given this book’s penchant for abusing chinese proverbs, i’ll start with one of my own from sun tzu: 知己知彼,百戰不殆. know yourself and your enemy, and you will never be defeated even in a hundred battles. unfortunately, if i’m in a who can write the more insensitive novel based on horrific historical events competition and my opponent is molly x. chang, i fear i’ll lose no matter what.
you can argue that this might not be a colonizer romance exactly, that it’s a story of the colonized rising up against oppression, but one look at the marketing of this book debunks this train of thought entirely. phrases like “enemies to lovers”, “zutara on steroids” and “when the trope is star crossed enemies on the opposite side of war” come to mind instantly; or perhaps, what i find the most unbelievable, from the author’s own social media, she comments “it’s just a dark chinese romantasy that’s zutara on steroids, get over it” (which i assume is in response to negativity).
not even broaching the topic of how awfully flippant it is to tell someone to get over a story as poorly done as this is, these comments and marketing slogans tell us one thing. it is, without a doubt, a colonizer romance. when you call your book a ‘dark fantasy romance’, when you use buzzwords like “lover”, “romance” and romantic ships to market the content of your work, you are, inadvertently or intentionally, establishing your work as a love story. and if the author, the one who by all means should know their work the best, describes their book as a romance, what else can it be but that?
it feels... exploitative of family tragedy. knowing the gravity of the crimes that unit 731 committed, knowing the experiences that your family has had with the unit- how could one turn around and write something like this?
by definition, this book is a romance between a coloniser and the colonised. i’m tired of people claiming that it isn’t. even if i give chang the benefit of the doubt and i wilfully turn a blind eye to the marketing at play, even if i ignore the author’s own words, the fact remains that it is still a narrative romance. and that is the basis of my criticism. the fact that most marketing for this book switched tracks from calling the prince (the coloniser) the love interest to hinting at the childhood friend as the love interest following criticism from ARC readers is telling.
before i start, let me tell you a story.
my grandfather is nearing 90 this year. he was born in 1935, six years before hong kong was taken by the japanese— the infamous 三年零八個月, three years and eight months. i asked him about his childhood once, when i was barely in my own. he didn’t answer. i thought he had gone to sleep, maybe because i still thought life was that simple back then, maybe because he had always been distant to me as the stars in the sky. because he knew i would let it go without asking again, and he would let it go without answering- we both would. we never spoke much. it was just an irrefutable truth that he rarely talked to anyone that wasn’t my grandmother. this old, i understand now that it was because my grandmother understood better than anyone, somehow, what he saw as a child had stayed with him forever.
part of why i like reading books about colonialism and history particularly about china & hk is because i can relate to some of them, even if i’m only a child in my grandparents’ eyes. their history has passed down to me through my mother. the city i grew up in is the city they grew up in, but irrevocably changed. i feel, somehow, that i owe it to them to at least understand: what they have gone through are awful things that should be honoured and remembered with grief and loss, but most of all, dignity. i’m prouder than anyone that my grandparents survived the atrocities of the japanese, and if i had to write a story for them, i would write a story of resistance and persistence— bravery and courage in the most dire of times. i would not write a sympathetic coloniser romance where the main character bends over backwards to excuse the actions of the colonising male lead, nor would i write the villains as white romans when the real horror were people of the same ethnicity as the chinese themselves. japanese.
there is a problem i have, if i’m being frank, with how the japanese and i assume the british (with references to the opium war) are mashed into one conglomerate cartoon coloniser villain mish-mash. both have committed their fair share of horrors, but you cannot replace one with another. the japanese are japanese, and the british are british. you cannot turn the japanese into silly cartoonish genocidal villains who think their skin colour and technology makes them better when the book claims to be built on true history of unit 731. and i understand that chang wants to consider the opium angle as well, which was instigated by the white british, but the truth is i find it a touch distasteful to smash the two together. pick one, or the other, or hell, even have both forces working as antagonistic characters (which worked in things like the poppy war), but not both in one.
rome- a ‘western’ country by eastern asian standards. yet the bulk of the history this book is built on was japanese history. i hold no grudge towards the japanese of today, but to ignore their past while simultaneously pushing their crimes onto other countries only serves to perpetuate and gloss over the history of this war and the people. the blood history between two countries is now cleaned up. sanitised and repackaged. we now receive a different, familiar angle to the asians of modern age, following spikes in asian hate crime: white people dislike asian people. maybe even a stronger word than that. but while some of this may be true, it is not for what chang builds her story upon. asians can still harm other asians. the relationship between east asia’s three major countries has always been bloody. if we are to truly honour the past, we must acknowledge that.
like chang herself said in her foreword, japan largely does not recognise manchurian blood spilled even to this day. she does the same herself in her own book, but i suppose it’s not on purpose.
i know, i know, expecting accurate historical representation in YA- how dreadfully unrealistic. i do agree in the fact that most of the time, YA fantasy is not the genre i should be looking for real history in. but given the fact that this was pushed as chinese fantasy, as a love poem of sorts to the author’s grandparents, based on historical events such as unit 731 (which, by the way, i feel was so very trivialised in this book) and several features in the story are blatant real world references such as rome and opian (opium), i feel expecting the villains to be the correct ethnicity isn’t too far of a stretch.
to the actual book: it was… it was okay. it was messy. the world building suffered badly, as well as any character depth for anyone that wasn’t our main girl, ruying. i may not be the sharpest gal around (i certainly have the cognitive ability of a particularly heavy brick), but the world building was even more muddled than my mind on an exam day. tell me, why was the world never explained? is rome a different planet? is it a different country, a different continent? and why is rome still named rome and opian still… opium but with one (1) different vowel but china is pangu? alas, only until the… maybe last 30% of the book was it semi-coherently explained to be another planet somehow connected to pangu through a portal. and yes, they have guns and machine guns and laser guns and shotguns and pistols and all! types! of! guns! an american’s true dream. oh, and they have… spaceships. or something of the like; i grew too tired by the end to remember.
antony- what do say about this… green-eyed, colonising, manipulative dumpster fire of a man? just. just no. there was an attempt to flesh him out: a typical sob backstory. abusive grandparents, bad childhood and all that. as always, the book frantically attempts to get you to sympathise with him even till the last moment. he is a poor facsimile of what i consider even the lowest of the low. the personality of a coat rack if said coat rack had green googly plastic eyes, a strong desire to experiment on humans, and an insufferable habit of saying “(__insert random chinese proverb__), in the words of your people” to ruying. truly, i have never quite met a character like him. like ren so eloquently said, individual suffering does not equate to systematic suffering. for a book claiming to be for the 'oppressed', no truly oppressed characters are given the spotlight apart from ruying. taohua, a true victim of colonisation, has no humanisation or use beyond being a basic plot device. and you know who gets the spotlight of the book? you guessed it. our favorite coloniser, antony.
similar problematic sentiment resurfaces at the very beginning of the book when i think back on it. according to the author, we, the chinese, were fighting our 'western invaders' with 'bows and arrows'. 1) simply untrue. isn't this based on ww2? 2) by the time japan invaded manchuria, the chinese had already had access to guns- in fact, gunpowder weapons date back all the way to the ming dynasty. to turn back all this technological advancement of the country for a narrative that perpetuates a white/western superiority viewpoint is simply distasteful. it is, by all means, rewriting history; buying into this dichotomy that all good technological ideas came from the west and the east, the backwater, uncivilised east, were countries that needed to be enlightened.
you see this sentiment throughout the entire book. it's what the central conflict is about. backwards, mystical, cultural pangu versus the technologically superior rome. except it's not just about pangu and rome, it's china and the west. pangu is weak, with all its customs and traditions. meanwhile, rome, who discards history to propel their future forward, is superior. culture is simply fraudulence; something that must be trampled underfoot to shape a country into a coloniser's sanctified vision.
it isn't just that rome had better technology and thinking. it's portraying pangu as some helpless country too fixated on their culture to move forward. inept in it's ability to innovate and progress. and now we see this for what it truly is: repackaged colonial thinking. a carbon copy of the views that the british empire held during the opium war, and to an extent what the japanese thought of the chinese during ww2. it's not always necessarily about white people against asian people. sometimes it's asian people against their very own. but even then, colonisers are colonisers. no matter the race.
it's disappointing to know that to this day some people would still agree with this notion. even more disappointing to see that this is how a chinese-american author honours her heritage. and not to mention, the author mentions she has been trying to publish this book since 2019 but states she only learnt about unit 731 in 2020 in an article. i think the book would've been completely fine without the historical influences. it might not have been my taste because i'm still not a fan of the dynamic here, but at least it's fictional. to slap a label on this book based on these events AFTER you've finished writing- it feels like it's just a thing. a commodity to be marketed, just so that western audiences can fawn over 'POC stories' and 'POC history'.
between me and you, molly, i can guarantee this is not an attack on you. promise. i think i would’ve genuinely enjoyed your writing style if it was any other book with any other plot, because it’s easily better than a lot of things i’ve read. but as it stands, i just can’t get behind this book with the knowledge that it was based on real life history yet failed so very badly at doing it justice to the point where i felt distinct dislike. or maybe the history was only added as a marketing tag, in which case, makes it even worse. perhaps the second book will be better. the title alone seems promising. but this book is just not it.
꒰ 𖦹 ⊹˚. pre-read.
⤿ 19 / 04 / 2024.
personally, i think writing a romance story based on unit 731 is…. pretty damn questionable. and i’m also sure i won’t enjoy this much. but i do want to see what the hype (or in this case, the criticism) is about, so i, an empath, can give my two cents to the loud sound of the crowd booing me offstage. wish me luck 💯