Book Thoughts: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen
After I read a book, I generally email my thoughts or notes to a friend. I'm now copying these first emails to this blog since it's easier to revisit.
Original Sent Date: Nov 19, 2024
I think I got this book from some college course syllabus I nabbed since there was a period of time where I was collecting that sort of thing.
It's a book that provides an interesting perspective on the Vietnam War after the communists won. I think before listening to this book I was not fully thinking of the realities of revolution and war considering that I typically stay away from such media due to a limitation of dealing with very depressing subject matter. This book isn't that depressing though, and I didn't find listening to it hard emotionally at all. I did get bored at times listening to it but that is literally the case for nearly every single book I have written to you about.
All of that said, my god was this written by a man. The descriptions of women and the like. Big lol. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything different.
Probably still worth a basic read if you haven't read matter of this sort before.
Things that made me think (spoilers below):
The whole part of making a Hollywood film and the limits of representation was really interesting considering that this is still a major issue that faces Asian Americans in particular today when it comes to Hollywood. The themes of trying to represent oneself but not being able to at all due to the lack of power was really grounded in this book, especially with the protagonist being biracial and rejected by both sides, including both communist and capitalist sides. I think having a protagonist like this was an extremely smart choice for a book that is responding to the way the Vietnam War has been represented by non-Vietnamese people, especially in not "choosing" a side or valorizing either. Since doing so would likely immediately just pigeonhole the book into a pro or anti-communist book when the main thing it wants to tackle is the struggle of the individual in revolution and what it means to be seen or appreciated, and ultimately trying to find what the point of life is.
The disillusionment with slogans and tribalism is real. It's something I think about sometimes when I think about what (bare bones things) I know about China's history. Where stuff like the Cultural Revolution was major in moving a lot of people but at the same time it sacrificed a lot of people, but also, when China was getting screwed over by western powers (and Japan), can you really blame Mao and the like for trying something of the sort?
I think something that I think about and honestly am quite uneducated about is this idea of revolution. I feel like when gathering enough people to overthrow major powers there is some level of social flattening that feels basically required, where things are polarized into for the cause and against it to weed out any potential traitors, and inevitably innocent people get caught up in it. But where does that leave the individual? I guess this is the argument for nationalism even though it's also a poison. That to convince people to give up their lives for the "greater good" you need something to provide for them to throw themselves into religiously, with all the idealization and pitfalls. Has there ever been a revolution that actually resulted in major material shifts that didn't do this? Is there actually room for nuance in revolution at all?
I don't think I would be a very good revolutionary. Though given that I also am really afraid of fighting for anything at all you could probably count on me to shut up and give in. Which means that it's probably a question of which side gets ahold of me more so than my real morals and the like because my fear factor is too high. Or I guess if we're following On the Line the answer is that I don't have any real relationships I would feel like risking my life for. I do not think I would survive even the slightest bit of torture for instance.
On a side note, the comment about how much creativity, energy, and self-induced pain it takes to actually torture someone by hand was really interesting. Kind of fascinating how far we trouble ourselves to hurt others.
The final answer of "nothing" being more important than freedom and independence, especially coming from people who are literally depriving the protagonist of that, is extremely ironic on all levels, and I do see the joke. I do wonder about what it means to have a state of "nothing", though. Seems almost kind of Buddhist in a way. Though it probably just speaks to the lack of meaning in life when one is forced to give up on oneself for an ideology.
I feel like I need to read more history in general because I don't know what's up with Vietnam and Laos at all as mentioned in this book. I also feel like I should probably read more about revolutions like what happened to Haiti for instance and how we got to where we are now... but there's always so many things to read and it's hard to find sources and sustain enough interest without someone else to actively talk to about it.
Anyway. Just another round of book thoughts.