Yellowface.

R.F. Kuang caused quite a stir earlier this year with the release of her fifth novel and first outside of sci-fi/fantasy, the scathing satire Yellowface, which bites the very hand that feeds her – the publishing world. The title hints at the secondary themes of cultural appropriation, racial identity, and who has the right to tell what stories, but the engine that drives this book and its self-justifying protagonist is sheer disgust at how the book sausage gets made.

June Hayward is a young white woman who has written one published novel to scant sales and mediocre reviews, while her college classmate and sort-of friend, Athena Liu, has vaulted into literary stardom in a manner not entirely dissimilar to Kuang’s history. Athena is Chinese-American and is working on her magnum opus, a massive historical novel about the use and abuse of Chinese workers in World War I, when she suffers a fatal accident in front of June … who grabs the manuscript to the unfinished and unsubmitted novel, The Last Front, and decides to clean it up and submit it as her own. June’s agent can’t believe it, shopping the book to a larger publisher, where the marketing folks suggest that June use her middle name, Song, instead of Hayward, ostensibly to get away from the failure of her first novel, but it’s hardly a coincidence that that Song could come across as an East Asian surname, is it? June’s happy to go along with all of this, even when a junior publicist at the firm pushes back on the whole scheme and questions the authenticity of some of the content, but after the book comes out to rave reviews and massive sales, the backlash begins, and eventually enough dirt comes out that June’s authorship becomes the subject of public scrutiny.

June is an anti-hero, an unreliable narrator, and a con artist, where she herself is one of her own victims: She’s so desperate for commercial and critical success that she dupes herself into doing and believing things that will obviously harm her in the end. She’s part Becky Sharp, part Maria Ruskin, and maybe a little Anna Delvey, but in the end she’s willing to do and say whatever she must to get ahead and stay there. That also means that anyone who gets in her way is an enemy and must be dealt with, which is when June becomes either ruthless or just so wrapped up in her own needs – and I think to her, this is about safety, rather than material gain – that she goes on the attack, or wants to, even when doing nothing is the best option.

The level of scorn that Kuang has for the industry is truly something to behold, and it provides some dark humor, not the laugh-out-loud sort but the “I can’t believe she’s writing that” kind. It’s not even a satire that exaggerates the truth to its limits to get its point across; Kuang does little more than sharpen a few details, letting the stark reality of things shock the reader instead. The outsized roles of Goodreads and social media sites, the emphasis on an author’s identity rather than their work, the control the Big Four publishing houses have, it all looks worse under the microscope. I doubt anyone still has the illusion that it’s the merits of a book that determines whether it’s a best-seller, but Kuang makes it clear just how far down the list of factors a novel’s quality sits.

The novel’s title refers to the history of white performers in stage and on screen pretending to be east Asian, such as the teeth-grinding cringe of Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. We’ve seen it in the publishing world as well, such as the white poet who submitted poems under a Chinese name because he claimed it increased his odds of getting published and another white poet who fabricated an entire persona of a Japanese survivor of the bombing of Hiroshima to publish his poems. Is June guilty of “yellowface” here? She takes on an Asian-sounding surname and doesn’t go out of her way to disabuse anyone of the notion that she has east Asian heritage. She takes on Athena’s novel, but makes substantial edits and rewrites, some before submitting it and some with the help of her editors. Is the mere fact that she’s telling a story about Chinese people, with references to Chinese culture and history, enough to say she’s committed this transgression? Is this cultural appropriation? Who can tell these stories – and if only an Asian writer can tell a story about Asian people, then does that mean Asian writers can only tell stories about Asian people? Kuang grapples with this last question at some length, including it in discussions of Athena Liu’s legacy, how the publishing world saw and used her, and how she felt as a token woman of color in what remains a white-dominated space where many decision-makers are still men.

I discovered Yellowface through several reviews and a Times article about the stir it caused in publishing circles, so I’m familiar with some of the criticisms. I do think it’s fair to ask about the quality of much of the prose, even though it’s told in Hayward’s voice, and while she presents herself as an underappreciated writer, she’s also extremely unreliable and likely overstates her abilities. It’s a novel that’s more readable than literary in that sense; the prose moves, and it’s evocative, but the wordsmithing here is unremarkable. What I do not understand or agree with is criticisms of its satire being insufficiently sharp, especially from writers, because I think making the satirical elements more overt or blatant risked taking the reader out of the story. Kuang could have made this funnier, but it would have come at a cost of veracity. This story rings true based on my limited experiences in and knowledge of the publishing world, which made it work for me even when the prose was a little thin.

For some comparisons, if you’re interested, you might want to read this very even-handed review by Hugo winner Amal El-Mohtar or you could read this incredibly nasty, juvenile review in the Cleveland Review of Books.

Next up: Ann Patchett’s latest, Tom Lake.

Comments

  1. “The level of scorn that Kuang has for the industry is truly something to behold, and it provides some dark humor, not the laugh-out-loud sort but the “I can’t believe she’s writing that” kind. It’s not even a satire that exaggerates the truth to its limits to get its point across; Kuang does little more than sharpen a few details, letting the stark reality of things shock the reader instead. The outsized roles of Goodreads and social media sites, the emphasis on an author’s identity rather than their work, the control the Big Four publishing houses have, it all looks worse under the microscope. I doubt anyone still has the illusion that it’s the merits of a book that determines whether it’s a best-seller, but Kuang makes it clear just how far down the list of factors a novel’s quality sits.”

    I obviously saw the critique being made by Kuang as well. But I think the vehicle she used for this critique was flawed. She pointed out that Song’s publisher and agent got behind the book that Song stole and dressed up as her own. But the reason they got behind it was because it was Liu’s original manuscript — indicating that they thought work from Liu was better. Put simply, they got behind her book and put into motion the best seller machine because they thought it was a good novel worthy of exposure. While nothing Hayward had written up to that point was actually — you know — good, so she didn’t get the same support. (I think perhaps having the stolen manuscript actually not be all that good, but still getting a publishing push for best seller would have supported Kuang’s critique and thesis regarding the publishing industry better.)

    Regardless, I found the book eminently readable as you pointed out and quite a stark but enjoyable departure from her last novel Babel (which I liked for different reasons). The ending left me wanting though. The stairs scene and IG (I’m being purposely vague to avoid spoilers) just didn’t work for me. I didn’t buy that anyone, even Hayward, would fall for that.

    I thought this BookTube review of the book was particularly insightful, even though I still liked the book. Because Cindy, who actually makes a cameo in the book, points out that some of Kuang’s points were just her calling into question critiques she herself had received: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdFkRdgPDU

    • Oh I completely agree on the ending. I probably should have mentioned that; I don’t think Kuang stuck the landing as well as she might have.

      Isn’t the manuscript she submits to her agent already different from Athena’s last draft? June has edited it and added stuff, so while this is still plagiarism/theft, there’s enough of ‘her’ in it for her to justify all of this to herself, which is a core part of her character.

    • “Isn’t the manuscript she submits to her agent already different from Athena’s last draft? June has edited it and added stuff, so while this is still plagiarism/theft, there’s enough of ‘her’ in it for her to justify all of this to herself, which is a core part of her character.”

      I think you misunderstood my point. Kuang offered plenty to allow the narrator, Hayward, to justify that the book was her work — and then have the narrator assert that she had been wronged previously by the publishing industry. What I am pointing out is different. I am saying the manuscript she submitted — in reality — was largely Athena’s work with Hayward’s modifications. Athena is just the better writer. And the agent and publisher recognized the quality writing even when it was submitted by Hayward. The publisher and agent then recognizing the quality of the novel decided to make the full-court press on publicity, marketing, book tour, etc. In other words, they recognized good writing and then supported it by marketing it full tilt. I don’t see how that is a critique of the publishing industry. From point of view, that shows publishers recognize good quality and throw their support behind that. So Kuang defeated her own point. (I hope that made sense.)

    • Her agent, editors, publicists, etc. did not care one iota if the work was actually hers, even with enough evidence for one person on the marketing team (Candace) and people in the broader literary world to realize pretty quickly that it was, at best, improbable for someone with June’s demonstrated writing level to produce something like The Last Front. I interpreted it as Kuang saying that the industry just doesn’t care about who wrote something, even to the point of perhaps not caring if the claimed author is even the author, if they can make a fast buck.

    • btw I found that video from Cindy unbearable. She refers to the book’s “lack of themes” in the first few seconds, which is so childish – the book has themes, clearly, and we may disagree on how well they’re handled, but saying it lacks any themes is just bait. She comes off as someone who had it in for the book, which may or may not be true but made it hard to watch.

  2. “Her agent, editors, publicists, etc. did not care one iota if the work was actually hers, even with enough evidence for one person on the marketing team (Candace) and people in the broader literary world to realize pretty quickly that it was, at best, improbable for someone with June’s demonstrated writing level to produce something like The Last Front. I interpreted it as Kuang saying that the industry just doesn’t care about who wrote something, even to the point of perhaps not caring if the claimed author is even the author, if they can make a fast buck.”

    That is a very good point. And I’ll say that went over my head when I read it. I think you have more insight on that as a published author, so I appreciate you providing that insight.

    “btw I found that video from Cindy unbearable. She refers to the book’s “lack of themes” in the first few seconds, which is so childish – the book has themes, clearly, and we may disagree on how well they’re handled, but saying it lacks any themes is just bait. She comes off as someone who had it in for the book, which may or may not be true but made it hard to watch.”

    Cindy is definitely contrarian and antagonistic. So I can understand why you didn’t like her and can also understand why you didn’t watch it. I watched the whole video. I think her bias came out in two ways: (1) her Asian background (a totally fair bias and insight that she can bring as an Asian-American), and (2) being referenced in the book (somewhat fair, she did seem somewhat flattered by the cameo). She did emphasize in the end of the video that she thinks Kuang is stylistically a strong writer, who can make an interesting story. Her qualms seemed directed at her belief that Kuang was more taking our her personal animus and hatred at how Kuang has been treated, instead of the problems with the publishing industry at large and/or the larger racial issues presented.

    Regardless, to be clear, I generally liked the book. I think it raises lots of interesting points. And I do think Kuang can just plain write. Alright, I think we had a good discussion. Have a good evening!

    • Have you read her Poppy War series? I have Babel now (from my old publicist) so that’s in the queue.

      FWIW, I absolutely think Kuang wrote what she knows – put her own experiences in publishing on the page. I’ve seen at least one interview where she talks about being pigeonholed as the token Asian woman writer by publishers.

  3. I have not read any of the Poppy War series. Considering that I liked Babel and Yellowface enough, you’d think I’d want to read her other books. But the plot description just doesn’t strike my fancy. Maybe one day.