I'm sorry, but this was a horrible review. From the headline, I looked forward to reading it because I'm an immigrant and there aren't too many books on our experiences (at least, compared to the pop culture at large). But I just had to cringe when I read sentences like the following:
"Her characters balance precariously between two worlds—not just Asian
and Western, but inner and outer, traditionally circumscribed and
daringly improvised, unwilled and willed—and they do so not just
transitionally, but permanently."
Um, what? I know what Dana Stevens was trying to say, but... ugh.
The review read like a poorly put together intro to a Master's thesis, not an article for a widely read online magazine. The actual thoughts Stevens had about the book, which weren't very well articulated, probably could've been summed up in two or three paragraphs, but instead page 1 is given almost entirely over to ruminations of the author's life experiences and the book itself is not even discussed until page 2.
It sounded like Stevens was out of her element both in reading the book and writing this review.
Take the following:
"But this time, she has captured more clearly than ever before a restless
feeling of uprootedness that is as representative of America now, in
the post-9/11 era, as the credo of wide-eyed openness ever was."
Again, say what? If Stevens is trying to say that because of 9/11, we're all more uprooted like immigrants are, then that's just total BS.
