
Becoming Madame Mao
Dear Jim,
Your latest entry was so helpful and informative, it reminded me that a straightforward nonfiction account of a person and a novelistic rendering of the same person are two very different things--and if I really want to learn about somebody famous, I'll go for the straightforward nonfiction account every time. You say it's especially hard in China right now, due to potential censorship and lack of a tradition, to write a novel that really takes on a well-known historical figure. I believe you, but I would add that pressures of a different sort make it hard to write a novel about a famous figure in the United States. Hard to write a good novel, that is; it's true that well-intended but mediocre ones abound. I'm thinking for instance of one of the more highly regarded historical novels of recent years: Cloudsplitter, by Russell Banks, who not coincidentally wrote an enthusiastic blurb for the back cover of Becoming Madame Mao. Banks' exploration of the relationship between the abolitionist John Brown and his overzealous, weirdo son Orin is more ambitious, thorough in its details, alert to its political context, and more nuanced in its judgments than Min's look at Mao and Jiang. But when you read it, you get the same sense that the novelist doesn't always ask quite enough of his or her imagination. Banks and Min both begin and end with a premise, an explanation for the Famous Person's behavior that basically comes down to reductive psychology (John B. drove his children so hard he gave them hang-ups about sex, Jiang would do anything for love); it's not so different from the kind of analysis you get to hear every night on A&E's Biography--in fact it's slightly less subtle, because at least on Biography the Famous Person's accountant or cousin tells you about the weird sex habits or the love hunger and then the show moves on, whereas in the novels these tics are made to bear the mighty weight of history.
The fact that both novelists start out with a thesis and then proceed to demonstrate it lends their work a slightly academic air, as if they were undergrads doggedly following through on an assignment. At the same time, you feel them leaning on the iconic value of their heroes for significance, even glamour. I mentioned Evita and Sunset Boulevard yesterday not just because of the obvious parallels to Jiang's story, but because Anchee Min's writing often reminds you of a screenplay, a blueprint for a visual entertainment, more than a novel. At her best she provides nicely paced, evocative texture, complete with fade-ins and fade-outs, for scenes she's read about in history books; she isn't writing a novel so much as a novelization of the movie in her mind. And here you have the peculiar confluence of pressures in the American market that I was referring to earlier: a weird marriage of earnest academic thinking, the stylistic influence of movies and TV, and the commercial calculation that people are more likely to buy a book about a famous person, or at least a fictional character linked to a famous event, than to some poor anonymous schmo. But I don't want to dwell on the negative here. Among recent historical novels Caleb Carr's The Alienist had more originality going for it, Toni Morrison's latest had more import, and Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain had more of a story. Anyway, if I'm right that the popularity of books like Becoming Madame Mao is something of a fad, by definition, the fad will one day pass. When it does, in a few years, novelists who want to push historical fiction further can look to a wide array of models for inspiration, from Gore Vidal's treatment of Lincoln (far from perfect as a novel but jaunty and playful with ideas), to Stendhal's rousing Charterhouse of Parma, to Don DeLillo's haunted Libra (not immune to the famous-people-are-automatically-interesting syndrome that afflicts Becoming Madame Mao, but otherwise so fierce it doesn't matter) to Gabriel García Márquez's miraculous One Hundred Years Of Solitude, which invented new ways to convey the very passage of time in words.
This list is hastily assembled, and obviously incomplete--and anyway the best historical novel will feel unlike any others. I just wanted to end on an up note what was, for me, a very pleasurable dialogue. I learned from your expertise, but I also appreciated your sensitive reading.
All best,
Sarah
How Congress Should Assert Its War Powers Over Afghanistan Policy
Are People From the Jersey Shore Really Like the People on Jersey Shore?
The Latest Updates From Tiger Woods' Facebook Feed
Julie Powell: Sorry, Critics, I'm Going To Keep Writing About My Sex Life
Kaus: Why I Like the Senate Health Care Compromise
Rolling Stone Is Opening a Restaurant. Cosmo, Esquire, and HuffPo Should, Too.













Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the most recent entry):
Seconding James Mann, I too heard in China of Jiang Qing's private tastes. Was it true that she had been so desperate to read Erich Segal's sensational hit Love Story that she brought one of the Cultural Revolution's victims back from servitude to translate it for her? In 1988 Shi Xianrong, one of Arthur Miller's translators answered, "Yes. It was me." He had been demoted to pig farming in the gulag and was summoned to appear before her. He discovered to his amazement that a private translation of the hit tearjerker was to be his task. He also translated Jonathan Livingston Seagull for her.
Now Ms Min has reduced Qing's life into a Western bestseller genre love story. Judging by the biographical material that came with my reviewer's copy of the book, Ms Min, an actress herself, knows enough about opportunism to have written a better book about Qing, a shameless opportunist who cared about nothing but herself. The millions who died, or whose lives were ruined, by Jiang Qing, deserve better than to see her evil trivialized into a kind of music-less Evita. What's next, Madame Hitler?
--George J. Leonard
(To reply, click here.)
Re: James Mann's comments about a lack of historical fiction about China. In terms of novels, he may be right (although I would add Jean Levi's The Chinese Emperor as an example of a Westerner writing a Chinese historical novel). But if one turns from the novel to that other great fictional medium--cinema--than one sees that there has been a wealth of such films. Such films by Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige, like Farewell My Concubine and To Liv,e are staples of the Chinese cinema that has reached the West. There have been two big-budget films about Qin Shi-huang--who, as Mann correctly points out, is often used as a stand-in for Mao--in the last four years or so.
But here I would add my own contrarian note, and say maybe these films are over-rated, and if they set the example for Chinese historical fiction maybe we're not missing much. They are didactic, heavy-handed, and they recapitulate over and over again the same themes of Chinese people suffering and being oppressed, sometime alluding to the current regime, sometimes to Mao, sometimes both. Not that this theme shouldn't be explored, but only that it seems to be the only theme which is explored. The result strikes many Chinese mainlanders as a bit suspicious: film-makers who are popular in the West (but, even accounting for censorship, not so much in China) seem to make nothing but depressing movies about Chinese people being oppressed. One has to wonder whether at a time when many in the West now view China as a threat, Westerners choose to view these movies over movies, or books, that show happy or confident Chinese people, precisely because they want to think of China as being a perpetually oppressed, and thus harmless, people. When was the last time you saw a Chinese comedy? I have no reason to believe China-oriented historical novels would turn out any better, and Ms Min's book only seems to confirm that. Any comments?
--Sheng Mei Shou
(To reply, click here.)
(6/28)