a Comment