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

[lavkathleen]

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'm not sure how there can be no division in writing, especially this one, when another country invaded them with no other reason than wanting to own the whole continent.

[lavkathleen]

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.

The author has shown the inadequacies of Korea as well. Yet he has vilified Japan and its soldiers, and some of the actions of Japanese soldiers and officials that are described in this story can turn the reader against Japan. Those things might have been true, but the author could have taken a lighter approach

This is literally written in history—not just in this novel. And I love how accurate it was. Japan adopted the ideals of the country that invaded them—America. From there they started going after the rest of the countries in Asia, and they even fought Russia. The author didn't even need to try too hard—the division is already there. And there's just no way she can 'take a lighter approach' when she's writing about invasion and oppression of a whole nation.

[lavkathleen]

Hm, first off, nobody writes to praise their enemy and shame their own nation. To some extent, the author is bound to view her country as the victim. Secondly, while being historical, this book is also fictitious. Some details will be modified to suit the plot. (For example, the Joseon dynasty is supposed to end in 1910, two years prior to the book's story.)

Besides, I think the author has pointed out some of Korea's mistakes. As Embon and his friends said, the Koreans were old-fashioned and closed-minded, and the youngsters thought that monarchism was no longer needed. Ironically, in a way, Korea had to thank their foe. Being annexed by Japan offered a golden chance to Korea's young generations: to fall or to rise. We all know the result of that choice: South Korea is now a powerful nation, and despite their closing in, North Korea also employs modern techniques and devices in their daily lives.

So, personally, I think the book is pretty fair about the history aspect.

Any author is biased when it comes to his/her own nation. And it is not unusual to see the enemy as a dangerous devil. Yet, this is not terrorism what we are speaking of. It is a war between two countries, or lets say its a rebellious stand against a country. In that context, the author can elaborate the courageous fight that they had, yet, since the events are already happened and the two countries are in peace today, I think that portraying Japan in an extreme villainous picture is unnecessary

Are you implying that a person is only justified to take sides when there is terrorism? Also, is there a huge difference between terrorism and conquering another country? (I mean, invasion is a lot of steps ahead of terrorism, yes.) There is war between them not because they disagreed on something, but because Japan crossed a line and invaded Korea. Obviously, Korea is fighting Japan for its freedom. And not just because they are 'at peace' today doesn't mean that what happened is forgivable and should be 'taken lightly.'

[Bridgetbruso99]

Because it is told in perspective from a family that was once Korean royalty I do think that it is justified. The author was very good at explaining what transpired to drive the characters to their opinions about Japan and their attempts at trying to preserve their history and heritage in their new world.

[Chigozie Anuli Mbadugha]

Whether it is justifiable or not depends on which side of the story you are looking at. There are always several sides to every story. That is why there is the concept 'point of view' in writing and the way the story unfolds depends on who is doing the narration. The author has the prerogative to take any side so it is justified in my opinion. If another author wants to provide clarity by writing the Japanese side of the events, the person is at liberty to do so. Thanks for raising the point. it is a valid observation. Cheers!

[Victoria Copsey]

I don't think the author necessarily took the side of Korea but presented a story of struggle from the perspective of Korea. The author and reader will always find more empathy for the subject that expresses their perspective in a novel.

[kdstrack]

Being Korean, one understands that the author will emphasize her own country's perspective about the war. She has lovely memories of her country's traditions as can be seen by her detailed descriptions of the clothing, the food, and the family relationships. While the society tried to preserve their history, the younger generation was influenced by the conflict and the new ideas they were exposed to. All these circumstances influenced her writing. I did not feel like the author was driving readers against Japan.

[Ayindelaw]

It's the author's story. They can side with whoever they want. I'm prone to siding with Korea too since they were the underdogs.

[Sithmi]

This is a historical fiction. This story is written about the Korean struggle against Japan for independence. The author is biased to Korea, but has not made Japan a complete villain. It is the perspective of the story.

[Teele]

The author is telling the side of Korea, we know this going in, and to expect the story to illuminate both sides is not necessary. You can expect that it will be the perspective of the one telling the story. I do not believe that the author is trying to be divisive, so much as to tell a story. This story did not make me see either side as a villain, it gave me a greater appreciation of the struggles that people during that time lived through. It seems to me that you couldn't win no matter which side you were on. It reminds me to what we are facing here, masks or no masks, you can't win no matter which side you are on. You just do the best that you can do and tell your perspective and your side of the story, hoping that it might make a difference to someone, someday.

So true. While reading, I did not forget the fact that the author is on the Korean side, and I'm seeing just one side of picture.

[Goodness C N]

Since the author is Korean it is normal to take such side. I mean we all have our biases. It's a natural phenomenon to take a side of something we're familiar with. So by being Korean, I think it's justified to choose this even though that doesn't mean one should lie. But the question is on justification, so, yeah.

[Kansas City Teacher]

Completely justified! For those of you who do not know Asian history, it is real and it is raw. The countries there, unlike here and in Europe, tend to be homogeneous. We can easily tell each other apart. My family escaped from Vietnam in the 70s and the tensions between Vietnam and its aggressors run deep for many generations. For many, perception is reality.

[Sithmi]

I think the author is a bit baised to Korea but also sometimes point out some flaws of Korea too. but the author has not made Japan a complete villain. 

[Iva Stoyanova]

I think this is just the author's point of view. I am sure there are books out there that are from Japan's point of view. Everyone is entitled to their own point of view.

Exactly! We can't blame the author for having an opinion or preferring one country to another. Some books defend things we don't and the other way round, but that's just normal.

[zulfiyya]

It could possibly be deemed inappropriate or even considered propaganda if it was labelled as non-fiction, but given that it is fiction, it's not spreading false information because the readers are made known that the story is not real.