Masterworks of Asian Literature in Comparative Perspective (review)

502 China Review International: Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1996 authors ofbooks about the Cultural Revolution deliberately or innocently ignore this difficult question, either because of the personal discomfort that such self-exploration may arouse, or because such questions do not seem to occur to them as they recount their experiences. Whatever the reason, it would be a shame if I and many of my contemporaries did not have the courage to admit that we also have to share a part of the blame to the extent that we participated, voluntarily or involuntarily , in the Cultural Revolution, regardless of the fact that we were victims ofthe propaganda ofthat time. Howard Goldblatt's translation is admirable. To make the work accessible to Western readers, Goldblatt abandons word-for-word translation, rendering Ma's prose in smooth colloquial English. Nonetheless, readers unfamiliar with the Cultural Revolution may find certain terms and expressions puzzling. Notes explaining these terms would have been helpful. Jin Qiu University of California at Berkeley Jin Qiu is a postdoctoralfellow specializing in studies ofthe Cultural Revolution. mi Barbara Stoler Miller, editor. Masterworks ofAsian Literature in Comparative Perspective. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994. 583 pp. Hardcover $65.00, isbn 1-56324-257-5. Paperback $22.50, isbn 1-56324-258-3. There is a growing interest in teaching Asian classics in colleges and universities as a way of entering into other fascinating thought-worlds and cultures. Through this means, it is believed, quite rightly in my view, that American students will be able to develop a deeper appreciation of other cultures and, by contrastive inquiries , an enlarged understanding of their own culture and lifeways. The 1980s saw the introduction ofAsia into the core curriculum at undergraduate colleges throughout the United States. The Columbia Project on Asia in the Core Curriculum was initiated as a way of integrating Asian materials into the general core curriculum. The book under review grew out of this project. Masterworks ofAsian Literature in Comparative Perspective, edited by the late ' ! ' Barbara Stoler Miller—a wonderful translator and commentator on classical Indian literature—is basically a guide for teaching. And I would like to say at the very outset that the book fulfills admirably its stated objective. There are over forty essays in this volume, written by acknowledged experts in the field, that ofHawai'i Press Reviews 503 "suggest a range ofpossibilities for introducing material on Asia" (p. xv). The essayists are basically critics and translators ofAsian literatures who have had long experience in teaching in undergraduate literature and comparative literature programs. The editor has sought to "provide the widest choice of approaches to meet the reader's pedagogical needs" (p. xv), and hence the selection ofessayists who have had extensive experience in undergraduate teaching is a wise strategy. There are two tables ofcontents in this book: one listing by country and the other by genre. The volume opens with a useful introduction by Barbara Stoler Miller that aims to bring out some of the central issues related to masterworks in Asian literatures. The section titled "The Worlds ofAsian Literature" consists of five interesting and informative essays that deal with the imaginative universe of Indian literature in general, modern Indian literature, the imaginative universes ofChinese literature and Japanese literature, and modern Japanese literature. This is followed by three sections that deal with Indian, Chinese, and Japanese literatures . In examining the literatures of India, China, and Japan, the genres oflyric, narrative, and drama have been foregrounded. A point that is brought out in some ofthe essays, for example by Theodore Huters, is the need to see literature as a complex signifying system, a vital cultural practice. It is generally held, and with a large measure ofjustification, that literature reflects society, and that by reading works ofimaginative literature sensitively , we can understand the contours of a given culture. Many modern literary theorists have challenged this mimetic concept ofliterature. That literature reflects society is true up to a point; however, it does not tell the whole story. The relationship between literary production and the society in which it takes place is so complex that to reduce it to a simple mimetic reflectionism does not help us to attain a comprehensive...