{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03017832647462277, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0054869684499314125, 'mean_word_length': 4.955102040816326, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lamentation as History: Narratives by Koreans in Japan, 1965-2000 (review)

postcolonial theories.” Notice his logic here. It is as if Yoshimoto’s works need to be validated through postmodern and postcolonial theories, which constitute, consciously or unconsciously, a higher authority as “theory” for the writer. It is as if Murakami is claiming that in order to introduce Yoshimoto, Yoshimoto needs to be mediated by “postmodern and postcolonial theories.” The logical extension of such a scheme is that “indigenous Japanese studies” is somehow inferior, always relegated to the realm of “practice.” Of course, the asymmetry of Foucault’s works and Yoshimoto’s is a reality based on the asymmetry of the languages they write in. But here, the asymmetry is reinforced by the writer’s modes of articulation. Aside from such theoretical discussions, there is nothing that pulls the four writers together in this book. The author’s choice of these writers, among the many he could have chosen in contemporary Japanese literature, is not explained in clear terms. It is certainly not self-evident. Some, if not most, of the theoretical issues that this book provokes us to think about have been debated extensively in many works the writer cites in his bibliography. Further engagement with such works and a more rigorous questioning of his own use of terms as well as the assumptions with which he structured the project could have helped this book immensely.