Lost in Translation: The Book vs. The Show

[biakbiak]

I am currently reading the book and the difference in the family is interesting. Eddie has talked about his issues about how his memoir was translated to the the show, so this is the place to discuss the book and the differences between it and the show.

 

It's clear that Eddie has affection for his parents but maintaining more true to the story seems more fit for a cable drama, than a sitcom! I mean the emotional and physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents were never going to make it to a mainstream sitcom.

 

It is interesting that in the book Emory is just as much of a troublemaker as Eddie though so far Evan is a non-entity.

 

Did the show mention the reason that his grandmother is in a wheelchair was beause her feet were bound so by the time she was that age she couldn't actually walk because they were so deformed? I can't remember if it was said in passing or not but I actually wouldn't mind a further exploration of that storyline and her relationship with her grandchildren When he talks about the difference between his two grandmothers and how his other grandmother was only saved the same fate because her brother was educated outside of China and when he came back he immediately made them unbind her feet so that she lived a full and active life you can really tell the love and compassion he feels for both of his grandmothers.

 

I do wonder if future episodes will touch on Louis's gang past, though I imagine they would make it seem like a bad part of his younger years and not something that he missed and seem to revel in as described in the book with him waving around guns and such things when his friends from Tawain came around.

[PRgal]

I am currently reading the book and the difference in the family is interesting. Eddie has talked about his issues about how his memoir was translated to the the show, so this is the place to discuss the book and the differences between it and the show.

 

It's clear that Eddie has affection for his parents but maintaining more true to the story seems more fit for a cable drama, than a sitcom! I mean the emotional and physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents were never going to make it to a mainstream sitcom.

 

It is interesting that in the book Emory is just as much of a troublemaker as Eddie though so far Evan is a non-entity.

 

Did the show mention the reason that his grandmother is in a wheelchair was beause her feet were bound so by the time she was that age she couldn't actually walk because they were so deformed? I can't remember if it was said in passing or not but I actually wouldn't mind a further exploration of that storyline and her relationship with her grandchildren When he talks about the difference between his two grandmothers and how his other grandmother was only saved the same fate because her brother was educated outside of China and when he came back he immediately made them unbind her feet so that she lived a full and active life you can really tell the love and compassion he feels for both of his grandmothers.

 

I do wonder if future episodes will touch on Louis's gang past, though I imagine they would make it seem like a bad part of his younger years and not something that he missed and seem to revel in as described in the book with him waving around guns and such things when his friends from Tawain came around.

 

Bound feet?  Must have been illegally bound.  My GREAT-GRANDMOTHER (born in the 1880s) was the last generation to have bound feet.  Unless Granny had Louis in her 40s, it would not have been too likely (or Louis/Jessica had kids late).  Foot binding ended in China circa 1911 and girls don't get their feet bound until they're five or six.  But then again, people in rural China might not have received the message/kept old ways without being caught.  I'm just a couple of years older than Eddie and my (maternal) grandmother was very proud to be raised a "modern woman," meaning that she didn't have bound feet, completed high school (she then went to "business college" because of the war.  Had WWII not happened, she would have gone to REAL university) and didn't have an arranged marriage.   My grandmother was born in the early 20s in Macau.

[fishcakes]

It's clear that Eddie has affection for his parents but maintaining more true to the story seems more fit for a cable drama, than a sitcom! I mean the emotional and physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents were never going to make it to a mainstream sitcom.

 

It is interesting that in the book Emory is just as much of a troublemaker as Eddie though so far Evan is a non-entity.

 

I'm glad you started this topic. I just finished reading the book last night, and my reaction is, Who in God's name thought this would make a good sitcom? His father regularly beats him to the point of bloodshed and his mother occasionally does the same but also screams at them every single day. Emery is just as much of a troublemaker, but he also seems psychotic to me; he sees Eddie getting punished so he does something to draw punishment to himself (knowing it won't get Eddie off the hook, it will just mean they both get a beating) and then smiles all the way through his beating. I grew to deeply dislike the entire family with the exception of Evan who, as you say, is a non-entity early on, but appears later as a seemingly normal adult.

 

That said, I also get the feeling that Eddie isn't the most reliable of narrators. He doesn't strike me as particularly self-aware and he seems to have a need to portray himself as overcoming a never-ending series of hardships, so it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that he was exaggerating the level of abuse he received from his parents. It sounds like you're not into Part 2 of the book yet, so I won't say anything specific about that, except that it was Part 2 that made me really not like Eddie, to the point where I was watching the show the other night and thought, "I hate this kid," when actually I'm very fond of TV Eddie.

 

About the bound feet, they didn't say anything in the show about it. (They also changed the story a little bit; the grandmother in the show is Louis's mother, but the real grandmother in the wheelchair was Jessica's mom. I don't know if that was an intentional change or the show runners just weren't paying attention.) And as PRgal notes, it seems anachronistic. I was surprised when he talked about it because I thought foot-binding had ended decades before Grandma was born. Given my suspicion of Eddie's version of things, I kind of wonder if that's even true.

[Hero]

I've seen Eddie Huang on Top Chef, he was a guest, and I definitely disliked him. He was so rude to the chefs and acted lile he was better than them. Even the chefs disliked him.

Do you guys think that his book is truthful?

[Zalyn]

Do you guys think that his book is truthful?

I feel that he is being as reasonably honest as one can be about such a life.  Does the book reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth?  Probably not.  But no memoir/autobiography will since it inevitably comes from a person's perspective.  And even if the author later knew about someone's motivations for being a certain way, trying to include that could detract from an effective narrative.  If any of us were to relate our entire childhood, we would each mess up on something, guaranteed.  It's how memory works.

 

Anyone who experiences prolonged domestic abuse and violence is going to face challenges telling the story; trying to balance cultural differences as well (including the translation of words and key concepts across the culture barrier) is going to be difficult for anyone. 

 

I believe that the memoir is reasonably accurate and that he is being sufficiently honest about some really difficult issues; I'm not done with it yet (now I want to read it through since we have a place to discuss it), but I have been enjoying it for the insights and history.

[EarlGreyTea]

I know the real Eddie wanted that abuse put into the show, and has been vocal about his disappointment that it has not been shown.  None of the main networks would probably touch it with a ten foot pole, but Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. might have. I was surprised to hear that he is the narrator for the show, given how disappointed he is at some aspects. Maybe he's contractually obliged to do it, or has accepted that the show is not going the fully accurate route. Nevertheless, it IS based on his life so it's fitting he is the narrator.

 

I was pretty appalled at the abuse detailed above. Definitely changes my view of the real life Huangs.

Edited March 13, 2015 by EarlGreyTea

[possibilities]

If he wants people to know about the abuse, it might turn out that having a funny show that leaves it out works out for him anyway. I bet more people will watch a comedy, and then some of them will decide to read his book-- where he talks about the abuse.

[scartact]

Oh I'm excited that this is a topic now! I finished the book last month so it's pretty fresh, but I don't have any referrals to the text at this moment.

 

That said, I also get the feeling that Eddie isn't the most reliable of narrators. He doesn't strike me as particularly self-aware and he seems to have a need to portray himself as overcoming a never-ending series of hardships, so it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that he was exaggerating the level of abuse he received from his parents.

 

I'm curious to know how you received this reading from the text because that wasn't what I personally saw at all. I mean, Huang definitely showed himself as having a penchant for starting shit up when he was younger, which I think is why it comes off as him having a never-ending series of hardships, though I do think he knows a lot of it was kind of his fault. I think he comes off as very perceptive of what was going on around him and how he internalized, reacted, and interpreted it. I mean, I think he's got a very particular way of communicating and talking, but when it comes down to it I believe he's highly perceptive of himself. He isn't for everyone, but I do appreciate his candidness.

 

Maybe I'll reread parts of it to see if I can gleam some of that from the text as well.

 

Edit: Also I looked up foot-binding in the all-powerful and all-knowing Wikipedia (translation: it could be inaccurate) and apparently even though foot-binding was banned in 1912, practices continued till about the 1930s. So it is possible for Eddie's grandmother to have had bound feet in the 20th century, even though it was illegal.

Edited March 13, 2015 by scartact

[Hero]

I know the real Eddie wanted that abuse put into the show, and has been vocal about his disappointment that it has not been shown. None of the main networks would probably touch it with a ten foot pole, but Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. might have. I was surprised to hear that he is the narrator for the show, given how disappointed he is at some aspects. Maybe he's contractually obliged to do it, or has accepted that the show is not going the fully accurate route. Nevertheless, it IS based on his life so it's fitting he is the narrator.

I was pretty appalled at the abuse detailed above. Definitely changes my view of the real life Huangs.

I definitely want to read his book. Thanks for the answer!

[fishcakes]

I'm curious to know how you received this reading from the text because that wasn't what I personally saw at all. I mean, Huang definitely showed himself as having a penchant for starting shit up when he was younger, which I think is why it comes off as him having a never-ending series of hardships, though I do think he knows a lot of it was kind of his fault.

 

I'm still processing what I think about the book, so a lot of this is just first pass impressions (and if we weren't discussing the book here, I would likely just leave it at that) but to try and untangle it a little more, my sense that he lacks self-awareness is that the Eddie of the book is a bit of a Mary Sue. He's the one who, as a child, convinces the police there's no abuse in the house by, as he tells it, outsmarting them, thus saving Evan and Emery from removal from the home. When he's in high school and taking college courses at Duke, he understands Jonathan Swift better than everyone, including the professor, because the professor is only a fan, whereas Eddie and Swift were kindred spirits in oppression. He was the best cook on Ultimate Recipe Showdown, even though he lost because the show was rigged to favor a lesser cook. He was a hilarious stand-up comic but Asians (especially "crunchy-ass Asian women") didn't understand the power of his humor -- as opposed to just not thinking he's funny. (Sample joke: "Asian shawties have flat asses 'cause they all drinkin' soy milk. How the fuck you gonna grow a bubble without whole milk, boo?" I mean ... is that even comedy? I vote no.)

 

As for unreliable, I don't think he's deliberately lying. I think he honestly believes what he's saying, but it's all so alternately self-aggrandizing and self-pitying that I have a hard time taking it at face value. Self-aggrandizing, not just in the things I mentioned above but also the part where he talks about how New York is a great food city because of immigrants (which I agree with), and then goes on to name several chefs and restaurants in particular, including his own restaurant. This actually made me laugh because it was so tone-deaf; he was like, "man, I'd really like to thank me for all my contributions to this city." And then self-pitying is tougher for me to pin down because I do think his parents abused him and his brothers, and it's hard to know how many of his problems stemmed from that, but also, Eddie was just a plain fuck-up. He plays down his family's wealth, but it's obvious -- the private schools, the gated neighborhood, the Mercedes Benz he got for his 16th birthday (that he was astonishingly ungrateful for), but because he glosses over his legal problems and apparently never did any prison time for his felony assault conviction, I assume his parents money played a part in him getting nothing but probation. They sent him to Rollins, a college he fully admits is for kids with bad grades and rich parents, and law school, but he makes his own money by selling drugs and continues to do so even after he gets a coveted job in a law firm. Then when he decides to open his restaurant, there's this very weird passage that I'll just quote:

 

I would be thirty in three years and I felt a lot of my life had been wasted trying to please my parents or do what Chinese people were supposed to do in this country. I was done. Ironically enough, the one place that America allows Chinese people to do their thing is in the kitchen. Just like Jewish people become bankers because that was the only thing Christians let them do, a lot of Chinese people ended up in laundries, delis, and kitchens because that's what was available.

 

Which I read as, "I have spent 27 long hard years doing everything by the book. I mean sure, I have at least two criminal assault convictions and a long string of drug offenses that I've never been arrested for, but never mind that part. The point is, I have suffered for others. So now I guess I'll open a restaurant because that is how America keeps me down, and besides I really love cooking and would love to have a restaurant but never mind that part either. Just think about how I've suffered. Okay, maybe not me personally, but, you know, people like me. More crunchy-assed than me, but still, it's basically almost me with the suffering."

 

Maybe you're right and he does know that a lot of his problems were his own fault, but I never got that sense from him. Weirdly, though, I think if I knew him in person, I might like him? Like all his swagger and bravado is BS, but in person he might let it drop for a minute or two. I don't know. He's interesting, though.

[biakbiak]

I think it's kind of both, yes Eddie acknowledges that he was a troublemaking asshole but he thinks being a troublemaking asshole is cool. It's sort of like when he describes his dad's "G" past. He clearly romantizes that gang lifestyle the guns, the street standoff with knives etc. glorifying the violence and saying how it was awesome how well-respected his dad was in his neighborhood but doesn't make the connection that it was this same sort of violence and attitudes that made* his Dad beat the shit out of his kids or point guns at them and terrozing them as kids.

 

*eta: Made is probably not the right word because clearly both his parents had choices about how to raise their children but also his father's experiences as being a "gangster" in Taiwan is illustrated in how he came to raise their children.

Edited March 14, 2015 by biakbiak

[PRgal]

I think Eddie's "thug" attitude is part of "rebellious privileged kid" behaviour.  Except for most people, this happens in their teens and early 20s.  Eddie, now in his 30s, still seems to project that image in public.  As for not wanting to be taken by authorities, it's not surprising either.  East Asians - ESPECIALLY UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, IMMIGRANT EAST ASIANS - DO NOT WANT TO LOSE FACE.  They want to appear to be the "perfect" family and if the kids were taken away by CPS, it will look A LOT WORSE (to them) than a white or black family. 

[biakbiak]

I think Eddie's "thug" attitude is part of "rebellious privileged kid" behaviour. Except for most people, this happens in their teens and early 20s. Eddie, now in his 30s, still seems to project that image in public. As for not wanting to be taken by authorities, it's not surprising either. East Asians - ESPECIALLY UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, IMMIGRANT EAST ASIANS - DO NOT WANT TO LOSE FACE. They want to appear to be the "perfect" family and if the kids were taken away by CPS, it will look A LOT WORSE (to them) than a white or black family.

As someone who has worked with a ton of kids who have issues with the cops or CPS the shame is universal and regardless of race or nature of abuse in nearly all cases the kids don't want the parents punished or to leave the home (white, black, South Asian, Jewish, WASP, African etc) they never want anyone to know.

Everyday I remember how fortunate I was in my family, but some of the people I love most in adulthood ran the gamut of emotional, physical, sexual, and economic abuse they are also multiethnic and of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Not to mention the kids/teens I have worked with very few of them or even adults are willing to describe abuse as abuse. It is one of the few times I thought Eddie got real, he wasn't proud of outsmarting the cops and he describes his parennts as abusive, he just didn't want any of the kids to leave the home. And like a million kids as the older one he thought he could draw the abuse and isolate it, it's not only misguided it's tragic. The notion that only "East Asians...do not want to lose face" is offensive.

If ever there is a universal truth it's that no matter how shitty your family is or how much abuse you endure they are still your family and you don't want anyone knowing regardless of race or socioeconomic status!

Edited March 14, 2015 by biakbiak

[PRgal]

As someone who has worked with a ton of kids who have issues with the cops or CPS the shame is universal and regardless of race or nature of abuse in nearly all cases the kids don't want the parents punished or to leave the home (white, black, South Asian, Jewish, WASP, African etc) they never want anyone to know.

Everyday I remember how fortunate I was in my family, but some of the people I love most in adulthood ran the gamut of emotional, physical, sexual, and economic abuse they are also multiethnic and of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Not to mention the kids/teens I have worked with very few of them or even adults are willing to describe abuse as abuse. It is one of the few times I thought Eddie got real, he wasn't proud of outsmarting the cops and he describes his parennts as abusive, he just didn't want any of the kids to leave the home. And like a million kids as the older one he thought he could draw the abuse and isolate it, it's not only misguided it's tragic. The notion that only "East Asians...do not want to lose face" is offensive.

If ever there is a universal truth it's that no matter how shitty your family is or how much abuse you endure they are still your family and you don't want anyone knowing regardless of race or socioeconomic status!

 

This is based on my experience from acquaintances.  Most East Asians who are upper middle class (UMC) are first generation and want to appear "perfect."  I don't know if you know much about the Asian UMC experience, but for many, it's all about prep school for the kids, country club membership, that "perfect" McMansion, Mercedes (or as we say in Cantonese, Ben-SEE)/BMW (Boe-Mah), etc, etc....At least that's the case in Canada.  Don't know about the US.  I think I've pissed off some people by saying that I'm not big on "major brands" (Chanel, Prada, etc, etc...) and prefer to shop local designers. 

ETA: I think if my parents knew more about it AND it was more common in Toronto, I would have been presented as a debutante.

Edited March 14, 2015 by PRgal

[biakbiak]

This is based on my experience from acquaintances.  Most East Asians who are upper middle class (UMC) are first generation and want to appear "perfect."  I don't know if you know much about the Asian UMC experience, but for many, it's all about prep school for the kids, country club membership, that "perfect" McMansion, Mercedes (or as we say in Cantonese, Ben-SEE)/BMW (Boe-Mah), etc, etc....At least that's the case in Canada.  Don't know about the US.  I think I've pissed off some people by saying that I'm not big on "major brands" (Chanel, Prada, etc, etc...) and prefer to shop local designers. 

ETA: I think if my parents knew more about it AND it was more common in Toronto, I would have been presented as a debutante.

I have read the book and was talking about abuse he described. But yes I am also known what you ate talking about I just find it offensive, reductive and dismissive that an ethnic.group want ess to.present a "perfect" face when talking about the abuse are his celebrating their abuse and his shifty behavior.

[PRgal]

I have read the book and was talking about abuse he described. But yes I am also known what you ate talking about I just find it offensive, reductive and dismissive that an ethnic.group want ess to.present a "perfect" face when talking about the abuse are his celebrating their abuse and his shifty behavior.

 

I guess we just have to agree to disagree because I find it offensive that you're denying Confucian influence and face loss is STRONGER in many immigrant East Asian communities. Now let's get back on topic before we're banned.

Edited March 14, 2015 by PRgal

[scartact]

I'm still processing what I think about the book, so a lot of this is just first pass impressions (and if we weren't discussing the book here, I would likely just leave it at that) but to try and untangle it a little more, my sense that he lacks self-awareness is that the Eddie of the book is a bit of a Mary Sue.

 

I appreciate your response to my inquiry!

 

I think that's an interesting reading of Eddie Huang. I do think he seems to downplay a lot of the privilege he had growing up (his family being well off, receiving the Benz), which is problematic because it does bring up the question of authenticity within his narrative. His family was clearly well off and his dad had a successful restaurant, so much so that they moved into a fancy, rich neighborhood and he got the aforementioned Benz. Though he does say his father apparently went through this whole thing about deciding to give him the car even though his father had originally bought it for himself. If that's true, then that is pretty damn manipulative and does make it seem like a way for his father to reinforce to Eddie, "I gave you a Mercedes. You should be grateful for me," despite any abuse he put Eddie and his brothers through growing up.

 

I actually went back to read when Eddie talks about reading Swift, and he was definitely self-aggrandizing. He has a tendency of puffing his chest out and telling us how he had many potential avenues of success, like getting his law degree and passing the bar in NY, his stand-up career, even his restaurant chef career, I think at one point he even mentioned being a successful young tennis player (if I recall, unless I am confabulating memories of the book, or mixing it up with his other interviews), but quitting that because he wanted to show that he could still be successful, yet choosing not to be. I can't remember what passage this was, but that was one instance I was like, "Okay...".

 

Regarding the quote you cited, I don't think I actually read it like that. I think at that point in his life, after his arrests, he had cleaned up his act, worked hard on getting his degree, decided to go to law school, passed the bar, and then worked as a lawyer in NYC was a lot of him trying to please his parents. These are all not easy feats to accomplish, and maybe he over-exaggerates because of that very fact, but I do agree that I fail to see the other ways in which he was truly trying to be accepted by his parents.

 

I dunno; I just find Huang to be a very dichotomous and subversive person overall and I think his book reflects that. When he tries to operate within the system (i.e. going to law school, practicing law, etc), he finds himself hating the work enough that when he's fired, he doesn't care to continue practicing and decides to pursue other avenues that are better fit for him. I think he's smart and insightful, but he can also be abrasive and kinda sexist.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think he's lying about what he says, though I do think as with any memoir or autobiography, there is an obvious unreliable narrative that runs through it given that everything is written from his own point of view. I don't know if I agree with other focus who gesture toward Huang possibly outright lying (and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) about stuff like whether or not his abuse was exaggerated, or if his grandmother really was in a wheelchair because of footbinding practices. Maybe it's because I think he has a lot of interesting things to say, but his candidness in all aspects of what he does (from criticizing the development of Fresh Off the Boat, to smaller things like his critique of another chef, Marcus Samuelsson) makes me biased about whether or not I agree that he's unreliable.

[fishcakes]

Regarding the quote you cited, I don't think I actually read it like that. I think at that point in his life, after his arrests, he had cleaned up his act, worked hard on getting his degree, decided to go to law school, passed the bar, and then worked as a lawyer in NYC was a lot of him trying to please his parents. These are all not easy feats to accomplish, and maybe he over-exaggerates because of that very fact, but I do agree that I fail to see the other ways in which he was truly trying to be accepted by his parents.

 

I think the part of that that really rubbed me the wrong way was that I never felt like he cleaned up his act. During law school and when he was practicing law, he was also selling drugs at what sounded like felony-weight. I don't care if someone sells an ounce of weed here or there, but what he described sounded like he was a supplier, not a dealer. If he'd ever been arrested for sales during that time, particularly given his record, he'd have been looking at some serious prison time and disbarment. And the other part of it that bugs me is that when he was coming out of law school, the job market was really tight (in part because of the oversaturation of law school grads, especially in NY and California, but also because of new outsourcing rules that let firms get by with fewer new hires) yet he still managed to get a big firm job, which is the holy grail for many law students, and then he just half-assed it. He put his 8 or 9 hours a day and then spent his evenings smoking it up. I suppose you can do that for a while, but I don't think he would have lasted long anyway, even if there hadn't been layoffs across the board during the '08 recession. So for me, it was like, here's a kid of privilege who takes advantage of that privilege, squanders it, and then complains that it never existed.

 

 

I dunno; I just find Huang to be a very dichotomous and subversive person overall and I think his book reflects that. When he tries to operate within the system (i.e. going to law school, practicing law, etc), he finds himself hating the work enough that when he's fired, he doesn't care to continue practicing and decides to pursue other avenues that are better fit for him. I think he's smart and insightful, but he can also be abrasive and kinda sexist.

 

I agree with this. I think he's interesting and smart, and he's never going to be your regular 9 to 5 surburban neighbor. He actually kind of reminds me of college kids who are getting their consciousness raised for the first time. There's something admirable about their passion but also annoying because they pop off about stuff that they don't have enough life experience to understand and they take offense at everything. Usually by the time they're Eddie's age, they tend to take a more balanced view of things and can still be fighting a good fight, but have learned to pick their battles. I guess I just feel like Eddie should have grown up a little more by now, but the fact that it seems (to me, at least) that he hasn't, also make me feel sort of tender towards him. I mean, I basically dislike the way he presents himself and therefore him, but I think that it's a front or a defense mechanism or something. 

[EarlGreyTea]

Bound feet?  Must have been illegally bound.  My GREAT-GRANDMOTHER (born in the 1880s) was the last generation to have bound feet.  Unless Granny had Louis in her 40s, it would not have been too likely (or Louis/Jessica had kids late).  Foot binding ended in China circa 1911 and girls don't get their feet bound until they're five or six.  But then again, people in rural China might not have received the message/kept old ways without being caught.  I'm just a couple of years older than Eddie and my (maternal) grandmother was very proud to be raised a "modern woman," meaning that she didn't have bound feet, completed high school (she then went to "business college" because of the war.  Had WWII not happened, she would have gone to REAL university) and didn't have an arranged marriage.   My grandmother was born in the early 20s in Macau.

It was fairly common in the 1920s and 1930s but yes, probably illegally so. For a class I recently read a good book called Unbound Feet: A Social History of Chinese Women in San Francisco by Judy Yung (great read, by the way) and she mentions foot binding going on well into the twentieth century. I kind of hope they address the grandmother's feet in an episode. What little of her backstory we've gotten on the show is fascinating. I also think it rings true that addresses the family in one language and they respond in another. It happens in my family all the time.

[SmithW6079]

I was surprised to hear that he is the narrator for the show, given how disappointed he is at some aspects.

 

Wasn't he paid extremely well for the show? As we know, money talk$. I read that op-ed piece he wrote complaining about the show, and it just came across as ungrateful. 

 

(Sample joke: "Asian shawties have flat asses 'cause they all drinkin' soy milk. How the fuck you gonna grow a bubble without whole milk, boo?" I mean ... is that even comedy? I vote no.)

 

Is that even English?

[solotrek]

(Sample joke: "Asian shawties have flat asses 'cause they all drinkin' soy milk. How the fuck you gonna grow a bubble without whole milk, boo?" I mean ... is that even comedy? I vote no.)

Is that even English?

Asian girls have flat asses because they drink soy milk. How are you going to get a big butt without whole milk girl? No, it's not funny.

 

I've seen a few of his Vice videos and things on youtube, he came off as pretty much an arrogant asshole. The few pages of his book I got through came off the same way. So I'm kind of glad they're not really following his autobiography to a T.

 

However, Hudson Yang is doing a pretty good job of playing how I imagined Eddie. He's got the arrogance down.

[PRgal]

It was fairly common in the 1920s and 1930s but yes, probably illegally so. For a class I recently read a good book called Unbound Feet: A Social History of Chinese Women in San Francisco by Judy Yung (great read, by the way) and she mentions foot binding going on well into the twentieth century. I kind of hope they address the grandmother's feet in an episode. What little of her backstory we've gotten on the show is fascinating. I also think it rings true that addresses the family in one language and they respond in another. It happens in my family all the time.

 

I guess it has a lot to do with class and education.  And probably because my Poh Poh is from Macau and not mainland China. 

[biakbiak]

I read that op-ed piece he wrote complaining about the show, and it just came across as ungrateful.

 

I actually didn't seem it was ungrateful at all just actually how so many people find out when they sell their story to Hollywood things get changed by the process. It's completely naive but when people keep blowing smoke up your ass about what a great original story you have and they are going to be true to that vision a gazillion people have bought into it and so of course he gave push back because it wasn't what they said would happen (he should have asked his friend Bourdain how they santizied his Kitchen Confidential before he signed anything). I do think it's also important to remember he ended the piece by coming around to understanding that what they put on the screen (when he was just being an audience member and not seeing it through it being his life or something he wrote) was still more than had been put there before but not that he won't continue pushing for more.

Edited March 19, 2015 by biakbiak

[SmithW6079]

It's completely naive but when people keep blowing smoke up your ass about what a great original story you have and they are going to be true to that vision a gazillion people have bought into it and so of course he gave push back because it wasn't what they said would happen

 

But he'd been on TV before, right? (I never heard of him until "Fresh Off the Boat.") And he was a stand-up comedian? So it's not like he never had any exposure to the phoniness that is TV or Hollywood. Plus he was a lawyer, and, apparently, a drug dealer, so he's not stupid. 

 

I guess it's primarily that I don't much like the show (at least the Eddie character), and nothing I read here makes me think highly of Eddie (the real person).

[biakbiak]

The only tv he had done was guest spots on Non-Fiction one-offs not the same experience as adapting your memoir and how creators of a show don't have nearly as much control at a network than other tv shows that he had been on. Again, a ton of people with more experience in the entertainment industry and have been vocally disappointed by the outcomes.

[scartact]

So for me, it was like, here's a kid of privilege who takes advantage of that privilege, squanders it, and then complains that it never existed.

 

This is kind of a belated response, but I think this is an interesting crossroads of intersectionality that maybe Huang could have better addressed in his book. He may lack particular privileges as an Asian-American and had to have continually combated stereotypes associated with Asians/Asian-Americans, but his class privileges also have a way of affecting his forward mobility. I think he focuses a lot on thinking about race as the issue, but doesn't really focus as much on class? Obviously these issues are interrelated, but it does bring up more questions than answers that Huang doesn't quite address.

 

I do think it's also important to remember he ended the piece by coming around to understanding that what they put on the screen (when he was just being an audience member and not seeing it through it being his life or something he wrote) was still more than had been put there before but not that he won't continue pushing for more.

 

I think a lot of folks tend to forget Huang's ending to his op-ed because his writing style can be a little aggravating to get through. A lot of his struggles dealt with the accuracy of that representation and as much as it seems like Huang was biting the hand that feeds him, I do think i is important that he was able to express his own feelings on having his story adapted for network television. He's definitely in a unique position as an Asian-American with a network television show adapted from his memoir, especially in a time where it seems like we're growing even more critical about representation and portrayal of people of color in the media. There's a lot of complexity feeding into it and he (and us as viewers as well) shouldn't be content with just the fact that at least there's a show about an Asian-American family as the focus. Representation is good, but it's also important to be critical of the content itself.

[PRgal]

This is kind of a belated response, but I think this is an interesting crossroads of intersectionality that maybe Huang could have better addressed in his book. He may lack particular privileges as an Asian-American and had to have continually combated stereotypes associated with Asians/Asian-Americans, but his class privileges also have a way of affecting his forward mobility. I think he focuses a lot on thinking about race as the issue, but doesn't really focus as much on class? Obviously these issues are interrelated, but it does bring up more questions than answers that Huang doesn't quite address.

 

 

I think a lot of folks tend to forget Huang's ending to his op-ed because his writing style can be a little aggravating to get through. A lot of his struggles dealt with the accuracy of that representation and as much as it seems like Huang was biting the hand that feeds him, I do think i is important that he was able to express his own feelings on having his story adapted for network television. He's definitely in a unique position as an Asian-American with a network television show adapted from his memoir, especially in a time where it seems like we're growing even more critical about representation and portrayal of people of color in the media. There's a lot of complexity feeding into it and he (and us as viewers as well) shouldn't be content with just the fact that at least there's a show about an Asian-American family as the focus. Representation is good, but it's also important to be critical of the content itself.

 

If he lives in a big, diverse city, then stereotypes aren't exactly something he would think about on a daily basis.  I certainly don't.  I don't wake up every morning and think "geez, I'm Chinese.  Someone's going to think I don't speak English."  I don't think "does that saleswoman at the the luxury department store think I'm going to spend four figures?"  In fact, I don't really think anything at all.  Most Asians I know don't. 

[scartact]

If he lives in a big, diverse city, then stereotypes aren't exactly something he would think about on a daily basis.  I certainly don't.  I don't wake up every morning and think "geez, I'm Chinese.  Someone's going to think I don't speak English."  I don't think "does that saleswoman at the the luxury department store think I'm going to spend four figures?"  In fact, I don't really think anything at all.  Most Asians I know don't. 

 

I think that depends. I personally am not always consciously thinking about how my identity influences my everyday interactions, but if given the space for reflection, I do think about how our everyday interactions are shaped by who we appear to be.

 

As a point of contrast, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, a very politicized and diverse place, where folks do think and dialogue about their race and/or gender and sexuality in relation to their everyday interactions. Our interactions are varied, but sometimes we do encounter microaggressions that are a product of racial stereotypes. Big city or not, I think it is still easy to think about how stereotypes affect perception. I don't see why Huang wouldn't think about stereotypes regardless of diversity.

[possibilities]

I have a Japanese American friend who lives in Boston and she notices and talks about these things. I think some people are just more aware of it than others, or maybe some places provide more fodder than others.

[pitchy]

If he lives in a big, diverse city, then stereotypes aren't exactly something he would think about on a daily basis.  I certainly don't.  I don't wake up every morning and think "geez, I'm Chinese.  Someone's going to think I don't speak English."  I don't think "does that saleswoman at the the luxury department store think I'm going to spend four figures?"  In fact, I don't really think anything at all.  Most Asians I know don't. 

 

As someone born here and hardly ever speaking Chinese except for some basic food names with my grandmother (my mom's mother),  I didn't think of these things much, but they'd be brought to my attention and surprise me and then stay with me in some way.  

I remember being on a bus, near Chinatown but in the downtown work district, when I had a pleasant conversation with a white American, who then 'complimented' me by saying, "You speak very good English!"

 And another pleasant white-American stopped me to ask me directions in Chinatown and then exclaimed, "I just love your people!"

 I remember looking around thinking, "These are MY people!" ... :-)  I did think it was pretty funny.  And I knew she meant well.

 These were better than being stopped in downtown San Francisco on a weekend by a drunk coming up to me saying, "Ching Chong Chinaman"  at the time that I went for a walk to get rid of my irritation at reading Sylvia Plath's constant displeasure over looking sickly yellow in her own eyes (often) like a Chinese person, as she'd put it.  (The Bell Jar -- I wasnot a fan.) 

 I was raised outside San Francisco after age 10 in white Santa Cruz, where my sibling and I were called "chocolate bars" because we were browner, and while it didn't sit very well with me when I first heard it, I came to find that nothing 'bad' was meant by it.  They were actually very friendly and treated us no differently except for that.  But I did become aware that differences were perceived and I wasn't sure I fit some of the stereotypes.

 And a long-lasting negativity occurred in the early 1960s when trying to rent an apartment downtown and dressed in my best, I would be told they had meant to take the for-rent sign down and I wouldn't be able to afford it anyway.  My white fiance worked in social work and was able to investigate this by going into a couple of these places with a co-worker, to be told yes, the apartment was for rent and the landlords were then fined $500 each.  But it made me look at my skin coloring as a negative for some years after that, 

 

Edited April 3, 2015 by pitchy

[PRgal]

As someone born here and hardly ever speaking Chinese except for some basic food names with my grandmother (my mom's mother),  I didn't think of these things much, but they'd be brought to my attention and surprise me and then stay with me in some way.  

I remember being on a bus, near Chinatown but in the downtown work district, when I had a pleasant conversation with a white American, who then 'complimented' me by saying, "You speak very good English!"

 And another pleasant white-American stopped me to ask me directions in Chinatown and then exclaimed, "I just love your people!"

 I remember looking around thinking, "These are MY people!" ... :-)  I did think it was pretty funny.  And I knew she meant well.

 These were better than being stopped in downtown San Francisco on a weekend by a drunk coming up to me saying, "Ching Chong Chinaman"  at the time that I went for a walk to get rid of my irritation at reading Sylvia Plath's constant displeasure over looking sickly yellow in her own eyes (often) like a Chinese person, as she'd put it.  (The Bell Jar -- I wasnot a fan.) 

 I was raised outside San Francisco after age 10 in white Santa Cruz, where my sibling and I were called "chocolate bars" because we were browner, and while it didn't sit very well with me when I first heard it, I came to find that nothing 'bad' was meant by it.  They were actually very friendly and treated us no differently except for that.  But I did become aware that differences were perceived and I wasn't sure I fit some of the stereotypes.

 And a long-lasting negativity occurred in the early 1960s when trying to rent an apartment downtown and dressed in my best, I would be told they had meant to take the for-rent sign down and I wouldn't be able to afford it anyway.  My white fiance worked in social work and was able to investigate this by going into a couple of these places with a co-worker, to be told yes, the apartment was for rent and the landlords were then fined $500 each.  But it made me look at my skin coloring as a negative for some years after that, 

 

 

I was a bit shocked by the Sylvia Plath line as well when I read it, but I had to look at it from a period perspective.  She wrote it at a time when it was acceptable to say that.  I won't go around asking schools to ban the book from English class.  It's a great study on women's issues among other topics.  I don't know if it's just where I'm from, but (as I've probably said before) the most ignorant people I've come across seem to come from either people who are from cultures that have in the past faced a great deal of discrimination (or still do today) or from overly PC liberal types.  I've addressed this a bit (yet again) in a recent blog post of mine. :)

[pookat]

We each bring our own experiences to the table. Some of us might have had more or less "typical" experiences but that shouldn't negate others' experiences. That is one of the beauties of multiculturalism - recognizing that everyone brings a unique perspective and that everyone's voice can contribute to a greater understanding of the larger human experience.

 

When I was younger, I probably didn't think much about race or my own ethnicity much except when I was made to feel like the outsider, but with age, experience and education, it's something I am much more aware of now. I think I am fortunate to have a group of friends who maintain a level of consciousness not only about themselves, but about society. Blame it on being surrounded by a diverse group of academics who like to think deeply and discuss issues. Ironic that "ivory tower" is applied to this group since many of us are POC's.

 

Based on my experience (I can't speak for anybody else), I would say that Asian-Americans I have known from high school onward are very keenly aware of how race and ethnicity impact even day to day interactions. Reading Arthur Chu and a number of other Asian-American writers and bloggers in their 20's and 30's seems to support this. Again, if you've had a different experience, cool, because multiple viewpoints (and by extension, multiculturalism) make for a much richer panoply.

 

I also wonder if the American-Canadian divide contributes to this difference in experience. I feel that in the US, there are a lot of discussions on race, some quite contentious. We might also have more in-your-face commentators (Fox news, anyone?), so perhaps it's just closer to the surface here and we naturally think about it more.

Edited April 6, 2015 by pookat

[biakbiak]

I found it crazy creepy how they incorporated the visit from child services, the machete and lying to authorities in this episode. I didn't expect for them to deal with the abuse but this episode actually really disturbed me how they incorporated those elements.

[fishcakes]

I found that really strange too. Their take was, "ha ha, wacky misunderstanding!" which, really, was the only way to go if they were going to include it at all, but I think ignoring it would have been better.

[Unraveled]

I think it's impossible to ignore race if you're a minority in the U.S. I grew up in a small town (with little to no Asians) and now live in a more metropolitan area. In both situations, I've had to deal with my minority status. It won't be every day, but it never goes away.

 

I find myself struggling to finish the book. From the few interviews I've read and seen, the book is very much written in how he talks. And I'm not a fan. I infinitely prefer the TV version even though I'm aware that it has been "white washed" to a degree. I'm just not a fan of the public persona that is Eddie Huang. For myself, it has nothing to do with the "Asian Model Minority" that he has been rebelling against. (Though I'll say there's definitely a chance that this is happening in the media.)