Japanese Literature discussion

This is for discussion of our first history read: Inventing Japan

Chapter One gives background to the Meiji Restoration (when the Shogun was deposed and power was 'returned' to the Emperor; it had been over 500 years since an Emperor was in charge of the country).

This background is mostly complete, but disorganized: nothing is written in either a chronological or thematic order. If something doesn't make sense to you, ask, and someone who knows the period can explain it.

Since I said 'mostly complete', of course I'm going to add something. The concept of 'religion' was foreign to Japan prior to the arrival of the Americans in 1853, and when they demanded freedom of religion, something had to be invented to express that. So the word shuukyou (central teaching) was coined. This isn't to say there was no religion in Japan; far from it. They had educated professionals, lay members, teachings, and movements galore. Sometimes sects were banned for their politics, like the Christians who might support the Spanish priests against the Shogun, or the Sohei who maintained an army of monks, or the Pure Land that taught a simple salvation that didn't need temples, priests, or any sort of hierarchy. Other than that, one teaching layered on top of another and blended together because all were a part of society. Perhaps he discusses the forced splitting of Shinto and Buddhism later in the book.

Thanks for that, Bill. I'm away for a few days, taking my copy with me, so hopefully will be a chapter or two in to it by next weekend. By my sense of it, it's actually probably a very good one to start us delving into Japanese history. A brief overview, some digression, and looking at themes or ideas. As we progress and suggest other books, I guess we will be able to fully engage in more detail, and the wider cultural aspects.

Btw, congrats to SA for their rugby World Cup win. And commiserations to England, who fought a good tournament but perhaps peaked a week too early. As we all know, my poor wee Scotland got gubbed by Japan and didn't even make it out of their group. Top marks to Japan for hosting the event. Roll on Olympics next year!!

Got mine today. Read the Prologue.

Accessible for sure. I think this will be a quick read that’ll serve as more of a chance to learn Buruma’s stance on things rather than learn a whole lot of new info.

Looking forward to it.

Quick read, but I’m skeptical, about to open he WWII chapter, which is 17pp... really?

Well, anyhow, I’ll be done by light out I suspect.

Finished... promise,no spoilers(LOL)

Good and quick read, as assumed.

Good overview and Buruma is fair (to all parties) without shying away from offending anyone (which is hard, maybe especially these days). He doesn’t shy away from saying, Japan did this or that, but also from explaining that at times, at least in some perspectives, it wasn’t simply insane, though at other times, insanity is the best explanation.

Also, Buruma doesn’t shy away from his opinion, and others, that some people were a bit more to blame than they were punished for, and that is a hard line to take for someone who spends much of their life in Japan.

Hope you all polish this off and share feelings!!

I loved the prologue, but, yes, chapter one lost me a bit. Just when I thought I was “getting” it he’d lose me. I can’t even think of good questions because I don’t understand what actually occurred. Oh well. On to the next chapter tomorrow.

I’d you do find any points that trick you up, please feel free to let us know.

So I'm now 3 chapters in. (Although it's short I have a million other things to distract me, so it's a chapter when I can.)

I'm enjoying it, and am getting used to Buruma's style. It seems to be his way to pick up on small incidents, or on one individual, and then use that to make a wider point. Which is fair enough, and gives it a more personal approach. But then he is prone to making sweeping generalisations that have me spluttering into my cup of tea and saying 'what? you can't just say that!!'. I'm also appreciating the weaving together of the various strands of European intellectualism, art and literature (with nods to Natsume Soseki and Mishima Yukio so far), religion, wider Asian history, and so on.

So, all in all, it's a good but basic overview of the period. My copy so far is covered in scribbles and underlinings of stuff to go off and explore in much more detail.

What I'm also finding is how scary it all is. For a book written in 2003, chapter 3 covers a period in Japan's history of the 1920s and the tensions between political parties, the emperor and the squeeze on liberalism. Fast-forward to 2019 and the retreat from the world by the US under Trump and the UK's exit from the EU, sentences like this could as well be about now:
'liberals were squeezed between the hard Left and the violent Right. And the mainstream political parties... did nothing to help the liberals.'
Given what seems to be a current crisis/unease across the world regarding parliaments, politics and how people feel they are either ignored or just not represented, they do say history repeats itself...

It is not a quick read for me as some concepts are quite new to me actually.

I am still in chapter 1.
I find very interesting how the scholars were studying science thru dutch and how they are simultaneously determined to ban/annihilate the barbarians but take advantage of whatever they can find useful !

The prologue was also interesting and shows the complex unity of both a need to be superior and the fear of not cutting it and how the whole people is moved by those concepts.

I also think this book shows how it is never enough to read only one book on historical topics, as in the end Buruma's perspective and view colors it for us in a certain way and one must get different perspectives.

very interesting so far ! but not light for me ... not enough exposure to this kind of content I am afraid. Only read some Lafcadio Hearn, which was also fascinating.

I’m in Chapter 2 and intrigued by the Mishima reference. I had previously understood that Mishima’s greatest energy was allocated to the proposition that pacifism and Article 9 of the Constitution rendered life without purpose for Japanese men. Can anyone provide more context for the mention of Mishima “[working] himself into a rage about the superficial primness of the Meiji years”?

I’m only on page 76, but the sheer quantity of political assassinations is stunning. This is Japan with its reputation for being all but (violent) crime free? Banana republics in the 1960s and 1970s had fewer corpses...

Chapter 4. I’ve known for some time that I cannot read more about Nanking than what Buruma presents, in terms of details. To this reader, he seems to take as balanced an approach as my 2019 brain deems reasonable. Is it? Are there factual inaccuracies or debates he glosses over that are important to acknowledge?

Depends which country you ask.

Most reasonable people agree to its atrocity, though there is argument about the numbers and about he reasons it gets brought up at certain times.

Ian wrote: "Depends which country you ask.

Most reasonable people agree to its atrocity, though there is argument about the numbers and about he reasons it gets brought up at certain times."

Thanks. I can imagine. Has Buruma understated China's perspective?

I finished it. The epilogue reminded me of chapter 1. I found it circular and nigh unto incomprehensible. But I learned a ton and truly enjoyed chapters 2 - the finish, and want to take that bibliography and consider shopping. Strange how strong he was in describing events and factors for 90% of the book, but had difficulty beginning and ending. Still, a winning selection for me.

I've just finished chapter 4 on Manchuria and agree with others - Nanking is not something we *want* to read in great detail (although maybe we should?). His take on it all is very much from the Japanese perspective. Few Chinese leaders are named. Which is fair enough - the book is called 'Inventing Japan', so when he writes in his bibliography at the end citing his sources it is, again, from a Japan-centric view. For example he writes there:

'The Nanking massacre is perhaps an even more fashionable topic. Almost everything written about it has a political bias. For a decent liberal/left Japanese view, one should read Honda Katsuichi's The Nanjing Massacre.'

He doesn't, it seems to me, come at from a Chinese perspective at all, or barely at all. He certainly doesn't cite any specific Chinese histories. Again, which is fine. History books are inherently a pick and mix.

One thing that I noticed is Buruma's tendency to change his point of view as he discusses a subject. This one example slightly annoyed me:

On p.83 he writes:
'The Nanking massacre of December 1937 was undoubtedly one of the worst atrocities of the Japanese war. However, comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust, as some do, is not very helpful in understanding the particular nature of this war crime.'

Then just 2 pages later he writes:
'What the Japanese did to the Chinese is more akin to what HIndus and Muslims did to each other in 1947, or what Serbs did to Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s, or indeed what Nazis did to Jews.'

OK, it's a general overview, and actually a good one, but the researcher in me cries out in frustration when he casually says 'and some do'. Who? Give me a footnote. Please! And his contradicting himself when he does compare it to the Holocaust was a little sloppy, I felt.

I'm being picky, I know. I am finding it a good read, and as a basic overview it's really useful. I will find myself exploring the bibliography in more detail and finding more detailed histories, I'm sure, but this I am enjoying.

(Apart from the Oxford commas. Boy oh boy, does Buruma love an Oxford comma. I notice these things. I guess it's his US education (?) - I think the Oxford (or serial) comma is more prevalent in the States (I could be wrong), and it's always a thorny issue in publishing. No right or wrong. But I notice them.) :-)

I have read other things about Nanking, and yes, it's awful to read about but I honestly think people should know more about it (if they think they can handle it, no-one should be forced to read outside their comfort zone). It makes me so angry to know that these type of things are "brushed under the carpet" so easily, when the truth of what happened is so horrific and brutal. People need to know that this is wrong and not acceptable in this age (any age, but clearly that wasn't the case in history).

[Disclaimer: These are my thoughts on ANY brutal historical situation, I have nothing against Japan specifically regarding this, although as far as I'm aware they do have a big thing about erasing certain incidents from their history books (is this truly the case or have I just read very anti-Japan points of view?)... I feel it for every incident/country/situation I know anything about. The holocaust, for example, and the way people only ever mention what happened to the Jews and leave out every other minority they tried to wipe out during it. Japan's occupation of Korea and the brutality there. Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the way the western world often uses the excuse of "well, it was war and they were against us". The British Empire and how even as an English person I know next to nothing about it, because we're never taught it...]

Anyway, I have a feeling that chapter is going to rub me the wrong way, but as I haven't actually read it yet I'll quit this rant and go read... I'm sorry, haha.

Alan wrote: "I've just finished chapter 4 on Manchuria and agree with others - Nanking is not something we *want* to read in great detail (although maybe we should?). His take on it all is very much from the Ja..."

I agree that he seemed to first reject the Holocaust equivalence, but then shifted to the "very good people on both sides" approach. I don't recall him equivocating on any other topic to this extent, and wish he'd just stopped already. What is intriguing to me is that he is first and foremost a specialist in Chinese history, which suggests an affinity for the Chinese people and how could you not side with noncombatant victims of Japan's conduct?

He also treads very, very lightly on the topic of Korean citizens' treatment by Japanese in Japan, but I chalked that up to his narrow focus on politics and political movements.

Alan wrote: "I've just finished chapter 4 on Manchuria and agree with others - Nanking is not something we *want* to read in great detail (although maybe we should?). His take on it all is very much from the Ja..."

*raises both hands in support of the oxford comma*

I didn't think we (a subset of Americans) were any more energized about the Oxford comma than our British brethren. it's always a great bar topic amongst lawyers, though. (We're disproportionately fans.)

Jeshika wrote: "I have read other things about Nanking, and yes, it's awful to read about but I honestly think people should know more about it (if they think they can handle it, no-one should be forced to read ou..."

According to Wikipedia (in the interest of full disclosure), " Since most Japanese military records on the killings were kept secret or destroyed shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945, historians have been unable to accurately estimate the death toll of the massacre." So, yes, destroying the records is step one in allowing a vocal minority to contest the facts, especially once the generation in charge dies.

I agree that our discussion of the Holocaust largely ignores the inclusion of Gypsies, queer folk, the disabled, and anyone else not deemed worthy of reproducing. But we don't talk about the Armenian genocide at all. Or the Hutu massacre of the Tutsis (it was only 1994, people - not ancient history). Hell, we don't talk about Stalin starving all of the farmers and rural folks, except in WWII circles. The 1943 Bengali famine? back to Japan, we don't talk about the famine in Vietnam in 1945 while under Japanese occupation.

Largely, I think we, at least in the US, just ignore all history -- with the exception of Britain and France --that doesn't involve us directly. So, on average, we're relatively good on the history of the trifecta but our only awareness of other countries is in the specific context of their roles in wars in which the US participated - and then only from the point the US entered, until it ended.

But that's a rant for another day....

Lol @ Carol. I'm not totally averse to it, but use it only in cases of potential ambiguity. There are, of course, times when use or non-use leaves ambiguity anyway. Such is the English language. I wouldn't have it any other way! Thank you for being equally engaged by punctuation. I worry sometimes I'm a comma-nerd :)

Carol wrote: "Jeshika wrote: "I have read other things about Nanking, and yes, it's awful to read about but I honestly think people should know more about it (if they think they can handle it, no-one should be f..."

I'm no historian, but I hadn't heard of most of those things you referenced even, which is exactly the point. Everything is just ignored. I know teaching everything would be impossible, but some sort of acknowledgment of these surely isn't?

And Britain is the same, I think in school I was taught the a little of the history of medicine, a bit of American history and a lot about WWI and WWII, but only in a Nazi Germany = bad, UK/USA = good capacity. No other countries even mentioned.

I had to google what an Oxford comma was, again. I've done this at least 10 times in my life and promptly forget what they are. I don't use them... I don't think I was ever taught to use them. But now I can't stop noticing them in that book, lol, thanks Alan.

He does just seem to throw commas everywhere tbh. I'm not the best at punctuation but are all these needed?

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent' (Wittgenstein)

OK, I know I'm taking him out of context, but it seems apt. Past atrocities are a hot potato for current administrations. Is it appropriate for someone in government now, who probably wasn't even born at the time, to apologise for what a nation did in the past? 2019 saw the 100th anniversary of the Amritsar massacre by British troops, for example. I don't think our UK government has officially apologised. But it has for Windrush. And other events, sometimes randomly.

What we are taught at school is crucial. But how exactly does a nation confront its past? I think that's at the heart of Buruma's thesis, that the ideology of a greater Japan directed what happened. And now? When managing directors of companies go in front of tv cameras, bowing in submission and apologising for something that went wrong, is that the Japan now?

I don't have answers. Just questions

Jeshika wrote: "I had to google what an Oxford comma was, again. I've done this at least 10 times in my life and promptly forget what they are. I don't use them... I don't think I was ever taught to use them. But ..."

YES. THEY. ARE. NEEDED.

There are simply not enough grammar or punctuation nazis in the world.

And, to extend my thoughts, and to create a bridge to our fiction reads, is that why a lot of Japanese lit looks at the past, crimes, finding a villain, finding answers and reaching closure? (look, no Oxford comma).

Is that why The Memory Police unsettled some of us, because it specifically didn't answer questions?

Alan wrote: "'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent' (Wittgenstein)

OK, I know I'm taking him out of context, but it seems apt. Past atrocities are a hot potato for current administrations. Is i..."

I like that he challenges the approach of victors holding war crime news trials.

It’s appropriate, imo, for current leaders to apologize on behalf of a government for past atrocities, but I’m even more a fan of current leaders taking official actions to raise awareness and take responsibility, whether those actions are around driving school curriculum changes, or funding memorials or museums or anything else that owns up to what occurred. Like we will never do with respect to the indigenous peoples of North America.

Alan wrote: "And, to extend my thoughts, and to create a bridge to our fiction reads, is that why a lot of Japanese lit looks at the past, crimes, finding a villain, finding answers and reaching closure? (look,..."

Neither did A Pale View of Hills. Right?

The Japanese Lit novels I most enjoy address those themes, but contemporary lit authors are highly diverse in their topics and not necessarily focused on the past.

Exactly, Carol. And I agree about other topics in contemporary lit. I wouldn't dare pin every author down to the past. But we are all a product of our past, in some way, are we not?

I always had the view that apologising is just too easy in any respect. It's a nice thing to do, and should be done in any situation you can, but actions speak louder than words. As Carol said, it's the raising awareness and taking responsibility that counts most. Making sure it's not just repeated again, because we all know history repeats itself.

Did I use enough commas? Haha.

Just a comment on how complicated all this history gets:

Take comfort women.

Undeniably, Japan acted horrendously and should be ashamed, with those involved punished.

Now, many involved soon ended up dead. Seems like punishment.

The evidence that the government was involved means it was even worse, and that blame goes to the top.

Maybe more people should have been executed??

The government since then has apologized and paid retribution.

Maybe it wasn’t enough?

It isn’t spoken about deeply in the government approved textbooks, but certainly available in university level ones... what age should we teach children about mass rape?

Now, the Koreans are refusing to use Japanese products, fair enough, but when you look hard enough, as often as a group brings up this topic to search for peace, another group of business people or politicians brings it up to attempt to gain financially by changing the consumer market.

There have also been reports (I’m not versed enough to attest for their authority) that a similar system of comfort women was used during the Korean War (within their own population). Even if that’s not true, the Koreans didn’t act like saints when fighting among their own to reclaim land from the north. They acted brutally to take what they felt was theirs.

And, where there is war, there has almost always been prostitution... while government organization and forced participation is gross and needs punishment, there are people who may well argue that even a poor women who chooses to partake is still being raped or that the prostitution of a countries women is a conquering act.

War is a mess that is best avoided.

Thank you, Josh. I take comfort, though I am not a woman. You're choice confused me greatly, given our comma discussion. Did you mean 'take comfort women' ie. it's about comfort women? Or did you mean to extol 'take comfort, women'? Which is something entirely different. :-)

It's not just how complicated history gets, it's how complicated grammar gets!!

:)

I did mean “take the issue of Comfort Women”

I know, I'm sorry for being pedantic. It's my mood tonight.

It is also to my shame I didn't know much about the topic. While I can't claim to now know everything, wiki helps:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfo...

What I love most about our group is this exchange of information, and ideas, and I think this inclusion of a history read only enhances what we take out of our fiction reads. Top marks to all of us.

Omg, did I just use an Oxford comma? Whew, no I don't think I did. As long as 'and ideas' is a subclause I'm ok. But I very nearly did, I think. God, that was scary ;)

Yon sacred Oxford comma is for lists only, indeed.

High school. We should speak about the high incidence of rape as an intentional weapon of war in any high school discussion of wars. It didn’t start with Genghis Khan, but any mention of him should include the topic of rape. And to discuss WWII without mentioning it is a travesty. We don’t do nearly a good enough job of presenting the reality of war to those at the age where they might be deciding no to enlist. How wrong is that?

I am an Oxford comment proponent as well. Not using it makes the grammar unclear, and implicitly lumps together the final two items in a list.

I find Inventing Japan to be too short and broad in scope to address any of its topics with appropriate subtlety and completeness. No one can do justice to the Nanjing Massacre in two pages.

I just finished chapter 2. I'm finding the political part of this slow going (so, like most of it) and the constant name dropping of people I guess I'm supposed to know but have no idea of... It's tedious. I think this is just cementing the fact that politics is not my strong point and I have no interest in it.

I'm gonna keep reading because it's short and I like the more overview-y this-is-what-Japan-was-like parts...

Alan wrote: "Thank you, Josh. I take comfort, though I am not a woman. You're choice confused me greatly, given our comma discussion. Did you mean 'take comfort women' ie. it's about comfort women? Or did you m..."

I had a good giggle at this. What've you been drinking? Lol

But, also... while we're being pedantic... You are choice?

Ah Jeshika, I'm mortified! The perils of predictive texting as I was using my phone. Thanks for correcting me.

Alas I'm no further on with the book today, although I did finally make a start on Villain. Another chapter of Inventing Japan tomorrow, I hope.

Jeshika wrote: "I just finished chapter 2. I'm finding the political part of this slow going (so, like most of it) and the constant name dropping of people I guess I'm supposed to know but have no idea of... It's ..."

I think it'll go fast from here, at least until you hit the Epilogue, which may produce the same feeling you have now. Looking forward to your conclusions in any event.

Alan wrote: "Ah Jeshika, I'm mortified! The perils of predictive texting as I was using my phone. Thanks for correcting me.

Alas I'm no further on with the book today, although I did finally make a start on Vi..."

I have entirely neglected Villain. I think it's going to be my Thanksgiving read, at this point. Life and guilt about NG and EW translated fiction reads are throwing off my book club reading in a big way. Not that guilt in itself is ever productive....

@Alan - I swear predictive text is out to make us all look like fools.

@Carol - Thank you, I'm trying to read a little at a time, mixed with some fiction in between.

I've done my usual start many things, finish nothing trick. And I need to start Villain too... And continue Pet Shop of Horrors manga series. Too many things.

Well, that's me finished Inventing Japan. I will ponder a bit more over the next few days and I'll have more time at the weekend to flesh out my thoughts.

I really enjoyed it - as a 'let's gallop through a 150 years of history, don't dawdle, come on keep up, over to your right is 1854, and now on your left is 1876, come on, come on'... It was kind of breathless, but exactly the kind of overview that someone like me (who actually hasn't read much Japanese history, to be honest) can use as a jumping off point to more detailed histories.

I treated the exercise like a school book, so I studiously had my pencil in hand to underline bits and make comments. Several times I just put '!!' when something seemed a little odd. I found the character of'Ian Buruma' quite interesting, his little asides and clear irritation at points, variously with the Americans and individual Japanese politicians. The final paragraph of the epilogue is basically full of the first-person 'I', as he steps out of the shadows, as it were, and gives us *his* full-on opinion. Not sure how I feel about that.

I'm now going to peruse the bibliography, but I wonder how many Japanese historians are cited? Which makes me ask the first and most pressing question I had. I don't know the answer and bow to others who will know more:
Buruma himself points out the lack of Japanese historians to engage in the popular debates in the 1950s about left, right, war guilt, etc, preferring, as he puts it, to stay to purely academic channels. What is the state of Japanese historians themselves then, and now, looking at this whole period - not just WW2? And, I suppose, how do the Japanese people themselves look at this? How is it taught in schools?

I know that's a soul-searching question, but if anyone who has more knowledge, who lives in Japan, has any thoughts I would be hugely interested.

The whole exercise was really good, though, and even just reading it it shone more light on some of the recent books we have looked at. So thanks again, Bill, for suggesting we do this :)

Alan wrote: "Well, that's me finished Inventing Japan. I will ponder a bit more over the next few days and I'll have more time at the weekend to flesh out my thoughts.

I really enjoyed it - as a 'let's gallop ..."

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall looking at the bibliography and thinking, there's a nice lot of quicksand i could dive in to. I love your question, though. Is there a Japanese historian writing about these topics and, if so, has her/his work been translated? Given how much the Japanese Foundation funds translation, I suspect that, even if books exist, they aren't in English. But I'd much prefer not to reach my conclusions about Japanese history exclusively from the perspective of erudite Brits and the occasional American.

I spent enough time browsing other reviews of Inventing Japan to conclude that the loudest grousers contrasted it unfavorably with 500 - 700 page tomes written by... Brits. I mean, that's fine if your point is that other Brits have written a book one prefers to this Brit's book, but it misses your point entirely. Where are the books written by Japanese historians? Failing that, any one else Asian?

I'm not going to say Japanese historians never get translated into English, but it's rare. Most of the history books released in the USA are written by native English speakers, regardless of the country they are writing about. History professors have to have knowledge of the languages of their subject and have to use sources in the subject language, so their academic press books are full of foreign language references. Their mass market history books are as well.

I do not recall ever seeing a history book on modern (Meiji to Reiwa) Japan that had been translated from Japanese to English. Unless you want to count History of Japanese Literature; I've only read the first volume so far, and do intend to rest the rest some day.

This from a newsfeeed today:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has now served a total 2,886 days in office, tying the record set by Taro Katsura more than a century ago.

Interesting little snippet given Buruma's look at politics :)

Shiba Ryotaro’s work has and is being translated, and it deals with the last Shogun, the battles surrounding that switchover and the Russo-Japan war.

As for WW2 (let’s say Japan’s long version 1915 - 1945) I assume their are translations, but much might be snippets of first hand versions, and any full translations I’d tend to imagine that they would be books lacking in controversial ideas.

In high school, I believe the events are all mentioned, but the lower estimates of deaths and victims are suggested and it’s all glossed over quickly, and excuses/explanations are provided if at all possible.

A few examples I keep in mind to understand differences:

In English it is usually suggested that the Okinawans were lied to about the tortuous American monsters (TBC)

Sorry, couldn’t write longer on my phone??

Historical differences:

English: okinawans were warned of tortuous rapist American soldiers to encourage suicide before capture.

Japanese: the okinawans pride made the fight to the end and refuse to be prisoners.

Another non-war example.

English: Mishima was a closeted (slightly) active homosexual.

Japanese: married man. (I’m sure some sources are more honest, but the Hollywood Mishima movie is still banned here for fear of lawsuits at such suggestions)