Gordon Pon: Alright it’s Tuesday, I’m here with Terry Woo, one of the greatest contemporary creative writers of all time, bar none (laughter). It’s a pleasure to be speaking with you today.

 Terry: Well thanks for having me out.

 Gordon: Thank you. Okay so Terry I’ve been wondering, I read in the Globe as I told you that you’re making a movie.

 Terry: Yes.

 G: How is that coming along?

 T: It’s going okay. The option agreement was signed quite a while ago and it’s been picked up by a company called Persistence Pictures out in Vancouver. They’re a pretty small outfit. What I like most about them is they really liked the book and they really believe in it, and just a few weeks ago, I received a copy of a first draft of the script. It was okay, you know, there definitely need to be a lot of changes, but it’s going quite well and I guess optimistically, hopefully, a movie will come out within five years or so.

 G: Okay, alright, um, okay let me ask you: you mentioned you’ve just come from an interview today with the Calgary Herald and you were asked about the contemporary state of Asian Canada, which is one of those things I’ve always wanted to ask Terry. What do you think about the current state of Chinese masculinity in Canada, Terry?

 T: Oh that’s a pretty weighted question. I’d have to say that, in general, things are always getting better, I think. In a pluralistic society where there are naturally a lot of inequities, you know, over time, these inequities more or less always work out. Specifically in terms of Chinese masculinity, I think it’s getting better, but you can never really tell. I think that any one individual in our society is not able to gauge appropriately how things are going because we have such limited sort of viewpoints and time frames that we work with. Only by reflecting on the large body of work or the canon of the literary world, for example, or just looking back at specific events are we able to appropriately gauge how things are going. So I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.

 G: And ah, if you say they’re getting better, what is it that is getting better?

 T: Well I think that the larger the Asian population gets in Canada, the more Asian Canadians, the more bananas out here, we definitely have more diversity in terms of the types of things that each individual contributes to a specific culture. Whereas, before there was a certain type of demographic, a certain type of age and a certain type of people who comprised what I consider Chinese Canada, or Chinese Canadians. The more people there are, especially bananas, who are actually born here and stuff like that, then the more different types of people and the more different types of contributions that they actually provide the community. One of the larger ones is artistic in nature. Okay, you get other writers or painters or musicians and things like that, who truly serve to fill out, I guess, the profile of the community as a whole. And  the more there is, the better it generally gets. There’s a more, let’s see, a fuller sense of what our identity can actually be, of who, what we can achieve and what it really means to be Chinese Canadian or Asian Canadian.

 G: Okay. Now on the topic of identity, I have this one passage from your book that I just always love and it just sticks in my mind all the time and it’s Dave’s.  Can you tell me more about this in terms of, ah...

 T: Yeah, definitely one of the weightier statements in the book. Something I’d actually like to explore a lot more in my second book that I’m writing. But I’ll tell you this, I used to work down in the States for a while. I lived in Seattle and San Francisco and I’ve worked in New York City, in Manhattan for a while. Even prior to that when I was in school, I was exposed to this strange entity, I call Asian America. And my definition of Asian America, a very brief sort of definition, is in the sixties there was a lot going on, right? And you know there were definitely a lot of movements. A good one being civil rights with African Americans, and they were coming up with some amazing things. Massive, massive changes and hopes and aspirations of a people really came to fruition in that decade. To a lesser extent, Asian America kind of came up in that too. And in my opinion, and this kind of trivializes it a little bit but I’ll get into it a little bit deeper, like a lot of academics, mostly out in the West Coast, created the Asian American movement. But, you know, because the actual sins or crimes committed against Asians were perhaps less pronounced. I certainly don’t want to downplay these events, but all things considered, I believe things like railways and Japanese interment camps and things like that, they were terribly tragic, but I’d actually have to say they were less seriously culturally traumatic to Asian Canadians and Asian Americans as a distinct portion of the population, as compared to the whole concept of slavery for example, which had enourmous traumatic psychological implications for a huge portion of America, black America. That kind of builds upon a lot of these issues, to define what they consider an Asian American identity. And it’s become something of a political force over the last few decades. Now in similar terms, on a much, much smaller scale, similar things have developed in the Asian Canadian community. Some of the issues captured upon were Japanese interment, and the head tax, for example, things like that. Now, the thing is though, when I was down in the States, my concept of Asian American really turned me off, you know. And the reason is that it was a highly political force, for which 1) I disagreed with a lot of its principles and well not, maybe principles, but a lot of it’s methodology that was enacted by a lot of so called Asian American activists, and 2), a lot of it was very very strongly American, and it didn’t speak to me at all as a Canadian.

 G: Can you speak to some of these methodologies that turned you off?

 T: Yeah, well a lot of it was very confrontational, highly political, in the sense that like any other radical cause, environmentalism or even, you know, civil rights or libertarianism, right wing republicanism, vegetarianism, anybody who has a cause is very vehement and very, very radical about it.  There’s something to be said about passion definitely, but there’s sometimes, you take things a little bit too far, and what I found as a general rule with Asian Americans is that they became like any other social subgroup, any other power structure, ok? It was hijacked by a few individuals that had a certain type of agenda, and if you didn’t agree with that agenda, or you chose to question the methods for the agenda, you were branded as whitewashed, or you were branded as a traitor. And, you know, was I marked like that? I’m not sure. I mean I definitely got into my fair share of tussles with so called allies, living down there and up here in Canada as well. But I began to have a very different conception of what Asian American meant to me and it wasn’t entirely positive.

 G: Ok, so, you’re talking about Chinese activists that are tussling with you?

 T: Asian activists.

 G: Asian activists, okay, so can you give me an example of why would one of these tussles occur, what’s at stake?

 T: Well, you know, I could go on about this forever and a day, but there were a lot of perceptions by  various other people. There was a book called The Accidental Asian by Eric Liu. Eric’s a nice guy. I worked with him down in New York and New Jersey while I was down there. Very thoughtful type guy. He expounds on very similar types of things. One of them is this, it seems like that it’s always good to battle racism, but in the absence of a direct threat to Asian America, it seems like, you know, the passion seems to be kind of artificially produced or induced into the movement. Everybody responds when there’s a direct threat on their community...

 G: Like for example Mike Chin or ah...

 T: Vincent Chin, yeah, for example. Or very recently, the tussle about Abercrombie and Fitch and the kind of  the racist sort of  t-shirts. In Canada, there’s the, let’s see, the Asian Heritage month, which just took place last month I believe. And Heritage Canada, which in my opinion is a thoroughly stupidly run ministry within the Canadian government, designed these posters which were just ridiculous. There were these cartoon characters with slanty eyes and coolie hats that was supposed to represent Asian Canadians, the celebration of their culture and stuff like that. It was just insensitive and distasteful to a certain degree.

And, of course opposing this sort of stuff is necessary.  But I don’t know, I mean, I find that a lot of these activists really kind of wall themselves off to, realistically, the lives of real individuals, in my opinion, and their hopes and fears and whatever; it’s all about their agenda or nothing. And if you don’t support this agenda, whether it be head tax redress, opposing this poster in a certain way, or putting up a museum for such and such, or combating a certain injustice that has taken place, you know, if you question it, in any way, kind of detract from the cause, you’re branded as a traitor, or as whitewashed. I felt this very, very strongly. Another thing is this, I mean, I actually had a very decent discussion about this, this morning –  systems are made to be corrupted. And, even systems that arise to combat the system are corrupted. Human beings are social beings, and socialization is an extremely powerful force. So if you have a movement that arises to combat something that’s very worthy, a good example would be institutionalized racism versus a person’s, basic rights ok? You come up with organizations and groups that combat them and just like any other organization or group, people are involved and you have to organize yourself and there are heads and spokespeople and stuff like that. And I find all too often that the very notion of actually having an organization, the same corruption that creeps into any other system, creeps into that sort of system. Then soon it’s not about justice anymore; it’s not about fighting the wrong. It’s about power. It’s about ego and it’s about cause and it’s about agenda. There are always exceptions; there are always good decent people; very thoughtful people, who are willing to listen and willing to fight in a very reasonable way, but there are always people who kind of lose track of that and it all becomes about power and ego. It becomes about aggrandizement of their own agenda or their own personal politics. And all sorts of pettiness and stupidity creeps into that sort of mind set. My experiences with some of these organizations down in the U.S., Asian America, really reflected that quite strongly. I was quite frankly disgusted by it, and at the same time, I see some of these in certain groups that claim to represent me as an Asian Canadian, and quite honestly -- no way, you don’t represent me. If this is the way you’re gonna behave or this is what you’re gonna actually be saying, you don’t represent me. You know, I represent myself.

 G: Okay, Terry you mentioned, the work of some social justice agencies. Terry, you mentioned, for example, the worthiness of agencies that combat institutionalized racism.

 T: Yeah.

 G: Can you tell me then what, what can you envision as an alternative to the problem you see now with the movements?

 T: Yeah, I mean I, honestly, I suppose I, I can’t really...and the reason is this:  I tend to really shy away from institutions and shy away from groups. I appreciate that groups play an extremely important role in any society or in any situation where there’s an injustice that needs to be addressed. One individual can only do so much, and groups are needed I guess to combat things on a larger scale, to mobilize. That being said, I don’t really have an affinity with group work or anything like that, because I do find that my own personal philosophies very often kind of come in and conflict with an agenda of other individuals in a group, or a group itself. So my answer is this, I have no idea. I mean, I suppose, I’m beginning to realize this myself, the best people like me can do, is really just continue on and just continue writing for example, and reflecting certain aspects of things that I see wrong in society and hopefully someone will read my material and get it, you know? And maybe that will germinate into something bigger and better.

 G: Yeah, okay.

 T: But you know  in terms of alternatives, I couldn’t really say.

 G: Okay. Okay so if you understand part of your role, if I hear correctly, is righting wrongs through literally writing, can you speak about some of the wrongs you are trying to right, correct, in  Banana Boys.

T: Oh that’s a massive, massive topic. I don’t want to sound pretentious in the sense that, oh well Banana Boys is my bible and I wanted to use it as like the hammer that crushes all the injustices towards Asians in Canada. I mean that’s not, that wasn’t my intent. I wrote it because I wanted to write it, and I’m very pleased that it was published and I’m glad that people responded to it the way they did, but there was no huge social purpose for writing it other than just basically being able to express how I felt about certain issues and about my lot in life as a Banana Boy.  But that being said, there are definitely a lot of things in it, like a lot of ground covered in the book.

G: Yes absolutely.  

T: You know,  the whole concept of a banana is someone who is yellow on the outside, white on the inside; someone who was born here. Someone who doesn’t fit well in between two worlds. On one hand, we have these hopes and aspirations of an entire culture, through family and their desire and your own personal genetic programming in terms of doing the right thing, in terms of being Asian, learning the language, getting a responsible, decent job, getting married, having kids, propagating, like the culture and the race or whatever, stuff like that. And that’s an enormous amount of pressure for anyone who’s in that situation. On the other hand, you have a society that claims to be multicultural, and accepts you in a lot of ways. But in a lot of other ways, you’ll never really be accepted, because you don’t look like them, even if you sound like them, or do everything like a good Canadian should. Pay your taxes and, you know, participate in institutions like voting and getting an education and working and playing well with your friends and stuff like that. There are always gonna be glaring things out there like, this Heritage Canada sign, or stereotypical sort of like portrayals in the media, on TV or anything like that, that will always stick out like a sore thumb and say, “hey you don’t belong. This  is our perception of you and we don’t take you seriously.” So I think that’s pretty much the major thing -- being caught in between and being fairly disagreeable towards a lot of the negative things from both groups. It’s interesting that we started off with talk about activism. But, it was a third pole that kind of arose in writing the book, and was addressed very briefly, mostly in one of Mike’s chapters, and that third pole are these individuals or these groups that have a very noble and worthy cause of fighting racism in Canadian or North American society, and yet marginalizing other individuals basically because they’re questioning the methods, and because of  power and ego and stuff like that, and agenda. I mean, it’s certainly not unique. Any movement counter to anything and you would find exactly the same sort of thing. You read any of Michele Landsberg’s columns in the Toronto Star, any of David Frum's columns or writings, or you talk to any Greenpeace activist, or you talk to a libertarian or a Klu Klux Klan member, or something like that. Am I comparing the Klan with Greenpeace? No. But they’re both groups that are very passionate about something and whether they’re actually good causes or terrible causes, they still have that sort of insular sort of type thinking; that my cause is the most important thing in the world and if anyone disagrees with it, you are my enemy. Once again it disgusts me.  Banana Boys is just about being excluded from that sort of movement, just like the two other traditional poles, I suppose, in life as well.

G: Okay, thank you. Um, can I ask you about another very, very intriguing part of the book, where you describe Dave as misogynist. What was the inspiration for that character?

 T: Okay. I can tell you, it, the character of Dave,  just like any other character, is a conglomeration of various personalities and anecdotes and stories that I’ve gotten from a lot of people. But the character of Dave really resonated with a lot of my readers and it resonates with me. First off, he was a hell of a lot of fun to write, you know. He was always very glib. His bitterness was very hilarious and eloquent in a lot of ways. He always had a great tongue for a great line. Dave is a very bitter individual, who grew up in a relatively sort of traumatic environment with a lot of racism committed against him. Beat up in the schoolyard by redneck bullies and things like that, problems at home with the family and things like that, and I felt ultimately that with the character of  Dave, his self-confidence was seriously eroded and he was left with a lot of emotional scars. And in order to deal with it, he became very belligerent and very in-your-face, chip-on-the-shoulder sort of type bitter; approaching anything and everything with a sense of rage and anger, which made for some really good writing and some very good entertaining sort of lines, but ultimately, you know, any rational person would kind of look at it as, as fairly destructive.

 G: And why is it that the object of his bitterness and lack of self confidence, why is the object of that, the Asian woman?

 T: Yeah, well I think, it spans the spectrum basically. From a very superficial level, he’s quite jealous because he’s not getting any, and he’s jealous of people who are. But on the other hand, his anger at the situations, the schism between Asian women and Asian men, really is, I guess, a microcosm for a lot deeper issues that I think he feels and I think a lot of Asians in general feel. It really isn’t dealt with all that much and it’s kind of thrown under the rug and we just don’t know why.

 G: Like who, who’s not dealing with it? Who’s throwing it under the rug?

 T: Like everybody. Everybody, like you know–

 G: Like the schism between Chinese males and females.

 T: Asian men and Asian women in general. Now, I’m not saying that there is this insurmountable schism. It’s all different with various individuals or various groups. Like, you walk down the street these days, like in the new millennium and then you see these posses of young Asian men and Asian women getting together, laughing, loving, having a good time, stuff like that. That sort of thing was kind of alien to me when I grew up. I mean, first off, there weren’t any Asians at all where I came from and second of all, it was always curious to me that, there was so much more of a disparity in terms of Asian women and white men, as opposed to Asian men and white women, or anything like that. And that disparity is undeniable, it still exists today.

 G: Yeah, oh for sure.

 T: It’s undeniable and that’s a very neutral statement. Without laying a value judgment, there is a disparity. So  Dave chooses to deal with it in a very bitter and entertaining sort of way. What he writes, what he talks about and stuff like that, it’s kind of fun to read and it’s kind of interesting. Yet, at the same time, it’s a little bit laid on a bit thick. But it does, I hope, expose with the  Dave character, some of these underlying questions – [pause] – and  just issues of why is there this sort of disparity? Why do a noticeable segment of Asian women prefer to go out with white men, as opposed to Asian men? And once again, it’s undeniable as a neutral statement of fact, these people do exist, you know? Why are Asian men, generally deemed unappealing? And that moves into all sorts of different things, like portrayals of Asians and Asian men in the media, in western society, the portrayal of Asian women in society. As a banana, what kind of images or what kind of messages are you receiving when you’re younger and how this kind of germinates into certain patterns that are very difficult to ignore when you’re a lot older. With  Dave specifically, he chooses anger, I guess, as the primary emotion to deal with it, and he’s very bitter about it. He’s bitter that these so called China girls are pandering to this sort of thinking, you know -- to yellow fever, jungle fever, all that sort of thing. And, other people like  Mike choose to be depressed about it.  Luke chooses to just basically sweep it under the rug and he doesn’t pay much attention to it.  Sheldon probably has the most level headed point of view out of all the Banana Boys.

 G: And can you talk about his view?

 T: Well, his point of view is this: it’s so difficult to find true love in this world, so actually having a filter of, of whether or not we wanna go out with a white girl or a white guy or an Asian woman or whatever, having race as a filter, having any other filter is just ridiculous. If anyone can find even a little bit of happiness in this world, good for them. Very good, decent healthy way of looking at things, for sure, you know. And  Rick of course doesn’t care because he, he scores with anybody, so (laughter).

 G: Okay, what I find about Banana Boys is the most complex articulation of the dynamics of gender relations in Asian North America, bar none, and Terry I can’t thank you enough because you know, as a doctoral student, working in this field, when I come across your work with your rich theories and complex understanding, it just really is motivational to me, it helps me a lot in my own work and it is also great help to many of my colleagues.

 T: Wow.

 G: Yeah.

 T: That’s great.

 G: Because I mean when you get Asians together, especially Asian males, we all come to the topic of, you know why are our, um, Asian female counterparts dating anybody but us, it seems…

 T: Yeah, I find that the issue is definitely a mine field that you have to be very careful about you know, about traversing, I suppose. Because it really isn’t as simple as all the white guys are taking our women, or all of “our” women are only going out with white guys and they’re rejecting us. Or Asian men can’t get any dates. These are all very overly simplistic ways of stating the problem. The problem itself is very complex, you know, even referring to it as a “problem” is kind of a pre-bias. Let’s just say that I prefer to look at it as an interesting pattern that bears closer examination as to why. And there are plenty of different possibilities and reasons of which one extremely valid point is that ultimately it just doesn’t matter. Like at the end of the day, we’re just individuals, just trying to make our own way in this world and if we do find some happiness with anyone, that’s pretty much the most important thing.

 G: On that topic, you point out that it’s like nobody talks about it.

 T: Yeah, yeah I guess.

 G: You know, other than the work you’re doing, so Terry, like do you think we should be talking about it? In what arena should we be broaching this discussion?

 T: Wow, I don’t know if I can answer that question appropriately. I will tell you this:  that there is a very similar pattern in the African American community that gets a lot of air time as well. Writers like Terry MacMillan, for example, deal with the whole idea that black women tend to think of themselves as the least desirable, ugliest creatures on the planet. Where black men because there is such a significant proportion of black men who have very unpleasant sort of fates. Once again that’s a, it’s merely a neutral observation, ok? That successful black men, successful, professional middle to upper middle class black men, numerically, they are more rare, and there is a pattern that they tend to go out with white women. And there have been a lot of very interesting works, a lot of different books and papers and films and frank discussions, mostly headed by black women, who get extremely emotional about the topic and discuss this sort of thing. Well I propose that similarly, that’s the type of thing that Asian men may want to take that sort of attack as well. Write about it, make music about it, make art about it, discuss it in forums, in quorums, in sessions or classes, and stuff like that. It bears thinking about because if you look at the deeper issues underlying it, that form the foundation of these patterns, we will find out that it’s not simply a case that Asian guys can’t get dates, or Asian women, you know, like big white dick. It’s not as simple as that. There are a lot of profound factors that really speak a lot about our identity, I suppose, and about how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us.

 G: Would racism be one of the underlying factors?

 T: Absolutely, absolutely, yep. Definitely. And, I mean, yeah, there’s not much more to say about that. I mean there’s a heck of a lot more to say about that, but...

 G: Okay so do you think anti-racism education, which actually is one of my specialties, what I major in. I don’t know if you’re aware that anti-racism education in Canada originated with the African Canadian community, the teachers, the parents.

 T: No I’m not.

 G: It’s about a forty year old movement. If you go to the States for example, there’s nothing called anti-racism education, it’s uniquely Canadian. It was begun by black communities, and leaders and teachers in Canada.

 T: Very good.

 G: Um, what they argue is that it’s a proactive approach to fighting racism. It acknowledges that racism exists and encourages, ah, students to talk about racism and how to combat it.

 T: Right.

 G: Do you feel that the disparity between Asian men and women have a place in anti-racism education?

 T: Yes I do. Yeah, and I think the people who dismiss it and just say, you know, this isn’t worthy about talking about here, more often than not, I find that the personal agenda or ego or whatever, comes into that sort of argument. I think it is very worthy. Although, one thing that I’m extremely wary about is the tendency for some people to play off one issue against the other. The tendency of certain groups or movements to say, well we don’t want to deal with that because that’s a minor issue.

 G: Do you feel that’s what people would say about including this?

 T: Absolutely, yeah.

 G: Like who? What people would say that?

 T: Well, I’ll tell you this, and it really dovetails beautifully back to the whole idea of activism and how activists have a certain agenda. If they have an agenda and they feel that their agenda is being derailed or their agenda is much more important than anybody else’s agenda, I find it tends to play off subgroups against each other in order to benefit and profit off of that, based on their agenda. I find that disgusting and egregious, I really do. This is a classic example. It’s like, if you bring this sort of topic up, then you’ll get shouted down. First off, people might say, “this isn’t important at all. Why are you talking about this?”  Then they’ll get personal, “you’re just jealous. You can’t get in the gates. You’re a loser, that’s why you want to bring it up.” Like, “why, why are you harping on this and stuff. It’s irrelevant.” And you know what? It gets very personal. Matters of personal interest and ego really tend to creep into it quite a bit. It’s almost sinister and it’s vicious too.

 G: And this would be Asian activists?

 T: This could be anyone who has another agenda they deem far more important and proceed to basically derail valid discussion.

 G: I also have read lots of literature that argues that another thing that excludes Asians from the discussion of anti-racism is the model minority stereotype. Have you heard of this?

 T: Oh yeah...

 G: Do you feel that, that also would impact on?

 T: Very much so. Yep, I think one of the characters describes how difficult it is. I think it’s Mike He describes how difficult it is sometimes to talk about what he cares about and the issues that he’s concerned about because pretty much he says, ”pretty soon things like money or subsistence or school or education kind of comes into it, and it makes it seem kind of petty. You know, kind of petty and spoiled.”

 G: What seems petty and spoiled?

 T: Well, discussion of Asian issues in general, or racism against Asians. Why? You know one of the most common arguments that counter that sort of discussions on those topics, is: “what are you complaining about? Asians have it pretty damn good in this society.” “They are the model minority, you know.” “They may be stereotypes, but the stereotypes are benign.”” I’d much rather be stereotyped as a math geek then as a, a drug crazed drug dealer, for example. Or, “whatever, quit whining. You have it pretty good, you know.” But what I’m hearing is, we wanna silence you. We gave you a certain place; we’re playing you off against these other groups to maintain supremacy in this society, basically. To put it fairly bluntly. Yeah, so the model minority, really, I think is often used as a tool by other groups with their own agenda, basically to derail discussion and to maintain superiority or the status quo, which obviously benefits whoever’s on top.

 G: Okay. (pause) Okay, Terry...how is the book being received by various communities?

 T: It’s been okay. I mean I published it with a fairly small press and they didn’t really have too much of a marketing budget. I think to date maybe about 1500 copies have been sold.

 G: Yeah. Excellent.

 T: You know, which is decent. It’s okay. It’s been received fairly well. Most of the people who do take the time out to email me and write me about it, I’d have to say that ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the comments are pretty good. That’s great.

 G: And do you notice any differences in, what’s the male and female reaction?

 T: No, there’s no difference.

 G: Wow.

 T: I mean it’s weird. I received about an equal number of props from Asian Canadian women, Banana Girls as well as the guys, and that’s great because when I wrote this book, I really did have the fear that it would have been taken, certain parts of it, as misogynist or sexist, you know? I mean to be truthful, some of the characters in there do display misogynist or sexist sort of streaks in them. But that’s part of the character. It’s most of an expression of their frustration as opposed to my personal desire to put forward a misogynist agenda. That’s not my intention at all. But the response from Banana Girls has been really good, like great, super good.

 G: Yeah, yeah, did you ever think about writing about Banana Girls.

 T: No, no, I wouldn’t be able to do it justice. I’ve been asked that question several times. Why don’t you write Banana Girls?   In all honesty, I would want to leave that to someone who really feels far more passionately about it than I do. Obviously I feel passionate about  Banana Boys cause I am a Banana Boy. In all fairness, I couldn’t be able to muster up the same passion for a book about Banana Girls. It’s just not, it’s not my area of expertise. Maybe in the future I may become a better writer and maybe explore some of these themes, but I think a better job would be done by someone who really wants to do it.

 G: Okay. What is the reaction from white males?

 T: Bad (laughs). Well that’s a bit glib, that’s a bit glib. There’s been very little reaction to it overall. I find that most of the reaction are from bananas.

 G: Okay.

 T: Guys or girls. Women in general who have read the book. There were a few fairly good responses from white males and that’s great. But the majority of the criticism that I’ve actually received about the book were from two sub-categories. And I won’t give you numbers because from a numbers standpoint it really isn’t all that substantial, but one is from activists, hardcore Asian activists, who say that the book is a sellout, ok? That the book, it’s a sell out. The book sells out the cause or whatever. I have no idea.

 G: How? What are their supporting arguments, what are...?

 T: I’m not gonna go into it.

 G: Okay.

 T: You know I’m not gonna go into it because, it’s just another example, in my opinion, of: if this work does not, if what you’re saying does not support my agenda, then you are my enemy. It’s as narrow minded, as myopic as that, basically, in my opinion.

 G: I see, okay.

 T: Okay? And the other criticisms are from white men. I hate to say this, but it’s because once again, a book like this, just like any other book that can be deemed alternative, threatens the status quo. It’s a different perspective, from a different subgroup of people with certain concerns and issues and stuff like that, and frustrations for sure, and you know what? I mean, the criticisms have generally been very dismissive. They won’t actually sound really pissed off or angry… just arrogant and dismissive. They’ll just say, “Oh it’s a very light read.” Or “it’s not very consequential at all. Go to the library and get it.” You know, stuff like that. Jealousy. I hate to say that, but it’s true. White men, because deny it or not, they are on the top of the sociological ladder. That’s not to say that every individual white male will obtain everything that they ever want in life, but let’s face it, they’re at the top of the ladder. They don’t face as many explicit hurdles as anyone else, anyone else on this planet – racism, sexism, any other –ism. It’s fallacious to point out “oh I never got this” or “affirmative action, you know, prevented me from getting this”, and stuff like that. Fine, whatever. That’s your personal sort of situation and obviously I can’t comment on that, but at the end of the day, you’re pretty much at the top of the ladder and very few things - not your gender, your skin colour, nothing like that - are explicitly stopping you other than your own personal situation or your own personality or whatever. And a book that serves to point that out, or a book that serves to point out the inequalities and stuff like that, also serves to threaten that sort of state and is therefore a prime candidate to be dismissed.

 G: On that topic, what do you think personally about affirmative action, or what we call in Canada, employment equity?

 T: Mixed feelings about it.  I mean, I’d have to say that my philosophy is classic small “l” liberal. It’s like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want everybody to pursue their own dreams and not be kept, you know, down by anything. From a philosophical standpoint, I can see the value of affirmative action, just like I can see a lot of individuals can get screwed by it and have been screwed by it as well.

 G: By affirmative action?

 T: Yeah.

 G: How? How would they get screwed?

 T: Oh well, you know, if you’re a white male and you’re applying for a job and it says, we’re only accepting resumes from minority members and you’re going, “I’m just as qualified as the next guy, why are you excluding me? That’s unfair.” And he’s absolutely right. That’s damn unfair, and it’s because I don’t have an informed opinion about it specifically, I wouldn’t be able to take a definitive stand on it one way or another, and therefore I guess I’d prefer not to really do so.

 G: Okay, sure, sure. Um–pause–have you, this is something I’m very curious about, have you had any feedback, for example, has Frank Chin read your book?

 T: No, probably not, I don’t know.

 G: No, eh? How do you think Frank Chin would react to your book?

 T: Well, I’ve actually only read a few essays by Frank Chin. I don’t know. I guess if I were to venture a guess, I think he’d probably like it, but that’s just hypothesis, so I couldn’t really tell. I mean there are certain similarities I find with my writing or certain characterizations and stuff that he writes as well. But I’ve also read some stuff from Frank Chin, which I felt very disagreeable about. I’ve actually disagreed with as well.

 G: Such as?

 T: I’ve read a few of his diatribes against The Joy Luck Club. People accuse me sometimes of diatribing against The Joy Luck Club, and you know, they might be right. I don’t particularly find it -- I don’t like it as a book really, personally. There were certain things that Frank Chin wrote about The Joy Luck Club, which I also disagreed with as well. Can I point out some specifics at this point?

 G: Yeah.

 T: I probably, no I actually can’t cause it was a while ago since I’ve actually read it. All I know is that in general when we write and we invest a certain amount of passion in our writing, it’s almost a direct result of our own personal way of looking at things, our own personal perspectives and the things that have happened to us, probably when we were a lot younger. Maybe good things or traumatic things and stuff like that. I mean with  Banana Boys it was absolutely true. A lot of what I wrote in there is a direct result of a lot of  the good and bad experiences I’ve had during my formative years. And it’s the same thing with, I would venture to guess, with anybody else, especially, and even with Frank Chin specifically. A lot of his writing, or at least the stuff that I’ve read, is very militant and very angry. People might say something bad about certain portions of Banana Boys and they’d be right, but at the end of the day, I don’t like reading yelling and screaming all that much. I guess that’s a bit of a simplification of Frank Chin’s writing, but a lot of his stuff that I’ve actually read, tends to be overwhelmingly negative and overwhelmingly bitter, I suppose.

 G: Yep, yep.

 T: There’s only so much of that I personally can take, but that’s just my opinion.

 G: Oh no, I agree with you a hundred percent. I certainly aren’t comparing you to Frank Chin. I think you’re such a more richer, complex, textured, multi-layered author. You’ve brought to the topic of Asian Canadian gender relations an astounding array of theories.

 T: Well Frank Chin’s far more successful than I am like in terms of writing, so go ahead (laughs) compare.

 G: Yeah, Frank Chin, I mean, you know, I agree with you a hundred percent. Much of what he argues is very problematic. Are you familiar with his diatribes against Maxine Hong Kingston?

 T: Yes, I’m familiar with some of them, and man, it’s interesting because I’ve also read, The Woman Warrior and China Men, and The Tripmaster Monkey. I like Maxine Hong Kingston. I find her to be a good writer. I find some of her politics and some of her positions disagreeable, um–

 G: Such as?

 T: Well, once again, it’s been a while since I’ve actually read them and stuff like that.

 G: Sure.

 T: But I don’t even come close to some of the positions that Frank Chin takes on Maxine Hong Kingston. I mean she, in my opinion is a better writer than Amy Tan. And I find that just from a pure enjoyment standpoint. Some of her stuff is kind of difficult to read. However, the value overall, as works, is pretty good. I’m left with a relatively positive impression of the way she writes. I’ve read some of Frank Chin’s criticisms of her and he does have some good points. At the same time,  a lot of his good points, have been drowned out in vitriol, in what is clearly an angry bias. And I feel that actually detracts from his points.

 G: Yeah, my problem with Frank Chin is, when he’s attacking Maxine Hong Kingston, what he’s trying to argue for is a very militant masculinity. He wants to revive the kung fu, martial arts, the martial Chinese male.

 T: Yeah.

 G: You know, I think um, they edited a book called Aiiieeee...

 T: Yeah, Aiiieee, yep.

 G: And that’s part of the task of inscribing the masculinity back into Asian manhood. So I think it’s very simplistic. It’s sort of like all or nothing, I think, like you were saying...

 T: Very radical. The thing is, I take Frank Chin’s writings within the context of the time it came out in. Way back at the beginning of this interview, I talked about the birth of the Asian American movement in the sixties. The sixties, I can’t even imagine what kind of time that was. It’s gotta be turbulent, got to be all sorts of amazing things, as well as not so amazing things kind of happening. And as much as I’ve read about the, you know, like the radical African American movement, the Black Panthers and stuff like that, the anger and the rage and the violence of those times, there are obviously certain elements of the Asian American community, who captured upon that, those feelings specifically and attempted to, at least, infuse it within the Asian American cause.   So being a child of the seventies and eighties, mostly the nineties, I suppose, I can’t even deign to accurately comment on that sort of thing. But based on my understanding of those times, that’s probably where the root of the militancy actually took place, and I can only say that from my perspective, I can’t relate to it at all. I can’t. I mean it’ll be almost exactly the same thing in the sense that there are very large, very violent anti-globalization movements, that took place in the nineties and right now. Those are movements and methodologies that I cannot relate to at all either. I can’t, I can’t. I mean, I can understand the  message and I can understand what they’re saying, but I can’t relate to heaving bricks thrown through windows and stuff like that. However, they grew up with it. They grew up with the battle, the militaristic sort of context, and perhaps they have a point, but I can’t see it.

 G: Okay. Would you support them?

 T: The anti-globalization movement?

 G: Yeah.

 T: No, not the violent aspects of it. I mean I can see why, from a very intellectual standpoint, why that would actually occur. Just like I could actually see from an intellectual standpoint why, someone like Frank Chin can be as militant as he can be. I read a very interesting fragment of his writing and he said, “it’s like life is war. War is life. We’re all soldiers in life and we are all at war.” Or something like that.  And this battle is against this, and you know, and it’s interesting because I can certainly relate to certain aspects of it, at the same time, the actual targets of his criticisms, stuff like that, I had to disagree with at certain lengths. It’s, it’s interesting.

 G: Yeah. Do you agree, are you familiar with this notion of racist love? He says Chinese, we’re the object of racist love, white people love us because we are such model minorities

 T: Right and he dismisses the whole Amy Tan writing as, or Maxine Hong Kingston, as pathological white racism embodied by auto-racism. Holy jeez, you know, (laughter) first off that’s a mouthful, ok? And if you’re looking for accessibility and people to be sympathetic with you, you do not use language like that. It’s just not, it’s not done. I suppose then it can go back to the whole argument that you write for yourself, and this is how you feel and this is what you write and therefore you write it. I can respect that. But if you expect me to buy into it, that’s an entirely different thing, ok?

 G: Yeah.

 T: Just like anybody, anyone else, any other human being, there are certain techniques of social persuasion that you have to employ to actually convince people to subscribe to your theories.  And, Frank Chin doesn’t seem to really do it. It doesn’t work for me.

 G: Okay. Alright. Okay, so we can wrap up, let me just make sure there’s not some pressing, burning question I don’t want to forget.

 T: Sure.

 G: Okay, can I just ask two more questions first?

 T: Absolutely.

 G: Okay, what do you think about popular culture right now, the Hollywood films, that male characters like Jet Li, Jackie Chan, and Chow Yun Fat, seem to be making inroads in Hollywood?

 T: Oh, I think it’s great.

 G: Yeah?

 T: I mean I think it’s quite nice. Obviously, I don’t have a very positive perception of Hollywood as a machine overall. Like any other system, it’s corrupt. Like any other system that generates massive amounts of money, it is all based on the notion of generating money, and the notion of Asian masculinity does not sell, period. The notion of Asian females being kind of exotic and sexy, that does sell. But Asian men being the masculine sort of type, lead characters? No, not really. That being said, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Chow Yan Fat and all that, it’s definitely a movement in the right direction, but of course you’ll notice that those patterns are all within a certain way. They’re all chop-stick heroes, ok? They all use their bodies as opposed to their minds to make a point, I suppose. Better than nothing, I suppose, but still not perfect or still not, not acceptable.

 G: Okay, ah, what do you think-- I was talking to a Chinese woman, she came to Canada at the age of four, and she said she likes Jet Li, but she says she doesn’t like the way Jackie Chan is presenting himself in film.

 T: Sure, yep.

 G: She feels he’s very over the top in acting silly and goofy, very non-masculine in many ways, you know?

 T: He’s a clown, he’s a clown, you know? When I watch Jackie Chan films, I enjoy them for what they’re worth. He’s a marvelous athlete. There have been all sorts of comparisons between him and Buster Keaton, for example, in the sense that they use their physicality and their movements to accentuate their comedy to great effect. For what it’s worth, it’s great. It’s brilliant. He’s very good at it. But at the same time, I mean, if you were to take it in a more serious context, perhaps an overly serious sort of type of context, he’s a clown, right? If a black man would do a similar sort of type thing, I believe that Cuba Gooding Jr. received criticism for his role in, um–who’s Crocodile Dundee?

 G: Paul Hogan.

 T: Paul Hogan, yeah a Paul Hogan movie called Lightning Jack or I don’t remember what the movie was called, but Cuba Gooding Jr. essentially played a character and he did all sorts of comedy, physical comedy, period. The more political sort of detractors derided it as the return to the days of Sambo. You know, silent black men as clowns, as animals, and monkeys and stuff like that. Very, very strong criticism and very violent criticism in my opinion. I can see why people would criticize Jackie Chan for being the same thing, because once again, there’s no intellectual rigorousness in the heroes that he presents. It’s purely physical and it’s purely for the purpose of comedy.  And comedy is very entertaining, but it doesn’t really say anything lasting in general about the character specifically. It’s like Jim Carey’s Dumb and Dumber. Do you get anything profound out of that? No, not at all, but it’s damn funny.

 Gordon: Yeah, I see, okay. So you’re saying there’s no Hollywood conspiracy to emasculate Jackie Chan?

 T: That’s a tough question to answer. I mean it’s funny whenever anyone brings up the word conspiracy, automatically people think about things like the Illuminati, the council of old white, old rich white men who are sitting around the table and plotting this and that.  That is not what conspiracy means to me. A conspiracy can be a headless system that merely propagates itself. It’s the way it is. It’s shown to work this way and therefore it continues because it continues to work that way without anyone challenging the status quo, ok? That to me is a conspiracy. It may not be directly willful, but it stills exists as an engine that just kind of moves forward in a very sinister sort of way. Now is there a Hollywood conspiracy to emasculate Jackie Chan? Jackie Chan is a human being like anyone else with certain talents and certain skills. On one hand, he makes money and he wants to do what he does, and he does what he does and he’s quite good at it. That’s the way it is. If he’s not interested in taking a more serious role, nobody can force him to take a more serious role. If he’s concerned about padding his retirement fund, that’s fine too. That’s his choice, basically. The world has also, or Hollywood has also been littered by people who have been made famous by comedic roles. Jim Carey’s a perfect example, who tried to be a lot more profound and a lot more serious and a lot more intellectual, for example, The Majestic, which bombed. You know, like Jim Carey in Majestic -- not funny. That sort of thing. He achieved a certain degree of success in The Truman Show, I suppose. But that question is very loaded (laughs). It’s not something that can be answered fairly, I suppose.

 G: Okay,  I see, thanks, okay. And if anything, like I said to my friend, the Asian woman who raised that, I told her that I once read an interview with Jackie Chan and he said he wanted to be the opposite of Bruce Lee, you know?

 T: Yes.