OnlineBookClub.org

The depiction of the master-servant relationship is one of the best aspects of the novel. For example, Lady Sougyon talks to her maid even if she realizes that she will get no answer because the maid is afraid "of making the wrong reply." (loc.28) Embon, Lady Sougyon's son, throws a tantrum and kicks an old palanquin carrier without the latter reacting in any way. Can you think of other examples? Do you consider the author did a great job of portraying the master-servant relationship? Would the description have been more impactful if the writer had included the servants' perspective too?

It would definitely be more relatable with certain audiences. Just adding that perspective alone would open a whole new audience to the book and general message in the book. He portrayed the domineering and sometimes relatively understanding nature of the master in this kind of relationship. Maybe the author would have done a better job for the servant though,. but overall the author did a great job.

Dee_Robert wrote: ↑02 Jan 2021, 05:22 It would definitely be more relatable with certain audiences. Just adding that perspective alone would open a whole new audience to the book and general message in the book. He portrayed the domineering and sometimes relatively understanding nature of the master in this kind of relationship. Maybe the author would have done a better job for the servant though,. but overall the author did a great job.

I agree with you here. The servants' perspective might have broadened the overall perspective on the master-servant relationship. However, random narratorial observations and the masters' behavior are relevant enough to make us aware of social inequality.

I think having the servants thoughts and opinions would have definitely enhanced the story. It would have added more dimensions and possibly some humor, especially in the case with Embon kicking the servant! Although, seeing Embon's perspective in this case too, instead of Mr. Seoh's would have been enlightening too.

The author did a good job of showing social injustice between slaves and their owners. The royal family treated their slaves with respect and paid them a wage. Embon's bad behavior was explained by the lack of discipline he received as a child.

I like the idea of hearing the servant's perspective! I think it would have added so much to the story! That would be an unusual twist, in my opinion. I don't know that I have read many books that give the servant's point of view. A fascinating concept! Also, servants are portrayed as meek and humble most of the time, even when they are treated abusively.

I believe there were different dynamics depending on the kind of master-servant relationship depicted in the book. Several times, the servants do not only reply to their masters but they also initiate conversation. However, I think literary wise, it was elegant to leave the servant's perspective open to the readers interpretation. I think that is what the author was aiming for

The master-servant relationship portrayed here is sort of one-sided, that's from the masters perspective. I feel the author didn't introduce the servants perspective because, on default, everyone would expect the servant to be meek and receptive to abuses from the master no matter how severe it is.

Book Lover Jack wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 05:08 I believe there were different dynamics depending on the kind of master-servant relationship depicted in the book. Several times, the servants do not only reply to their masters but they also initiate conversation. However, I think literary wise, it was elegant to leave the servant's perspective open to the readers interpretation. I think that is what the author was aiming for

Don't you think there's more harm caused by leaving the reader to fill up the servant's perspective? It could yield a whole lot of contrasting opinions and interpretations from the readers.

I think she did a good job with it, and also showed that Embon's family had a different relationship with their servants. He was shocked that some people treat them more harshly than what he's used to. Their perspective would've be a good addition to the story, but I think their presence, appearances and overall message of the book is enough. No one should have to beg for sustenance and be slaves to the upper class.

cristinaro wrote: ↑01 Jan 2021, 06:08 The depiction of the master-servant relationship is one of the best aspects of the novel. For example, Lady Sougyon talks to her maid even if she realizes that she will get no answer because the maid is afraid "of making the wrong reply." (loc.28) Embon, Lady Sougyon's son, throws a tantrum and kicks an old palanquin carrier without the latter reacting in any way. Can you think of other examples? Do you consider the author did a great job of portraying the master-servant relationship? Would the description have been more impactful if the writer had included the servants' perspective too?

God, I got so angry when Embon kicked the elderly servant! But it's not my culture, and I probably don't understand fully how these relationships used to work. Is it a form of slavery? Honestly, I don't know. I liked that Lady Sougyon decided to take care of April's daughter. But it will be, as you say, incredibly interesting to get the perspective of the less privileged ones.

Book Lover Jack wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 05:08 However, I think literary wise, it was elegant to leave the servant's perspective open to the readers interpretation. I think that is what the author was aiming for

I agree. Also, the author did a good job at showing the servants' relationship with their masters.

But showing their perspective in the story wouldn't hurt.

Eutoc wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 19:38 The master-servant relationship portrayed here is sort of one-sided, that's from the masters perspective. I feel the author didn't introduce the servants perspective because, on default, everyone would expect the servant to be meek and receptive to abuses from the master no matter how severe it is.

I'm not certain people think of servants like that by default. Servants exists even today, and they're just like everyone else: they're multidimensional and have depth. They have to have their own views, beliefs, and thoughts in this story.

Eutoc wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 19:40 Don't you think there's more harm caused by leaving the reader to fill up the servant's perspective? It could yield a whole lot of contrasting opinions and interpretations from the readers.

Definitely. But that's partly why we discuss books like this. Also, even if the perspective of servants are shown, there are readers out there who wouldn't care about it. They would still interpret and judge them the way they want to, especially since they're considered a minority.

So far, the most detailed interactions are of Lady Sougyon and Embon. For someone of royal blood, I think the Lady treats her attendants quite politely. Meanwhile, her son is a brat when he was young, and he still thinks highly of himself upon growing up. In a way, Embon represents the typical noble who regards servants as someone to order around. Lady Sougyon represents the open-minded owners who see the peasant class as humans. She even gives April and May names, as girls back then will be known as "the girl" for all their lives. Not to mention, she forgives April's man after he commits a crime, while people think that man should be punished. Including the servants' perspectives may be more impactful, but through their attitude towards Lady Sougyon, I can see that they are quite content with their employer.