Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.01 AVERAGE
4.01 AVERAGE
This book has its criticisms, which are completely valid. That being said, I just finished rereading it, and it is one of the most beautiful books I've ever read. Arthur Golden immerses the reader in the culture and you feel like it's a first person account of the realities of that time period. I also rewatched the movie, and definitely recommend the book instead. The movie misses so much and glosses over things I considered important.
What a charming tale of child rape. I'm surprised this genre hasn't taken off.
If a Japanese author were to write a romantic novel about Catholic priests who rape altar boys, would you read that? I'm no prude when it comes to writing, I've read and enjoyed Tropic of Cancer several times, but it is inconceivable to me that anyone could reserve praise for this book of naked exploitation. I'm embarrassed that I read it all the way through, which I did so I could feel entitled to rail against it. It is utterly irredeemable.
If a Japanese author were to write a romantic novel about Catholic priests who rape altar boys, would you read that? I'm no prude when it comes to writing, I've read and enjoyed Tropic of Cancer several times, but it is inconceivable to me that anyone could reserve praise for this book of naked exploitation. I'm embarrassed that I read it all the way through, which I did so I could feel entitled to rail against it. It is utterly irredeemable.
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
medium-paced
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I read a few of the harsher public reviews of this novel and the criticisms seem to fall into two main categories: 1) The movie was rubbish; and 2) The novel was written by a white American dude.
On number one I can't comment having not seen the Rob Marshall film (although Zadie Smith's hilarious and scathing review in her essay collection, Changing My Mind is quite clear that it was indeed shit). However, it seems a little unkind to decide the merits of a book with your opinion of its Hollywood rendering in mind. I wonder how many books would suffer from that approach.
The second criticism is on the surface more credible, but aims at the same target: inauthenticity. For example, if The Underground Railroad or The Sellout or Native Son had turned out to have written by some white guy, the public reaction would have been to crucify him and his appropriating, derivative novel. The black experience should be written by black writers or not at all, goes the logic. It's hard not to agree.
This logic applied to a first person tale by a Japanese female protagonist recounting her journey from rural poverty to first-class geisha in 1930'-50's Japan seems rock solid. How dare an American white man pretend to be any of these things! Inauthentic! Hollow! And HORROR- FIRST PERSON!! This seems to be the most inexcusable part. The novel presents a frame narrative to allow Chiyo/Sayuri the internally consistent rationale for telling her story. This apparently amounts to unforgivable sacrilege. Imagine, trying to pull the wool over our eyes! Get out, white man!
There are a few problems with this (ok, straw man) interpretation. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that it is a work of fiction. Every author pretends intimite knowledge of their characters, and if they were exact reproductions of the author's personal experience, it would be autobiography and not fiction. The imagination can of course surpass autobiography and should do.
Secondly, the success of a book is not dependent on the demographics of the writer, but on their qualifications/skills and vice versa. It is perfectly possible for a Japanese ex-geisha to write a poorly-written memoir that is authentic, and at the same time narrow, inexpressive, or plain uninteresting.
I remember once seeing an interview with Reza Aslan, who at the time had recently published a book called Zealot about the life and politics of Jesus of Nazareth. The Fox anchor Lauren Green repeatedly asked him why a Muslim was writing about Jesus. The implication was clear- how could a Muslim possibly write well about anything Christian. In his response, he respectfully reminds her that he is a religious scholar with four degrees, one of which in the New Testament, is fluent in biblical Greek, and had been studying the origins of Christianity for twenty years. His credentials were impeccable, but the interviewer could only see inauthenticity. Someone without any credentials whatsoever, but who happened to be a Christian would have caused her far less distress. The fact that this single 'credential' trumps all others is a a horrible phenomenon not limited to America or even Christianity, but does seem particularly rife there. I digress.
Arthur Golden is a graduate of Harvard specialising in Japanese art history, has an MA in Japanese history, and has lived and worked in Japan. He also has an MA in English. These achievements alone suggest he knows enough of what he is talking about to silence the Lauren Green-type ad hominem criticisms, but they by no means guarantee a decent novel. The fact is, we are lucky to find in Arthur Golden an author with sensitivity, attention to detail, fluid prose, excellent pacing, and imaginative prose. The novel works. It doesn't strike me as culturally whitewashed, excruciatingly reductive or any of those (I believe) misplaced faultfinding reprovals.
Sayuri's concerns are internally legitimate, her allusions and aspirations appropriate, her language credible, and her life, while hardly representative of the majority of rural girls sold into the floating world, informative and sympathetically presented. I've lived in Japan for over 20 years, speak fairly fluent Japanese and am married to a Japanese woman, and while none of this qualifies me to assess the accuracy of the portrayal in the novel, there was nothing in the text that felt anything but true to me*.
A friend mentioned recently that he felt a little cheated at the end, because he had been so convinced that Sayuri existed and had written the honest and heart-breaking account of her life. When he was reminded at the end of Golden's profile, it seemed incredible. This is what I think is the true source of a lot of criticism. His portrait is sketched with such care that when the bubble pops, it is almost resentment which is left. I may be over-analysing, but it would not surprise me to learn that some people feel he shouldn't be able to write such a compelling first person account outside his gender, nationality, and era.
*An aside: I just remembered, I do actually know a geisha personally. I taught her English when she was a high school student and she came to visit me once after her apprenticeship in a Shinbashi okiya had finished.
On number one I can't comment having not seen the Rob Marshall film (although Zadie Smith's hilarious and scathing review in her essay collection, Changing My Mind is quite clear that it was indeed shit). However, it seems a little unkind to decide the merits of a book with your opinion of its Hollywood rendering in mind. I wonder how many books would suffer from that approach.
The second criticism is on the surface more credible, but aims at the same target: inauthenticity. For example, if The Underground Railroad or The Sellout or Native Son had turned out to have written by some white guy, the public reaction would have been to crucify him and his appropriating, derivative novel. The black experience should be written by black writers or not at all, goes the logic. It's hard not to agree.
This logic applied to a first person tale by a Japanese female protagonist recounting her journey from rural poverty to first-class geisha in 1930'-50's Japan seems rock solid. How dare an American white man pretend to be any of these things! Inauthentic! Hollow! And HORROR- FIRST PERSON!! This seems to be the most inexcusable part. The novel presents a frame narrative to allow Chiyo/Sayuri the internally consistent rationale for telling her story. This apparently amounts to unforgivable sacrilege. Imagine, trying to pull the wool over our eyes! Get out, white man!
There are a few problems with this (ok, straw man) interpretation. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that it is a work of fiction. Every author pretends intimite knowledge of their characters, and if they were exact reproductions of the author's personal experience, it would be autobiography and not fiction. The imagination can of course surpass autobiography and should do.
Secondly, the success of a book is not dependent on the demographics of the writer, but on their qualifications/skills and vice versa. It is perfectly possible for a Japanese ex-geisha to write a poorly-written memoir that is authentic, and at the same time narrow, inexpressive, or plain uninteresting.
I remember once seeing an interview with Reza Aslan, who at the time had recently published a book called Zealot about the life and politics of Jesus of Nazareth. The Fox anchor Lauren Green repeatedly asked him why a Muslim was writing about Jesus. The implication was clear- how could a Muslim possibly write well about anything Christian. In his response, he respectfully reminds her that he is a religious scholar with four degrees, one of which in the New Testament, is fluent in biblical Greek, and had been studying the origins of Christianity for twenty years. His credentials were impeccable, but the interviewer could only see inauthenticity. Someone without any credentials whatsoever, but who happened to be a Christian would have caused her far less distress. The fact that this single 'credential' trumps all others is a a horrible phenomenon not limited to America or even Christianity, but does seem particularly rife there. I digress.
Arthur Golden is a graduate of Harvard specialising in Japanese art history, has an MA in Japanese history, and has lived and worked in Japan. He also has an MA in English. These achievements alone suggest he knows enough of what he is talking about to silence the Lauren Green-type ad hominem criticisms, but they by no means guarantee a decent novel. The fact is, we are lucky to find in Arthur Golden an author with sensitivity, attention to detail, fluid prose, excellent pacing, and imaginative prose. The novel works. It doesn't strike me as culturally whitewashed, excruciatingly reductive or any of those (I believe) misplaced faultfinding reprovals.
Sayuri's concerns are internally legitimate, her allusions and aspirations appropriate, her language credible, and her life, while hardly representative of the majority of rural girls sold into the floating world, informative and sympathetically presented. I've lived in Japan for over 20 years, speak fairly fluent Japanese and am married to a Japanese woman, and while none of this qualifies me to assess the accuracy of the portrayal in the novel, there was nothing in the text that felt anything but true to me*.
A friend mentioned recently that he felt a little cheated at the end, because he had been so convinced that Sayuri existed and had written the honest and heart-breaking account of her life. When he was reminded at the end of Golden's profile, it seemed incredible. This is what I think is the true source of a lot of criticism. His portrait is sketched with such care that when the bubble pops, it is almost resentment which is left. I may be over-analysing, but it would not surprise me to learn that some people feel he shouldn't be able to write such a compelling first person account outside his gender, nationality, and era.
*An aside: I just remembered, I do actually know a geisha personally. I taught her English when she was a high school student and she came to visit me once after her apprenticeship in a Shinbashi okiya had finished.
adventurous
emotional
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
relaxing
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated