|
We seem to really struggle with defining non-fiction literature, and we've had similar debates in the past. I'm not sure which side I fall on after finishing this book. In this case, I think it may be a case of not living up to expectations which we can't know until we read it. Would we be having this same discussion if we had read her other books Wild Swans or Mao co-written with her historian husband? Perhaps or perhaps not.
I would hate to set our criteria so rigid that it limits the diversity of our choices or prevents us from taking risks on our choices. I thought the book had the appearance of meeting literature when I nominated it: an award-winning author, an author whose books are seen as influential and therefore banned in her home country, a potentially ground-breaking record of an historical figure based on previously unused/uninterpreted sources, positive book reviews from recognized places.
I enjoyed it, and it has promoted some interesting discussion as well as new contributors and inspired me to want to know more about Chinese history. I did like the writing style overall. It was exciting and engaging. I also think I'll retain the information longer in my memory. I really enjoy history books as an adult (didn't care for it as a subject in school), and I wish more were written in an accessible tone and not dryly academic. On the other hand, there were a few times when I thought word choices to be sophomoric and not what I would have used. I felt at times her writing was too "fan-girlish," although I wished I knew more about history to have a valid, informed opinion. In this regard, I was disappointed that she did not present more detailed evidence of the "other side."
|