I was looking forward to reading this new novel by Yiyun Li, an author I appreciate tremendously. This is Li’s most ambitious and complex work to date, and she, once again, has demonstrated her mastery of the fiction form, but I hate to say, to this reader, unfortunately, it’s rather disappointing. A hundred pages in, the writing already felt tedious. As someone who love beautiful witty prose, I hate to say that I find the novel overly written. There's simply no need to pack an elaborate metaphor or a witty/profound reflection on life and death in almost every paragraph, and it doesn't help that while all of them are perfect in their forms, some are flawed conceptually upon close examination and, perhaps more fatally, they started to lose their originality after a while. Maybe those who disagree would argue that the first one third of the novel is written in the close third person and the rest in the voices of Lilia and Roland alternately, so these observations, from the characters’ perspectives, don't have to be universally true or convincing to all readers. Fair enough, but that’s a risky move, for how long can a writer expect her readers to indulge her without giving them a good reason to? In my case, the longer I stayed with these characters, the harder I had to make myself to stay with them without fighting them, rejecting their smugness.
This brings me to the characters. Unfortunately, I find them hard to believe and harder to sympathize with. Perhaps I just don’t see strength (“hardness”) in unrelenting (micro) cruelty or apathy, much less in an unfound sense of superiority, which are seen in many of the main characters, especially Lilia. For Lilia, it seems no one is good enough, not her parents, nor her children or grandchildren, nor her husbands, nor her lover, nor her lover’s lovers or wife, nor her fellow residents at the seniors’ home, all except perhaps only two women, her great grandmother Lucile and her lover’s lover, Sidelle—women whom she identifies herself with. Even when she praises someone, it’s almost always back-handed criticism of the very quality she praises that she sees simultaneously as a disappointing flaw (her husband Gilbert, a “good man,” is good to a fault, and of course, goodness is just another form of naiveté). Very often, her praise of one only functions to put down another as a contrast. I get it. She’s a woman hardened by life, but does acceptance of pain and life’s unpredictability necessarily require denial of kindness and joy? It seems to me what Lilia proudly takes as triumph is in fact defeat, and courage cowardice. But what puzzles me most about Lilia is her obsession with Roland and those in his life and her utter confidence of knowing all of them better than themselves, even though her knowledge of those people is sole from Roland’s (unreliable) account in his diaries. And it baffles me how a working class woman with not much of education would be attracted to and even identify herself with these aristocratic/high society women whose lives, unburdened by work and chores, mainly consist of intercontinental travels, charity projects, tea parties, and lounging around, a wine glass or a cigarette in hand, with a couple of gentlemen companions eager to entertain them with conversations of interesting anecdotes, poetry, music, and international affairs. In the end, their stories in Roland’s diaries that seem to interest Lilia so much utterly fail to interest me, not even their decades long love stories.
While reading the book, I kept hoping that I’d change my mind, but I didn’t. Surely, towards the end of the novel there seems to be some self-awareness on Lilia's part, but to me, it feels too little, too late.
P.S. I’ve been questioning my own reaction to this novel from the beginning. How much of it comes from my expectations from Li? Will I have the same reaction if it were written by a white male author? To which I have no answers yet.
P.P.S. I just read Parul Sehgal’s review of the novel for the NYT (I had refrained myself from reading any review before I form my own opinion on the novel), and I can’t agree more when she said, “The new book is bloated and unwieldy, however; it lacks the blunt power of its predecessor, which was stark and swift, flensed of artifice. There is a strange feeling of watching Li retreating into a form and narrative structure she has outgrown and outpaced.” I know I said in the beginning that Ali’s demonstrated her mastery of the fiction form in the novel, but the rest of my review is actually saying the opposite. It is precisely the “form,” the narrative that supposedly embodies her own meditation about life and death that is wanting. It’s just not a good story.
I’m not surprised that Sehgal, like others, considers the novel in the context of the writer’s life, which I tried to avoid doing. Perhaps there’s insights to be gained, but I’m always wary of disrespecting an author by interpreting and judging their work on the basis of the assumption that we somehow understand their real life experience or their intentions of writing. But I might be wrong. Maybe some authors do want readers to appreciate their work with an understanding of them, or the work itself is an attempt for them to “express themselves.” In this sense, perhaps out of respect, I’m in fact refusing to take interest in the writer’s experience and her indulgence of sharing it, no matter how subtly it’s done. That’s partly why I said I’m not sure whether I’d feel the same about the novel if Li were a white male writer, because plenty of white male writers are allowed such indulgence and we have no problem about it.