Gai-Jin (meaning 'outside person', or 'foreigner' in Japanese) is based on an actual 1862 event, known as the Namamugi Incident, in which a British national was killed, and two others wounded, by samurai on the Tokaido highway near Kanagawa for not showing the proper respect for passing Satsuma daimyo (Satsuma is a province in the south of Japan, and daimyos were local heads of government in Japan's then feudal system) . In retribution the British navy bombarded the Satsuma capital of Kagoshima. These short-lived hostilities (known as the Anglos-Satsuma War) contributed to Japan's decision, after witnessing the easy destruction of Kagoshima by the British, to modernise its army and also to trade more freely with the Western powers.
The Namamugi Incident forms the opening of the novel, and the rest of it is taken up with its consequences. However, on a wider scale, the book tells the story of the opening up of Japan consequent to Commodore Perry's arrival, in 1858, with the black ships and the 'unfair treaties' that were then 'forced' on the weakening Tokugawa shogunate. Even though little time passes and not much action takes place in the book, it captures the many strands of all the influences which caused Japan to reluctantly open to the world, frozen at almost a single moment in time. These events, ultimately, lead to the collapse of the shogunate and the whole feudal system in 1867 and the Meiji Restoration in 1868, though the novel doesn't cover events up to that point (just as Clavell's earlier Shogun doesn't cover any of the actual Tokugawa shogunate, only the events leading up to its formation).
Reviewers complain that nothing happens at the end of the novel, that it is an anti-climax after the 1,200 pages or more of time and effort required to get to the end. Up until shortly before I finally gave up, this seemed to me to be excusable, because the book builds the reader up for a big British-led invasion of Japan that never did actually take place. It didn't happen, but in retrospect it is amazing that it didn't, and that Japan resisted Western aggression, was never colonised, and built up an army powerful enough to defeat one Western power (Russia, 1905) and then go on to give America and Britain a run for their money in WW2 and then to become the second largest economy in the world. This thwarted everybody's expectations, so it isn't it right that the book thwarts the reader's expectations and simply diffuses at the end? But, of course, I don't even know what happens at the end, because I didn't get that far! Does it end in the bombardment of Kagoshima by the British? That would be a good ending, and fairly dramatic.
It's true that there isn't much development in the story, but Clavell delves deep into character and historical detail, focusing minutely on the spaces between the actual events (which are few and far between). After 800 pages little more happens than Canterbury is assassinated on the Tokaido and the British are demanding retribution from the shogunate, who claim that it is a matter for Satsuma rather than them. This stalemate just goes on and on. However, there are loads of interweaving subplots beneath this main historical story in which lots does happen, lots is thought and, perhaps most annoyingly for some readers, lots is said. All this explores in great detail the situation in Japan at this point in history and it is done with great understanding and empathy (though Clavell does occasionally get things wrong - for example talking about the use of incense in Shinto shrines. This mistake is minor but it undermines the reader's trust in his authority as a Japan expert).
Gai-Jin, much more than Shogun, is a novel with an ensemble cast. There are many 'main characters'', none of which has the reader's total sympathy or support and none of which are drawn with a totally unsympathetic hand. Some reviewers have complained that this gives the reader no one to 'root for'. I think this method is fine in this book. After all, in life, nobody is absolutely wrong and nobody absolutely right. It all depends on the moral standpoint of the onlooker. Here Clavell suppresses any moral standpoint, never judging the actions of his characters, simply portraying them. This is a great achievement, though some may criticise Clavell for being amoral as a consequence. I think the opposite. This great understanding and sympathy suggests that he is a compassionate man, able to understand everybody's actions as they are motivated by different and conflicting agendas, whether it is the shishi and their sonno-joi movement to expel all gai-jin and restore power to the emperor, a British official and interpreter wanting to advance himself, or a French girl trying to use all her sexual charms to win the hand in marriage of the richest man in all Asia.
Other complaints are of bad grammar, and these are valid, but the grammar is not bad enough to seriously distract the reader from the story, so this is relatively unimportant. The novel is certainly not badly written. Clavell again demonstrates his fluent and compulsive style. The pages turn and before you know it whole hours have slipped by. However, for me, not all the pages turned.
I just want to address two issues about Clavell's narrative method in the book. Narrative method 1 - exposition on Japanese culture is often presented as memory or flashback of a Japanese character. Seems clunky but these things do need explaining to the majority of the target readership. I cant think of a better solution. Narrative method 2 - the omniscient narrator is reporting a conversation, then (memory or not?) he switches to an earlier time and what went on there. One reviewer said there was sometimes a memory within a memory. Cant remember that ever happening. Also, it was said by the same reviewer that within one character's recollections, the view of another character was expressed. This would be a flaw if it was a memory, but maybe it isn't - maybe it's just omniscient reportage.
I would recommend this book, but certainly not over Shogun (and, from what other readers say, not over Tai-pan or Noble House). I probably won't ever finish it, as there's plenty of good stuff out there to read instead, and I gave this one a good shot. It's unusual for me to give up on a book (I also gave up on Catch 22 by Joseph Heller and On the Road by Jack Kerouac - can't think of any others), especially when I don't even think the book is bad, which is the case here. This book could really have done with some tightening up and cutting, as there's plenty of great stuff in it.