TLDR: watch my YouTube video here: anti colonialism harry potter?
Babel by R.F. Kuang is a historical fantasy novel set in the 1830s at Oxford. It follows Robin Swift, a Canton born orphan who is taken by his white father Professor Lovell from cholera ridden China to England. There, he trains to become a student at the Royal Institute of Translation at Oxford Univeristy.
In this fantasy version of the 19th century, the world's technology advancement and industrial revolution is led primarily by England, where silver is used by the translation alumni's pseudo-magic translation and incantation to power the tech around them. By engraving two or more words on these silver bars in two different languages, the user can evoke a reaction. The reaction is fed by the lost translation that occurs between the two words. For example,
"invisibility" (English) paired with "wúxíng" (Chinese, meaning "intangible") allows the holder of the bar to become invisible.
Or: "dissolve" (English) paired with "bhintte" (Sanskrit), which disperses a crowd.
In order for this magic to function, the speaker must be a fluent speaker of both languages. That's what the students of the Royal Institute of Translation are there for. They use their native languages, English, and the ancient classical languages they studied in as children-led by their guardians- and the curriculum at the institute to pass their fluency exams and become tools of the British empire to reinforce their power and control over competing countries.
While becoming a ruthless empire of silver mining, the elite class maintain control over the educated minority, foreigners who are welcome in the institute as long as they do not critique the colonization required for the silver magic system, the racism they face, and basically anything offensive" to their sensibilities. Very quickly this unspoken rule of "stay in line and do not speak if not spoken to" is learned by the cast of the non-white characters, and while they do defend themselves against their fellow students on occasion, and engage in classes with professors who have a passion for the foreign qualities in languages (but not much else), they are constantly reminded of their place in a racist society and the subservient nature they must conform to in order to retain their privileges of studying at the university. After all, the white elite in history and the novel are accepting of the people and product of the "other" as long as they can profit from it and keep them subjugated.
The upkeep of the silver bar technology is not only a product of this subjugation, but is willfully kept in a cycle of obsoletion, so that any bar that is installed must be re-powered in the future. Otherwise, it fails. And to keep bridges from falling or keep carts motorized, this must be done. Of course, this unsustainable element was made so that the white educated elite capitalize on the industry and make more profit.
And capitalism and imperialism have historically relied on exploitation of foreigners and their hard work, with little to no regard for their humane treatment. This powerful message of Babel is not lost upon the readers, and thematically, the novel is rich and needs to be recognized for its commentary on colonialism, and the power translation has and does have in dividing and unifying people of all countries in many aspects.
While I loved this book on my first read, excited to delve into a linguistic heavy novel and appreciate the detail and depth of etymology and history, there are a few critiques I have after rereading the novel this year. Unfortunately, I think the novel had potential in more than a few areas.
My first critique is of the characters.
POOR CHARACTERIZATION
We are introduced to the Golden Trio Plus One of Robin, Victoire, Ramy, and Letty.
They all speak English and learn ancient languages necessary for the institute like Greek. But Robin speaks Mandarin and Cantonese. Although he's told to forget Cantonese because it's a "lesser language" basically.
Ramy was born in Calcutta India and speaks Persian, Urdu, and Arabic. He was taken from his family by Sir Horace Wilson to live in Yorkshire before attending Babel. He is the stereotypically biting character of the group, characterized by a sharp sense of understanding and the bitterness that comes with being attuned to one's surroundings. He is usually treated worse than Robin in society because Robin can pass as white in some circumstances, and has a familiar understanding of colonialism since he is from India where the British Empire colonized.
Victoire was born in Haiti and speaks Haitian, Creole, and French. She spent a lot of time in France before coming to Babel, and as a Black woman attending the university, she was victim to racism, sexism, and misogyny. Even the only woman professor of the school told her that her position at the school was not an inspiration of overcoming a society that disregarded women and believed them incapable of education, but rather a sole product of her hard work. Discounting the experiences of Victoire and belittling her aspirations in a society where she is obviously often ridiculed and overlooked.
Letty was born in England and speaks French and German. Letty is the only white character in the group, and it is made obvious over and over that Letty does not have the capacity to think critically or realize the depth in which her "friends" experience racism and are ostracized from society except in the most shallow of ways. She is more concerned with feeling left out from their bonded experiences, despite also feeling the effects of misogyny in society and overcoming the challenge of attending Oxford as a woman when both her father and society was not keen on the idea.
Unfortunately, the characters feel stereotypical, as narrative devices meant solely for delivering lines necessary to the plot or a message, but without complex motivations, feelings, or dynamics. Their interactions were painfully reminiscent of another media, and felt like a shadow in the background of the plot. Which leads me to my next critique:
Babel often read as a Harry Potter inspired novel with poor execution in the ways it resembled.
First, we have the Golden Trio Plus One of Robin, Ramy, Victoire (and Letty):
with Robin being the burdened and unsure Chosen One meant to lead a revolution against the oppressive regime threatening the oppressed half-bloods and muggleborns...
Ramy being the boisterous and opinionated side-kick that at least, thankfully did not read as a Ron copy...
and Victoire, the aspirational woman who is told she is not meant to be part of a society that sees her as undeserving of her station, despite her intellect and right. (comparable to Hermione and her muggleborn status).
Additionally, the two sentence hint of romantic interest between Robin and Ramy shadows a brother-bond of Harry and Ron that leaves Victoire (Hermione) feeling like she belongs in the trio, but will fall third in an argument, seen as "too bold" when the two are both 1) not a woman seeking support when her two best friends are boys and 2) not facing the intersectional struggle of both being a woman AND being Black (muggleborn) in the society.
Despite the Golden Trio dynamic going on, we have the obvious academic living arrangement comparable to Hogwarts, with academic rivalry (most notably against elite rich white kids that are only there because they are expected to be before entering in a cozy career already warmed for them), classes, and adventures that give them a bond and makes the readers care for them.
Sorry, I would mean that last sentence, but the "adventures" we have in this novel is strictly a few paragraphs every so often telling us that the trio cook their favorite dishes together and laugh into the night, and share conversation but not going much deeper.
That is what I am missing in addition--the fantastical element of the fantasy genre that leads you on a suspenseful journey with the characters, one where you dodge curses and sneak out at night to free a strange bird. Here, the sneaking out occurs, but not in a way that gives you a sense of friendship bonding or mending of those bonds due to high tensions. It leaves the reader wanting. What it also lacks in that regard is the time meant to develop said Harry Potter dynamic and cataclysmic reaction from betrayal. Because the novel (550 pages of dry academic studying and sneaking (didn't say I didn't enjoy the dry linguistic explanations) is
RUSHED
Time skips are abound in this novel, and since it opens with a child version of Robin venturing to England, we are not expected to be privy to every single day of his life until his entrance into the University. But for the characters to feel real, and the betrayal of one character in particular to feel shocking, we should be allowed some momentous and emotionally heavy tension between the characters that come with dialogue, rising and falling action, and periods of nostalgic rest that will connect with the readers and make them feel like a ghost on the shoulder of the character.
By far, the most interesting characterization is the hint of a romantic feelings between Robin and Ramy in two instances:
"The light made Ramy's eyes glow, made his skin shine like burnished bronze. Robin had the ubsurd impulse to place his hand against Ramy's cheek: indeed, he'd half lifted up his arm before his mind caught up with his body.
and when discussing Letty's interest in Ramy:
"Robin: "She wants you. Very badly. So why-"
Ramy: "Don't you know why?"
Their eyes met. Robin felt a prickle at the back of his neck. The space between them felt very charged, like the moment between lightning and thunder, and Robin had no idea what was going on or what would happen next, only that it all felt very strange and terrifying, like teetering over the edge of a windy, roaring cliff.
By far, this is the most subtle the book is, and I wish it were honestly a little more subtle. Simultaneously, I appreciate this is the most complex dynamic amidst these characters.
Often, "the academic year would fly by"-you would be told this-then that "they crammed for finals" and then "he would spend a summer abroad" that would be told in a paragraph or two without having the experience form him as a character. We are told of the passing of time, but do not feel it.
I have seen some authors do this extremely well, with dialogue, with characterization that gives the characters a 3 dimensional quality, gives the reader a sense of nostalgia when thinking back on the characters' experiences, and here, I was let down. I understand the author is rushing towards the plot, but it felt rushed when it had potential. The ending 200 pages had the most tension and interest, but it made what came before seem both heavy with words and light with significance.
There was little grey morality to be had, little philosophy to be discussed until the end, when you must decide if revolution can occur peacefully or with violence. Professor Lovell, as one of the white elites in the book, would obviously be filled with hate and make the reader aware of his participation in corrupt and racist ideology. But the characters miraculously were already clued in to the good versus evil of the world, free from their own mistakes, all knowing in the realm of misogyny and racism, or no knowing in the case of Letty). There was potential for a complex discussion of inherent racism or misogyny, or for Letty's character to engage and then fall short. Rather, Letty did not engage at all, and her betrayal was predictable since her introduction. Another evil white character that cannot be trusted. And while I think that is accurate for the time period and the message, I cannot help but appreciate the conversation that could have been had if her betrayal had more...meaning.
We knew she did not and would not understand them and the necessity for change whether violent or not.
It's stated very early on:
"Later, when everything went sideways and the world broke in half, Robin would think back to this day, to this hour at this table, and wonder why they had been so quick, so carelessly eager to trust one another. Why had they refused to see the myraid of ways they could hurt each other? Why had they not paused to interrogate their differences in birth, in raising, that meant they were not and could never be on the same side? But the answer was obvious--that they were all four of them drowning in the unfamiliar, and they saw in each other a raft, and clinging to one another was the only way to stay afloat".
And that's my next critique.
Telling Instead of Showing becomes Foreshadowing? I know how it all ends...
Don't get me wrong. A book about colonialism and racism will need to have racism. It is important. Maybe even every five pages once you start noting every racist event with sticky notes. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is how a statement will be made in this book, and without letting us sit with it, and engage in thought, the next sentence will explain what the previous one meant, why it was there, what is stood for, and the exact motivation behind it without any participation by the reader.
There's no need to infer character motivations, when it is literally spelled out the sentence after a character's behavior.
No need to have the reader reflect on their own ideology or emotions when reading words that evoke strong emotions, or wonder how the previous sentence will move the characters into pathways for the plot. Because it does become
very cut and dry predictable.
This partly could be due to the hyper intent on historical accuracy that can make creativity less easily woven into the story. While I enjoy linguistics so I didn't mind the dry academic essay quality or the philosophical musings of the professors or the students at times, it didn't give me a reason to care about the characters more than "they're treated badly, I hate that society is hateful and full of racist bigotry".
The novel is more of a message and less of a character driven story.
No subtlety, no morally grey aspects present in most dark academia that would let readers discover their own questions, contemplate their own behavior, nuances. The message was not packaged in between the lines. The message was the lines. And it was the characters speaking the message because that was their only purpose. Not fleshed out in moments except to contribute to the plot.
Very black and white. Good versus evil, no morally grey philosophy which i think would have perfectly fit the dark academia vibe.
There are just some things that were there for effect.
Which police officer gave Letty their gun and let her run in to say some words to her former friends explaining why she betrayed them and then let her fire the weapon? Who allowed a woman to hold a gun before and learn how to shoot it?
Researched, thematic, the message was right and important, and what the characters represent is important, interesting concepts, but felt like it had more potential.
I wanted to see snippets of the Hermes Society's impact without knowing who the Hermes Society is, wondering where his friends went off to conveniently, just to be shocked to learn they were actually part of the organization, etc.
I loved the parallel between Robin and his older brother Griffin, showing how Professor Lovell's treatment of the boys differed, and how they became different people with different ideas and different views on how to act in the face of oppression. Their argument on if violence is a necessity, and the development of Robin as a revolutionary character was so important. But his 360 ideology felt rushed to me personally.
Well, that's my critique.
Keep in mind the author studied at Oxford, is a translator herself and has an MPhil in Chinese from Cambridge and an MsC in Contemporary Chinese Studies from Oxford, pursuing a PhD in East Asian Languages and Literature at Yale University, and was only 28 years old at the time of publishing this critically acclaimed book.
I am a picky reader, and I also like discussing books. And I very much gave this book 5 out of 5 stars my first read (despite the fact the magic system is only a replacement for technology rather than an addition to it. This book was one I read twice and enjoyed twice.
