The Woman in the White Kimono

I love historical fiction. I may be biased, as I studied history for four years and am slightly obsessed, but to be fair it is only my second favourite genre. 

People seem to have no problem telling me that "history is boring," and if you are talking about basic accounts of events that tell you "when," "who" and "where," but seldom go into "how" and "why," then yes, history can be boring. Historical accounts can be dry and dominated by statistics and dates which hardly mean anything to us emotionally, but if you dig deeper, you can find those personal accounts that immediately capture your attention. This is why historical fiction can be powerful. 

Well...not all historical fiction.

"Two women are inextricably linked..."

After two nuclear bombs ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, what was Japan like? Many movies about the post-World War Two era that we are exposed to come from the American perspective, which leaves out a crucial narrative. Ana Johns took a slightly different approach when she told the story of Naoko Nakamura, one of the protagonists of her book, The Woman in the White Kimono. At the age of 17, Naoko falls in love with an American soldier who was stationed in Japan in 1957, a love that was pure and yet, incredibly complex with severe consequences for the young woman. On the other side of this story is Tori Kovac, a present-day American woman who is digging into one of her dying father's deepest secrets. 

The use of overlapping narratives is not something that is unique to Johns' novel, but it is a tricky business for an author to successfully navigate two perspectives while maintaining an authentic voice, and without losing their audience. As readers, we are meant to connect with the characters in a book, and if we don't connect, we lose interest, which was the case for me and The Woman in the White Kimono. 

An Authentic Voice

There were three reasons why I eventually lost interest in this book, despite my love for history and deep interest in Japanese history in particular. One reason was because Naoko's story was more historical fiction, while Tori's was centred around investigative journalism, giving two different tones to the book. Because the tones alternated as each chapter alternated perspectives, the book felt choppy despite the fact that it was supposed to be about two women connected through time.

Secondly, I found that Naoko's voice lacked authenticity, perhaps because it was in first person. The inspiration for this novel came from Ana Johns' father and his time served in Japan, which is likely why Tori's voice was more authentic, as the feelings behind her voice were genuine. Naoko's journey was moving in itself, but throughout her narrative she was constantly telling her audience how she was feeling, which left little room for readers to be shown. 

"Show" and "tell" are two very different literary techniques, and I find that I connect more when authors are "showing" me rather than "telling" me how it is. "Showing" leaves room for readers to interpret and connect, while "telling" leaves little room to dwell on the story and to empathize with the character. 

Lastly, I had trouble getting through this book because Tori's story was long and drawn out, while I had trouble connecting to Naoko's voice altogether, until the last quarter. There are events in the last quarter (for which, Johns cites her research) that were too horrible to imagine, and was far more powerful than the rest of the story combined. Only in this last quarter did I truly feel a connection between the two women, and the ending did move me as personal historical accounts ought to.

It Can Be Done

It is not impossible to successfully tell a story with overlapping narratives, as was the case in Ariel Lawhon's novel, I Was Anastasia. Lawhon alternates between two perspectives (Anastasia Romanov and Anna Anderson) in order to tell the story of how Anderson tried to be recognized as the Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov for the majority of the twentieth century. 

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Lawhon's novel starts with this famous quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of the Sherlock Holmes stories), immediately setting the tone for the novel. We know she is going to present the stories of Anastasia and Anna Anderson, and allows us to decide if they can possibly be the same woman. These are two very different stories, occurring in different decades, but none of the problems in The Woman in the White Kimono presented themselves in I Was Anastasia. Here is why:

• Although the perspectives alternated, each chapter was connected
• The tone remained the same, allowing me to become fully involved in the story
• Only one character was presented in first person, and both stories felt authentic despite the fact that there was obviously guesswork involved

Overlap

Overlapping perspectives in novels can be powerful, especially in the case of historical fiction. However, unless the tone is consistent and endearing, and the voices authentic, then overlapping narratives can be difficult to follow. Both of the novels discussed above were interesting, but The Woman in the White Kimono was not as strong in terms of writing, and for me was only a 2/5 star novel. On the other hand, I Was Anastasia was gripping (I was literally gripping the novel tightly), and was a 4/5 star novel. 

That's all for now! Thanks for reading. I appreciate all of you, and would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section, or privately through emailing theopinionatedbookworm@gmail.com. Stay safe, stay home!