Japanese Literature discussion

This month we're reading and discussing Masks by Fumiko Enchi. Translated by Juliet Winters Carpenter. Originally published in Japanese in 1958 as 女面 [Onnamen].

As per wikipedia: Fumiko Enchi (円地 文子, Enchi Fumiko, 2 October 1905 – 12 November 1986) was the pen-name of Fumiko Ueda, one of the most prominent Japanese women writers in the Shōwa period of Japan.

The wiki page sets forth a robust bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumiko_...

Stephen Mansfield's 2014 review in The Japan Times (high-level spoilers).
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/...

Our protagonist is based on Lady Rokujō from The Tale of Genji. I started it today and was immediately intrigued.

Who plans to join?

I’ve read the book last month (working ahead, although I’m still waiting on First Snow on Fuji) and felt it required quite some knowledge of Noh and The Tale of Genji to fully enjoy. Curious to see other views on the book.

I have my copy, so will definitely be in the discussion for this one. The Genji connection intrigues me.

I bought a copy. I read it quite a few years ago from a library, and don't remember anything about it.

15 pages in, and it sounds like a play: the curtain opens, and two insignificant characters come on stage chatting about the important people who will appear in the next scene.

I can see that. Although, at that point, without more, it’s a dice throw whether the more significant pair are the men or the women. And which of the four is the most significant.

The seance was quite something, (view spoiler)[what with hands on knees. Oh my! (hide spoiler)]

I’m at page 41, where we /Ibuki hear Harume’s story. Well. “Shuttled hither and yon” is an apt description.

I've gotten past the essay on Genji (pages 46-57). It's not such a major part of the book, but I doubt it's profusion of names will make much sense to those who haven't read the first 2/3 of Genji. I can't really summarize 700 pages of that novel here, either.

I will make a few comments on Japanese shamanism. There are two main forms of shamanism in traditional Japan, that associated with the Yamabushi (mountain ascetics) and that associated with Shinto. The one associated with Shinto is what's mentioned here. Shinto shamanism requires two people: the miko (the woman able to call spirits and become possessed by them) and the priest (the man able to command the possessing spirit). But despite shamanism being mentioned here, the Ryo no Onna is a very different phenomena not usually associated with shamanism.

The Ryo no Onna's spirit can consciously or unconsciously (depending on the woman) leave her body to possess and torment someone else. Her spirit can possess for days until finally cast out by a priest, or can revisit the victim night after night while the Ryo no Onna is sleeping.

In the Genji, it isn't clearly stated whether the Rokujo Lady consciously or unconsciously possesses women Genji is involved with. What is clear is that her uncontrolled jealousy is the cause. All of Genji's woman have cause for jealousy (he does accumulate quite a harem over the course of the novel), but only the Rokujo Lady is so obsessed with it. In Echi's view, this is because she is independent instead of subordinate to Genji, and can far less accept the slight of not being the only woman in his life.

Bill wrote: "15 pages in, and it sounds like a play: the curtain opens, and two insignificant characters come on stage chatting about the important people who will appear in the next scene."

Oh, I thought the same thing !
I thought it was well done and getting us quickly "into" the story :)

Thank you Bill for the information on the shamanism. As usual, so helpful for the less informed readers such as myself !

There is a lot of very negative stereotyping of women in this novel. If Enchi was male I'd reduce my rating because of it, but she is female. That doesn't mean I believe her stereotyping. But I still wonder why she included it.

Ostensibly the plot is whether Yasuko will marry Ibuki or Mikame, and that's resolved in the end. But we're still in the dark as to what Meiko was after. Is this really the ending she wanted? And just who is she getting revenge on?

And more insight into Yasuko's motives and plans would have been nice. When she participated in the deception, did she accept what it would mean for her in the end?

I find Yasuko fascinating. We're not in her head at all, but observing which is more interesting to me than if Enchi told us what's motivating her, but I understand your frustration, too, Bill.

I still have 60 or so pages to go, but find it mesmerizing. I admit, though, I sometimes get confused between the men : )

Ok, so it's official: I have started. Yippee!!

Mind you, 20 pages isn't much but it's gripping me. The comments above about the opening being like a play, with the two men discussing what's about to happen, seem very apposite, given Enchi started as a playwright. I've just got to the bit where they visit to view the masks and costumes. That, and the description of the séance, and it is all starting to feel slightly eerie.

Really enjoying it, even if I had to try and figure out what the heck Mishima meant by calling it 'an esoteric masterpiece'....! ☺️

Finished the first part. Now I'm scuttling off to read some of Genji, which I never got round to last year, before I read any more. A few thoughts...

I'm with Bill on the rather negative portrayal of the female characters so far. Saying that, given Ibuki is married with a small child, I just want to punch him! I get the feeling that no one is going to come out of this looking good.

The masks metaphor is the most striking thing. I keep thinking of the line from TS Eliot: 'to prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet'. We all put on an act, a pretence, a mask (if you will) to hide what we really feel. The Nō masks, on the other hand, represent stereotypes, actually revealing the truth of the character, a visual representation of the inner self.

For such a short book, it feels like every word, every image, every slight gesture is important and has some meaning. Subtle and powerful.

I finished and don’t have any issue with the portrayals of women characters. It’s Shakespearean to me. Every character is flawed with the exception of Harume and Yu. Some flaws are monstrous. Others lesser only by comparison. I like Mishima’s description, esoteric masterpiece. The women’s motivations and emotions are all masked. Tragedies flowing from one generation to the next.

I don’t see Mieko seeking revenge as much as filling a human-sized hole in her life in an entirely amoral manner. Everyone (except Harume) has agency. The present flows from tragedy in the past, and culture informs all.

One aspect of the novel I especially appreciated was that she explained as much about Genji and used the mask-owning family to explain enough about the mask meanings and significance to meet the reader who knows little about either where he or she is. I didn’t feel either lost or brought up to speed as if I was lacking necessary knowledge.

Carol, your choice of phrase 'it's Shakespearean to me' is spot on. I've been trying to figure out what the book reminded me of, and that's it. I just want to say to someone: you have a monstrous flaw!!

I don't think I expressed that part of my comment well. I don't have issues with the female characters in the novel. What I don't care for are the statements by various characters that "women are like this" and "woman are like that", and all of those generalizations pretty nasty. I could try to find a few if you'd like.

I finished today - after struggling through the first part everything really takes off once you get to the female perspectives.

There was a really annoying moment on P121 When Mikame is speaking to Sadako - I assume it's a translation error. Did anybody else spot it / re-read the whole conversation several times over?

Bill wrote: "I don't think I expressed that part of my comment well. I don't have issues with the female characters in the novel. What I don't care for are the statements by various characters that "women are l..."

I went to check...but could not find what you refer to. The whole conversation was pretty weird.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I finished it and did enjoy it. It leaves a lot only suggested, not really clarified. I found it rather fascinating in his complexity and how it shows quite subtle how un-free women were.

I thought it was an excellent showcase how society could force Mieko into an outwards display of normality, but deep inside she never forgave and her grudge made her take revenge on whatever man was available for falling into her trap. One shall pay for all.

It seems to me that Mieko's concept of revenge is complete madness - she just takes revenge on "men" , in general, nevermind if the people that she implicates in her plot were part of her personal offense or not. If they are weak enough to fall into the trap they deserve to be object of her general revenge.

I wondered why the fact that she herself had a lover who fathered her children was not already enough revenge on her husband ? Why did she need to keep going distroying Ibuki's life ? I came to the conclusion it was really about taking revenge for the limits and humiliations being imposed on her and other women in general. She was acting a bit like a terrorist, drop a bomb, make sure there are male casualties, doesn't matter who in particular.

I also was not clear why Yasuko wanted to be part of it, if she was happy with Akio. I wonder if there are aspects of the marriage that weren't that happy, but that were not explained in the novel. Maybe Yasuko felt equally trapped into her role in society/marriage, and she did not blame her husband in particular , but "men" in general, and therefore was also happy to contribute in the diabolic plan?

Then in the end what did it all amount to ? Not much really. Ibuki's life is not really destroyed. He will lose Yasuko (whom he never really wanted as wife , anyway, he just wanted a playdoll during his midlife crisis), but he does not lose his wife, or does not need to take any responsibility for the baby - oh well, a bit of discomfort in his home, but he'll muddle thru. And what about Mikame--- i still imagine him marrying Yasuko after all !

on a sidenote I liked how she brought in Sadako and Yuu to give a fresh perspective on the "play".

All by all a very interesting read. A very cynical view on society.

Finished reading this 21 May. I got to say that I was a little confused at the start and when I read on it then makes sense. I was wondering why it was titled Masks but it is not so much mentioned in the book. Then I realised it is not so much of the physical masks but its use as a metaphor which I got to say is interesting.

The relationship between Yasuko and Mieko is interesting. I was wondering if Mieko is controlling Yasuko (or the other way around?).

But it was indeed an interesting read.

It’s interesting that none of us have expressed abject horror at Harume being used by both her mother and sister as part of this plot. (We’re not told but I’m presuming that Yasuko either assists or at Mieko’s direction gets Harume to enter the room and become intimate with the drugged Ibuki). The fact that she dies makes it easier to accept in a way, because we don’t have to contemplate her being cast by others in the role of impaired mother. But ... wow. I accepted the lack of any respect for Harume as a person as fundamental to the story but it did make me wonder whether, at the time Masks was first published, readers would have found her manipulation of a mentally limited woman character to this extreme to be controversial or “nothing to see here.”

I must say the way Harume was treated was very difficult to understand throughout the whole novel. I think in the end, her role was not only to bring revenge on unfaithfull "men" in general, taking one man as particular victim, but also to bring a baby with the bloodline closely related to Akio into the world - I interpreted that from the start Mieko and Yasuko wanted that baby and saw it as such a positive outcome that they just went for a "the end justifies the means" approach. It was quite shocking and difficult to imagine how any one would go that far.

If she would have lived, I expect they would have shipped her off again to some temple and keep the baby with them. I interpreted the last scene as that her death did affect Mieko quite a lot and finally brought a feeling of crushing guilt on Mieko.

Agnetta wrote: "I must say the way Harume was treated was very difficult to understand throughout the whole novel. I think in the end, her role was not only to bring revenge on unfaithfull "men" in general, taking..."

Thanks, Agnetta. Your comments helped me think through my analysis and I agree with you, I must go reread that last scene because I may have entirely gone over my head.