Rather late in the day the London Review of Books gets to a take-down of 'controversial' Nobel laureate Mo Yan -- rehashing the familiar arguments that his work (and he) are not regime-critical enough, as well as finding the fiction itself limited (as well as making far too much of the Swedish Academy's stamp of approval).
Nikil Saval does the honors, in White Happy Doves, in what is ostensibly a review of three works by Mo -- Sandalwood Death, Change, and Pow !
I note that the first mention of Change comes 2291 words into the 'review'; the first mention of Sandalwood Death comes 3683 words into the review; and the first mention of Pow ! comes 3793 words into the review. Saval's 'discussion' of these three titles amounts to a few stray comments -- Change is dismissed as his: "otherwise evasive memoir", Sandalwood Death is: "a staid historical novel", and Pow !: "reuses the satire of gluttony from The Republic of Wine". Indeed, whatever this piece is, it is decidedly not a review or any sort of critical piece on these three titles.
Saval has a lot more to say about some of Mo's other work, and that's fine -- but they really could properly bill it as such, and not pretend Saval is doing something which he obviously is not.
(As to the whole argument re. Mo and his attitude and the quality of his work ... I think Saval overstates the case and, to some (or a great) extent has ideological blinders on that prevent him from considering the work(s) fully (and, specifically, as literary (as opposed to 'literary-with-a-message') texts): Sandalwood Death, for one, is a superior work of fiction -- seen as fiction -- than he allows (or, it would seem, bothers to consider).)
I note that the first mention of Change comes 2291 words into the 'review'; the first mention of Sandalwood Death comes 3683 words into the review; and the first mention of Pow ! comes 3793 words into the review. Saval's 'discussion' of these three titles amounts to a few stray comments -- Change is dismissed as his: "otherwise evasive memoir", Sandalwood Death is: "a staid historical novel", and Pow !: "reuses the satire of gluttony from The Republic of Wine". Indeed, whatever this piece is, it is decidedly not a review or any sort of critical piece on these three titles.
Saval has a lot more to say about some of Mo's other work, and that's fine -- but they really could properly bill it as such, and not pretend Saval is doing something which he obviously is not.
(As to the whole argument re. Mo and his attitude and the quality of his work ... I think Saval overstates the case and, to some (or a great) extent has ideological blinders on that prevent him from considering the work(s) fully (and, specifically, as literary (as opposed to 'literary-with-a-message') texts): Sandalwood Death, for one, is a superior work of fiction -- seen as fiction -- than he allows (or, it would seem, bothers to consider).)