book review: the fat years by chan koonchung

When I moved back to Australia three weeks ago (!!), the first book I picked up was my copy of The Fat Years (《盛世：中国，2013年》), which I'd left languishing on my bestie's bookshelf. I bought it when it first was translated into English, and then promptly moved to China. As it is a banned book (proclaimed in large print on the cover!), I left the book behind in Australia.

Part satire, part dystopian imaging, part road trip, part political thriller, The Fat Years seeks to establish reasons for erasure, and reasons for acceptance, and whilst it explores these issues it never places the blame in any one area, and never really comes to any conclusion. The government does things; the people do things; the government accepts some actions; the people accept some actions. The structure of the novel means there is a direct opportunity for the government to defend its actions, and defend it it does, in a way that makes such cold (but boring) sense in a Chinese context. It also includes warnings about the path China is taking, at the same time as providing support. It’s a clear indictment of the government system, at the same time as accepting what was done as needful.

Read the full review at my China blog!

[books] the secret history of the mongol queens, jack weatherford

The Secret History of the Mongol Queens is an attempt to fill in some of the gaps that can be found in Mongolian history. It’s a comprehensive look at the role of Mongolian Queens in the ruling and establishment of Mongolia and how they advanced its borders over the centuries, starting from the early years of Genghis Khan through seven hundred years of history. It’s a compelling illustration, looking at not only Mongolian history but also touching on the role of historians in erasing those histories of which they don’t approve (here, ladies in ruling and making decisions and being awesome).

I really enjoyed learning about Genghis Khan’s wives and daughters, and the critical role they played in the division and governing of the Mongol Empire. The book gave a lot of insight into Mongolian history centred around Genghis Khan, and not knowing a lot about Mongol history it was a nice introduction for me. And I like lady-centric history!

It’s a shame then that in all the reviews I read of The Secret History of the Mongol Queens, not a one mentioned that the writer was patronising and condescending. Ordinarily when I make these claims I like to have page numbers, but I was reading on my iphone so alas page numbers are not to be. However the author did make a number of sweeping unsubstantiated claims such as the lack of a son was ‘one of the cruelest blows of her life’ (I didn’t note which queen this was in reference to), and the entire epilogue was just about how shocked and surprised he was that Mongolian people knew something about their history that he didn’t, and how he constantly dismissed tales of Mongolian Queens (and Manduhai) as folk tales. Definitely an epilogue that makes me respect him as an historian and researcher. He comments that there were a number of contradictions in the Secret History whilst rarely specifying what they were. The Secret History, incidentally, is an historical Mongolian document, and maybe it was just my epub version but at no point did the author mention what the Secret History was, so there were lots of confusing references to things in the Secret History.

The book also veers from history, and things actually verifiable, to actual made-up storytelling, or at the very least, poetic license, with little distinction between what is what. And rather than this elaboration making what could be a dry historical document interesting and compelling, it just makes it longer and boring.

I’m glad this book exists, I just wish it was written by someone else.

five out of ten penguins

[books] women of letters

Dear Women of Letters (the book);

I know you've probably received many reviews in the guise of letters; this has probably been done. BUT I AM DOING IT ANYWAY.

I read you recently, and I found it a very pleasant experience. I only started attending your events about twelve months ago; in fact I believe 'A letter to my turning point' was my first event (and in fact my first visit to Thornbury Theatre). I was pleased to hear you would be a book, and you were a good read. Easy to read, engaging stories, different emotions and glimpses into lives, and a chance for me to experience the letters I was previously unable to know. I liked the layout of you, and your selection of letters, and I liked that some authors were repeated. I liked that you chose to include some Men of Letters. I loved how familiar some of the letters were, despite me not knowing the author nor the situation; but then, I guess that's why so many people love you.

I loved Amanda Roff's dystopic Melbourne, of course I did. Dystopic Australia is one of my favourite things! And I don't deny that fiction can be a source of reality, just as any true story can; and any true story can be made up, exploring nothing but the author's imagination. But I can't lie, Women of Letters: every work of fiction that someone chooses to share instead of an actual letter leaves me a little disappointed. Maybe Roff really is dying of boredom. But her choice means I choose to think it was all made up. I feel a little bit cheated, but I'm willing to accept it's just me.

I remember the first time I heard someone read a letter and it turned out to be a short story. It was the same day I first saw the note to Angie Hart and her greatness in the toilets at the Thornbury Theatre, and in the queue for the loo I took a poll about the fictional story thing. People were divided. So it's a personal preference, I guess, and I don't hold it against you.

I cried twice whilst reading you, Women of Letters. Once when Fee B-Squared wrote about her Nanna at her Pa's bedside, and again when Karen Hitchcock failed to meet Deborah. I'm fragile right now, and I was tired, and eight hours into a fifteen hour transit, and I was on the plane taking me away from beloved Melbourne back to Beijing for another six months, and maybe that has something to do with it, but those moments hit me where I was most vulnerable. And that's part of the reason why I love you, Women of Letters.

You're not perfect, Women of Letters. There are some letters in there that I don't like, and there are some words and attitudes that bother me (ablist things, mostly), but when I think about how you'd go about censoring your contributors I sort of go around in circles. I haven't worked out how to deal with this yet, but I'll get there, and I hope you will, too.

I laughed, too, you weren't all doom and gloom and sadness and vulnerability! And I rolled my eyes a few times, too, but I came out of it pleased I read you. As always, I loved that you were about women, awesome or otherwise. That's the thing I love the most about you, Women of Letters, that you're about celebrating women (and not, sometimes, and that's okay). I've already promised to pass you on, to another Melbunnie here in Beijing (who told me with glee of the time she saw Marieke Hardy on Sydney Road. She's very excited to read you, and I look forward to bringing her to visit you in your new home when we both return to Melbourne. I think she'll like you).

Yesterday was your last show at the Thornbury Theatre. I wish you all the best in your new home, and I hope to see you again soon (in book form or otherwise).


Best Regards
Stephanie

[book review] Cordelia Fine - Delusions of Gender

I zoomed through Delusions of Gender this week, in an attempt to get it read and reviewed before I go away. I found this book a really interesting read. Delusions of Gender is a take-down of evolutionary psychology theories, and does it in an easily readable, well-referenced way. This was a fast read, at just over 200 pages it didn't take too long, and it was engaging and interesting, and though I think it's a good read, ultimately there was a level of intersectionality that was missing for me that I think limits it.

The book opens with an analysis of priming which I liked. It looked at the way priming is used in general, and as a way to trigger a response against stereotype (for example, wording that is used to prime women to be more empathic is appropriately worded to have a similar impact on men). It looked at social expectations, and how those expectations create a motivation gap. From this, Fine explored the ways the ideas behind the motivation gap can create ability gaps.

I really enjoyed this stuff on priming. I've not done a huge amount of reading on this stuff, so it was interesting for me.

Although Fine is a psychologist, she did not have a lot of regard for psychologists, particularly highlighting the way psychologists 'enjoy' exploiting stereotype threats. There was a bit of an exploration of stereotype threats, and the importance of role models and a 'sense of belonging' in increasing or removing stereotype threats.

The book concludes with a section on gender neutral parenting and the socio-cultural situation. It is an excellent takedown of those parents who claim to have tried gender neutral parenting, but had to give up because their daughter clearly just naturally preferred pink or whatever. My horror at unconscious prenatal gendered expectations meant I spent most of this section leafing through with a pen to make copious notes. I was especially intrigued (though not surprised) by the analysis of terms used before conception depending on the sex of the child, even by parents who honestly believed they were being gender neutral.

There is a thread through of other themes. Mention is made several times of the publishing bias, of studies and things only being published when they demonstrate a gender difference; studies that show a difference are rarely published (this can hardly be a surprise). Fine appears to have a significant issue with a book, frequently cited in Delusions of Gender, The Female Brain by Louise Brizendine. At the point where Fine begins to tear apart this text, the tone also starts to become very sassy. Not distractingly so, but it becomes very sassy. Fine also implies that texts, studies and experts who make neuroscience claims generalise far too much than should be accepted.

Other reviews have mentioned the white heterosexuality of the book, and I definitely have to agree, and add in the ciscentricism. There were a few references to studies which focussed on or touched on racism, or moved away from a heterocentrist or ciscentric viewpoint, but for the most part they were just side mentions to support the overall argument. In addition, in the final third of the book, a stand up example of binary-gendered transphobic essentialism was held up as an exemplary effort at gender neutral parenting. There was also a bit of essentialist speciesism in the book.

In general, I enjoyed this book. There were some new-to-me things, and I see its value as a first year Gender Studies text, but there is nothing really world shattering in it, particularly in light of its failure at real, meaningful intersectionality.