What do you think?
Rate this book
An Eye for the Dragon
Book about Southeast Asia mid to late 20th century
368 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1970
47 people want to read
About the author
Dennis Bloodworth
15 books3 followersDennis Bloodworth was a veteran journalist and writer who wrote extensively on the political developments in Southeast Asia and China.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 30, 2020
Despite the copyright and subtitle's designation of 1970, the text of this edition actually covers events which occurred in the mid-seventies, an interesting oversight which I've not encountered before. The period 1954-70 appears to represent the years Bloodworth resided in the area, serving as a journalist in the employ of the London Observer.
While treating events in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam from WWII until the 70s, there's a particular focus on the author's own travels and significant encounters, all in keeping with his overall intention of conveying to westerners the atmosphere(s) and attitude(s) of the East. Being a Britisher, his coverage of the American wars in the region is refreshingly distinctive. No communist-sympathizer, he regards the U.S.A. as among their most productive recruiters.
I was particularly moved, as might be expected, by Bloodworth's portrayal of the Vietnamese struggling for their independence--against the Americans, the French and, especially, the Chinese.
While treating events in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam from WWII until the 70s, there's a particular focus on the author's own travels and significant encounters, all in keeping with his overall intention of conveying to westerners the atmosphere(s) and attitude(s) of the East. Being a Britisher, his coverage of the American wars in the region is refreshingly distinctive. No communist-sympathizer, he regards the U.S.A. as among their most productive recruiters.
I was particularly moved, as might be expected, by Bloodworth's portrayal of the Vietnamese struggling for their independence--against the Americans, the French and, especially, the Chinese.
February 29, 2024
A book like Dennis Bloodworth’s An Eye For the Dragon would never come to print by a big name publishing house in today’s cultural climate. I’m no supporter of censorship, but I do believe there is such a thing as common courtesy. That is something Bloodworth lacks in writing about Southeast Asia from the end of World War II to 1970.
The book immediately gets off to a bad start in the introduction. The author’s stated intention is to explain what Southeast Asia is really like for people who have never been there. Maybe I am not the best audience for his writing since I have lived in both Indonesia and Thailand and also taught at the University of Wuhan in China. (Yes, it is THAT Wuhan, the one that brought coronavirus into the world in 2020.) I do have some knowledge of the region. But Bloodworth starts out by launching into an explanation of what durian is as if no other writer has ever done so before. OK, I get that not everyone has been to Asia so despite the patronizing tone, I move on to the first chapter. It all goes downhill from there to the middle of the book.
The first half is a long list of everything the author doesn’t like about Southeast Asia. He starts off by complaining about the corruption, the politics, the low education levels, the lack of intellect, the dishonesty, and a whole bunch of other things that are inherently negative. The most insulting thing he says is, and I paraphrase, that America wasn’t being sensible for trying to promote democracy in Vietnam because there aren’t any adequate materials to work with. In other words, he thinks Vietnamese people aren’t intelligent enough. Judging by the current state of American politics, I’m not so sure American or Brits are intelligent enough for democracy either, but that’s another matter. This comes from a chapter in which he visits a small village in the north of Malaysia on the island of Borneo where the Dyaks are being instructed to stuff ballot boxes in an election. He comments that they don’t even know what country they live in. Alright, I know that it sometimes isn’t fair to judge people in times past by today’s standards, but this kind of comment is racist and insensitive even by the lower standards of the 1970s. And the fact that these problems certainly do exist in Southeast Asia is undercut by his haughty attitude and inability or unwillingness to address any of these issues in depth.
The writing style is not too impressive either. Bloodworth addresses the reader the way an adult might speak to a five year old. Each of the earlier chapters addresses some issue like crime or education that Bloodworth doesn’t approve of. He starts off writing about one country, say the Philippines and then transitions into sentences about other countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, and so on. Sometimes he brings cities or regions into the writing without even saying what country they are in. Even paragraphs can begin in one place and end in another for no good literary reason. If you’re going to author a book that is full of insults to people of other countries, the least you can do is learn how to write properly first. If you want to put people down for being stupid and you can’t even write effectively than you only make yourself look like the idiot. Besides, there is a difference between listing and writing and Dennis Bloodworth doesn’t write.
The tone starts to change about halfway through in the chapter about Southeast Asian women. At first he complements them for being smart, practical, shrewd, and even the intellectual equals of Asian men. Given that the author spent the first half of the book making derogatory comments about Asian men, I’m not sure how seriously to take his claims. But then he really blows it when writing about going to do some interviews and being given the services of prostitutes as gifts by the people who take escort him. At that point I almost gave up reading this piece of crap.
But the second half of the book is a big improvement. Bloodworth takes a less insulting approach to writing about politics and the writing is actually a lot better too. In one chapter he writes about King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. He doesn’t say much about Sihanouk, but at least it reads like a slightly more serious attempt at actually writing about something rather than complaining. Some of the more interesting parts give details of the awkward visits made by Khrushchev and other Soviets to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. This is of interest because I have never found an account like this in any other history book. He also makes the valid point, one that other authors have made as well, that the North Vietnamese were more concerned with nationalism than with communism and that many nationalists joined the North Vietnamese Communist Party because they wanted self-determination more than anything else. The communists were just a convenient tool for them. He also makes a good point by saying that America was pushing the Vietnamese people into the arms of the communists by supporting the unpopular South Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem and the other thugs and tyrants who took over after his assassination.
By far the best part of this book comes at the end when Bloodworth does a fair analysis of the politics of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. He gives some good character sketches of Tengku Abdel Rahman, Sukarno, and Lee Kwan Yew. Tengku Abdel Rahman seies the provinces of Sarawak and Sabah on Borneo then expells Singapore from Malaysia to prevent a Chinese majority in his racist, Islamic-centric nation. Meanwhile, Sukarno tries to launch an invasion of Sarawak and Sabah, claiming them to be Indonesian territories and Lee Kwan Yew becomes the autocratic leader of Singapore.
By the end of the book, Bloodworth presents himself in a slightly more respectable manner. And then he has to go and blow it again. It all ends on a rotten note as he writes about how terrible Southeast Asian people sound when they speak English. He even sinks low enough to make fun of his Chinese wife’s pronunciation.
I hesitate to say that An Eye For the Dragon might be worth reading. The second half is an accessible account of the politics of the 1960s. Other than that, this is a crude and condescending work of yellow journalism written by a pompous asshole who thinks he shits ice cream. By “yellow journalism” I don’t mean the now pejorative label of “yellow” as a descriptor for Asian people; I mean “yellow” in the sense of the kind of journalism popularized by the Hearst corporation that is sensational and written with the intent of insulting the subjects of the writing without any attempt at neutrality. Southeast Asia has its share of problems. A lot of them are the direct results of colonialism. In the time I spent in Asia I encountered a lot of people who live the best lives they can given their circumstances and many of them are making an effort to improve their societies along the way. They don’t deserve to be beaten down by snooty British writers like Dennis Bloodworth who still see the world through the eyes of British colonialists. The sun set on the British Empire a long time ago so get over it and grow up. Bloodworth also never lives up to his stated intention of explaining what life is like in Southeast Asia. Most of what he writes about is related to politicians and what he does say about ordinary Asian people is mostly offensive. He fails to realize his intention of writing this book. Unless you want to study how post-colonial British journalists write about people they see as inferior to them, this book isn’t good for much. There are far better ways to learn about this part of the world.
The book immediately gets off to a bad start in the introduction. The author’s stated intention is to explain what Southeast Asia is really like for people who have never been there. Maybe I am not the best audience for his writing since I have lived in both Indonesia and Thailand and also taught at the University of Wuhan in China. (Yes, it is THAT Wuhan, the one that brought coronavirus into the world in 2020.) I do have some knowledge of the region. But Bloodworth starts out by launching into an explanation of what durian is as if no other writer has ever done so before. OK, I get that not everyone has been to Asia so despite the patronizing tone, I move on to the first chapter. It all goes downhill from there to the middle of the book.
The first half is a long list of everything the author doesn’t like about Southeast Asia. He starts off by complaining about the corruption, the politics, the low education levels, the lack of intellect, the dishonesty, and a whole bunch of other things that are inherently negative. The most insulting thing he says is, and I paraphrase, that America wasn’t being sensible for trying to promote democracy in Vietnam because there aren’t any adequate materials to work with. In other words, he thinks Vietnamese people aren’t intelligent enough. Judging by the current state of American politics, I’m not so sure American or Brits are intelligent enough for democracy either, but that’s another matter. This comes from a chapter in which he visits a small village in the north of Malaysia on the island of Borneo where the Dyaks are being instructed to stuff ballot boxes in an election. He comments that they don’t even know what country they live in. Alright, I know that it sometimes isn’t fair to judge people in times past by today’s standards, but this kind of comment is racist and insensitive even by the lower standards of the 1970s. And the fact that these problems certainly do exist in Southeast Asia is undercut by his haughty attitude and inability or unwillingness to address any of these issues in depth.
The writing style is not too impressive either. Bloodworth addresses the reader the way an adult might speak to a five year old. Each of the earlier chapters addresses some issue like crime or education that Bloodworth doesn’t approve of. He starts off writing about one country, say the Philippines and then transitions into sentences about other countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, and so on. Sometimes he brings cities or regions into the writing without even saying what country they are in. Even paragraphs can begin in one place and end in another for no good literary reason. If you’re going to author a book that is full of insults to people of other countries, the least you can do is learn how to write properly first. If you want to put people down for being stupid and you can’t even write effectively than you only make yourself look like the idiot. Besides, there is a difference between listing and writing and Dennis Bloodworth doesn’t write.
The tone starts to change about halfway through in the chapter about Southeast Asian women. At first he complements them for being smart, practical, shrewd, and even the intellectual equals of Asian men. Given that the author spent the first half of the book making derogatory comments about Asian men, I’m not sure how seriously to take his claims. But then he really blows it when writing about going to do some interviews and being given the services of prostitutes as gifts by the people who take escort him. At that point I almost gave up reading this piece of crap.
But the second half of the book is a big improvement. Bloodworth takes a less insulting approach to writing about politics and the writing is actually a lot better too. In one chapter he writes about King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. He doesn’t say much about Sihanouk, but at least it reads like a slightly more serious attempt at actually writing about something rather than complaining. Some of the more interesting parts give details of the awkward visits made by Khrushchev and other Soviets to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. This is of interest because I have never found an account like this in any other history book. He also makes the valid point, one that other authors have made as well, that the North Vietnamese were more concerned with nationalism than with communism and that many nationalists joined the North Vietnamese Communist Party because they wanted self-determination more than anything else. The communists were just a convenient tool for them. He also makes a good point by saying that America was pushing the Vietnamese people into the arms of the communists by supporting the unpopular South Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem and the other thugs and tyrants who took over after his assassination.
By far the best part of this book comes at the end when Bloodworth does a fair analysis of the politics of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. He gives some good character sketches of Tengku Abdel Rahman, Sukarno, and Lee Kwan Yew. Tengku Abdel Rahman seies the provinces of Sarawak and Sabah on Borneo then expells Singapore from Malaysia to prevent a Chinese majority in his racist, Islamic-centric nation. Meanwhile, Sukarno tries to launch an invasion of Sarawak and Sabah, claiming them to be Indonesian territories and Lee Kwan Yew becomes the autocratic leader of Singapore.
By the end of the book, Bloodworth presents himself in a slightly more respectable manner. And then he has to go and blow it again. It all ends on a rotten note as he writes about how terrible Southeast Asian people sound when they speak English. He even sinks low enough to make fun of his Chinese wife’s pronunciation.
I hesitate to say that An Eye For the Dragon might be worth reading. The second half is an accessible account of the politics of the 1960s. Other than that, this is a crude and condescending work of yellow journalism written by a pompous asshole who thinks he shits ice cream. By “yellow journalism” I don’t mean the now pejorative label of “yellow” as a descriptor for Asian people; I mean “yellow” in the sense of the kind of journalism popularized by the Hearst corporation that is sensational and written with the intent of insulting the subjects of the writing without any attempt at neutrality. Southeast Asia has its share of problems. A lot of them are the direct results of colonialism. In the time I spent in Asia I encountered a lot of people who live the best lives they can given their circumstances and many of them are making an effort to improve their societies along the way. They don’t deserve to be beaten down by snooty British writers like Dennis Bloodworth who still see the world through the eyes of British colonialists. The sun set on the British Empire a long time ago so get over it and grow up. Bloodworth also never lives up to his stated intention of explaining what life is like in Southeast Asia. Most of what he writes about is related to politicians and what he does say about ordinary Asian people is mostly offensive. He fails to realize his intention of writing this book. Unless you want to study how post-colonial British journalists write about people they see as inferior to them, this book isn’t good for much. There are far better ways to learn about this part of the world.
November 6, 2025
If you want a book that will expand your vocabulary, this is the tome to read. There were some pages where I was grabbing my phone like five or six times to look up words. Some of them were even archaic according to the dictionary website.
I can't really recommend this book to anyone unless you are really interested in this particular part of the world and/or this particular point in history. I lived in this region briefly, and I am a bit of a history buff, so I had some built-in interest in the subject matter. By far the most interesting part of the book for me was the author's recounting of dealing with Ho Chi Minh, who he knew personally (in a professional capacity).
There is some amazing writing in here, but there are also some horrendously run-on sentences that take two or three read-throughs to understand.
If you're interested in Southeast Asia in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, then you might find this book worth a read. Anyone having to do any research about this region in this specific time period will find it incredibly valuable.
I can't really recommend this book to anyone unless you are really interested in this particular part of the world and/or this particular point in history. I lived in this region briefly, and I am a bit of a history buff, so I had some built-in interest in the subject matter. By far the most interesting part of the book for me was the author's recounting of dealing with Ho Chi Minh, who he knew personally (in a professional capacity).
There is some amazing writing in here, but there are also some horrendously run-on sentences that take two or three read-throughs to understand.
If you're interested in Southeast Asia in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, then you might find this book worth a read. Anyone having to do any research about this region in this specific time period will find it incredibly valuable.
February 23, 2025
Dated (published 1970, with references to “yellow” and “brown” Asians and other faux pas that wouldn’t fly today) but nonetheless a very enjoyable, entertaining, wide-ranging, and insightful overview of these eventful years in Southeast Asia from the fall of Dien Bien Phu, expelling the French from Indochina, to the approaching endgame of the Vietnam War. Bloodworth was a Singapore-based British journalist (thus much jaded British wit) who traveled the region and its conflicts with ground-level connections to political and military leaders in each Southeast Asian country, including Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines; the Vietnam War and attendant US involvement; and the armed conflicts between Indonesia, Malaya (Malaysia), and Singapore. He tells stories more or less anecdotally based on his in-country experiences, covering well each country and the tumultuous political and military upheavals and social changes in each, changes which resulted in new political and social landscapes just as I arrived in Thailand in 1973 (and spending significant time later in Malaysia and the Philippines, with at least visits to all the other countries named above, so this was of great personal interest to me). (Bloodworth put out a second edition of his book in 1973, which I would have been interested in to see if it included the Thailand student demonstrations and massacres of October 14 of that year). It’s also worth stating that the Vietnam and Indonesia-Malaya/Malaysia conflicts receive the bulk of Bloodworth’s attention—in fact, he does a remarkably clear job presenting the South Vietnamese military merry-go-round of repeated coups and government takeovers through the 1960s.
January 17, 2009
Read anything you can find by this guy. He's damned entertaining.
February 16, 2016
If you are a young person in Southeast Asia you must read this. It gives you a totally different perspective than our school textbooks.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews