Confessions of a Mask

2005-08-25T09:30:07Z

I have to say that if Yukio Mishima isn't already my favourite author then he's certainly getting there. I read this book in little over a dy and it has been perhaps the best tool I could have found for explaining 'tatemae' behaviour in Japan, that being the portryal of an appropriate public face.
The novel is at least semi-autobiographical in nature and written almost as a diary, with occasional references to the reader from the nameless narrator and main character. It deals with his sado-masochistic homosexuality and the 'mask' of normality behind which he hides himself constantly. The way in which the struggle between his two selves and his rationalisations of this struggle are marvellously written and really try to make the reader understand, fully, what is happening inside the character's mind.
This seems to be a theme, perhaps confined to Mishima but more likely symptomatic of modern Japanese literature as a whole, of understanding the actions of characters with events being almost secondary and generally underwritten with the overwhelming focus placed upon shifting emotions and ideas. I find the style to resemble the way thoughts run through the mind much more than other literature which is immersive almost to the point of hypnosis.
An interesting point to notice is that a Western novel ending in the manner of this novel; with a moment of spiritual anguish which nonetheless is lmost casual in nature, would almost certinly be panned. 'Where is the climax when he commits seppukku/kills someone to fulfill his twisted desires/takes advantage of Chinoko?' The ending is the end of a meeting in which a simple event lays bare in his mind the disparity between his two selves but when you read it it doesn't have the feel of a climax, it doesn't feel like an ending, because similar events run through the entire novel but then you think about it and you realise; that's his life. He will never have anything but this never-ending conflict going on and on. There is no point continuing to death because the thoughts on his deathbed will be the same as they are now. There is no dramatic climax because he can never break free of the mask he has created.
This way of making the reader make their own ending, while initially baffling is a wonderful example of this evidently Japanese device of making the reader think and consider, rather than offering them a whole and complete story simply to absorb.
As yet Im not sure whether this is typical to Japanese writing as a whole or just to Mishima, but I shall investigate.
Update: It's not just Mishima, the lack of a traditional ending seems to be a theme in at least some Japanese writing.

Golding vs. Mishima

2005-07-27T19:00:25Z

I’ve been reading 'The Temple of the Golden Pavilion' by Yukio Mishima lately and I’ve noticed two major things. Firstly, it’s really, really jumping in at the deep end. I’ll go into that a bit more later. The second thing, which I’ve only noticed over the last couple of days, is that it’s almost a reflection of 'The Spire' by William Golding that I’m sure many of you remember fondly from AS-level English.
In very brief summary of the synopses, Golding’s book is about a man, Jocelin, who attempts to bring a glorious vision to life as a colossal spire on his cathedral, but when it is completed he finds it ugly and nothing like he had hoped. Mishima’s book is about a man who’s whole life, like Jocelin’s, revolves around a building; the Golden Temple. To him, nothing is beautiful except the temple because all beauty IS the temple. This is because his vision of the temple overlays the physical building, which he at first found disappointing, having been told since infancy that it was the most beautiful thing in the world. He then burns it down, to bring a realisation of mortality to the world, and to ruin it to some degree.
I think that the books make a really interesting twisted reflection of one another. Two men, both idealists, both in control of a building that means everything to them but one seeks to glorify it and, in failing is destroyed. The other sees the glory already there and destroys the building to steal glory from the world.
I don’t know if anyone agrees with me, but I think that the books give an excellent basis for comparison. They’re even written similarly (As near as I can tell. Mishima’s is, of course, translated from the Japanese) Both are underwritten in terms of events, with time passing in flashes and drawn out moments and a heavy emphasis on the conflicts in the mind of the main character.

Anyway, that comparison aside, 'The Temple of the Golden Pavilion,' though thoroughly interesting and enjoyable, is intensely philosophical and heavily confusing. Hence my earlier ‘jumping in at the deep end’ comment. I’ll give you an example. A Buddhist lesson comes up again and again throughout the novel; Nansen kills a kitten. Essentially, a kitten wanders into a temple grounds and two temples quarrel over the ownership of it. The abbot of one temple takes the kitten and asks of the priests ‘Can anyone give a reason for it to live?’ Receiving no response he kills it. Later, the chief acolyte returns and the abbot tells him what he has done. The man removes his shoes, puts them on his head and leaves in silence. The abbot then says ‘If only you had been here the kitten would have been saved’
Chew on that for a week, there are a myriad of possible meanings, four of which are about as perplexing as the koan itself and contained in the book.

Sam's World of Japanese Studies

Confessions of a Mask

Golding vs. Mishima