E Kenzabur and Kawabata Yasunari Nobel Prize Acceptance Speeches - Essay Example

The two speeches by the two writers addressed Japanese issues. Kawabata's speech entitled ‘Japan, the Beautiful, and Myself’ addressed the Japanese culture and quoted extensively from Buddhist poetry to show how the Japanese nature and culture is attractive (Kawabata, pp. 68-76). It also sought to show beautiful Japanese literature. The speech by Oe titled ‘Japan, the Ambiguous, and Myself’ on the hard addresses the political issue facing Japan and the place and role of writers in global humanistic literature. He also discusses the principle of non-militarization of Japan (Oe, pp. 118-123). Kawabata's speech is more localized to Japan while the speech by Oe shows a lot of interest in the need for Japanese writers to influence global literature. The reason the speech by Oe cannot be said to be a response to Kawabata’s is pure that the two address two different issues. The two speeches are, therefore, different and distinguishable, and I find little connection in them. The speech by the two is, therefore, different though Oe can be said to abhor localized literature advanced by Kawabata (Oe, pp. 118-123).

            Oe Kenzaburo Message in his acceptance speech, Oe addressed with energy the type of literature that Japanese writers ought to engage in. First, he identifies what kind of writers he associates with and what kind of a writer he will always be. His message is that Japanese writers should remain steadfast in addressing Japan’s problem of associating itself with the West both socially and culturally rather than to the Asian countries where it is. He calls the association an ambiguity of Japan that he says ought to be. He also conveys the message that post-second world war writers ought to try and write of the reconciliation of Japan with the rest of the world for its fateful participation in committing atrocities during the war period. He also seeks to emphasize the need for a writer to try to address the disparity in development between Japan the west on one hand and Africa and Latin American countries. Oe also talks against the militarization of Japan and says that Japan ought to adhere to the principle of permanent peace (Oe, p.123).
            Further, he also tries to show Japanese writers as not so much concerned with humanistic and the only serious work of literature dealing with humanistic work is a result of translation from French to Japanese. He, therefore, implores Japanese writers not to write merely about the vast economic development of Japan in terms of production of goods and their consumption in Asia but write about serious literature dealing with humanistic issues. Oe focus to investigate the growth of global humanistic literature that addresses the problem of humanity rather than literature centered on Japan (Oe, pp.123-124).