To answer questions about
Geisha, a Life,
please sign up.
Heather McAlister
White male privilege at its finest: Golden can interview a woman from another country and culture from his own about her own life, mess around with the details to make his story seem more spicy, lie to her about keeping her anonymous and then publish her name to give his own writing more credibility anyway, and people still assume that his word is more trustworthy than hers. Iwasaki Mineko is just a woman born and raised in Japan, who joined the geiko when she was a small child in the 1940's, and spent decades working as a geiko in Gion; why would her account be more credible than Aruthur Golden's? A straight white male American professor who it's doubtful ever set foot in Japan?
Lisa
Golden stole pieces of Iwasaki's life to use in his book, and conflated the use of the "mizuage" practice of going from maiko to geiko with a practice of the same name as seen by high end prostitutes in certain circle within Japan where their virginity is sold. He settled out of court with her for a breach of contract and defamation of character on this. She was particularly bothered by the misconception that geisha and prostitute were synonymous, and much of her reasoning for writing her memoir was to discredit that misconception.
Maïnah
Well, firstly, Iwasaki wasn't the only person alive at the time. She has witnesses to her story, that would probably have discredited her if she claimed to be greater than she actually was. And as a geiko, I'd assume she knows more about their life than Golden.
Jeffrey Gao
Because Arthur Golden violated their agreement and lied about the historical reality of the geisha.
Marianne Sato
First of all, Mineko was, in fact, the highest earning (i.e. most popular and asked for) maiko/geiko for six years in a row, which is seriously impressive. That record was held until recently, when Satsuki broke it in 2018. Every geisha district keeps tabs on how much each maiko and geiko earns and every year, the member with the highest earnings receives an award. So basically, she really isn't kidding when she says she was the greatest of her time.
Of course, she wrote the book purely from her own perspective but I would expect every autobiography to read like hers. A person's truth is subjective and ultimately, no one can refute it except Mineko herself.
Of course, she wrote the book purely from her own perspective but I would expect every autobiography to read like hers. A person's truth is subjective and ultimately, no one can refute it except Mineko herself.
Orinoco Womble (tidy bag and all)
Because it's not meant to be a novel, it's a memoir. Of course people's memories are often slanted, which is why different witnesses of the same event tell their stories differently. She was there and she saw Gion as it was. Golden is an American university professor. I've never been to Japan and having struggled to read Golden's book, I began to wonder if he really had, either.
BirdBuddy
We cannot be. I would apply a skeptical eye to what Iwasaki writes about herself. One does not simply make a self-portrait without bias. I personally believe Golden's book receives more scrutiny not only because it's more known, but also because it's in vogue to trash on men who don't follow the rhetoric of #OwnVoices.
Tamuna Tsertsvadze
Because he tarnished the name of what a "geisha" means and what their profession is truly about (confusing and fusing it with the term "oiran" and their profession), claiming that he had based his fiction on authentic sources, hence defaming the entire profession and its practitioners. Mineko Iwasaki, on the other hand, tries to educate her readers on the authentic practices of a geisha and the intricate details of the business. And she does not raise false claims - if you read the twentieth-century Gion Kobu history and facts, she was indeed the most hired geisha in the years she is describing. She is not overestimating herself, but A. Golden undermined her and all geishas' reputation.
Julia
Cue an "It's always sunny" meme when evolution was on trial because if you only read something in a book how can you know it's true?
I think we have to take this with the usual caveats we give to other autobiographies, in that perhaps the author has some sort of reason for omitting or adjusting the truth to make themselves look better or to push certain point, or fallibility of human memory may change the account itself.
Having a certain amount of skepticism of autobiographies is good thing, however I think in general we can trust this account. I am certainly way more suspicious of Golden's interpretation for obvious reasons. She seems most offended by the impression that geiko have no agency and were trafficked in as children and constantly endured physical abuse. Most of the book describes her day to day life and how the business was run and the history of it. She was very sure that she chose this life for herself, (although it seems obvious she was manipulated into leaving her family over the course of several years).
I believe her claim that she was the greatest in her time. Not only does she have the receipts to back up that claim, (system of recording earnings is well documented in the book), but also in telling her story, she shows an incredible endurance and willingness to learn. As a child she loved dance and kimonos and would show up early to class to receive private time with the teacher before class and practiced what she learned before bed. She was also the heir to her house, which meant she probably received special treatment and other help that was not given to others, perhaps without her knowing. She also did not have much of a social life, which meant she could focus entirely on her studies. I think naturally these things would bring about success even in this high stakes environment. When you live that much in a subject, eat sleep and breathe it, you will naturally excel.
I think we have to take this with the usual caveats we give to other autobiographies, in that perhaps the author has some sort of reason for omitting or adjusting the truth to make themselves look better or to push certain point, or fallibility of human memory may change the account itself.
Having a certain amount of skepticism of autobiographies is good thing, however I think in general we can trust this account. I am certainly way more suspicious of Golden's interpretation for obvious reasons. She seems most offended by the impression that geiko have no agency and were trafficked in as children and constantly endured physical abuse. Most of the book describes her day to day life and how the business was run and the history of it. She was very sure that she chose this life for herself, (although it seems obvious she was manipulated into leaving her family over the course of several years).
I believe her claim that she was the greatest in her time. Not only does she have the receipts to back up that claim, (system of recording earnings is well documented in the book), but also in telling her story, she shows an incredible endurance and willingness to learn. As a child she loved dance and kimonos and would show up early to class to receive private time with the teacher before class and practiced what she learned before bed. She was also the heir to her house, which meant she probably received special treatment and other help that was not given to others, perhaps without her knowing. She also did not have much of a social life, which meant she could focus entirely on her studies. I think naturally these things would bring about success even in this high stakes environment. When you live that much in a subject, eat sleep and breathe it, you will naturally excel.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more