The author has taken the side of Korea. Is it justifiable?

[Lucille27]

I think, particularly with Korea, this event is still very recent. So, it is understandable that they are still dealing with representations in which Japan appears as the enemy. Even in everyday life they still hold them responsible for a lot of damage to their nation. I think this is understandable. Imperialism is a big issue. However, I do not feel that all Japanese people are portrayed as evil. That's why we have the Japanese love-interest portrayed as someone unreachable. She does not seem to be bad. She is just something impossible. But there relies something very subtle. We are not doomed by our nation, but by our actions and how we take part on them.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Pejay Bradley is Korean and this is her view of history. Any invaders are seen as villains by the people of the country they occupy. I think the author is justified. I'm sure that any Japanese authors telling this tale will slant the bias in favor of the Japanese - and that would be justified also. These are opinions.

Anyone can have their own opinions, and they have the right to convey them as well. But that is not always acceptable, for an example, if that conveying is doing either any harm or having impact on someone else in a bad way. I feel as that the same has happened here. Author's opinions can turn the reader against thr Japanese

[Sushan Ekanayake]

This didn't occur to me actually and maybe its because I knew it was a story. It is a fiction story told from the perspective of Koreans during that time. They probably did feel a certain way towards the invasion and it was enjoyable to see inside their way of thinking.

I think it is sensible to think angrily regarding a country who invaded your motherland. But the problem occurs when you convey your feelings. Though it is a fiction, it is a historical fiction. So there is a value to the facts as well as the thoughts. So, those thoughts can incur anger in the minds of the readers and, in my opinion, that is not a good thing

[Sushan Ekanayake]

As this is a piece of fiction (and not historical non-fiction, which should be objective), I think it's absolutely justifiable that the author took Korea's side. The main characters are Korean, so it seems natural and logical.

I see your point. Historical non-fiction has to be objective, since they carry true facts and figures. Yet it doesn't mean historical fiction can be too biased as well. Historical fiction has trye parts as well as fictious parts. But the reader may not know exactly which is which. So if he takes fictious parts as true history, then won't he be prone to hate the vilified country?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The author is a Korean. So she has told the story from their point of view. There can be unnecessarily biased details towards Korea which vilifies Japan. Yet, I can't see any fault of an author being patriotic and writing the good side of her own country

That is my point too. I too feel that the author has been unnecessarily biased, and I am concerned of the bad side effects of that bias that can be occurred. do you think that there is zero possibility for the reader to have hateful feelings regarding Japan after reading this encounter which vilifies Japan?

[ankushavhad]

The corrupted natured elements in Japanese force is not the entire call to tag Japan a villain.
Yes, the story needed that. Though fictional, the theme is based on the fact that it was as a time when the Japanese were ruling Korea. The author is Korean, she naturally empathically sees in a soft corner to own country vanishing culture due to the rulings imposed by the Japanese.

[Ahbed Nadir]

I feel that the author wrote from his own perspective based on what he had experienced and as such I can't really judge as there are always two sides to a coin. The author's view helped to add a feel of authenticity to the book as he was speaking on what he had researched or observed personally. The author is coming from Korea so it would be expected that he would be on their side.

The reason for the author to take the side of Korea can be justified as it is her motherland. But the experiences of the Korean nation at the time of Japanese rule cannot be experienced by the author, since the events have taken place many years ago. So, her accounts are also based on notes and comments of other people. When that taken into consideration we have to think twice whether the bias is justified

Yes, her writings on earlier Korea can also be justified as they are taken from accounts written by Korean citizens from an earlier time and as such one would still expect there to be a certain sort of bias towards Korea. I wouldn't say the bias is justified as the Japanese as well will have had a different view to the story but I am saying her obvious bias is sort of justified as her view is colored by her patriotism for Korea.

[Josephe-Anne]

Well, the author is Korean, so it's expected that she would write the story from that perspective. When foreigners invade and occupy a country, it's normal for the native people to have feelings of resentment toward the outsiders.

Also, I don't think she made Japan "a complete villain" in the story. The main character himself became attracted to a Japanese woman. People can form their own opinions, so I don't believe she is driving anyone against the country.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

As the saying goes, "History is written by the victors". But in this case, it's more like "History is written by the author". I think every author is going to have their own internal biases, just like every person does. In any war, both sides think that they are not at fault and see the other side as the enemy.
I think it's a good thing to read things from perspectives of both sides, whether or not you agree with them, because it helps to open your mind and realize what this experience of war could have been like for those in each country.

That is quite a relatable idea. Yes, you should see both sides of a war. Since the authors from either side are prone to biases, the reader has to choose what to believe and up to what extent to believe. Still my question remains. Is it justifiable for the author to be this much biased?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

We do not expect him to side with the Japanese, he comes from Korea so it is obvious he has to defend his homeland. I guess the Japanese has their version also on how things were back then

Well, I agree. I also don't expect for the author to take the side of the Japanese since she is a Korean. And she has written the book from her perspective. But my argument is, is it justifiable to completely vilify a nation via a mass media like a book since it might affect the mindset of the readers and some might actually hate the villain

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The novel elaborates on the Koreans' perspective regarding the Japanese occupation. In other words, the vilification is expected and justifiable. As for me, the novel did not turn me against Japan. It practically made me curious to read more on the state of international affairs at the time of the story. Besides, the Koreans are not portrayed all in white either. The author often emphasizes the flaws and weaknesses of Korean society.

I believe that what you are saying is really important. It is necessary for authors to often maintain natural when writing about historical topics or something so volatile since it might have on impact on readers. Everything that we read, whether it is fiction or not impacts on the way we perceive certain topics. So not being biased when writing blows readers to think for themselves.

I am glad to find a fellow reviewer who thinks alike. I also say the same thing. It can be fiction. Yet, even after reading fiction, the readers are tend to apply them to real world and make their own opinions on real world things depending on those fictional facts. In such a scenario, a biased story like this one have a huge impact to incur hatred in the reader towards the Japanese, which is not a good thing at all

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Every culture has it's perspective on history. The stories we hear while growing up, the history of our ancestors shape our view about heroes and villains of history. The author's views are shaped by her history and she is entitled to them.

I agree. Any culture have their own stories regarding their history and those stories are 'The History' for them whether it is true or false. That is completely okay within a culture. But when such perspectives are exposed to the world via a media like a book, the impact can vary. If we take this story as an example, it might lead the reader to hate the Japanese. Koreans have the right to think as they like about their invader, but if others also begin to have bad feelings regarding the Japanese, that cannot be justified

[Sushan Ekanayake]

This book shows the perspective of Korean people under Japanese dominion. But it never attempts to incite the readers to think that all Japanese people are the same. At the same time, the author also clearly points out complications within Korean society. Any Korean present at that time would think the same too. So it's quite natural for the author to depict the story from the Korean point of view.

Yes, the author has not intentionally attempted to drive the reader against Japan. Yet, the way that the author has vilified the Japanese can have a great impact on the reader. It is true that she has pointed out the negative aspects of the Korean society as well. But that does not minimize the impact that she might have caused on the Japanese via her story. It is true that ultimately it is the readers' opinion that matters, but we cannot say that opinion is completely based on the readers' thoughts since the book is quite biased

[Sushan Ekanayake]

The book is a historical fiction and I think the author can describe the tale as per her own opinion or perspective.
Still as she is a Korean native, might be completely aware of all the facts.

In a fiction, the author can write what they want. But I think when it comes to historical fiction, this should have some limitations. The fictional part can be anything since it is the author's own creation, but the historical facts should be at least close to the truth.

And on the other hand, being a native doesn't mean that you know all the history of your nation accurately. What we know is what the historians have written, and they may not always be true

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Ah, I thought so too at first. But then I realised. Its a story, a perspective. The author is entitled to tell it the way it was experienced. Sure, we could do without all that division in writings more and more. But for authenticity purposes, I think our authors work is justifiable

I love this response, it’s very true that the author, when writing a story, doesn’t owe an unbiased opinion. It’s up to the reader to acknowledge that there is this bias and they should make their own opinion

When writing fiction, the author doesn't owe anything to the reader. He/she can use his/her maximum imagination. Yet there is an ethical aspect. Though their are no written rules regarding these, I believe that historical fiction should at least be close to the truth and the author should not drive the reader towards any opinions.

It is true that it is up to the reader to form his/her own opinions. But does this book allow the reader to do that freely?