"babel's writing is clunky and didactic. it was overexplaining colonization and didn't trust the readers to understand. it was telling, not showing."
i don't understand these criticisms bc all of the dialogue, especially those when the characters explain the process of colonization in their countries, is actually accurate to how academics talk. AND it is inherent to these characters to talk about their circumstances that way because 1.) they're in fucking oxford, 2.) they are translation students, thus their study is directly related to their countries and their relation to the british empire, and 3.) colonization informs every aspect of their being, especially the reason that they're in oxford in the first place. of course, these highly intellectual students of color are going to talk and think that way.
one of the topics my peers and i constantly talk about (during walks, breakfasts, dinners, class breaks, literally anytime and anywhere etc.) is how our area of study applies in real life and how we can meaningfully resist against dominant powers that oppress us. babel is written that way because it's how academics think, talk, write, and process.
do these people just like dark academia as an aesthetic without actually liking the academia part?
it's also mostly white people that lead the discussion surrounding babel which astounds me. most of their criticisms highlight the writing style without mentioning the discussions on colonization and resistance that r.f. kuang presented. are these people just uncomfortable with the blatant statements of how colonization benefits every aspect of their white existence?
this + if it comes off as too one sided and makes the british empire seem comically evilā¦ thatās because it was.
