Reading Tea Leaves discussion

Please use this thread to discuss chapters 11 through 20.

I am breaking the rules, I realize, but I am going to put all of my comments here rather than break them up into chapter sections.

Rose wrote what she calls popular history; hers is not a "scholarly work." She has produced a readable account of Robert Fortune's activities in China, but a reliable history it is not.

Being a sinophile has led me to view the telling somewhat skeptically. That and the multiple errors of fact that have crept in. The East India Company, for example, had not sold opium to China for "nearly two hundred years" by the time of Fortune's "exploits." They succeeded in addicting the Chinese nation in far less time than that beginning about 1773 and accelerating in the 19th century when Britain faced a severe balance of payments crisis. Americans, by the way, were complicit, as the second largest providers of opium to the Chinese.

Elsewhere, theanine is not "a tea based counterpart to caffeine," it a compliment to caffeine, both of which are found in tea. Green tea does not have less caffeine than black tea, it has more. The differences in the cup result from different brewing methods. And the Chinese have never used bergamot for scenting teas. These are a few of the errors that jumped out at me, I am sure a more knowledgeable reader would find many more.

I found it frustrating that the Opium Wars, which devastated the tottering Qing regime and in many senses precipitated Fortune's mission, didn't receive more thorough attention. OK - this was not a book about the Opium Wars. But neither was it a book about the Sepoy Rebellion yet those events earned a whole chapter (and they too deserve a whole book.)

Overall, Rose has spun an interesting tale but one more in the mold of a James Bond novel than an actual accounting of the history of events.

David wrote: "Rose wrote what she calls popular history; hers is not a "scholar..."

Thanks for bringing this to the fore, David. I couldn't agree more. This is my second time reading this book and I've been charmed both times by how Rose frames it as a thriller, and chagrined both times at some of the inaccuracies (some that you point out jumped out at me too, and thanks for mentioning others). Like any popular history, this one has to be taken with a grain of salt. For many people who are interested in the long and fascinating history of tea, this might be a good jumping off point because it is so easy to read, and to be fair, it does get most of the facts straight. As with any subject, the more one reads, the more one is able to corroborate information. I hope that this fun account leads readers to dig deeper. BTW, for a truly scholarly approach, try Steeped in History: The art of tea, edited by Beatrice Hohenegger.

I echo Hillel's thanks to David as well. It's helpful to have additional insight as to what's accurate vs not. I'm not quite as knowledgeable as you two about the details, but the book did read to me more like historical fiction. And even though there are direct passages from Fortune's first-hand account, I'm pretty skeptical​ of his version of events, too. The lens through which he views the Chinese people and culture is definitely considered racist by today's standards, so I imagine he missed a lot. Plus, his account of his own bravery is certainly exaggerated. But I did learn some new things I didn't know before, and I was engaged throughout my reading. I will also look into Hillel's suggestion, Steeped in History. Thanks!