Publication
What publishing company published the book? How reputable is it and how do you know? What are their review policies?
The University of Hawaii Press published this book. The University of Hawaii Press is ranked highly, according to Southern Illinois University - Carbondale's rankings scale. Princeton University, one of the nation's most prestigious universities, has ranked SIU - Carbondale, as one of the "best of the Midwest". The University of Hawaii's review policies consist of the author sending a query or manuscript, conforming to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, and sending the manuscript electronically, among other criteria.
Reception
What (peer) reviews can you find? Where? What is the general consensus? Who has cited this article, and in what kind of publication?
Peer reviews were found on the University of Hawaii Press's website at http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-610-9780824821364.asp. The general consensus is highly-positive. This book is highly-acclaimed by the Journal of Japanese Studies and World Literature Today.
Rob Wilson cited the essay on a website called Academia.edu, a shared resource for researchers.
Who is the author and what is their academic background?
Where are they working now (and at what capacity/rank)?
What else have they published (recently?), and how much is actually related to the topic of this article?
Susan J. Napier is the author and she obtained her B.A., M.A., and Ph.D degrees from Harvard University. Currently, she is Professor of the Japanese Program at Tufts University. In 2007, she published "When the Machine Stops: Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments: Lain". Napier has published very little that is related to this essay.
Explain the title. Does it really fit the thesis statement, or is there any shifting or gapping? What kind of shift/gap/miss and how does this affect the overall value/importance/usefulness of the article?
The title is an attempt to convey the search for the transcendent, or the "spiritual" in 20th-century Japanese post-World War II literature, by explicating and critiquing the literary efforts of Nobel Prize-winning author, Oe Kenzaburo. Napier's thesis statement is stark and simple. However, the ensuing content misses its mark by introducing other Japanese authors by way of comparison and/or contrast to Oe Kenzaburo. The article fails insofar as it loses focus on Oe and the thesis shifts during the essay, failing to develop Oe as a "fiercely engaged human being," as Napier refers to him. One never senses that he is as fiercely engaged as she suggests and neither the title nor the thesis intimates the importance of the other authors that Napier critiques.
Structure
What is the basic, overall format of the article?
The basic, overall format of the article is a series of answers to formulated
interrogatives, a thesis broken down into a triad of components.
Epigraph(s)
Who, what (from when & where), and mostly, why? How is it connected to the rest of the article. How is it related to the thesis statement, or what is it’s function in the article otherwise?
The epigraphs at the beginning of the essay are from Oe himself, authors Mishima, Abe, Murakami, and the now-disbanded folk-pop band R.E.M. It seems that Napier added these epigraphs as allusions to the apocalyptic sensibility and nature of the respective artists' works. It is unclear how the epigraphs are related to either the title or the thesis.
Thesis statement
Quote it (or them, if there is more than one) and explain where found (and how many times). Is it actually the point of the article, or did the author stray/lie/miss it somehow? Explain and support any issues you find with the thesis statement.
It appears that Napier's thesis statement is: "Besides being a stunning creator of modern myths, Oe remains a fiercely engaged human being, relentlessly trying to awaken not only his countrymen but the world." However, this is not the point of the article. The writer (Napier) skirts this powerful statement only to limply wallow in superficial critique and freely inserts her own jargon at will. Napier fails in trying to both convince and engage the reader with regard to her terminology such as "apocalyptic sublime." Moreover, what does R.E.M.--an American band--have to do with Japanese literature, be it modern or post-modern?
How is it divided, and what are the chunks about (summarize VERY BRIEFLY)? What is the thesis statement for each section? What are the sub-section subtitles (if any) and do they accurately convey/represent the thesis of each section? Explain any sub-section epigraphs. Basically, you need to MAP the article’s argument (flow) here
The article is roughly divided into a thesis statement that advocates the heroism and uniqueness of Oe among his contemporaries, seemingly inchoate epigraphs, a positing of questions about Oe's literary stature and who will be his worthy successors, a discussion about the sublime and the three paradigms that Oe uses to represent the sublime, and referencing something called the "apocalyptic sublime," an introduction of other authors who search for the "sublime" in their stories, a lengthy analysis of sexuality as portrayed by Oe and other authors such as Abe, the "re-casting" of what is evidently a new thesis (Oe's search for the sublime in terms of three paradigms -- (the Apocalyptic, the collectivity, and the body), an examination of these themes in Oe's works as well as others including sexuality (the body). There are sub-sections such as Oe and Mishima: The Moon and the Tree. Here, Napier references and critiques the respective authors' usage of sexuality, quotes Yeats, and, in general, bobs and weaves through a flow of content that is as confounding as it is confusing.
Quotes/citations/support
Which books/works from the topic-author get cited? From what period in the topic-author’s career are they from? Have they been translated/published in English? Is the article-author citing the English or the Japanese version? Can you tell/does it matter (and why or why not)? How are the citations used (how do they function) in the article? What other support is used (or missing)? Are any other experts/academic works/fictional works, etc. cited? Who, what (when and where from) and why? Is it effective or decorative? How do you know?
Napier cites Mishima's work from The Temple of Dawn as well as excerpts from Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Oe. She also cites W.B. Yeats's poem, "Vacillation", a poem that Oe references. Napier also cites The Ark Sakura by Abe. Evidently, all of the cited works have English translations. It is difficult to tell but it appears that Napier is citing the English version because of the passages' syntax and diction. As most native English speakers do not have any working proficiency in Japanese, it is, to Napier's credit, best to use the English translations. However, some of the author's intent and meaning may have been "lost in translation". Also, subtle cultural innuendoes may not be as obvious in English translations.
Napier's uses citations to reinforce her thesis (as well as her claims of Oe's privileged status among his peers) and embellish her essay. Citing other critics of Oe's writings would help Napier elucidate her points more coherently. At the outset of her essay, Napier references essayists Donald Pease and Rob Wilson to buttress her appropriated definition of the word, "apocalypse". Napier seems to revel in quoting others to prop up the shaky foundations of her own insights. Her quotations and citations seem hollow and irrelevant, anything but spot-on and purposeful. They serve as no more than window dressing, only there to complement Napier's ostensibly high regard for her perspicacity and personal insight, as exemplified by her several first-person pronouncements.
Specialized terminology/Jargon/Historical terms or concepts
What are some key words from the article? Is any specialized terminology (literary, historical, Japanese cultural concepts, etc) used? Where and why? Is it useful/practical in it specificity, or does it come across as jargon? And how much does that matter to the overall value/usefulness of the argument?
Napier utilizes a number of Japanese words such as koso (sublimity). Often, she references literary works with their Japanese titles (as if to display her wealth of knowledge in the Japanese language). These terms serve no purpose other than to subvert her attempt at an engaging tone. Instead, her Japanese-infused terminology comes across as jargon -- an esthetic, albeit-bland decorum.
Conclusion
Critique the ending. How well does it match the introduction? How does it affect/match/support the argument and the overall quality of the article?
The ending barely, if at all, succeeds in re-stating and underscoring Napier's thesis. She certainly falls short of aggrandizing Oe. Her concluding statement introduces new subject matter and themes which were not thoroughly discussed during her critique of Oe and his literary peers. The concluding
paragraph, like the rest of Napier's essay, does not match or even bear a sensibility of her so-called sublime apocalypse. She has failed to generate any interest whatsoever in Gii or "his followers", and at the final lap, it is too late anyway. The conveyance of passion or emotion is absent from the conclusion, as devoid of energy and enthusiasm as the rest of Napier's essay. More anti- climax than conclusion, Napier's closer was lackluster and belied her title of the essay.
