Free Sex for Rice Chasers: A Review of Free Food for Millionaires by Min Jin Lee
27 Responses | Leave a Comment »
I always speak honestly, so I took a little artistic liberty with the title of my post in order to make it more relevant to the discussion that follows.
Fallout Central interviews Min Jin Lee, author of “Free Food for Millionaires.” You can find the interview here. The 44’s has commented on this book in the past on our message board, and I shared a word or two in one of my other blog posts, but I don’t think I’ve yet shared all my views on the book itself.
Let me start with the positives.
The Fallout Central guys did an absolutely fantastic job on the interview. It was by far the best interview that I’ve heard/read with Ms. Lee or any other Asian American author, and they asked some questions that were straightforward and quite unlike the normal Asian American pc whitewashing that most Asian American groups practice. John, Albert, and William asked relatively hard questions that others have been too scared or ignorant to ask, and it was refreshing to see an Asian American author interview that was more than just a commercial or promotion.
Second, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: I thought that Free Asian Sex for White Guys…I mean, Free Food for Millionaires…was very well written in terms of language and storytelling. Sentences, vocab, timing, rhythm: it was all there. It’s hard to write a good book in terms of storytelling, let alone a book that spans 600 pages. In fact, Lee kept me hooked until the end, even after the Kingstonian “reveal” came out (although in Min Jin’s defense, I should’ve known this beforehand after reading the recommendation on the book cover by that shameless David Henry Hwang). The language was great–even the gratuitious sex scenes between the main character white worshipping Casey Han and her irresistable YT male fuck-buddy Hugh were well written. Lee, in my opinion, is a better storyteller than Amy Tan, and even though I disagreed with the not-too-subtle racial message, it was good to read the first novel of a new talented Asian American storyteller.
Some spoilers to follow, but I don’t think this will ruin your enjoyment of the book.
Most 44’s don’t come here to see us beating the same Tan/Kingstonian drum as the mainstream; you come here to see real commentary, so I’ll give you exactly that; you guys and gals know where else to go if you want people to say what everyone wants to hear. In this spirit, I believe in unity and supporting our fellow Asian American writers and artists, but when an author writes a novel that perpetuates the same old, same old neo-colonialist stereotypes and hawk it as a work of Asian American empowerment, someone has to say something. That’s the crux of the argument that I’ve made throughout this whole “Falling For Grace” thing: I don’t care that these works elevate white men. I don’t care that IR is celebrated as the wave of the future. Just don’t call it “empowerment” and then get offended when people question it. I’m absolutely serious about this too. I watched the Last Samurai. I watched Miss Saigon. I saw Natalise’s China Doll. I even watched David Henry Hwang’s Golden Gate. I’m perfectly fine with those films and works; I just think it’s crazy to claim that they have any empowerment potential for Asian Americans.
I don’t believe that Min Jin Lee is being malicious with her treatment of Asian men or Asian women, yet there is a clear reliance on ideas and techniques that don’t help her story.
1. Stupidity: The main character is helplessly stupid. One of my Thymos members has my copy of the book right now, and he has said that he has been having trouble finishing it because of the protagonist’s stupidity. While Min Jin Lee hooked me in with her language, I can see his point. If there’s something stupid to be done (i.e. walking in on her white boyfriend who is engaged in a threesome, taking the same foolio back, flirting with all the guys on her professional team and eventually sleeping with one of them, etc.), she does it.
2. Poor male character development: All the male characters, Asian and white, are poorly developed. The white guys are typical fratboys who can’t keep the ladies away with a stick, and the Korean guys are so unrealistic that it almost seems like farce. While it may seem to be empowering for white guys to see themselves portrayed radiating irresistable studliness that we haven’t seen since Joy Luck Club, at a certain point it gets ridiculous, even for white male readers looking for an ego boost. White Cassanova’s are just as cool as any other, but after a while, it gets boring if they’ve got nothing else. Even the Greek Gods had real faults.
The Korean men are simply not believable. I don’t know where she got them; they don’t seem to be based in any kind of real people. In the interview Min Jin says that Ted Kim is her “favorite character.” Is she kidding? Ted Kim is a cardboard caricature who lacks any kind of depth whatsoever. He cheats with the office slut (whom Min euphemistically refers to in her interview as the “prettiest white woman”), and he lacks any ability to empathize or see beyond his own needs. Is it strange that the racial aspects of what he does never occur to him throughout the story? Is it strange that it never occurs to anyone else? The only good thing he does is divorce his beautiful Korean wife so that she can find love and eternal happiness in the arms of a white guy. (again, these is Min Jin’s universe, not mine.)
Unu is even worse. What a loser! I wanted to reach into the book and slap him silly. He radiates loser in everything he does, and his gambling addiction is about as believable as my Christian fundamentalist religious addiction.
I won’t even get into Charles Hong, the stereotypical Korean rapist. Every Kingstonian story needs an Asian male rapist, and my, does Casey show that evil Asian guy who is boss! The woman warrior puts the evil Asian man in his place once again!
3. Jumping: Something that all the reviewers say is that Min Jin Lee is good at jumping into different characters to reveal different viewpoints. While they are correct that she makes the transitions well, ALL the characters have the same personality, just different situations. (see #1) In other words, Unu’s doorman is exactly the same character as Unu who is the same character as White Stud Hugh; one just happens to be a doorman with a wife, while the other happens to be a ghost with a hard-to-believe gambling addiction, while the other happens to be a white guy whom the Asian damsel can’t resist. They have the exact same personality but happen to be in different situations.
Serious spoilers in the next two paragraphs:
In the FOC interview, Min Jin also sells the book as a representation of empowerment since the Asian woman ends up with an Asian guy. Min Jin is obviously aware of this issue, and I admit, I was hoping to see that sort of thing when I started the book, especially since Min Jin is the only Asian American female author married to an Asian guy (I think Lois Ann Yamanaka used to be, but who can keep track these days.). In the end, it doesn’t deliver. Unu is a loser, and I really could find no reason why any woman would be attracted to him. Not only does he have the personality of a cold fish, but he’s also a social loser, and he sucks in bed (this was clear from the obvious implied comparisons with White Boy Hugh). You can have one of the three problems and the relationship may work, but three of three? The only reason that a woman like Casey would like a guy like Unu is that he is stupid enough to take her back after she and White Boy Hugh shag each other silly, and tolerance of infidelity isn’t exactly a quality that lends itself well to empowering relationships. The only good relationship is between Ella and her White Savior. The moral of the story is the same as JLC and Woman Warrior: thank goodness for White Guys.
Moreover, I was less than impressed with Min Jin’s treatment of racism. I’m not going to come down on her too hard because I realize that portraying racism is extremely difficult, but Min Jin portrays it almost as an afterthought. These characters are Wall Street types–come on, you should be able to at least hear some serious racial differentiation and stratification just by spending half an hour with these guys! Not just verbal differentiation, but real differences. Instead, the only real instance of racism seems to be the White Cassanova watching White-on-Asian porn, which really isn’t racist at all if you think about it–the only (and I say this seriously) difference between David Henry Hwang’s Golden Gate and Asian porn is the degree to which all the playahs get nekkid.
In the FOC interview, Ms. Lee compares her situation to Spike Lee, whom she commends for being “brave,” but let’s be honest–when it comes to their works as a means of minority empowerment, the only commonality between Min Jin and Spike are their last names. Although Free Sex for Rice Chasers isn’t nearly as racist as the Joy Luck Club or the Woman Warrior, it pushes rather than challenges stereotypes. During the interview, Min Jin also says that Asian Americans tear each other down. I hope I don’t fall into that category, but I have to call it the way I see it.
Great writing ability, but not exactly a message that changes things up. Jaehwan gives it a C plus.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
groinpull
1:29 pm | Apr 29, 2008I was hoping to see that sort of thing when I started the book, especially since Min Jin is the only Asian American female author married to an Asian guy
Her husband’s name is Christopher Duffy. Unless he’s an Asian adoptee I think he must be white.
groinpull
1:42 pm | Apr 29, 2008Hmm, I just listened to the podcast and she did she she was ‘married’ to an Asian guy and now I remember that I think Mr. Duffy is a Hapa. I’m not really sure if I’m correct about that so correct me if I’m wrong.
jaehwan
1:45 pm | Apr 29, 2008Yes, that’s correct. He’s half.
groinpull
1:55 pm | Apr 29, 2008And I don’t know about Min Jin or Free Food. Albert and William really seemed to like it and I trust their evaluations of such a book even though I’ll never read it.
Albert is a really compassionate guy, so for him to sing such high praises for her book speaks volumes I think. He seemed to have the same criticism as you in that the Ted Kim character was too exaggerated, but I don’t know if you got that idea off of his.
What I can say is that you seemed to really enjoy the book, from your review of it several months ago, but when you found out that white guys will be featured prominently in the book a soured taste started to develop in your review. I know the IR discussion is forever a hot topic but could it be at all that you’re letting it tint your impressions about this book?
I think not all Asian American books have to be about race issues. There are a lot of stuff out there by Asian American women that are kind of hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean that ALL creative endeavors by Asian American women who feature prominently white guys in their works are sell outs.
I know the instinct is to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’ whenever we come across IR, but some works (falling for grace, red doors) merit this, while others possibly need to be view with an open mind.
I’m not endorsing Free Food for Millionaire or Min Jin Lee, whose next book has an Asian American male main character by the way-something that so rarely happens that I MIGHT actually pick it up-but I think AA guys like us need to come back towards the center instead of being pulled to the extremes one way or the other. Let’s not be completely closed minded about everything just because it has IR in it.
Again, I’m only writing this because I’ve listened to every single one of Fallout Central’s Podcast and Albert and Will are great at portraying a moderate voice on Asian American issues. I remember when Albert was recommending some graphic novels that had Korean American females as leads and they were attracted to White characters in the books, George was complaining that it was the same paradigm while Albert was more open minded about it. William seems to be in the same bubble so I trust both these guys then, well, a few of the guys on F44 for example. So I’m basing my perspective solely on the words of Albert and William.
jaehwan
2:43 pm | Apr 29, 2008I gave it the benefit of the doubt–why else would I read a 600 page book if I weren’t going to give it a chance? It wasn’t until around page 450 or so when the racial moral of the story seemed to come out–which is where I had to retract my previous recommendation. Before getting there, I was totally recommending it, even thought the white guys were stars. (I have nothing against white guys being stars.) The eventual implied racial moral of the story really bothered me though. Unu the God of Gamblers and Casey the White Chaser was a forced marriage if I’d ever seen one.
I read the whole book. Did you?
Groinpull,
I’d challenge you not to base your perspective on the words of Albert, William, me, the 44’s, or anyone else but to instead form your own opinion based on your own knowledge. Seriously, go ahead and read the book; as I mentioned several times, it perpetuates neo-colonialist stereotypes, but it’s well written. I’m not calling for a boycott or anything; I’m just expressing my own opinion of the book after reading it (and at least one 44, Jook, also went from favorable to not.). If my opinion is off-base, totally feel free to correct me. It could be that we both have intelligent perspectives that differ.
Xian
8:29 pm | Apr 29, 2008How about Joy Kogawa, Jae?
nightshade
9:56 pm | Apr 29, 2008What about Joy Kogawa?
Also, Canada is home to many Asian female writers who aren’t married to white men…because there are a lot of queer AFs in the writing scene.
SamuraiJack
11:48 pm | Apr 29, 2008Marrying a half-Asian isn’t really saying much. It’s just my feeling, but most Asians, both men and women, would prefer to marry a half-Asian, over an Asian or a white person. It fulfills two, but conflicting needs - the unnatural desire of finding someone with “Caucasian good looks”, and the natural comfort in finding someone that shares their heritage and culture.
jaehwan, so what was the main reason that Casey dumped the white guy (or did he dump her)?
kwak76
12:01 am | Apr 30, 2008I have to kind of agree with SamuraiJack.
For some people marrying or dating an Ameriasian is like
Asian enough to bring home to the family and keeping it real but also has enough white or whatever in them to full fill that part of the fantasy.
I been too busy with work to keep up with anything but I have to find some time to read the book to make a good judgement of it.
wlee815
12:09 am | Apr 30, 2008SamuraiJack,
When Casey walks in on the white guy having a threesome with two super-hot blondes, she runs out of the apartment with the intention of never talking to him again. However, in the internal dialogue that ensues, the reader is lead to beleive that she is still torn about this choice, as if there was some other magnetic attraction still lingering there despite his having a threesome with two girls. (Yes, even as a scum-bag, the white guy still gets to be the dashing, handsome, and coveted mate!). He later finds her whereabouts and confronts her, and she then goes back to his apartment to get her things. It is there that he is able to seduce her and get her in the sack. That’s the end of a chapter, and at the beginning of the next chapter, all you know is that they’re living together and are engaged. At some point afterwards she decides to break off the engagement, and, as of the mid-point in the book where I’m currently at, she has no plans to see him again.
-William (Fallout Central)
jaehwan
12:33 am | Apr 30, 2008Xian wrote:
Haha…Good point, Xian! But she’s Canadian! Things are different up there. Right, nightshade?
SJ wrote:
That may be true to a certain extent. I have seen personal ads that ask for either Caucasian or half. But I don’t think it’s always the case. Some women do want the full white knight, no compromises. Xian could probably say more.
Spoilers
Which white guy? The one with the threesome or Stud Hugh?
Actually, she dumped both. If I remember correctly, the first was because it just wasn’t working out (she forgave him for the threesome), the second was because she found the White Stallion’s White-on-Asian porn collection, and she didn’t want to be treated like a stereotype, even though she is a stereotype. She then ran back to the Korean American guy who was terrible in the sack. Now you understand point #1 above!
Xian
7:33 am | Apr 30, 2008That may be true to a certain extent. I have seen personal ads that ask for either Caucasian or half. But I don’t think it’s always the case. Some women do want the full white knight, no compromises. Xian could probably say more
It’s complicated. I certainly found this to be true in Japan. But it’s less monolithic stereotype than American sexual/race roles. Part of the “safe” appeal in Japan is if you are half-Asian and reasonably empathetic, it’s more than just ethnicity, it’s the “comfort” of not having to deal with a self-centered, “individualist” American.
In the U.S., it’s not really that common. Whites don’t see Asian American half-breeds as “safe” unless we are mainstreamed and apolitical. Even on first site, for most of us, they know we aren’t white.
It’s just easier to break down the barriers as an individual. But that’s the ultimate weapon, anyway–confidence and individual personality will allow you to win over anyone on or anywhere near the fence. The crazy extreme racists are not really too appealing anyway, so we should mourn FOR them, not mourn the lack of opportunity to hook up with them.
I’m thinking about this review more. I’m wondering why you chose the title…it seems to exhibit antipathy. You say it’s just an honest review, but doesn’t the title play into all of the stereotypes that people have of angry Asian men?
Why not just use all of the thoughtful critiques you have rather than go into divisive name calling? The ideas are thought provoking, but no matter how open-minded and thoughtful she is, I can’t imagine the author would take anything out of this. She’d probably just say, “They are angry, and probably not for a good reason…peace out.”
jaehwan
12:23 pm | Apr 30, 2008How did Asian American women treat you? Did they see you as “safe?” I would guess that their view of you would be more similar to the Japanese women in Japan than the white women here–since they view themselves as Asian, and since we’re all living in a post-colonialist time–but I’m curious.
While I don’t know if I would recommend the book, I definitely am happy to have read it. I can’t say the same about all such books–Kingston’s Woman Warrior and Tan’s JLC and Hwang’s M. Butterfly were complete wastes of time and energy. So I’d definitely separate Chasers…I mean, Millionaires…from the rest of AA Lit.
You probably have to read the book to fully understand why I chose the title I did, but I’ll do my best to explain: The first part of the book is beautifully written. Many pundits were comparing Min Jin to Jane Austen, saying that her immigrant story was much more than an immigrant story. Normally, I would NEVER buy a book with a recommendation by Hwang, Kingston, or Tan on the cover, but with Min Jin’s book, I made an exception based on the reviews and a cursory look at her language and storytelling skills.
Spoilers
I was waiting for the story to turn around, thinking it would be a sort of bildungsroman where the protagonistand others turn around and become smart, but instead, at around the last 150 pages, the story turns around and the characters become farce. Sexual farce. It becomes a racial, sexual orgy where people just do the most inane things as stereotypes would have them do. It was like porn, but it was literary porn! You’ll notice that my review is light-hearted; I never accuse Min Jin of making things worse or being sneaky and racist, the same way I might accuse Kingston or Hwang. Though I felt betrayed, especially considering the pro-Asian statements I had seen Min Jin make in other interviews, I found it incredibly funny that I had been duped. So I felt betrayed, but part of me also said that I should’ve seen it coming, and part of me laughs at the experience in retrospect.
My play on words with the title was just to illustrate the irony of how the story actually turns out, plus it was intended to show the reader that there is a hidden element of this book that mainstream written reviews are not emphasizing–though then again, I haven’t seen any mainstream reviews written by anything other than white people. If Min Jin is reading this (and she may be, since some kind soul linked us up from her Fallout Central interview), I hope she sees that I’m just being humorous. Because, Min Jin, that’s exactly what the book is about–Free Sex for Rice Chasahs!
Xian
10:47 pm | Apr 30, 2008I see. I would just predict that your review will get pigeonholed and even by those who are more moderate and would listen to the message. But that’s just my gut.
How did Asian American women treat you? Did they see you as “safe?” I would guess that their view of you would be more similar to the Japanese women in Japan than the white women here–since they view themselves as Asian, and since we’re all living in a post-colonialist time–but I’m curious.
I imagine that it helped them focus on my individual charm points rather than being stereotyped, but only once I developed to my full charisma. I was pretty strongly stereotyped as a high school student. But yes, the dynamic you refer to was probably a factor.
jaehwan
3:44 am | May 01, 2008Xian,
I think it kind of goes back to what you and I were talking about when we discussed activism vs. just writing. I think with written stuff, most have already made up their mind as to what they want to see or promote. Having a more moderate title won’t change most people. That’s my feeling anyway. I would think that most people who would dismiss the article based on just the title would probably also dismiss it based on the fact that it’s written by a guy.
I could be wrong about that, but I still think that activism is really what will create larger changes.
RE: the women thing…we’ve gotta have a 44’s conference one of these days…
nightshade
12:59 am | May 02, 2008I’ve seen her read the scene where the protagonist catches her boyfriend fucking the two women.
And you know what? I never looked for the book.
But I have to say that the debate about the Asianness of her husband is retarded.
Xian
9:03 am | May 02, 2008I could be wrong about that, but I still think that activism is really what will create larger changes.
I do think you are wrong on the first account–certainly there are a few that will write you off on any instance, but the secret to strategic action is to make your choice the most reasonable–i.e. respectful tone–>what was she thinking with threesome–>take him back dynamic. WTF is that?
Obviously, I agree with you on the second point except that activism, as you know and demonstrate in your life, is a 24/7/365 endeavor, and with the formidability of our obstacles, we really must be strategic.
jaehwan
12:28 pm | May 02, 2008Nightshade and Xian,
Actually, the threesome part takes place at the very beginning of the book, around the time Casey’s “traditional” Korean father punches her in the face. I was still part of Min Jin’s cheering squad well after both scenes.
I turned sour mostly towards the end when I realized that nothing was going to get resolved. The white guys would still be the stereotyped carriers of masculinity, the Asian women would still “find themselves” by sleeping with every guy under the sun, and the Asian guys would just be props that enabled the white guys to shine. Oh, and the Asian rapist.
Xian, we’ve gotta meet up sometime later this year.
Dialectic
11:36 pm | May 02, 2008Can’t have an Asian American book without a rapist!
Also, being “moderate” or having middle-of-the-road views doesn’t mean you’re really “open-minded” or “compassionate.” It just means you’re not taking any strong stand.
Xian
2:27 am | May 03, 2008Who has “moderate” view? I certainly didn’t recommend anything of the sort in the thread.
jaehwan
7:10 pm | May 03, 2008D,
I just checked your 10 Steps (plus 2 bonuses), and she’s employed 6 of them.
You wrote:
and
Well, Min Jin gets creative by putting these two characterizations into two separate Asian male characters. No wonder it was a bestseller!
I think what Xian was saying was that my article might be able to reach or change more “moderate” people if I made the title more moderate or “respectful.” Xian, is this correct? I think what D is emphasizing is that the “moderate” people are wrong on this issue.
I was thinking about this this morning, and I think my view is more “moderate” than the people who get mad at Asian men for not buying into the Kingstonian tropes that the publishing industry pushes. I’m more moderate than the “moderates.” Think about it–there’s an expectation that Asian men should buy anything that is Asian despite the fact that these representations tear us down. Who is moderate? Certainly it would be considered extreme if we were, say, white men or black men choosing literature that perpetuated stereotypes about us.
I was thinking about this this morning because I knew there was a subconscious reason why I chose a provocative–but true– title, and it both dovetails with what D is emphasizing and extends what Xian and I were talking about. For the Kingstonians, it re-calibrates their ideas of what Asian Americans want to see from their writers. For the people like us, it pulls us in because we know it’s not going to be the same old Kingstonian back slapping and high fives that goes on in Asian American lit circles as they tear down the Asian man.
So a provocative title reaches people like us. For Kingstonians, they’ll read it once and think to themselves “oh, another angry Asian male.” But eventually, some of them will have to listen to our perspective as well, especially if it’s backed by activism. Does this make sense?
I think it’s good to be strategic, but eventually you have to get into people’s faces, kind of like what the Fallout Central guys are doing. And yes, I totally know it takes a ton of time, money, and energy!
Xian
12:29 am | May 04, 2008Moderation is relative when you are talking about positions. “Moderate” language is something entirely different.
Moderation in language does not mean compromising your message or principals at all.
Your principles are not moderate. They are right. The question is how to strategically plan the victory of those principles.
Your title will reach people “like us”? Who like us needs to be pushed on this issue? Who like us is teetering on the fence of whether or not to plug sexist/racist quasi-feminist literature?
“Getting in people’s faces” is not a worthy goal. “Being right” in their faces is what’s necessary. Your title won’t only alienate Kingstonians, it’ll alienate many actual feminists. It’ll alienate people who haven’t made a decision yet on angry asian men and why we are angry.
Of course, our activism shouldn’t start with those uninterested in our movement at all. But it has to start somewhere and alienating potential allies is not a good place to start.
I mean, what has your title accomplished so far? It’s gotten us to spend a lot of time we could be strategizing on arguing the merits of an inflammatory title ;P
jaehwan
12:25 am | May 05, 2008Xian,
I just sent an e-mail to your yahoo account.
So basically, I think there are two functions of a provocative title.
1. It brings in “moderates” who are interested in hearing a different perspective. These “moderates” are actively looking for something different, but they don’t have access to ideas that are different. The provocative title immediately identifies the article as being different.
2. It serves to reach “people like us” to let them know right off the bat that their ideas concerning the stereotypes perpetuated by Asian American lit are justified. They know that there is an intellectual contingent that supports their doubts about the current Kingstonian trend.
Yes, a provocative title alienates potential allies. But it also attracts potential allies, and it pulls in “moderates” who are curious. And we are right.
I’ve been reading this book on one of the greatest organizers of all time, Abraham Lincoln. His “Cooper Union” speech was one of the turning points in his bid for the Republican nomination. I think his closing sentence is applicable to us. He said:
“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
Right makes might. I’m betting my next copper penny on Abe!
Xian
10:42 pm | May 05, 2008Well, we’ll talk more. I would just say that “Right makes Might” but that strategic right makes stronger magnitude of might.
evil_FUX
1:59 pm | May 06, 2008I finally read this front page post and I just gotta say thanks Jaehwan in sparing me from reading a shitty book.