How offensive is Memoirs of a Geisha (the novel)?

I can't remember which parts were racist. I barely remember the book other than it's about a young, Japanese, girl who strives to become the #1 geisha and her appeal is that she has light colored eyes. If I recall correctly, her light eyes makes her "more attractive," to clients because it's unique.

Offensive to who?

Asians/Asian Americans, based on the tweet r2

Good god, she looks like a ghost.

There were no white saviors, no overt racism that I saw. Maybe Arthur Golden should have it written under a pseudonym because the biggest "crime" seems to be that a white man wrote it.

[quote]Asians/Asian Americans, based on the tweet

What does it have to do with non-Japanese?

She looks like the Asian Wednesday Addams.

Maybe the person tweeting this needs to be slapped in the face and saved from her own righteousness.

And given a sit down about wearing hideous eye makeup!

I didn't find it offensive considering it's a personal story. Poor girls were considered to be almost disposable at that particular time in Japanese history especially if they were orphans. Being a geisha was viewed as a cultural art form.

I enjoyed reading it at the time.

Panda eyes.

R4 Agreed. It is great reading, whether you have an interest in this subject matter or not. The female characters were indeed very interesting studies.

It's a really good book.

In this day and age, for a white man to write about Japanese women is considered offensive to SJWs--you are only supposed to write about people of your own gender and race and sexuality. Lionel Shriver (the woman who wrote "We Need to Talk about Kevin") has spoken out against this ridiculous idea, and has been attacked for it by SJWs.

If we did not have people writing about races or genders or sexualities not their own (that is, if they are from the "dominant" positions--so white people who could not write about blacks, men who could not write about women, cis people who could not write about trans or genderfluid people, or heterosexuals who could not write about gays or bisexuals), we would have: no Sophocles' Antigone, no Euripides' Medea, no Shakespeare's Rosalind, no Racine's Phédre, no Dickens's Little Nell, no Thackeray's Becky Sharp, no Gertrude Stein's Melanchtha, no E. M. Forster's Margaret Schlegel, no Carson McCullers's Dr. Benedict Copeland, no Williams Faulkner's Lucas Beauchamp, no Patrick McCabe's Patrick "Pussy" Braden, no Patricia Nell Warren's Harlan Brown, no Jeffrey Eugenides's Cal Stephanides...

It has no western characters, how was it offensive ?

The movie was not well-received, but I though it was pretty good -- and the set decoration/production design was gorgeous. Directed by Rob Marshall of "Chicago." (And gay, of course.)

R3: Asians and Asian/americans don't find offensive the same things

r16 of course, but I was referring to the tweet at OP

R7: She is a writer, her novel The incendiaries had a lot of buzz not so long ago.

R13: The good thing is Lionel couldn't care less about the backlash.

There's a way to avoid the backlash, writing multicharcter novels, in that case the writer will face backlash is he/she doesn't introduce some minorities

Riteral Viorence!

Well, I know the author bent the truth of Geisha and it's culture to make it a better read. And I know some Japanese people find it offensive because they do not have empathetic views of Geisha and the men that employed them; so maybe that's what she finds so insulting. That the characters are never placed into context with the world they live in.

[quote]She is a writer, her novel The incendiaries had a lot of buzz not so long ago.

And?

She could still use with a slapping to rid herself of her righteousness!

[quote]R7 Maybe the person tweeting this needs to be slapped in the face and saved from her own righteousness.

Rather, she just needs to be more detailed about what she objects to in the novel, so people can agree or disagree.

R. O. Kwon's weird makeup makes her look like a zombie.

That woman's photo looks really creepy and ghoulish.

I think people can write characters that aren't their own race/sex/orientation without it being disrespectful...it's mostly a matter of basic human empathy, surely. And research if it's not your own native culture, but I don't see it as inherently wrong. It seems a little ironic, since for so long the complaint was that rich white people only wrote about rich white people...maybe they actually just wish rich white people would go away, period. (I wouldn't mind if they were less dominant, but then there are those who want to banish them to the gulag forever.)

The book incorrectly states that geisha were involved in prostitution, which is not true.

R21: And nothing, i only said she was a writer.

And of course in the comments appeared the "he is a white writer writing about a japanese woman" like that means anything. If he is inaccurate, it's perfectly ok point that, but he being white doesn't mean anything at all.

Fiction is just that, fiction, you can write whatever you want as long as you do it well

It's a Top Ten book for me, possibly. Not because it's so beautifully written, but because it opened my eyes to the wonders of Japanese culture, and Geisha culture in particular.

Geisha are considered artists of a very high form. Therefore, that the lead character sells her virginity to the highest bidder as part of some dreamed-up addition to Geisha tradition is seen as racist and exploitative. But bigger than that, it reinforced Western culture's deep misunderstanding of Geisha culture and tradition.

Still, a wonderful book.

I also read Geisha: A Life, and loved it as well.

[quote]r25 The book incorrectly states that geisha were involved in prostitution, which is not true.

The book points out that geishas from that era would sell their virginity to the highest bidder, then hope to aquire a [italic]danna[/italic]... or wealthy man who supported them in exchange for becoming their mistress.

So, yeah, pretty much prostitution, in a sense.

The novel was a must-read 20 years ago. Madonna used it as a reference to her music video "nothing really matters". I read the novel after the hype cooled a bit and in retrospect, it's very stupid in many ways. I also read the memoir from the retired geisha at least part of the novel was based on. The (real) memoir was written to directly contradict some of the more salacious details the novel included. The ( real) memoir is much more subdued,non salacious.

[quote]The book points out that geishas from that era would sell their virginity to the highest bidder, then hope to aquire a danna... or wealthy man who supported them in exchange for becoming their mistress.

Not much different than the courtesans in "Gigi."

Has Constance Wu weighed in yet?

If they think that's offensive, what's their reaction to THIS?

That movie was my introduction to Gong Li. And I can see why some would be offended by some of the main characters being portrayed by Chinese actresses.

She isn’t wrong.

This one is supposed to be more genuine. Being written by a real life geisha.

Mineko Iwasaki (岩崎 峰子):

Golden research for the book included interviews with both Iwasaki and Liza Dalby, PhD in anthropology, first Westerner to work as a Geisha, and author of several books about Geisha and Japanese culture and history. Golden's book faithfully reproduced the life of women and Geisha in Japan pre/post WWII as described by Iwasaki and Dalby.

I'm not really sure if this IS a fair assessment, but a Japanese friend who also read the book told me within geisha millieu, none would be as competitive and spiteful as was portrayed in the book. It's been so many years now since reading it, but think my friend objected to the character who burned down her rival's house. Alas, if one gives broad perimeters in fiction works, who's to say it really wouldn't have happened IRL? My friend did enjoy the book thoroughly, and in turn had leant it to me. I don't get all the uproar. Didn't at the time either.

Isn’t Kwan a Chinese name? By her own logic she has no right to comment on things Japanese.

r33 I know relations are different between countries in East Asia, but ... people of European ancestry play people from other ancestries *all the damn time*

[quote]r38 my friend objected to the character who burned down her rival's house.

Well, we wouldn't have much of a story without characters like that.

The author (who is Korean) is caving in to the Western notion of beauty- the heavy liner on the bottom is trying to compensate for the lack of a crease on top....she should look to herself for her loathing of how her eyes look.

So should we censor James Clavell as well?

The critic isn't even Japanese: she's one of those "I'm ashamed of FOBby Asians, so I'm going to be super liberal and have lots of black friends, so I'm not identified with them."

Such a phony. I bet she's not even vegan.

I feel her pain.

The book is fine. I read it years ago and I liked it. I am also Asian. I think Golden exaggerated some stuff (it IS fiction), but Iwasaki's motives is also suspect, in that she is part of the culture and scene and she might have let slip some things that violated the reputation and dignity of the Geisha profession, which compelled her to deny the Golden book and publish her own sanitized version of the story. The story took place just before and during World War 2 and Japan was a much more misogynist place than today.

True, r45, but it's still pretty damn misogynistic.

Eg, women are required by law to take their husband's last name

R46 definitely. Actually almost all of Asia is pretty misogynistic. What i mean is some of the events depicted in Golden's book (e.g. the virginity auction) would not have surprised me if it is based on a version of truth. A lot of people, especially Japanese, objected to it (thus Iwasaki's book) but I think that is more "concealing dirty laundry of the past" than "denying it ever happened". Furthermore, the geisha profession of today is much less competitive than the era depicted in the book, simply because most Japanese women have other work options and the number of geishas dwindled to the point the demand outstrips supply.

R41 I couldn't agree more.

As an aside, I find that Asian American women are some of the most vocal (and easily offended) in online SJW spaces.

The irony being, actual people from Asia (I have a number of Chinese friends who live in both the US and China) don't really give a fuck.

I guess it's similar dynamic with Marxists: almost all of the card-carrying socialists I know come from privileged backgrounds.

Also, R.O. Kwon looks insufferable

R49 thats the thing. Asian Americans (especially second generation) are experiencing this very differently (I am the asian above in R45 and R47 ) The mix of traditional asian misogynist values and western values are very dissonant. I grew up thoroughly westernized so i can see both sides. These young women are advocating for themselves and for asian women because they realized how fucked they are if they are stuck in asia. They are not anymore "SJW" as their white counterparts.

I don't know if they are mor SJW but when they claim something is ofenssive to asians they should add asian-americans because for sure most things they are outraged doesn't offend most asians at all